Utah legalizes gay marriage, December 20, 2013

reply to post by TheRegal


You cannot be serious. As an adult, regardless of sexual preference, you have to know there is a fundamental difference between the genders.

Traditional: wedding gowns are white and the bride throws flowers while the party throws rice (or birdseed) at the couple.

If we changed things and the bride wore nightshade and threw anvils while the party threw small fish it would no longer be traditional.

I can understand the desire to be accepted and want to maintain the "traditional" marriage. I really do. I do support gay marriage. I support all marriage however (other than what would be indecent to westerners i.e. pedophilia/incest)

reply to post by 200Plus

200Plus
The "fact" of the matter is "most" people didn't vote for gay marriage so how can you say they support it?

I didn't, and your absurd straw man fallacy doesn't change that.

I was discussing the ridiculous "slippery slope" arguments regarding polygamy.

redmage
The fact of the matter is that most people view marriage as a union between two consenting adults.

Perhaps I misunderstood. If so I do apologize. I did not mean to offer a strawman nor did I mean to put words in your mouth.

reply to post by 200Plus


I appreciate that.

Some view marriage as a union between a man and a woman, while other feel such a union can be a woman and a woman, or a man and a man, but most people can still agree that it's a union between two consenting adults (not children, not farm animals, and not something involving bigamy).

As far as notions of "traditional marriage" go, I think religious fundamentalists lost that debate back when the heterosexual divorce rate hit 50%. Roughly half the people who've been allowed to take the plunge don't take their "sacred vows" seriously anyway. Things like "for better or for worse" and "till death do us part" have largely just become romantic jargon stating one's willingness to take that 50/50 coin-flip chance for the time being.

Personally, I tend to view marriage as a religious ceremony, and I believe in the separation of church and state. If someone belongs to a denomination that allows "gay marriage", then so be it. I also don't expect Catholic or Mormon churches to perform such ceremonies no matter what legally-recognized status "gay marriage" attains. Regardless, the health of any individual's marriage is completely unrelated to, and not dependent on, the religion of their next door neighbor.

Full disclosure: These are the opinions of a heterosexual who's never felt the need to get married; so I have no pony in this race whatsoever.

Hecate666
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...

gaudy clothes?...have you seen how some Mormons dress in Utah?...just kidding, Mormons...the Dwight D. Eisenhower look is coming back.

Interestingly, I just read an ABC News piece that says Salt Lake City is the most pro-gay city in Utah (whodathunkit?), and Provo, only 40 miles away, is the least gay-friendly. Who knew? As long as they keep sending people to Vegas the governments are probably not too broken up about this, although Utah's Governor has to huff and to puff publicly. Privately? He probably doesn't care one way or the other, but knows that it will bring in some revenue for his state.

Utah has asked the Supreme Court to stay the ruling, and Justice Sotomayor has given the lawyers of six gay couples until Friday to write briefs. Or wear briefs. One of the two.

www.csmonitor.com...

On Tuesday, Utah officials asked US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to temporarily halt the federal judge’s Dec. 20 ruling requiring the state to permit same-sex marriages despite a state constitutional amendment outlawing the practice. Justice Sotomayor responded by requesting briefs from lawyers representing six gay couples challenging the Utah ban. Those briefs are due on Friday.

This gives Utah same sex couples a few more days to get married, and will give Sotomayor more reason to deny a stay. Like I said before on this thread, this is a big one, maybe the big case which will allow the right nationwide at some point.

From the article sourced in the post above this one:

If upheld by the high court, Shelby’s decision would require recognition of same-sex marriages nationwide and invalidate more than 30 state constitutional amendments and statutes banning same-sex marriages.

This could be a game-over decision, sooner rather than later.

The US Supreme court will probably not touch this case, and refuse to grant a writ of centori, unless there is a good legal precedent that it can be brought to its attention that would give it cause. In the prior 2 cases, it was very clear where the court stood, and that being that unless it was a federal issue, ultimately it would go back to the individual states to decide.

While Utah, will have to deal with this, the more same sex couples that wed in the state of Utah, the more unlikely it will prevail in a court of law, as there has yet to be any real arguments on the part of the state or those who are against same sex marriage, that is not based on religious arguments.

The entire problem with this debate is this: Those who argue for same sex marriages tend to take the point of view that it is a civil rights issue, to deny said rights and privileges to a group, ultimately is violating all of the various civil rights laws, in the USA. Those who argue against same sex marriages, tend to shape the argument in the form of religious bias and morality. The courts very rarely will look at such arguments as being valid for winning a case, unless it can be shown that such would impact on a fundamental level the workings of a church. And so far that has not been the case.

The state of Utah, has been challenged in court, and it is having to argue for its position up to the US Supreme court, and the question is what would happen if it lost the case? It would have to alter its laws to reflect such, and then go from there.

The US Supreme Court is not going to make any ruling to affect the US until there are more states that allow for gay marriage. I believe, that once the laws of the majority of the states allow for same sex marriage, the US Supreme Court may then issue a ruling that affects the entire country. Until then it is going to punt most cases back down to the lower courts for states to abide by their rulings.

reply to post by Aleister


I think this is what the proponents of freedom and equality are counting on. I know I am. It's clear that states who have Constitutions that ban marriages between certain groups have made laws that violate the 14th Amendment.

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.

I'll be watching this thread for your update.

sdcigarpig

The US Supreme Court is not going to make any ruling to affect the US until there are more states that allow for gay marriage. I believe, that once the laws of the majority of the states allow for same sex marriage, the US Supreme Court may then issue a ruling that affects the entire country. Until then it is going to punt most cases back down to the lower courts for states to abide by their rulings.

Over a third of the U.S. States now recognize gay marriage, including those with the major cities of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston and others. So it may have already reached that tipping point. You can't have a third of the states recognizing what seems now to be an inevitable basic right, and I would think the Supreme Court Judges are savvy enough to know when it's game over.

reply to post by Aleister


Except that marriage isn't a basic right for anyone. It is at best a privilege accorded by law and custom.

A right is something that imposes no obligation on anyone else in order for you to have it.

If you had a right to marry, you could sue anyone you asked who turned you down for denying you your right to marry. Every old spinster or confirmed bachelor would have a case of denied right.

The thing I find dangerous about cases like Utah is that the whole thing was done by judicial fiat, not by the state, its legislature, or its people. And the ones who sued in this case weren't even residents of Utah. Did they move there so they could then be injured and sue?

Personally, I wish the government would just remove the word marriage from its official legal documents and everyone would get civil unions and then leave marriage up to individuals. If you want to call your state contract a marriage, fine. If you need something spiritual for a marriage, fine. But don't force a legal redefinition of marriage on everyone, top to bottom. Let society make up its mind.

reply to post by ketsuko

ketsuko
Except that marriage isn't a basic right for anyone. It is at best a privilege accorded by law and custom.

It doesn't have to be a right. Having a law that denies a group participation in a legal contract with the state (which is what marriage is) is unequal treatment under the law and is a violation of the 14th amendment.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Except that when you use the state to define marriage, you step on a lot of people's toes one way or another because you risk violating someone's idea of what it is. There are a lot of different ideas of what a marriage should be.

This is why I said that marriage should be removed from government documentation. Make it civil union for everyone.

This leaves everyone the freedom (I thought that was what this country was about) to decide what constitutes marriage for them without infringing on someone else's freedom to define it for themselves. Meanwhile, the state civil union would give everyone equal legal status. If that is all this is about, then that should suffice.

reply to post by Aleister

While it is a third, it is still not the majority that the Supreme Court of the USA would look at to make a major decision to affect all of the country. This is based on what was stated during the DOMA and the California Prop 8 cases that it recently heard. In short, it was sending a message to the rest of the country that it was not ready or willing to take on this case, as it did not believe it should make policy for the entire country when it is not a federal issue, nor when there are so many states that are against it at that time frame.

I believe that the tipping point will not be 1/3 of the states, but more in lines of the numbers that would be required to pass a new amendment to the Constitution of the USA, is when the court would be more inclined and willing to make a broad based ruling on such laws and affect all of the states in the United States of America.

The Court system is unlike any and all other branches of government, on 2 principles. The first is that any and all decisions have to be based on prior decisions made by the courts. The legal precedence has to be in place for decisions going one way or another. The other is that unlike any other part of the federal government, all judges, no matter what level that they may sit, are required by law to explain their decision in writing, subject to review. No other branch of government has that mandate, and that is a shame as it would make politics more interesting if the other branches were required to do such, having to justify a vote one way or the other, and not just merely based on what a few voters wanted.

But in either case, I would say it is just one more step, and as long as there has been several same sex marriages in the state of Utah, then there is a good chance that the court will find against those against same sex marriage in the state of Utah. And the legal bases for that will have come from the California prop 8 case. Unless those against same sex marriages, can come up with a legal precedence to show that their side is valid and that the law of the USA would support such, along with all state laws as well. In either case, it should make for an interesting read when it comes to the opinions of the courts.

reply to post by ketsuko

ketsuko
Except that when you use the state to define marriage, you step on a lot of people's toes one way or another because you risk violating someone's idea of what it is. There are a lot of different ideas of what a marriage should be.

The state does not define marriage. Each couple defines their marriage. The state simply issues the license.

This is why I said that marriage should be removed from government documentation. Make it civil union for everyone.

I would support this, too. But why go to all the trouble and expense of changing a bunch of documentation (MANY laws are based on people being "married", using that word) if it means exactly the same thing?

This leaves everyone the freedom (I thought that was what this country was about) to decide what constitutes marriage for them without infringing on someone else's freedom to define it for themselves.

Everyone is already free to decide what constitutes marriage for them. No one is infringing on anyone's right to define it for themselves. I'll guarantee you that my marriage is vastly different than many other people's, because WE define it for ourselves. We are free to do so and so is everyone else.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


You may be right, but the wrench in the machinery of that plan is the Utah ruling, where a federal judge has stated outright that a state cannot deny gay marriage. At this point the Supreme Court has to agree or disagree and, since the wording of the constitution and the wording of the Utah decision leave no wriggle room for opposing views (at least those which make any sense), the timetable has been moved up and will just about meet Justice Scalia's angry prediction of a complete lifting of gay-marriage bans in America this year.

ketsuko
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Except that when you use the state to define marriage, you step on a lot of people's toes one way or another because you risk violating someone's idea of what it is. There are a lot of different ideas of what a marriage should be.

I really don't understan waht you're trying to say here. It seems like sensationalism over... opinions on... semantics?

I'm sorry but the State issuing a marriage liscence in no way "defines" anyone's individual marriage definitions.

The Supreme Court briefs are in, and now Justice Sotomayor must decide to either stay the ruling, let marriages go forward pending appeal, or move the question to the entire court. She has no deadline to make that decision.

www.reuters.com...

Shelby already declined to stay his ruling pending appeal, meaning gay and lesbian couples were able to marry in the state immediately. The appeals court also declined to stay the ruling, leaving the U.S. Supreme Court as the state's last recourse.

Friday's court filing by three gay and lesbian couples noted that the appeals court already has agreed to hear the case on an expedited schedule, with briefing to be completed by February 25. They say the state has failed to show that the appeals court's earlier denial of a stay was an incorrect decision.

reply to post by Aleister

I don't think this will change anything. Sooner or later the "Christians" that have been sitting idly by allowing this crap to happen will finally stand up. I have heard several of my friends and family over the past few weeks saying that their Churches are finally speaking out against homosexuality altogether. Finally people are getting their heads out of the sand and are standing up against this mess. Now the government is going to attempt to force it upon a people that clearly do not want it ? I don't think so.