Utah's Gay Marriage Ban struck down

[WorldWatcher]

That's why I keep urging people following this closely to read each and every word of Windsor/DOMA 2013. The words in the Opinion and how they were arranged were not chosen arbitrarily. And their precise meanings will be parsed out in the Utah challenge...

In that case you should be very worried because the majority opinion clearly spelled out that DOMA was discrimination by the Federal government toward a select group and while DOMA was decided under the Due Process (and therefore Federal Equal Protection doctrine), the Fourteenth clearly states that same doctrine (Due Process and Equal Protection) cannot be denied citizens by the state.

They punted on the core question in the Prop 8 case instead punting on "Standing" even after the California Supreme Court endorsed the proponents of Prop 8 as having "Standing" since the Executive Branch of the State felt it was unconstitutional and refused to defend it.

Yes you should be very worried.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

In that case you should be very worried because the majority opinion clearly spelled out that DOMA was discrimination by the Federal government toward a select group and while DOMA was decided under the Due Process (and therefore Federal Equal Protection doctrine), the Fourteenth clearly states that same doctrine (Due Process and Equal Protection) cannot be denied citizens by the state.

They punted on the core question in the Prop 8 case instead punting on "Standing" even after the California Supreme Court endorsed the proponents of Prop 8 as having "Standing" since the Executive Branch of the State felt it was unconstitutional and refused to defend it.

Yes you should be very worried.


>>>>

Yet strangely I'm not. When I was in public school, I routinely scored in the 100% category in reading comprehension. I've read the DOMA/Windsor Opinion. And I just read the Utah appeal decision. Based on my comprehension of those two documents I predict that SCOTUS didn't choose the word "consensus" to mean "only the choice to say yes" when they announced they were supporting it in each state, constitutionally, retroactive to the founding of the country, on the question of gay marriage; to which they also then said was only "allowed" "in some states".

Yep. I scored 100% every time. Couldn't spell for a darn though. But I could comprehend apparently.

 

[Seawytch]

In that case you should be very worried because the majority opinion clearly spelled out that DOMA was discrimination by the Federal government toward a select group and while DOMA was decided under the Due Process (and therefore Federal Equal Protection doctrine), the Fourteenth clearly states that same doctrine (Due Process and Equal Protection) cannot be denied citizens by the state.

They punted on the core question in the Prop 8 case instead punting on "Standing" even after the California Supreme Court endorsed the proponents of Prop 8 as having "Standing" since the Executive Branch of the State felt it was unconstitutional and refused to defend it.

Yes you should be very worried.


>>>>

Yet strangely I'm not. When I was in public school, I routinely scored in the 100% category in reading comprehension. I've read the DOMA/Windsor Opinion. And I just read the Utah appeal decision. Based on my comprehension of those two documents I predict that SCOTUS didn't choose the word "consensus" to mean "only the choice to say yes" when they announced they were supporting it in each state, constitutionally, retroactive to the founding of the country, on the question of gay marriage; to which they also then said was only "allowed" "in some states".

Yep. I scored 100% every time. Couldn't spell for a darn though. But I could comprehend apparently.

You didn't score 100 this time, but you will continue to ignore reality until then next case reaches the SCOTUS then you'll have no choice but to face it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In that case you should be very worried because the majority opinion clearly spelled out that DOMA was discrimination by the Federal government toward a select group and while DOMA was decided under the Due Process (and therefore Federal Equal Protection doctrine), the Fourteenth clearly states that same doctrine (Due Process and Equal Protection) cannot be denied citizens by the state.

They punted on the core question in the Prop 8 case instead punting on "Standing" even after the California Supreme Court endorsed the proponents of Prop 8 as having "Standing" since the Executive Branch of the State felt it was unconstitutional and refused to defend it.

Yes you should be very worried.


>>>>

Yet strangely I'm not. When I was in public school, I routinely scored in the 100% category in reading comprehension. I've read the DOMA/Windsor Opinion. And I just read the Utah appeal decision. Based on my comprehension of those two documents I predict that SCOTUS didn't choose the word "consensus" to mean "only the choice to say yes" when they announced they were supporting it in each state, constitutionally, retroactive to the founding of the country, on the question of gay marriage; to which they also then said was only "allowed" "in some states".

Yep. I scored 100% every time. Couldn't spell for a darn though. But I could comprehend apparently.

You started an entire tread with your "consensus" analysis and boldly stated (and I believe you still do) that United States v. Windsor validated a States power to say "No" to SSCM and that the DOMA decision causes Prop 8 to still be legal in California, which of course is incorrect since the ruling the Prop 8 was unconstitutional was not vacated.

You reading comprehension skills have failed you - at least where it comes to SSCM.

From the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court on the issue of United States v. Windsor (DOMA Decision):

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point
out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have
before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the
distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their
“historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,”
ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition
of marriage"​

CITE: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

The ruling "threatens the civil liberties of those voters who were just told they have a right to [did you mean to put a "no" here] consensus on gay marriage. To strip away that constitutional right is a violation of their civil liberties to set social parameters in BEHAVIORS that quialfy for marriage."

No one can institute "social parameters" that invalidates others 14th Amendment rights.

Your civil and religious liberty is not invalidated, but the same-sex community's liberty has been trampeled.

Sil, let me know if anyone forces your pastor to marry a same sex union or forces you into a same sex marriage.

I will put on my super hero cape and fly (at my own expense) to rescue you.

It hasn't slipped past my attention that you aren't talking much about today's gay hero Harvey Milk and went onto another tangent...lol..

I get why you wouldn't want to talk about him. It's hard to defend that which has no defense other than "yeah, we know he buggered teens openly and was a perv, but he's the standard we go by"...

...lol...

No, we know he dated a 16 year old...kind of like that Duck Dynasty guy. He a perv too?

 

[JakeStarkey]

In that case you should be very worried because the majority opinion clearly spelled out that DOMA was discrimination by the Federal government toward a select group and while DOMA was decided under the Due Process (and therefore Federal Equal Protection doctrine), the Fourteenth clearly states that same doctrine (Due Process and Equal Protection) cannot be denied citizens by the state.

They punted on the core question in the Prop 8 case instead punting on "Standing" even after the California Supreme Court endorsed the proponents of Prop 8 as having "Standing" since the Executive Branch of the State felt it was unconstitutional and refused to defend it.

Yes you should be very worried.


>>>>

Yet strangely I'm not. When I was in public school, I routinely scored in the 100% category in reading comprehension. I've read the DOMA/Windsor Opinion. And I just read the Utah appeal decision. Based on my comprehension of those two documents I predict that SCOTUS didn't choose the word "consensus" to mean "only the choice to say yes" when they announced they were supporting it in each state, constitutionally, retroactive to the founding of the country, on the question of gay marriage; to which they also then said was only "allowed" "in some states".

Yep. I scored 100% every time. Couldn't spell for a darn though. But I could comprehend apparently.

Then for the first time in your life, you are not comprehending clear language:

"State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967);"

Loving v. Virginia isn't irrelevant.

 

[Silhouette]

You reading comprehension skills have failed you - at least where it comes to SSCM.

From the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court on the issue of United States v. Windsor (DOMA Decision):

"But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important to point
out that its analysis leads no further. The Court does not have
before it, and the logic of its opinion does not decide, the
distinct question whether the States, in the exercise of their
“historic and essential authority to define the marital relation,”
ante, at 18, may continue to utilize the traditional definition
of marriage"​

CITE: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf


>>>>

Well, there are two ways to look at that WW. One of the ways one could comprehend that statement is that the court just said "We are not recognizing gay marriage as a right." Instead, they, as they said they would, left that debate up to the states. Yet they did aver that states had the unquestioned authority in consensus, constitutionally protected, as to the definition of marriage within each of their respective sovereign boundaries.

...lol..

So what were they saying? On the surface, gays would immediately read it to mean "we still have a chance to force our limited group of sexual deviant practices into the norm via the vehical of marriage and judicial activism to the demise of democracy!" While more rational people would read that passage and say, "yeah, well, if that was the case, why didn't the Justices just say so in DOMA."?

The grim fact you'll have to face is that they didn't. Another grim fact you'll have to face is that they didn't precisely because they wanted the people of each state to parse it out and walk it back to them on good standing. The red flag for anyone reading this is that they avered over and over [not just once like Worldwatcher's singular quote] in DOMA that each state has a right to mull over this weird new type of proposed marriage; and that right is via consensus.

And guess what prop 8 is? A consensus decision on gay marriage. Just because the pro-traditional marriage group lacked standing, doesn't mean a registered voter suing for the right for their initiative vote to count in prop 8 lacks standing.

And when the Utah case is heard, the 5 conservative Justices will sit and ponder whether or not the state of Utah was properly consulted before gay marriage was ramrodded down their throats.

ie: this will be a case of the Will of the People in consensus v judicial activism. And inasmuch as SCOTUS already gave a pass on forcing gay marriage on the states, don't get too hopeful that they'll suddenly wake up and force the 2/3rds of Utah's population that said "no" to gay marriage in consensus to accept a law that they do not want and it is their constitutional privelege and right to reject by consensus.

Always always always in the back of the Justices minds will be "how complete is LGBT?" and "is LGBT a limited set of deviant sex behaviors or an innate state of being?" Experts will be called to testify to that last bit; and not just handpicked ones from the lavender APA either. Interestingly enough, speaking of reading comprehension, read the odd decision on the Utah judicial activism case. It's really weird. It goes into I think, way too much irrelevant detail about each of the plaintiff's personal lives and how they became gay.

Became gay... Utah Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

As Larry the Cable Guy would say, "there's your sign..."

 

[Silhouette]

Interestingly enough, speaking of reading comprehension, read the odd decision on the Utah judicial activism case. It's really weird. It goes into I think, way too much irrelevant detail about each of the plaintiff's personal lives and how they became gay.

Became gay... Utah Same-Sex Marriage Ruling

As Larry the Cable Guy would say, "there's your sign..."

Here's a few of the six rather lengthy and detailed vignettes from the link above:

Kate Call is sixty years old and spent her earliest years in Wisconsin and Mexico, whereher parents were mission presidents for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When she was eight years old, Kate moved to Provo, Utah, where her father worked as a professor at Brigham Young University. Kate received her B.A. from BYU in 1974. While she was incollege, she dated several men and was even engaged twice. Although she hoped that she would begin to feel a more intimate connection if she committed herself to marriage, she broke off both engagements because she never developed any physical attraction to her fiancés. Kate began to realize that she was a lesbian, a feeling that continued to develop while she was serving a mission in Argentina....

And this one:

Laurie was not open about her sexual identity while she was a public school teacher because she believed she would be fired if she said anything. She came out when she was hired at UVU. While she dated men in high school and college, she never felt comfortable or authentic in her relationships until she began dating women...

Many women value their close friendships with other women. Doesn't mean they have to have sex together. Does it? Well, does it?

..She realized that she was a lesbian while she was in college, and her family eventually came to accept her identity. She did not feel she could be open about her identity at work because of the worry that her job would be at risk. While she was teaching a tButler, Kody recalls that the story of Wendy Weaver was often in the news...

"She realized that she was a lesbian while she was in college"...Now there's a solid argument for innate...not..lol..

 

[Silhouette]

Then for the first time in your life, you are not comprehending clear language:

"State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967);"

Loving v. Virginia isn't irrelevant.

You know...lol.. language is a funny thing. There is a "message" in the written words on paper. And then there is another message in the actions after those words are written.

You just cited that the Court itself cited Loving v Virginia...*drum roll*...and after that citation they refused to legitimize gay marriage across the 50 states and instead left it up to each state's consensus to parse out for itself!!

My comprehension is just fine. You might want to brush up on yours though, especially the "proof's in the pudding" part of comprehending the written word when it comes to judicial decisions...

In fact, the Court's citing Loving v Virginia and then NOT mandating gay marriage across the 50 states is a harbinger of doom for any gay activists under the current delusion that Loving v Virginia will carry them across the finish line. The Court already "said" that "even with Loving v Virginia, we are leaving it up to each state to decide for themselves".

Ouch. Sorry to have to spell it out for you.

 

[WillReadmore]

Laurie was not open about her sexual identity while she was a public school teacher because she believed she would be fired if she said anything. She came out when she was hired at UVU. While she dated men in high school and college, she never felt comfortable or authentic in her relationships until she began dating women...

Many women value their close friendships with other women. Doesn't mean they have to have sex together. Does it? Well, does it?

This is a profoundly stupid argument in that there is no justification for the government to get involved in this person's decision on choice of sex partner.

In fact, this weakens your own silly case. In your story a person has actually tried to live as per your preferences for her life and has found that impossible.

 

[Silhouette]

Laurie was not open about her sexual identity while she was a public school teacher because she believed she would be fired if she said anything. She came out when she was hired at UVU. While she dated men in high school and college, she never felt comfortable or authentic in her relationships until she began dating women...

Many women value their close friendships with other women. Doesn't mean they have to have sex together. Does it? Well, does it?

This is a profoundly stupid argument in that there is no justification for the government to get involved in this person's decision on choice of sex partner.

In fact, this weakens your own silly case. In your story a person has actually tried to live as per your preferences for her life and has found that impossible.

Lots and lots of women find men impossible to live with. Does that mean they are all by defintion therefore lesbians, "born that way"?

I've lived on the outskirts of the Bay Area, CA years ago and saw many many many a lesbian pair. With one looking and acting and dressing and talking and strutting around like a man, the other one on her arm, strangely and inexplicably attracted to all the exterior trappings of a man.

And of these lesbian couples, I cannot tell you how many of them became that way after throwing up their hands in exasperation after their relationships with men failing and then calling that "lesbianism". One woman I know of had an abusive relationship with a Vietnam vet. She "went lesbian" [her words] after that relationship and flip flopped around from men to women and back again after that.

So many of these examples It would take six pages here to tell you about all of them. But the story is basically the same. The butch lesbian hones in on a woman's marriage in trouble with her husband. The lipstick one is lured away and hooks up with the butch lesbian. Still attracted to men, and the butch one sensing this subconsciously, the butch lesbian or dominant one continues to dress, act, talk and walk like what she knows her partner is attracted to in reality. Eventually the lipstick lesbian figures out her mental issues and that she's still essentially attracted to men, goes out and finds a good one this time and leaves the butch in the lurch.

True story, my daughter was in a class with the lipstick version of the lesbian teacher pair that taught at her school. Their classrooms were back to back and shared a common wall. They even had adopted a kid together, or a couple of them, I forget. Then as is commonly the case, the lipstick lesbian hooked up with another teacher of my daughter's; a man. And the FIGHT that ensued was epic. Smashing on the wall, loud deafening music from the butch's class disrupting the lipstick's classroom, both women calling in sick as their fights got worse and worse and more abusive. The lipstick lesbian came in with bruising to teach. And finally, the women broke off the situation and the lipstick lesbian is with the man she always wanted to be with; not that guy because was married too at the time. Gawd what a mess.

And it's all too common. It's the Anne Heche syndrome. And it makes you really begin to wonder how much "innate" is involved and how much mental illness instead. Both "guys" the real ones and the fake ones [butch lesbians] play a game with the lipstick lesbian. One is trying always to win one away from the other when all along these gals are attracted to men. They just think that if they get with a man-woman [dyke] they'll have the perfect combination. The mistake is in thinking the outer trappings are the soul. When the lipstick finds a man with a good soul, it's "game over" for the butch dyke.

Butch lesbians trying to overcompensate are actually sometimes more abusive than men to their partners. The domestic violence problem with lesbians is a growing problem and disproportionately common for the tiny population.

 

[WillReadmore]

Many women value their close friendships with other women. Doesn't mean they have to have sex together. Does it? Well, does it?

This is a profoundly stupid argument in that there is no justification for the government to get involved in this person's decision on choice of sex partner.

In fact, this weakens your own silly case. In your story a person has actually tried to live as per your preferences for her life and has found that impossible.

Lots and lots of women find men impossible to live with. Does that mean they are all by defintion therefore lesbians, "born that way"?

I've lived on the outskirts of the Bay Area, CA years ago and saw many many many a lesbian pair. With one looking and acting and dressing and talking and strutting around like a man, the other one on her arm, strangely and inexplicably attracted to all the exterior trappings of a man.

And of these lesbian couples, I cannot tell you how many of them became that way after throwing up their hands in exasperation after their relationships with men failing and then calling that "lesbianism". One woman I know of had an abusive relationship with a Vietnam vet. She "went lesbian" [her words] after that relationship and flip flopped around from men to women and back again after that.

So many of these examples It would take six pages here to tell you about all of them. But the story is basically the same. The butch lesbian hones in on a woman's marriage in trouble with her husband. The lipstick one is lured away and hooks up with the butch lesbian. Still attracted to men, and the butch one sensing this subconsciously, the butch lesbian or dominant one continues to dress, act, talk and walk like what she knows her partner is attracted to in reality. Eventually the lipstick lesbian figures out her mental issues and that she's still essentially attracted to men, goes out and finds a good one this time and leaves the butch in the lurch.

True story, my daughter was in a class with the lipstick version of the lesbian teacher pair that taught at her school. Their classrooms were back to back and shared a common wall. They even had adopted a kid together, or a couple of them, I forget. Then as is commonly the case, the lipstick lesbian hooked up with another teacher of my daughter's; a man. And the FIGHT that ensued was epic. Smashing on the wall, loud deafening music from the butch's class disrupting the lipstick's classroom, both women calling in sick as their fights got worse and worse and more abusive. The lipstick lesbian came in with bruising to teach. And finally, the women broke off the situation and the lipstick lesbian is with the man she always wanted to be with; not that guy because was married too at the time. Gawd what a mess.

And it's all too common. It's the Anne Heche syndrome. And it makes you really begin to wonder how much "innate" is involved and how much mental illness instead. Both "guys" the real ones and the fake ones [butch lesbians] play a game with the lipstick lesbian. One is trying always to win one away from the other when all along these gals are attracted to men. They just think that if they get with a man-woman [dyke] they'll have the perfect combination. The mistake is in thinking the outer trappings are the soul. When the lipstick finds a man with a good soul, it's "game over" for the butch dyke.

THAT is what you want our government to be arbitrating???

REALLY?

The bottom line here is that you want to use government to enforce a pattern of social relationships that is appealing to YOU.

And, that isn't just stupid - it is insane. And, it certainly has nothing to do with America.

 

[Silhouette]

This is a profoundly stupid argument in that there is no justification for the government to get involved in this person's decision on choice of sex partner.

In fact, this weakens your own silly case. In your story a person has actually tried to live as per your preferences for her life and has found that impossible.

Lots and lots of women find men impossible to live with. Does that mean they are all by defintion therefore lesbians, "born that way"?

I've lived on the outskirts of the Bay Area, CA years ago and saw many many many a lesbian pair. With one looking and acting and dressing and talking and strutting around like a man, the other one on her arm, strangely and inexplicably attracted to all the exterior trappings of a man.

And of these lesbian couples, I cannot tell you how many of them became that way after throwing up their hands in exasperation after their relationships with men failing and then calling that "lesbianism". One woman I know of had an abusive relationship with a Vietnam vet. She "went lesbian" [her words] after that relationship and flip flopped around from men to women and back again after that.

So many of these examples It would take six pages here to tell you about all of them. But the story is basically the same. The butch lesbian hones in on a woman's marriage in trouble with her husband. The lipstick one is lured away and hooks up with the butch lesbian. Still attracted to men, and the butch one sensing this subconsciously, the butch lesbian or dominant one continues to dress, act, talk and walk like what she knows her partner is attracted to in reality. Eventually the lipstick lesbian figures out her mental issues and that she's still essentially attracted to men, goes out and finds a good one this time and leaves the butch in the lurch.

True story, my daughter was in a class with the lipstick version of the lesbian teacher pair that taught at her school. Their classrooms were back to back and shared a common wall. They even had adopted a kid together, or a couple of them, I forget. Then as is commonly the case, the lipstick lesbian hooked up with another teacher of my daughter's; a man. And the FIGHT that ensued was epic. Smashing on the wall, loud deafening music from the butch's class disrupting the lipstick's classroom, both women calling in sick as their fights got worse and worse and more abusive. The lipstick lesbian came in with bruising to teach. And finally, the women broke off the situation and the lipstick lesbian is with the man she always wanted to be with; not that guy because was married too at the time. Gawd what a mess.

And it's all too common. It's the Anne Heche syndrome. And it makes you really begin to wonder how much "innate" is involved and how much mental illness instead. Both "guys" the real ones and the fake ones [butch lesbians] play a game with the lipstick lesbian. One is trying always to win one away from the other when all along these gals are attracted to men. They just think that if they get with a man-woman [dyke] they'll have the perfect combination. The mistake is in thinking the outer trappings are the soul. When the lipstick finds a man with a good soul, it's "game over" for the butch dyke.

THAT is what you want our government to be arbitrating???

REALLY?

The bottom line here is that you want to use government to enforce a pattern of social relationships that is appealing to YOU.

And, that isn't just stupid - it is insane. And, it certainly has nothing to do with America.

Exactly, the federal government shouldn't be involved in patently obvious mental issues. They should leave that up to the states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then for the first time in your life, you are not comprehending clear language:

"State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967);"

Loving v. Virginia isn't irrelevant.

You know...lol.. language is a funny thing. There is a "message" in the written words on paper. And then there is another message in the actions after those words are written.

You just cited that the Court itself cited Loving v Virginia...*drum roll*...and after that citation they refused to legitimize gay marriage across the 50 states and instead left it up to each state's consensus to parse out for itself!!

My comprehension is just fine. You might want to brush up on yours though, especially the "proof's in the pudding" part of comprehending the written word when it comes to judicial decisions...

In fact, the Court's citing Loving v Virginia and then NOT mandating gay marriage across the 50 states is a harbinger of doom for any gay activists under the current delusion that Loving v Virginia will carry them across the finish line. The Court already "said" that "even with Loving v Virginia, we are leaving it up to each state to decide for themselves".

Ouch. Sorry to have to spell it out for you.

Which proves that same sex marriage is governed by federal law as well as state.

Ouch. Sorry to have spell it out for you.

You, at times, because you twist facts to your philosophy, are as witless as Political Chic.

There is no indication that same-sex marriage is ever going to be rolled out.

I know, be still your beating, every beating, heart.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Exactly, the federal government shouldn't be involved in patently obvious mental issues. They should leave that up to the states." I agree that far right reactionary social cons who are trying to enforce their mental issues on the rest of the citizens should be sanctioned criminally by the states.

If you keep going that way, trying to remove same sex marriage from the domain of constitutional law into that of democratic majority values, you will lose. The numbers are against you now, and as the 18 to 34 generation comes into its full political growth, it will fall on the social cons' beliefs and tear them to shreds.

 

[Silhouette]

Which proves that same sex marriage is governed by federal law as well as state.

Ouch. Sorry to have spell it out for you.
You, at times, because you twist facts to your philosophy, are as witless as Political Chic.

There is no indication that same-sex marriage is ever going to be rolled out.

I know, be still your beating, every beating, heart.

Well I won't spell it out for you. I'll let SCOTUS spell it out for you from Windsor/DOMA:

DOMA Opinion Page 16 on: Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

..."In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority over marriage as a matter of history and tradition. State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons,see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States....

...The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domi-ciled within its borders&#8221. The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.”
Ibid. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”...

...The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280U. S. 379, 383–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012).Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary...

...In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended. The dynamics of state government in the federal system are to allow the formation of consensus respecting the way the members of a discrete community treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction with each other....

And at the end of all that, SCOTUS did not apply Loving v Virginia to LGBT [but not polygamy] marriages. They could have, but they didn't. They mentioned it, but did not apply it.

So, there you go.

Maybe in their Utah Decision, they will explain why they mentioned it in DOMA but did not apply it? Keyword: "polygamy"...

 

[JohnA]

GAYS are treated equally under THE LAW gays can marry a person of the opposite sex anytime what you want is the law changed if the law is changed and anybody can marry whom they want because


they LOVE them them incest will dominate

So you're saying that "incest will dominate" if people were to be allowed to marry anyone they please?

LOL.. what sort of backwards region of the USA do you come from? I know not a single person who would willingly subscribe to incest.

well you obviously havnt been around much

INCEST
a game everybody in the family can play
those that play together stay together HEHEHEEH

 

[JakeStarkey]

And now the 10th denies Utah's request for a stay.

Governor Herbert has ordered county clerks to issue marriage certificates to all who apply.

The walls of America Jericho continue to fall.

 

[Silhouette]

And now the 10th denies Utah's request for a stay.

Governor Herbert has ordered county clerks to issue marriage certificates to all who apply.

The walls of America Jericho continue to fall.

Of course the 10th denied the stay. That's how all cases make it to the US Supreme Court. Has it flown over your head that this march up to the top was meant to be? Celebrate your little victories while you can...This US Supreme Court is not going to be the one to overtly or inadvertently force polygamy on Utah, and by extension, all the states..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, don't be so desperate.

It's the Eve again that we celebrate the victory over man's limitations.

Peace be upon you.