Utah's Gay Marriage Ban struck down

[kaz]

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.

Don't worry, I won't tread into your area, you can have hate and ignorance.

The difference between us. Actually there are two. First, you're a dick.

Second, what differs is our solution. If liberals want gay government marriage, my solution is you through the Constitutionally valid process of convincing people and changing the law through the legislature.

Your solution is to sit on your fat, lazy ass and have a self appointed dictator do it for you. Which you justify with that the self appointed dictator said it's OK and I don't respect the courts if I don't accept that. I don't, and I don't. Then you with arrogant condescention attack anyone who objects as being homophobic.

You've always been useless, but you're generally not this big an ass about it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

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 state’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

"The state’s 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?
Next could be siblings marrying. You OK with that?
Lastly if could be an adult to a minor. Where do you draw the line? One uniqueness opens the door to more uniqueness.

No, it will not.

This is a red herring/slippery slope fallacy, irrelevant, ignorant, and pure demagoguery.

Same-sex couples have always been eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the issue concerns the states disallowing them from doing so.

The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive this as some sort of &#8216;new&#8217; kind of &#8216;marriage,&#8217; it is not; same-sex couples will have access to the exact same law as do opposite-sex couples.

In fact, there is no marriage law that can accommodate more than two partners, and laws disallowing siblings to marry are valid and Constitutional because they&#8217;re applied to everyone equally &#8211; no particular class of persons is singled out for exclusion &#8211; where the government&#8217;s position is rational and legitimate. And as with more than two persons marrying, siblings can&#8217;t marry because the law simply isn&#8217;t written to address that relationship.

Again, this decision pertains only to correcting the wrong of disallowing same-sex couples access to a marriage contract they&#8217;re eligible of entering into, it in no way &#8216;changes&#8217; that law or allows for an interpretation of marriage to be anything else but a civil commitment between two equal partners.

 

[kaz]

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law. &#8220;But that&#8217;s not in the Constitution&#8221; is a failed and ignorant &#8216;argument.&#8217;

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.

What if disagreeing with the gay agenda doesn't automatically = hate? What if disagreeing with it instead = wanting to protect children from the same natural progression of gays insidious march to get at their pysches via marriage and normalizing what they do that way; as what's happening in CA? What if disagreeing with the gay agenda = a legitimate homophobia spurred by gays themselves and what legal accomplishments they've been up to in California, like requiring children to celebrate a pedophile and forcibly denying them therapy if they want autonomy over their own sexuality [but only to go straight from gay. To go gay from straight is offered every type of counselling under the sun]?

You are not at liberty to attempt to codify exclusion of other sexual orientations from LGBT that don't fall under hetero/monogamous/adult. How can you arbitrarily limit your rogue group to just LGBT? What about polygamy?

Yes, what about polygamy? Will SCOTUS hear Brown v Utah at the same time it hears Utah v this outrageous stripping of Utah's right as a sovereign state?

In my case, I just don't care about gay government marriage. I see no need for it. I also see no need for gay straight marriage. I don't really care if we have it as long as it's done legitimately through the legislature until we get smart enough to get government out of the marriage business.

I'm pro-choice, but I oppose Roe v. Wade as the Constitutional abomination that it is, there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to have any say at all on abortion.

I am consistent in that I'm not stupid enough like Clayton to think that if you give the Federal government the power to make life fair then the Federal government will not use that power against the people.

 

[kaz]

Amendment XIV

SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or 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.

And there is no formula in that. Whether you are gay or straight, you can enter into a man-woman government marriage. Whether you are gay or straight, you cannot enter into a man-man or woman-woman government marriage. That is what equal protection says and means. It does not mean, "unless that is not what you want, then the law applies differently to you," which is the lie you're pumping.

Word.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Amendment XIV

SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or 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.

And there is no formula in that. Whether you are gay or straight, you can enter into a man-woman government marriage. Whether you are gay or straight, you cannot enter into a man-man or woman-woman government marriage. That is what equal protection says and means. It does not mean, "unless that is not what you want, then the law applies differently to you," which is the lie you're pumping.

Word.

Agreed.

And there is no formula in that. Whether you are colored or white, you can enter into a colored-colored or white-white government marriage. Whether you are colored or white, you cannot enter into a colored-white government marriage. That is what equal protection says and means. It does not mean, "unless that is not what you want, then the law applies differently to you," which is the lie you're pumping.

The court was wrong in the Loving case when Commonwealth of Virginia made that same type of argument.



>>>>

 

[sfcalifornia]

I am wondering why anybody would want the government involved in their marriage, for any reason.

Lots of people keep going on about government being involved in their marriages and that just isn't really the case.

The government has passed laws providing protections to spouses when they get married, protections concerning financial and custodial issues within a wide range of topics.

There are some tax benefits to getting married but they are not cut-and-dried. It's not like married people pay less taxes per se, it has to do with which spouse has the higher income vs. the lower income, IRAs, contributions etc.

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-too...-Advantages-of-Getting-Married-/INF17870.html

If you think there are certain government laws concerning marriage which are superfluous, then let's hear them.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

What if disagreeing with the gay agenda doesn't automatically = hate? What if disagreeing with it instead = wanting to protect children from the same natural progression of gays insidious march to get at their pysches via marriage and normalizing what they do that way; as what's happening in CA? What if disagreeing with the gay agenda = a legitimate homophobia spurred by gays themselves and what legal accomplishments they've been up to in California, like requiring children to celebrate a pedophile and forcibly denying them therapy if they want autonomy over their own sexuality [but only to go straight from gay. To go gay from straight is offered every type of counselling under the sun]?

You are not at liberty to attempt to codify exclusion of other sexual orientations from LGBT that don't fall under hetero/monogamous/adult. How can you arbitrarily limit your rogue group to just LGBT? What about polygamy?

Yes, what about polygamy? Will SCOTUS hear Brown v Utah at the same time it hears Utah v this outrageous stripping of Utah's right as a sovereign state?

In my case, I just don't care about gay government marriage. I see no need for it. I also see no need for gay straight marriage. I don't really care if we have it as long as it's done legitimately through the legislature until we get smart enough to get government out of the marriage business.

I'm pro-choice, but I oppose Roe v. Wade as the Constitutional abomination that it is, there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to have any say at all on abortion.

I am consistent in that I'm not stupid enough like Clayton to think that if you give the Federal government the power to make life fair then the Federal government will not use that power against the people.

Gay straight marriage? What does that even mean?

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

Is that what happened with all the other countries which recognize same-sex marriages or is this just some chicken-little prediction of yours going hand-in-hand with Armageddon?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I guess when one guy marries 15 women in Mormon Country, it creates a shortage of brides for the rest of the fellas. So I can see the necessity of letting dudes marry each other. Either that, or they would have to marry their 10 year old nieces.

They do anyway. I lived in Utah for seven years. The Fundies still run things despite the denial of the LDS officials. It's the sickest place I've ever seen. Highest rate of birth defects because of all the incest. But you won't find that in any stats they release.

I'm nothing short of amazed that a judge struck down the ban. The actual incorporated area of SLC is quite liberal, though. The faithful live in the suburbs. They had the best mayor ever, Rocky Anderson.

 

[Political Junky]

I am wondering why anybody would want the government involved in their marriage, for any reason.

The government is very involved in every marriage. You have to have a license [government].

 

[sfcalifornia]

people have been real patient and lenient with these militant sons a bitchin' perverted bigots

Fag-o-troops? Seriously? That's the argument that you want to go with?

That’s just it: conservatives have no ‘argument,’ there is no rational, compelling, objective reason to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

And given the fact there is no argument in support of denying same-sex couples their civil liberties, most on the right attack with hate, the proof of that is in this very forum, and in this very thread.

That's been the rationale behind every judicial ruling concerning recognizing same-sex marriages.

All the so-called "reasons" being thrown up by those against same-sex marriage are irrational.

 

[WillReadmore]

In my case, I just don't care about gay government marriage. I see no need for it. I also see no need for gay straight marriage. I don't really care if we have it as long as it's done legitimately through the legislature until we get smart enough to get government out of the marriage business.

I'm pro-choice, but I oppose Roe v. Wade as the Constitutional abomination that it is, there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to have any say at all on abortion.

I am consistent in that I'm not stupid enough like Clayton to think that if you give the Federal government the power to make life fair then the Federal government will not use that power against the people.

Equal application of the law is a pretty big deal.

Pawning this off as an issue of "fair" doesn't fly. It's not just "fair". It's the US Constitution.

Right now, I'm curious what's going to happen with the Article IV cases working through the courts. When my state marries two people, we expect the other states to recognize our decision that they are married.

 

[freedombecki]

.

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 state&#8217;s ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution&#8217;s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

"The state&#8217;s 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>
.

That judge is in violation of (1) The First Amendment (2) International laws that go back 5,000 years (3) The Founders beliefs (4) The Constitution (5) States' Rights with re to Common Law and (6) Heavy-handed legislation from the damn Bench.

He also throws American diplomats in front of foreign firing squads for being gay. because if we cannot determine based on gender who is and is not eligible for diplomatic status, and a gay gets assigned to a country in which practicing homosexuals are executed on the spot, he's putting America in the lurch with anti-gay governments.

Diplomacy is not the field for judges. That judge went over the head of reason in order to fix things the way he thinks they ought to be. We had one Benghazi. We don't need another.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

Is that what happened with all the other countries which recognize same-sex marriages or is this just some chicken-little prediction of yours going hand-in-hand with Armageddon?

Yes that is what happened in other countries that recognize same sex marriage. Sweden is trying to restore protections to cats and dogs under animal abuse laws when they are raped. That's failing as gay activists claim a backdoor to ending gay rights. Denmark has fully legal animal brothels. So does Germany.

 

[WillReadmore]

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.

Is that what happened with all the other countries which recognize same-sex marriages or is this just some chicken-little prediction of yours going hand-in-hand with Armageddon?

Yes that is what happened in other countries that recognize same sex marriage. Sweden is trying to restore protections to cats and dogs under animal abuse laws when they are raped. That's failing as gay activists claim a backdoor to ending gay rights. Denmark has fully legal animal brothels. So does Germany.

You're warping this being all reason to make a point that just doesn't exist.

The issue in Germany is that same sex and bestiality were illegal under the same law.

When that law got tossed (due to legitimizing sex between consenting human adults) they lost a significant part (but not all) of their defense against bestiality.

So, they're taking the quite logical step of introducing a law against bestiality.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fag-o-troops? Seriously? That's the argument that you want to go with?

That’s just it: conservatives have no ‘argument,’ there is no rational, compelling, objective reason to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

And given the fact there is no argument in support of denying same-sex couples their civil liberties, most on the right attack with hate, the proof of that is in this very forum, and in this very thread.

That's been the rationale behind every judicial ruling concerning recognizing same-sex marriages.

All the so-called "reasons" being thrown up by those against same-sex marriage are irrational.

True.

For example, Utah made the same failed argument that supporters of Proposition 8 made with regard to procreation:

The court does not find the State’s argument compelling because, however persuasive the
ability to procreate might be in the context of a particular religious perspective, it is not a
defining characteristic of conjugal relationships from a legal and constitutional point of view. The State’s position demeans the dignity not just of same-sex couples, but of the many oppositesex couples who are unable to reproduce or who choose not to have children. Under the State’s reasoning, a post-menopausal woman or infertile man does not have a fundamental right to marry because she or he does not have the capacity to procreate. This proposition is irreconcilable with the right to liberty that the Constitution guarantees to all citizens.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

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 state’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

"The state’s 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>
.

That judge is in violation of (1) The First Amendment (2) International laws that go back 5,000 years (3) The Founders beliefs (4) The Constitution (5) States' Rights with re to Common Law and (6) Heavy-handed legislation from the damn Bench.

He also throws American diplomats in front of foreign firing squads for being gay. because if we cannot determine based on gender who is and is not eligible for diplomatic status, and a gay gets assigned to a country in which practicing homosexuals are executed on the spot, he's putting America in the lurch with anti-gay governments.

Diplomacy is not the field for judges. That judge went over the head of reason in order to fix things the way he thinks they ought to be. We had one Benghazi. We don't need another.

This is completely wrong, a ridiculous display of ignorance and nonsense.

That you and others on the right should be so upset because government authority is restricted and individual liberty safeguarded is truly bizarre, sad, and troubling.

This is more evidence of the destructive effect decades of social conservatism has wrought.

 

[Silhouette]

This is completely wrong, a ridiculous display of ignorance and nonsense.

That you and others on the right should be so upset because government authority is restricted and individual liberty safeguarded is truly bizarre, sad, and troubling.

This is more evidence of the destructive effect decades of social conservatism has wrought.

You speak as if this case is already heard by SCOTUS and decided in your favor. Let's revisit what the judge has just said in the lower decision headed now to SCOTUS [and possibly combined with Brown v Utah:

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 &#8220;liberty&#8221; 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."

SCOTUS will consider all possibilities when considering if LGBT is too limited in scope: ie: if it isn't an arbitrary dis-inclusion of other potential "marriages" this Court does not want to inadvertently legitimize against the Will of the Governed in each sovereign state. To do that they will have to consider innate vs acquired in the question of ALL deviant sexual behaviors, not just some to the arbitrary exclusion of others along that broad continuum...

 

[kaz]

Amendment XIV

SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or 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.

And there is no formula in that. Whether you are gay or straight, you can enter into a man-woman government marriage. Whether you are gay or straight, you cannot enter into a man-man or woman-woman government marriage. That is what equal protection says and means. It does not mean, "unless that is not what you want, then the law applies differently to you," which is the lie you're pumping.

Word.

Agreed.

And there is no formula in that. Whether you are colored or white, you can enter into a colored-colored or white-white government marriage. Whether you are colored or white, you cannot enter into a colored-white government marriage. That is what equal protection says and means. It does not mean, "unless that is not what you want, then the law applies differently to you," which is the lie you're pumping.

The court was wrong in the Loving case when Commonwealth of Virginia made that same type of argument.



>>>>

False analogy, just like the last time you used it. Whether you are gay or straight does not change who you can enter into a government marriage with. In Virginia, if you were black or white, it did change who you could enter into a government marriage with.

 

[kaz]

What if disagreeing with the gay agenda doesn't automatically = hate? What if disagreeing with it instead = wanting to protect children from the same natural progression of gays insidious march to get at their pysches via marriage and normalizing what they do that way; as what's happening in CA? What if disagreeing with the gay agenda = a legitimate homophobia spurred by gays themselves and what legal accomplishments they've been up to in California, like requiring children to celebrate a pedophile and forcibly denying them therapy if they want autonomy over their own sexuality [but only to go straight from gay. To go gay from straight is offered every type of counselling under the sun]?

You are not at liberty to attempt to codify exclusion of other sexual orientations from LGBT that don't fall under hetero/monogamous/adult. How can you arbitrarily limit your rogue group to just LGBT? What about polygamy?

Yes, what about polygamy? Will SCOTUS hear Brown v Utah at the same time it hears Utah v this outrageous stripping of Utah's right as a sovereign state?

In my case, I just don't care about gay government marriage. I see no need for it. I also see no need for gay straight marriage. I don't really care if we have it as long as it's done legitimately through the legislature until we get smart enough to get government out of the marriage business.

I'm pro-choice, but I oppose Roe v. Wade as the Constitutional abomination that it is, there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to have any say at all on abortion.

I am consistent in that I'm not stupid enough like Clayton to think that if you give the Federal government the power to make life fair then the Federal government will not use that power against the people.

Gay straight marriage? What does that even mean?

I meant I see no reason for any government marriage, gay or straight.