Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[OODA_Loop]

Sexual orientation is a protected class, where laws seeking to deny gay Americans their civil liberties, for example, are subject to one of two levels of judicial review, rational basis or intermediate scrutiny.

Marriage is not a civil liberty.

Of course you can't deny someone civil liberties because they are gay.

 

[Flopper]

This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.


Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News


The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state. The ruling comes after a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court did not overrule the lower court. It issued a temporary order blocking new gay marriages and giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.
There's a big difference.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It really is and always has been a State matter...

True.

And ideally the states should obey the 14th Amendment and allow same-sex couples to avail themselves of the contract law that is marriage; contracts they’ve always been eligible to participate in.

Agreed SCOTUS will most likely settle the 14th question.

And all precedent, including other SCOTUS decisions are pure 10th.

 

[dcraelin]

In a Republic the people decide what is and is not a "proper legislative end". Those suing government "of by and for the people" should be the ones on whom the burden of proof is put. The colonies fought a revolution in part to get away from British judge made law.

Also marriage comes with some 100s of law provisions or so said a Hollywood activist I heard. Do Gay-marriage advocates even know themselves if they want all these provisions? If the courts are really going to do their duty they need to examine each of these provisions piece by piece.

this isnt about equal treatment under the law or the gay-marriage advocates would be asking that no persons receive tax breaks merely due to relationship status. What this is about now is partly just an emotional crusade and partly the gay-marriage advocates wanting to rub the court decisions in the face of religious folks who dont agree with them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It really is and always has been a State matter...

True.

And ideally the states should obey the 14th Amendment and allow same-sex couples to avail themselves of the contract law that is marriage; contracts they’ve always been eligible to participate in.

Agreed SCOTUS will most likely settle the 14th question.

And all precedent, including other SCOTUS decisions are pure 10th.

That's not true. I can think of two cases off the top of my head that involved marriage and were based on the 14th Amendment:

Loving v Virginia (1967) = 14th Amendment
Loving v. Virginia | LII / Legal Information Institute
Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.

Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978) = 14th Amendment
Zablocki v. Redhail - 434 U.S. 374 (1978) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
“Wisconsin statute providing that any resident of that State "having minor issue not in his custody and which he is under obligation to support by any court order or judgment" may not marry without a court approval order, which cannot be granted absent a showing that the support obligation has been met and that children covered by the support order "are not then and are not likely thereafter to become public charges," held to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 434 U. S. 383-391.”​

The court even noted in Windsor that one of the cases which had overturned State marriage laws as part of ensuring that State laws were subject to constitutional guarantees was the Loving case.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In a Republic the people decide what is and is not a "proper legislative end". Those suing government "of by and for the people" should be the ones on whom the burden of proof is put. The colonies fought a revolution in part to get away from British judge made law.

Also marriage comes with some 100s of law provisions or so said a Hollywood activist I heard. Do Gay-marriage advocates even know themselves if they want all these provisions? If the courts are really going to do their duty they need to examine each of these provisions piece by piece.

this isnt about equal treatment under the law or the gay-marriage advocates would be asking that no persons receive tax breaks merely due to relationship status. What this is about now is partly just an emotional crusade and partly the gay-marriage advocates wanting to rub the court decisions in the face of religious folks who dont agree with them.

Incorrect.

In a democracy the people decide what is and is not a proper legislative end, thankfully the United States is not a democracy, it’s a Constitutional Republic, where the people are subject to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Utah’s Amendment 3 is proof of that, and it was invalidated accordingly.

 

[dcraelin]

In a Republic the people decide what is and is not a "proper legislative end". Those suing government "of by and for the people" should be the ones on whom the burden of proof is put. The colonies fought a revolution in part to get away from British judge made law.

Also marriage comes with some 100s of law provisions or so said a Hollywood activist I heard. Do Gay-marriage advocates even know themselves if they want all these provisions? If the courts are really going to do their duty they need to examine each of these provisions piece by piece.

this isnt about equal treatment under the law or the gay-marriage advocates would be asking that no persons receive tax breaks merely due to relationship status. What this is about now is partly just an emotional crusade and partly the gay-marriage advocates wanting to rub the court decisions in the face of religious folks who dont agree with them.

Incorrect.

In a democracy the people decide what is and is not a proper legislative end, thankfully the United States is not a democracy, it’s a Constitutional Republic, where the people are subject to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly.

Utah’s Amendment 3 is proof of that, and it was invalidated accordingly.

note I quoted the Republican party's Abe Lincoln with the phrase "of, by, and for the people"

see my pics that comment on the nature of Republics, Your idea of Republic is wrong, It comes from the Latin for Res Publica the public thing.

who decides the law? .... that is the question

 

[JakeStarkey]

Windsor means nothing when the question was not before SCOTUS.

Sotomayor is carefully building a 6-3 or 7-2 majority to put this question to rest.

 

[Silhouette]

Windsor means nothing when the question was not before SCOTUS.

Sotomayor is carefully building a 6-3 or 7-2 majority to put this question to rest.

You think this SCOTUS is going to be the one to force gay and polygamy marriage on Utah 6-3 or 7-2 eh?

Windsor apparently DOES mean something because when Utah's AG cited it to get a stay, he got a stay...

Why, do you suppose? Why did DOMA not put the matter to rest and just mandate gay marriage across the 50 instead of saying gay marriage was up to each state by inaction, and direct repeated reference to affirm state powers in marriage over and over and over? Why was the overturn in Oklahoma packaged with a stay in place? What's that all about? If you're going to overturn a law, you don't go and overturn your overturn all in the same Opinion!

Something is fishy in Denmark. It's high time gays pay close attention to the progression of what's happening, the wording in Windsor and all this unexplained stay business. If there was a solid 7-2 SCOTUS in favor of forcing gay marriage on the states, they sure have a funny way of going about that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no "forcing" anything on the states. The states can determine marriage within the limits of the 14th Amendment: Utah, Oklahoma, and New Mexico are in the soup because of that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no "forcing" anything on the states. The states can determine marriage within the limits of the 14th Amendment: Utah, Oklahoma, and New Mexico are in the soup because of that.

Correct.

The states are not being ‘forced’ to do anything, as they were in the wrong in the first place by enacting un-Constitutional legislation – legislation they knew full well to indeed be un-Constitutional per Perry.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no "forcing" anything on the states. The states can determine marriage within the limits of the 14th Amendment: Utah, Oklahoma, and New Mexico are in the soup because of that.

How does the 14th apply to the Harvey-Milkers? [LGBT/same-sexers]

And, how does the 14th apply to the kids Harvey Milk was sodomizing while they were orphaned and on drugs?

Whose rights take precedence in the US? Orphaned children? Or the Harvey Milk subculture that wants first-tier access to adopting them via marriage?

 

[Flopper]

Windsor means nothing when the question was not before SCOTUS.

Sotomayor is carefully building a 6-3 or 7-2 majority to put this question to rest.

You think this SCOTUS is going to be the one to force gay and polygamy marriage on Utah 6-3 or 7-2 eh?

Windsor apparently DOES mean something because when Utah's AG cited it to get a stay, he got a stay...

Why, do you suppose? Why did DOMA not put the matter to rest and just mandate gay marriage across the 50 instead of saying gay marriage was up to each state by inaction, and direct repeated reference to affirm state powers in marriage over and over and over? Why was the overturn in Oklahoma packaged with a stay in place? What's that all about? If you're going to overturn a law, you don't go and overturn your overturn all in the same Opinion!

Something is fishy in Denmark. It's high time gays pay close attention to the progression of what's happening, the wording in Windsor and all this unexplained stay business. If there was a solid 7-2 SCOTUS in favor of forcing gay marriage on the states, they sure have a funny way of going about that.

I think SCOTUS will allow same sex couples in Utah to make the same commitment as heterosexual couples and eventually it will find all gay marriage bans unconstitutional. It's just a question of time.

 

[Silhouette]

I think SCOTUS will allow same sex couples in Utah to make the same commitment as heterosexual couples and eventually it will find all gay marriage bans unconstitutional. It's just a question of time.

Will that "time" be before or after LGBTers denounce Harvey Milk as their cult leader? After all, when do we start talking about the civil rights of adoptable orphaned kids? If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?

Answer with specifics.

 

[Seawytch]

I think SCOTUS will allow same sex couples in Utah to make the same commitment as heterosexual couples and eventually it will find all gay marriage bans unconstitutional. It's just a question of time.

Will that "time" be before or after LGBTers denounce Harvey Milk as their cult leader? After all, when do we start talking about the civil rights of adoptable orphaned kids? If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?

Answer with specifics.

Hate to be the bearer of news you will find bad...gays can already adopt in most states and could before we started legally marrying each other.

Oh, and the kids are fine, **** you very much.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?

You ask this when children are abused in far greater numbers by heterosexuals than homosexuals?

 

[Seawytch]

Utah Officials Allow Joint Tax Filing For Married Same-Sex Couples

Good news!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Utah had no choice.

 

[beagle9]

"You don't do that by providing a loophole in marriage for people to access orphaned kids who as a cultural-whole have elevated a child sex predator as their "sexual poster boy" for their "civil rights movement".

You are as sick as koshergrl, sis. Heterosexuals abuse children far greater numbers than homosexuals.

By this moronic logic, then all marriage should be considered pedophilia shelters.

Step off!

Hey, and what you say might be also valid for another subject indeed, but right now they are talking about one subject in specific, so why muddy the waters like you do, unless you don't like the consensus being arrived at maybe, so is that it ?

 

[beagle9]

If Harvey-Milkers get to the top tier of being able to adopt [marriage] won't orphaned kids be put in danger?

You ask this when children are abused in far greater numbers by heterosexuals than homosexuals?

Does this dismiss the issue of what the poster asked or is saying ? No it doesn't ! Both can be addressed and should be addressed for the safety of all children. One could be more harder than the other to find out about, because we consider a family where there is a man and a woman involved as the norm, but both are valid issues to address when it comes to children and their safety. If the poster is right, then the numbers could swing heavily in a different direction quickly, and this when allowing more and more lunacy into the fray against the children. So why place children in danger at all if we don't have to, otherwise by adding more trouble than they may already have now is what I'm asking you ?