Utah legalizes gay marriage, December 20, 2013

As New Mexico goes, so goes Utah (an old Indian proverb, by an old Indian I know down at the Qwik-e-mart).

Utah has legalized gay marriage a day after New Mexico! The Mormon state! It is now the 18th state in the U.S. to do so (EDIT: and as I just said in another thread, as Utah goes, so goes Alabama).

This was done by judicial order, which overturned a Utah constitutional amendment which had been voted on and passe by the public. The ruling is being appealed.

The Wikipedia page:

en.wikipedia.org...

Same-sex marriage in Utah became legal statewide through a ruling by Judge Robert J. Shelby of the U.S. District Court for Utah on December 20, 2013.

The state Attorney General's office is in the process of appealing the ruling to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and also seeking an emergency stay to prevent same-sex marriages from taking place in the state. This has not prevented same-sex couples being granted marriage licenses in the state. Utah is the 18th state (plus DC) in U.S to legalize same-sex marriage and the most politically conservative state to do so, as well as being the first state that voted Republican in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections to do so.

The chairman of Utah's Democratic Party was then married to his partner by the mayor of Salt Lake City.

The Mormon Church put a lot of money into defeating the gay marriage measure in California a few years ago (which has been overturned by the Supreme Court, making gay marriage legal in California), and now here they are in their own backyards having to watch the next-door neighbor getting married to his boyfriend in his back yard. This human right is moving quickly in western society, and as momentum grows it will clash more and more in areas where "the gay" is feared (such as Russia and many many other nations).

The deep blue on this map is where same-sex marriage is legal in the U.S.

With this ruling, and maybe more importantly for the overall issue, the reddish brown signifies where state constitutional amendments have been passed. Utah had passed one, and the judge has now called it federally unconstitutional. This opens the door, I would think, for any judge in the other states where constitutional amendments are in effect to just issue a similar ruling, either if there is a case pending before the court or if someone comes along and petititons. Maybe I was right, and as Utah goes, so goes Alabama.



Yesterday I put up a thread on the New Mexico ruling, in case there is crossover: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh no, not gay marriage. Now all your kids will turn gay and society will be like people having it off everywhere, dressed in gaudy clothes; 'cause that's what'll happen...

reply to post by Aleister


Politicians are going the distance for the sake of popularity and keeping their party alive.

Another one bites the dust. ATS needs a thumbs down emoticon.

mikeone718
reply to post by Aleister

 

Politicians are going the distance for the sake of popularity and keeping their party alive.

Another one bites the dust. ATS needs a thumbs down emoticon.

Seems to be just the trend towards equal rights for everyone in America. I don't use the emoticons here, but mine would be thumbs up, and hopefully the rest of the country will adopt this soon, just to get it done. imnho, I think one of the things this does is put much more pressure on gay couples. Women usually want to get married at some point in a medium or long-term relationship, and now gay couples will have to have this legal fabrication in the back of their minds as well, kind of an elephant in the room.

This is Mormon place. Mormons want polygamy to be a legal thing now. If Mormons say yes to homo stuff then it will be easy to win back many marriages rights - No?

Good!!!!

Now homosexuals can live a unhappy married life like the rest of us!!!

I dont know why anyone would have a problem with this so long as it is not infringing on the rights of religious groups.

I would assume that this is a law permitting homosexuals the same rights as married couples to go and register as a "married" couple as opposed to forcing a Catholic priest to marry bob and rob.

So i say good on them, I hope now they can have fun arguing over who sleeps on what side of the bed and who does the washing like the rest of us.

I wonder if we will soon have a ATS homosexual wedding!

Here is what is going to happen in the Utah case:

It is going to be appealed, but there is a snag in the entire process, is what do they do with the same sex couples who were wed in that state on that day and the days to come?
The state of Utah is going to lose, as those who are against same sex marriage have yet to come up with an argument that would allow for a privilege to be given legally and then take it away from that group. It requires serious legal justification on such, and they will have to do it without any argument on a religious basis or the use of morality that is based on faith.

But back to what is going to cost the citizens of the state of Utah millions is this: It is going to go to the court of appeals that will make a decision, those against Same Sex marriage in the state of Utah will have to show in court why the lower court was wrong and how they should have won the case. And if the opinion is sound, the court of appeals will probably agree with the lower court. It will then go up to the Supreme court, and based off of the last set, will turn around and review the case. Chances are they will not grant a writ of Centori, and tell the people of the State of Utah that they will have to deal with the decisions of the lower court, and point to the prop 8 case as justification of such. And that will also be a determining factor in this case as well. Precedence has already been set. Now if more states were under challenge, where it would be more country wide, then there would be a good chance that the US Supreme court would hear said case as one case.

reply to post by sdcigarpig

The big difference is that Utah had a state constitutional amendment voted in by the people before a gay marriage took place. The California case was just the opposite - gay marriages were legalized and then lost in a referendum which put in a new constitutional amendment, and the Supreme Court said this couldn't stand. In Utah, the appeals case would ask and decide "does the state constitution clause barring gay marriages stand" or does it, as it has at the moment, fall?

That's why this case is different than the rest, or at least as far as I know. A judicial overturning of a state constitutional amendment voted on by the citizens.

reply to post by Aleister


Maybe I'm missing something.

Personally, I have not a single care about whom marries whom.

But when the people in a state vote for something (like it or not) isn't what the judge did a violation of the states 10th Amendment?

I would appreciate anyone providing some clarification here.

beezzer
reply to post by Aleister

 

Maybe I'm missing something.

Personally, I have not a single care about whom marries whom.

But when the people in a state vote for something (like it or not) isn't what the judge did a violation of the states 10th Amendment?

I would appreciate anyone providing some clarification here.

I guess that's what the appeals case will decide. Clarification welcome as well, as I am not a lawyer (although I play one on top of the TV).

The sooner this is all dark blue the better!

OpenEars123
The sooner this is all dark blue the better!

The more I think of it the more this Utah ruling seems important. On Monday morning, although I doubt it will happen but I wouldn't be surprised, judges in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, Oregon, and other states all might just toss their state's vote to the wind and go the whole route. That would be something to see and write home about.

reply to post by Aleister


Well it appears that Utah just went stupid. So glad that I do not live in Utah.

reply to post by beezzer

beezzer
But when the people in a state vote for something (like it or not) isn't what the judge did a violation of the states 10th Amendment?

A state cannot vote to overturn the US Constitution. People cannot vote to deny Constitutional rights to certain groups just because they don't like them.

The will of the people can only go so far. If the people voted to ban black people from using restaurants, a judge would likely overturn that as well, because it violates the US Constitution. Banning gay marriage actually violates "equal treatment under the law" of the 14th amendment.

U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby, ruling in a lawsuit brought by three gay couples, found that an amendment to the Utah Constitution defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman violated the rights of gay couples to due process and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.

Reuters

EVERY state should overturn any ban on same-sex marriage, as a ban violates equal treatment under the law.

Yay for Utah AND New Mexico!

beezzer
reply to post by Aleister

 

Maybe I'm missing something.

Personally, I have not a single care about whom marries whom.

But when the people in a state vote for something (like it or not) isn't what the judge did a violation of the states 10th Amendment?

I would appreciate anyone providing some clarification here.

You didn't ask, but for those who may be confused (or, who, for the sake of their own agendas, may be seeking to instill confusion); this ruling did not establish, in any way, same-sex marriage, itself, as "constitutional right"

The Utah Federal judge ruled that Utah's ban on same-sex marriages violated the State's Own constitutional guarantees to the rights of Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Law.

These are (State) Constitutional rights (having federal analogs as well) which Cannot be summarily denied to Any person (or at least, to any citizen) without first demonstrating an over-arching basis for the denial; these rights cannot be simply "voted away", or denied because of "the will of the people".

In essence, if same-sex couples could be denied the opportunity to marry, under the Law (not under the auspices of the LDS Church, or any other religious organization), then the door is opened to deny marriage, as well a whole slew of other constitutionally-protected rights to anyone, or any group of "anyones", the "voting public" deems "un-worthy", for whatever cause


-Mormons could be denied the "right" to marry because they once (supposedly) supported polygamy, which is "just wrong".

-Muslims could be denied the right to raise children because they might raise those children to terrorists.

-Blacks could be forced to wear GPS ankle cuffs to track their whereabouts because "you know they commit most of the violent crimes these days".

Etcetera, Ad Absurdum.



Think it can't happen?

Look at what happened to Japanese-Americans in the U.S. during WWII.

And remember, there were calls to do the same thing to Muslim-Americans just after 9/11.


When we seek to deny to others the rights we, ourselves, enjoy we run risk of those self-same rights eventually being denied to us.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


BH, you beat to the point!

Brava/Bravo!

reply to post by Bhadhidar


reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thank you both for the clarification.

To then further my initial post, good. Now if the other states simply go along, we can put this whole issue behind us all.



Let people marry whom they love.

Marriage is defined by the individuals that enter the union. My marriage to my wife is not shaped, defined by anyone else's marriage.

beez

Bhadhidar
You didn't ask, but for those who may be confused (or, who, for the sake of their own agendas, may be seeking to instill confusion); this ruling did not establish, in any way, same-sex marriage, itself, as "constitutional right"

One, I believe the judge's opinion is that marriage is a fundamental right. Also, it was the US Constitution being violated. not Utah's.

Here's part of the Judge's ruling:

“Utah’s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law,” Shelby wrote in his opinion. “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. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional.”

Businessweek

When we seek to deny to others the rights we, ourselves, enjoy we run risk of those self-same rights eventually being denied to us.

Hear! Hear! Great post!

Christian Voice
reply to post by Aleister

 

Well it appears that Utah just went stupid. So glad that I do not live in Utah.

Well I do not know where you are going to go. Just like no longer denying people rights based upon the color of their skin no longer denying them righs based on sexual orientation is something that is sweeping the entire planet. It is at times like these you see the true goodness that unites humanity. Some will resist, the most radical of course but, they like all bigots in history will find themselves isolated and shunned as the very worst of what humanity has to offer.