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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It did undoubtedly say that the anti-miscegantion laws were illegal. Dont know for sure on rest and dont care, gay-rights activists are merely using the case to build up sympathy.

Actually not.
They correctly cite Loving because it’s relevant to the issue at hand.
From Kitchen v. Herbert, invalidating Utah’s Amendment 3:

Well the Utah judge said that shortly after another Utah Federal Judge set the ball rolling on coloring polygamy as a right also. .....They are both poor rulings, certainly not based on the intent or plain meaning of the 14th amendment.

see, that's the beauty about constitutional rights. no one cares if we are offended by them. marriage is a fundamental right and your particular biases don't govern who those rights pertain to.

Marriage is NOT a fundamental right, it is a relic from the church-state of England.

Incorrect:

After federal district Judge Clark Waddoups' decision, Utah still prohibits bigamy — a marriage license can only be issued for one spouse at a time. But the ruling does prevent the state from using "cohabitation" as a basis for prosecution. Previously, authorities could prosecute men and women for living together in what appeared to be a polygamous relationship.

Judge Softens Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law To Mixed Reactions : NPR

There is no ‘right’ to ‘polygamy,’ and no court has ruled as such; but there is a First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression and a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, however:

Judge Clark Waddoups of United States District Court in Utah ruled late Friday that part of the state’s law prohibiting “cohabitation” — the language used in the law to restrict polygamous relationships — violates the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion, as well as constitutional due process. He left standing the state’s ability to prohibit multiple marriages “in the literal sense” of having two or more valid marriage licenses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html

Last, there is indeed a fundamental right to marriage, and your position is factually wrong, where the case law affirming this has already been cited several times.

 

[beagle9]

Actual only six out of the 16 or 17 was by judicial ruling. Do you believe the SCOTUS should not have ruled in Loving v Virginia, that interracial marriage should not have been by "a Federal Tyrannical rule"?

Do you think that all matters are the same, and that they can always be linked in the ways that you try and link them the way that you do ? Yes matters and/or issues have been linked together in order to accommodate another at times, but is that right when this happens in some cases that are brought ? No it's not right, because in some cases it overrides common decency and the will of the people upon such matters where the peoples will sometimes should matter (especially where children are involved), and especially in some cases that are being brought as new into the arena these days.

Many times issues or matters can't be linked, and they shouldn't be linked, but if you get some devious and demented fast mouth lawyers, to then go and reside upon a case or cases, then hey anything is liable to take place. Sadly enough, and upon many rulings that were ruled upon within certain cases in the past, and in which we all now know about, that is exactly what has happened in those cases.

You don’t understand.

When the state seeks to deny citizens their civil liberties, in this case same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, the burden rests most heavily on the state to prove what it seeks is legitimate – and appropriately so.

In order for a measure denying a citizen his civil rights to pass Constitutional muster, it must be rationally based, predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end.

This is why laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights continue to be invalidated, because they fail to survive these basic Constitutional tests when subjected to judicial review.

And these measures are appropriately invalidated having nothing to do with “devious and demented fast mouth lawyers,” and everything to do with settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence requiring the states to afford all American citizens equal protection of the law.

At what point does this so called equal protection break down ? It breaks down when people want to bend and stretch the laws, lose ones decency, and to break the known moral codes that we all have or should have to the point of out right ridiculousness these days. Funny how people try and make one think that equal protection applies in just about every case, and in every issue, and in every situation when we know good and well that it can't be that way, and it shouldn't be something that is just cut and dry like that, but some try and suggest that it is when we all know that it ain't.

 

[Silhouette]

At what point does this so called equal protection break down ? It breaks down when people want to bend and stretch the laws, lose ones decency, and to break the known moral codes that we all have or should have to the point of out right ridiculousness these days. Funny how people try and make one think that equal protection applies in just about every case, and in every issue, and in every situation when we know good and well that it can't be that way, and it shouldn't be something that is just cut and dry like that, but some try and suggest that it is when we all know that it ain't.

The point where it breaks down is called "behavior". Behaviors are regulated and discriminated against daily. LGBT behaves and functions like a cult, a church. It comes complete with evangelizing http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/222768-gay-day-at-disney.html , heretics [Anne Heche], a messiah: [see my signature] and a dogmatic rule that says that sex must be unconventional, with objects or people that aren't capable of reproduction; which of course is why sex evolved in biology.

Cults and behaviors aren't qualifiers for protection under the Constitution. If the church of LGBT wants to get federal recognition, that would be the surest way to get special treatment out of the hundreds of sexual or other behavior compulsions or fetishes.

 

[dcraelin]

Actually not. They correctly cite Loving because it’s relevant to the issue at hand. From Kitchen v. Herbert, invalidating Utah’s Amendment 3:

Well the Utah judge said that shortly after another Utah Federal Judge set the ball rolling on coloring polygamy as a right also. .....They are both poor rulings, certainly not based on the intent or plain meaning of the 14th amendment.
Marriage is NOT a fundamental right, it is a relic from the church-state of England.

Incorrect:

After federal district Judge Clark Waddoups' decision, Utah still prohibits bigamy — a marriage license can only be issued for one spouse at a time. But the ruling does prevent the state from using "cohabitation" as a basis for prosecution. Previously, authorities could prosecute men and women for living together in what appeared to be a polygamous relationship.
Judge Softens Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law To Mixed Reactions : NPR

There is no ‘right’ to ‘polygamy,’ and no court has ruled as such; but there is a First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression and a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, however:

Judge Clark Waddoups of United States District Court in Utah ruled late Friday that part of the state’s law prohibiting “cohabitation” — the language used in the law to restrict polygamous relationships — violates the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion, as well as constitutional due process. He left standing the state’s ability to prohibit multiple marriages “in the literal sense” of having two or more valid marriage licenses.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html

Last, there is indeed a fundamental right to marriage, and your position is factually wrong, where the case law affirming this has already been cited several times.

The logic that says gay-marriage is a right is the same logic that will lead to legalized polygamy.

How the one judge could say anything differently has to show a lack of internally consistent logic within his opinion.

In fact a prominent gay-rights activist was an attorney arguing in favor of the polygamy case.

 

[Silhouette]

The logic that says gay-marriage is a right is the same logic that will lead to legalized polygamy.

How the one judge could say anything differently has to show a lack of internally consistent logic within his opinion.

That's because bigamy is morally repugnant, while sticking your whanger in another guys rectum and pretending he is "your woman", while doing so spreads ungodly amounts of STDs and AIDS, is perfectly normal, OK, fine.

Don't you see the judge's legal logic? I mean, a cult that has as it's morality-messiah, one Harvey Milk who's sexual orientation was to sodomize orphaned teen boys on drugs, unceremoniously discarding one for another like Kleenex [while temporarily officiating as their "father figure"], should be able to get married, while those "perverts" who want more than one wife to wed and care for into her old age shouldn't get near marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Well the Utah judge said that shortly after another Utah Federal Judge set the ball rolling on coloring polygamy as a right also. .....They are both poor rulings, certainly not based on the intent or plain meaning of the 14th amendment.

Marriage is NOT a fundamental right, it is a relic from the church-state of England.

Incorrect: There is no ‘right’ to ‘polygamy,’ and no court has ruled as such; but there is a First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression and a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, however:

Judge Clark Waddoups of United States District Court in Utah ruled late Friday that part of the state’s law prohibiting “cohabitation” — the language used in the law to restrict polygamous relationships — violates the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion, as well as constitutional due process. He left standing the state’s ability to prohibit multiple marriages “in the literal sense” of having two or more valid marriage licenses.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/us/a-utah-law-prohibiting-polygamy-is-weakened.html

Last, there is indeed a fundamental right to marriage, and your position is factually wrong, where the case law affirming this has already been cited several times.

The logic that says gay-marriage is a right is the same logic that will lead to legalized polygamy.



How the one judge could say anything differently has to show a lack of internally consistent logic within his opinion.



In fact a prominent gay-rights activist was an attorney arguing in favor of the polygamy case.

No, it isn't logical.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4454076/

 

[dcraelin]

Incorrect: There is no ‘right’ to ‘polygamy,’ and no court has ruled as such; but there is a First Amendment right to freedom of religious expression and a Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, however: Last, there is indeed a fundamental right to marriage, and your position is factually wrong, where the case law affirming this has already been cited several times.

The logic that says gay-marriage is a right is the same logic that will lead to legalized polygamy.
How the one judge could say anything differently has to show a lack of internally consistent logic within his opinion
In fact a prominent gay-rights activist was an attorney arguing in favor of the polygamy case.

No, it isn't logical.
Are Polygamy Bans Unconstitutional? | Adam Winkler

not sure why you're agreeing with me here,.... but the article seems to want to have it both ways. Saying there are unique harms in one part but saying should re-examine polygamy in another.

But I think you are right If you are saying that differentiating between the two when looking on marriage as a 14th amendment right is illogical.. And I think SC justices should also see it the same way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you think that all matters are the same, and that they can always be linked in the ways that you try and link them the way that you do ? Yes matters and/or issues have been linked together in order to accommodate another at times, but is that right when this happens in some cases that are brought ? No it's not right, because in some cases it overrides common decency and the will of the people upon such matters where the peoples will sometimes should matter (especially where children are involved), and especially in some cases that are being brought as new into the arena these days.

Many times issues or matters can't be linked, and they shouldn't be linked, but if you get some devious and demented fast mouth lawyers, to then go and reside upon a case or cases, then hey anything is liable to take place. Sadly enough, and upon many rulings that were ruled upon within certain cases in the past, and in which we all now know about, that is exactly what has happened in those cases.

You don’t understand.

When the state seeks to deny citizens their civil liberties, in this case same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, the burden rests most heavily on the state to prove what it seeks is legitimate – and appropriately so.

In order for a measure denying a citizen his civil rights to pass Constitutional muster, it must be rationally based, predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end.

This is why laws seeking to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights continue to be invalidated, because they fail to survive these basic Constitutional tests when subjected to judicial review.

And these measures are appropriately invalidated having nothing to do with “devious and demented fast mouth lawyers,” and everything to do with settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence requiring the states to afford all American citizens equal protection of the law.

At what point does this so called equal protection break down ? It breaks down when people want to bend and stretch the laws, lose ones decency, and to break the known moral codes that we all have or should have to the point of out right ridiculousness these days. Funny how people try and make one think that equal protection applies in just about every case, and in every issue, and in every situation when we know good and well that it can't be that way, and it shouldn't be something that is just cut and dry like that, but some try and suggest that it is when we all know that it ain't.

You’re still not understanding.

The state is at liberty to curtail, restrict, or in some cases deny citizens their civil liberties pursuant to a proper legislative end for reasons of public welfare or safety, provided such restrictions are applied to everyone equally.

Let’s take a classic First Amendment restriction as an example.

As we all know, one may not yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, one’s right to free speech does not extend to such an act, and for good reason, as individuals might be injured or even killed in the ensuing panic.

Now, to illustrate equal protection doctrine, let’s assume a state passes a law disallowing Asian Americans only from yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, where every other racial/ethnic group is at liberty to do so.

This, then, is an equal protection violation, not because the ultimate goal of the state is unreasonable, but because the motive to adversely effect a particular class of persons is.

There is no evidence, for example, that Asian Americans are any more likely to yell ‘fire’ in a theater than any other class of persons – and lacking a rational basis and evidence in support, such a measure would be invalidated as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, just as it is the case with same-sex couples, where to disallow them access to marriage law is not rationally based, there is no evidence in support of denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, and to do so pursues no proper legislative end.

Moreover, equal protection doctrine is not a ‘blanket policy’ to allow citizens to engage in behavior clearly demonstrated to be detrimental to society as a whole, and states may avoid equal protection violation challenges to their laws simply by avoiding seeking to deny a particular class of persons its civil liberties.

 

[Silhouette]

not sure why you're agreeing with me here,.... but the article seems to want to have it both ways. Saying there are unique harms in one part but saying should re-examine polygamy in another.

But I think you are right If you are saying that differentiating between the two when looking on marriage as a 14th amendment right is illogical.. And I think SC justices should also see it the same way.

I have a feeling that when it comes to Utah especially, they will be examining polygamy as a shoe-in if a precedent for forcing gay marriage on the states is set.

Fer shizzle...

 

[Silhouette]

You’re still not understanding.

The state is at liberty to curtail, restrict, or in some cases deny citizens their civil liberties pursuant to a proper legislative end for reasons of public welfare or safety, provided such restrictions are applied to everyone equally.

Let’s take a classic First Amendment restriction as an example.

As we all know, one may not yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, one’s right to free speech does not extend to such an act, and for good reason, as individuals might be injured or even killed in the ensuing panic.

Now, to illustrate equal protection doctrine, let’s assume a state passes a law disallowing Asian Americans only from yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, where every other racial/ethnic group is at liberty to do so.

This, then, is an equal protection violation, not because the ultimate goal of the state is unreasonable, but because the motive to adversely effect a particular class of persons is.

There is no evidence, for example, that Asian Americans are any more likely to yell ‘fire’ in a theater than any other class of persons – and lacking a rational basis and evidence in support, such a measure would be invalidated as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, just as it is the case with same-sex couples, where to disallow them access to marriage law is not rationally based, there is no evidence in support of denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, and to do so pursues no proper legislative end.

Moreover, equal protection doctrine is not a ‘blanket policy’ to allow citizens to engage in behavior clearly demonstrated to be detrimental to society as a whole, and states may avoid equal protection violation challenges to their laws simply by avoiding seeking to deny a particular class of persons its civil liberties.

Your premise in the foregoing is that LGBTs are a race of people. They are not. They are a cult with behaviors that are inappropriate for the word "marriage".

Let's examine what in the cult of LGBT would be objectionable to society such that society must ban them from marrying. Take a look at my signature. The cult's messiah Harvey Milk has been enshrined as a matter of law as the singular sexual figure who "embodies the LGBT movement across the nation and the world". Days at school are set aside for children to celebrate this LGBT sexual icon [there's more than just one thing wrong with that]. A postage stamp commissioned by over 60 LGBT groups in the US, Mexico and Cananda with Harvey Milk's creepy mug on it, complete with rainbow "USA" at the top is due to be released this year.

Harvey Milk's iconized-gayness, his sexual preference was for orphaned teen boys on drugs, one after the other. One of them he officiated as "father figure" to, killed himself years later on Milk's birthday.. Another of his teen orphan drug-rape victims killed himself as well and I believe also a third. You'd have to read his sordid biography to get the full details on the other two of a string of minor/vulnerable sex victims of Milk's because in his iconized "sexual orientation", he also avowed rampant promiscuity.

Marriage has as one of its many perks, the elevation to top-tier consideration for adoptable orphans. Clearly.....CLEARLY the state that is the guardian of adoptable orphans must question if

1. LGBT even has a hint of the trappings of a cult/fad/social movement instead of being a "race" of people. [that last bit of course is absurd. Of course they are not a race of people].

2. If those cult values and their iconized leadership have even a hint of inappropriate sexuality around children. Especially orphaned adoptable children that the state is custodian of. Bear in mind the church of LGBT when reminded of Milk's crimes, jumps to defend him instead of denounces him.

So there is your clear and present harm to a state's welfare by gays marrying. Do heteros molest children? Yes, but not nearly as much per capita as gays do. The difference between the two cultures, gay and straight, is that the straights are not building a huge social movement/ fad around Roman Polansky or defending him as the icon of their sexuality/sexual movement. Meanwhile gays are elevating a child predator as their icon and will defend his legacy on those "disposable teen homeless boys" to the death.

I've actually heard the many defenses of Harvey Milk from the LGBTers here and elsewhere. Their defense essentially is of Milk, in a nutshell, "Those boys were ruined goods anyway, so Milk was just doing what came naturally to him and anyway, the age of consent should be lowered." They give a complete pass to the topic of those boys being

1. Underaged in at least one case we know of

2. On drugs and incapable of consent

3. Mentally ill

4. The exacerbation of the one minor boy having Milk convince him that he was a "father figure" to him, while also sodomizing him.

All is explained away time and again by LGBTers, excused, exonerated. And this presents a problem when they want access to the state's, any state's orphans to adopt. Orphans are our most vulnerable demographic. Child safety laws don't even require proof to act to protect, only suspicion. And with the church of LGBT/Harvey Milk, there is PLENTY of suspicion to ACT.

 

[Seawytch]

not sure why you're agreeing with me here,.... but the article seems to want to have it both ways. Saying there are unique harms in one part but saying should re-examine polygamy in another.



But I think you are right If you are saying that differentiating between the two when looking on marriage as a 14th amendment right is illogical.. And I think SC justices should also see it the same way.

I have a feeling that when it comes to Utah especially, they will be examining polygamy as a shoe-in if a precedent for forcing gay marriage on the states is set.



Fer shizzle...

Gosh, I sure hope so...the little woman and I want to start shopping for a rich, older sister wife! Hurry up!

 

[Silhouette]

Gosh, I sure hope so...the little woman and I want to start shopping for a rich, older sister wife! Hurry up!

Wow...living in San Francisco cloistered in a false society can sure have it's drawbacks. Paramount of those is the inability to see your own hubris through the eyes of others..

Can I quote you and send your quote on as an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court when it goes to decide on Harvey Milk vs Utah this year? Pretty please? Maybe you could type up a defense for Harvey Milks sexual life too that I could add to the Brief?

 

[JakeStarkey]

not sure why you're agreeing with me here,.... but the article seems to want to have it both ways. Saying there are unique harms in one part but saying should re-examine polygamy in another.

But I think you are right If you are saying that differentiating between the two when looking on marriage as a 14th amendment right is illogical.. And I think SC justices should also see it the same way.

I have a feeling that when it comes to Utah especially, they will be examining polygamy as a shoe-in if a precedent for forcing gay marriage on the states is set.

Fer shizzle...

The appellant litigators for Utah will stay far away from polygamy as possible.

The state's defense will be the "best interest of the children." Look at the front page of the newspaper Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Entertainment, Business - The Salt Lake Tribune.

Weak, in my opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Paramount of those is the inability to see your own hubris through the eyes of others..

Projection.

 

[Silhouette]

The appellant litigators for Utah will stay far away from polygamy as possible.

The state's defense will be the "best interest of the children." Look at the front page of the newspaper Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Entertainment, Business - The Salt Lake Tribune.

Weak, in my opinion.

People may stay away from polygamy all day long. But I guarantee you it will be on the minds of each and every single one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices. Guaranteed. They are charged more than any other court with not bungling stuff up with respect to inadvertently setting precedents the public cannot tolerate.

Your link to the Utah paper only brings you to an article on skiing. Can you find the page and link it instead?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The federal judge's recognition of spiritual plural marriage and co-habitation will be enough to satisfy SCOTUS on polygamy.

Here you go: State makes it all about kids in brief against same-sex marriage | The Salt Lake Tribune

 

[Seawytch]

The appellant litigators for Utah will stay far away from polygamy as possible.

The state's defense will be the "best interest of the children." Look at the front page of the newspaper Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Entertainment, Business - The Salt Lake Tribune.

Weak, in my opinion.

People may stay away from polygamy all day long. But I guarantee you it will be on the minds of each and every single one of the 9 Supreme Court Justices. Guaranteed. They are charged more than any other court with not bungling stuff up with respect to inadvertently setting precedents the public cannot tolerate.

Your link to the Utah paper only brings you to an article on skiing. Can you find the page and link it instead?

Well I hope they hurry. Julie Andrews is single...

 

[Silhouette]

The federal judge's recognition of spiritual plural marriage and co-habitation will be enough to satisfy SCOTUS on polygamy.

Here you go: State makes it all about kids in brief against same-sex marriage | The Salt Lake Tribune

But then your argument can be easily "the federal judge's recognition of spiritual "gay marriage" and co-habitation will be enough to satisfy SCOTUS on "gay marriage".

So, you're either saying that automatically polygamy will be forced upon the 50 states at the same time as "gay marriage" or that both will be categorically denied on the same day and left up to the states to decide.

You can't have it both ways legally Jake, you know that. The SCOTUS cannot arbitrarily uphold some priveleges for the church of LGBT and at the same time deny those same priveleges to polygamists just because "what they do in bed is weird and icky"..lol..

Seriously dude, get prepared. Utah is not a slam dunk for the church of LGBT. It's just not. Period. The Harvey Milkers have their work cut out for them.

Edit: Just read the article on the brief to the 10th Circuit on Utah. Better hope nobody brings up Harvey Milk.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, there is no paradox. I don't need it either way. You can look up Reynolds and the challenges to it all you want and find nothing to support your case. The defense's argument is "the best interests of the children". The Church of LGBT? The Church of Hetero-fascism with you as priestess.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Amendment 3 attorney should step down, senator says | KSL.com