Utah's Gay Marriage Ban struck down

[Silhouette]

Sil, don't be so desperate.

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

Peace be upon you.

Not a big Christmas fan, sorry. Do you think they'll legalize polyamy alongside LGBT marriage in Utah when this goes to the US Supreme Court?

 

[Seawytch]

Sil, don't be so desperate.

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

Peace be upon you.

Not a big Christmas fan, sorry. Do you think they'll legalize polyamy alongside LGBT marriage in Utah when this goes to the US Supreme Court?

Happy Christmas

 

[WorldWatcher]

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..

WTH?

Granting a stay has nothing to do with a court decision on the case itself. If the 10th had issued a stay, it would not have stopped the appeal process - that would have continued. You appear to be trying to make it sound like the denial of the stay is needed before they can hear the case. Utterly false. And then once they decide, then the parties in the case (plaintiff and respondent) have to decide if they will submit and appeal of that decision to the SCOTUS.

If you want to see why the 10th Circuit denied the stay, see the article below. They felt (a) the state failed to show irreparable harm of the marriages were allowed to take place, and (b) indicated their was a low likelihood of the District Court Judges ruling being overturned.

10th Circuit Court denies same-sex marriage stay | The Salt Lake Tribune


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sil, don't be so desperate.

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

Peace be upon you.

Not a big Christmas fan, sorry. Do you think they'll legalize polyamy alongside LGBT marriage in Utah when this goes to the US Supreme Court?

No, since there is no case pending that has anything to do with polygamy (multiple Civil Marriages) on it's way to the court. Recently a portion of a Utah law making it illegal for consenting adults to cohabitate in an unmarried status was found to be unconstitutional, but the striking of a cohabitation law has nothing to do with Civil Marriage.


>>>>

 

[ScienceRocks]

Allowing people to smoke and **** as they wish is conservative. Right?

 

[Seawytch]

No stay...making Utah number 18. Now that is a happy holiday! Congratulations Utah!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Happy fucked in the ass Christmas Utah Freedom is a good thing!

 

[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.

Not a big Christmas fan, sorry. Do you think they'll legalize polyamy alongside LGBT marriage in Utah when this goes to the US Supreme Court?

The case is not about polygamy but about only that a state, since it does not confer Constitutional rights, must not interfere with rights protected by the Constitution.

 

[SwimExpert]

No stay...making Utah number 18. Now that is a happy holiday! Congratulations Utah!

It doesn't end the appeals process. This one isn't over. If it goes to the Supreme Court, I suspect it would be overturned. I don't believe that the SCOTUS is ready or willing to declare homosexuals a suspect class.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No stay...making Utah number 18. Now that is a happy holiday! Congratulations Utah!

It doesn't end the appeals process. This one isn't over. If it goes to the Supreme Court, I suspect it would be overturned. I don't believe that the SCOTUS is ready or willing to declare homosexuals a suspect class.

No so sure. They overturned DOMA Section 3 in United States v. Windsor recently because it deprived same-sex couples equal treatment under the law from a federal perspective. Then of course there is Romer v. Evans which overturned a Colorado Amendment which removed legal protections from homosexuals, which said (in part):

(b) In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-320. Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment is at once too narrow and too broad, identifying persons by a single trait and then denying them the possibility of protection across the board. This disqualification of a class of persons from the right to obtain specific protection from the law is unprecedented and is itself a denial of equal protection in the most literal sense. Second, the sheer breadth of Amendment 2, which makes a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, is so far removed from the reasons offered for it, i.e., respect for other citizens' freedom of association, particularly landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality, and the State's interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups, that the amendment cannot be explained by reference to those reasons; the Amendment raises the inevitable inference that it is born of animosity toward the class that it affects. Amendment 2 cannot be said to be directed to an identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status based classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. Pp. 9-14.​

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

WTH?

Granting a stay has nothing to do with a court decision on the case itself. If the 10th had issued a stay, it would not have stopped the appeal process - that would have continued. You appear to be trying to make it sound like the denial of the stay is needed before they can hear the case. Utterly false. And then once they decide, then the parties in the case (plaintiff and respondent) have to decide if they will submit and appeal of that decision to the SCOTUS.

If you want to see why the 10th Circuit denied the stay, see the article below. They felt (a) the state failed to show irreparable harm of the marriages were allowed to take place, and (b) indicated their was a low likelihood of the District Court Judges ruling being overturned.

10th Circuit Court denies same-sex marriage stay | The Salt Lake Tribune


>>>>

The people involved with teasing this case up to SCOTUS need to keep the flames of outrage fanned properly. Else the complete effect won't be reached.

You think that judge in the Utah case named all the personal vignettes of how those women, particularly, became gay just as an excercise, right?

Put on your thinking caps now and ponder as to why those unnecessary details were included in his decision. Consider the denied stay in Utah. Consider all the people [2/3rds of the voters there] who voted down gay marriage and the outrage of a two time face slap on this matter. Consider the words from DOMA supporting a weigh in..mentioning Loving v Virginia and then refusing to apply it to gay marriage when they just as easily could have.

Why would they leave it up to a consensus and be so adamant about that at the state level and then turn around a year later and say instead that they support judicial activism as trumping consensus in that matter? If that was the case, they would have just been judicial activists themselves and applied Loving v Virginia and had done with it.

And when you've mixed that all around in your stew pot and begun simmering it, add a pinch of polygamy and continue simmering. Like I said before, if you think for one minute that this SCOTUS is going to volunteer to be the one in US history that overtly or inadvertently forced polygamy on Utah, think again... A sexual behavior does not a race or class of person make. If it did, then pedophiles would be a protected class since they too insist their sexual attraction to children was "born that way". And incest practitioners; were they not also born sexually attracted to their brother or sister? And polygamists, were they not born sexually attracted to multiple people? And necrophiles, were they not born sexually attracted to dead bodies; is that not their unshakeable orientation?

And so on.

 

[SwimExpert]

No stay...making Utah number 18. Now that is a happy holiday! Congratulations Utah!

It doesn't end the appeals process. This one isn't over. If it goes to the Supreme Court, I suspect it would be overturned. I don't believe that the SCOTUS is ready or willing to declare homosexuals a suspect class.

No so sure. They overturned DOMA Section 3 in United States v. Windsor recently because it deprived same-sex couples equal treatment under the law from a federal perspective. Then of course there is Romer v. Evans which overturned a Colorado Amendment which removed legal protections from homosexuals, which said (in part):

(b) In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. See, e.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-320. Amendment 2 fails, indeed defies, even this conventional inquiry. First, the amendment is at once too narrow and too broad, identifying persons by a single trait and then denying them the possibility of protection across the board. This disqualification of a class of persons from the right to obtain specific protection from the law is unprecedented and is itself a denial of equal protection in the most literal sense. Second, the sheer breadth of Amendment 2, which makes a general announcement that gays and lesbians shall not have any particular protections from the law, is so far removed from the reasons offered for it, i.e., respect for other citizens' freedom of association, particularly landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality, and the State's interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups, that the amendment cannot be explained by reference to those reasons; the Amendment raises the inevitable inference that it is born of animosity toward the class that it affects. Amendment 2 cannot be said to be directed to an identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status based classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. Pp. 9-14.​

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).


>>>>

But the nature of those cases, and their subsequent applications of the 14th, are very different. In Windsor, the issue was a legally married couple who was treated differently than similarly legally married couples. This is clearly in violation of the 14th, without concern to any potentially suspect class. In Romer, the state's action to both repeal local anti-discrimination laws and to also prohibit any future anti-discrimination laws effectively created a suspect class within the limited circumstances of that case.

If we consider Romer, we should note Scalia's dissent in that case, joined by Thomas. It reflects how Scalia, an otherwise intelligent man and judge, is irrationally and hopelessly opposed to all things related to homosexuality. His dissent is passionate, aggressive, and devoid of any logical thought. Neither he nor Thomas will ever agree to find homosexuals to be a suspect class. And we can expect Alito to eagerly join in with them with similar anti-homosexual fervor. Roberts will not be interested in removing the question out of state jurisdiction, and Kennedy will not be willing to create such a profound precedent on anything short of it already being tautologically and exceedingly present in currently existing case history.

 

[hangover]

Utah's Gay Marriage Ban struck down

The Mormons should welcome gay marriage, and make the case that if same sex marriage is legal then polygamy should be legal too.

 

[Silhouette]

But the nature of those cases, and their subsequent applications of the 14th, are very different. In Windsor, the issue was a legally married couple who was treated differently than similarly legally married couples. This is clearly in violation of the 14th, without concern to any potentially suspect class. In Romer, the state's action to both repeal local anti-discrimination laws and to also prohibit any future anti-discrimination laws effectively created a suspect class within the limited circumstances of that case.

If we consider Romer, we should note Scalia's dissent in that case, joined by Thomas. It reflects how Scalia, an otherwise intelligent man and judge, is irrationally and hopelessly opposed to all things related to homosexuality. His dissent is passionate, aggressive, and devoid of any logical thought. Neither he nor Thomas will ever agree to find homosexuals to be a suspect class. And we can expect Alito to eagerly join in with them with similar anti-homosexual fervor. Roberts will not be interested in removing the question out of state jurisdiction, and Kennedy will not be willing to create such a profound precedent on anything short of it already being tautologically and exceedingly present in currently existing case history.

If we consider Romer, we should note Scalia's dissent in that case, joined by Thomas. It reflects how Scalia, an otherwise intelligent man and judge, is irrationally and hopelessly opposed to all things related to homosexuality. His dissent is passionate, aggressive, and devoid of any logical thought.

I'd say being opposed to 'LGBT' and therefore also polygamy and all the other "other-thans" in marriage is not an irrational opposition. The LGBT groups iconized a pedophile [Harvey Milk] in California as a matter of law and require children to celebrate that he was open about sodomizing drug addicted teen homeless boys. When you confront ANY LGBT person about this, they don't denounce Milk, but instead aggressively defend him and "what he stood for". This is true just minutes after you remind them he sodomized vulnerable teen boys routinely. In my debate for years now on the Harvey Milk issue, I've not encountered one exception to this alarming rule. Methinks that maybe, just maybe, Scalia might have read the internet and seen these gruesome facts about the LGBT community at large and deduced they might not make such great parents or guardians of minor children. Or maybe Scalia just read the text from the California law. Here's a snippet coming from ground-zero of the LGBT movement:

"Perhaps more than any other modern figure, Harvey Milk’s life and political career embody the rise of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights movement in California, across the nation, and throughout the world." http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200920100SB572

Neither he nor Thomas will ever agree to find homosexuals to be a suspect class. And we can expect Alito to eagerly join in with them with similar anti-homosexual fervor.

How can you find 'LGBT' as a suspect class when all the other sexually deviant behaviors, like polygamy and incest, are left out arbitrarily? Perhaps their not finding them as a class derives from not a lack of logic, but rather a presence of it. They can logically deduce that if they allow 'LGBT' as a class, then arbitrarily denying polygamists and incest practitioners the same rights would be a shoe in for a new challenge by these other groups, that they would handily and easily win based on the "people in love" argument..

Roberts will not be interested in removing the question out of state jurisdiction

As he shouldn't be. Or else all states would have to allow 13 year olds to marry, like in New Hampshire. A federal application to marriage cannot be singled out to just one state. The fed would then have to set marriage standards on age and blood relation applied the same across all 50.

and Kennedy will not be willing to create such a profound precedent on anything short of it already being tautologically and exceedingly present in currently existing case history

Yes, Kennedy isn't going to be the "swing vote that inadvertently ushered in polygamy in Utah by precedent". Correct. You are also right about how Windsor was written. It objection was that if gay marriage was properly ratified by consensus in a given state, that the fed could not treat that marriage differently. And it was using the logic like with the New Hampshire case of 13 year olds, if they are legally married according to a state's laws and constitution, the fed cannot deny them. That isn't saying that the fed condones or mandates all 50 states to ratify marriage to all 13 year olds "in love and wanting to share their lives together". It means that if a state's consensus says so, the fed has to abide.

The state of California however, and Utah, said 'NO' to gay marriage by consensus. What will be considered in this next Sitting on the matter will be if it is legal and binding for judicial fiat and activism, or other public servant activism outside state's consensus to trump that consensus. My crystal ball tells me, after reading Windsor/DOMA thoroughly, that the answer is "no". Judicial fiat in the various states cannot squelch the democratic consensus there.

 

[Seawytch]

No stay...making Utah number 18. Now that is a happy holiday! Congratulations Utah!

It doesn't end the appeals process. This one isn't over. If it goes to the Supreme Court, I suspect it would be overturned. I don't believe that the SCOTUS is ready or willing to declare homosexuals a suspect class.

And this whole time gays will be marrying like crazy in Utah, Salt Lake especially (where the largest concentration of gay parents live). Those couples will be married and will get to file a joint tax return

Barn door is open

 

[Silhouette]

And this whole time gays will be marrying like crazy in Utah, Salt Lake especially (where the largest concentration of gay parents live). Those couples will be married and will get to file a joint tax return

Barn door is open

That "children will suffer" argument isn't going to fly a second time around. Kennedy isn't going to be the one judge who inadvertently ushered in polygamy for Utah. Gays "marrying like crazy" only means they are getting married for politically expedient reasons, which cheapens and sickens the notion of marriage even more. This damage to marriage and coup on democracy isn't going to pluck at the heartstrings of the Justices continuously. Even they can see when they are being manipulated twice. Leave the kids out of it. They will be reminded of the CA Harvey Milk law at the proper time and place... If you gays are so concerned for the children, repeal that law first because at any mention of gays concern for children and that law is going to come up for contrast; as will Milk's full and complete biography...

 

[JakeStarkey]

No stay...making Utah number 18. Now that is a happy holiday! Congratulations Utah!

It doesn't end the appeals process. This one isn't over. If it goes to the Supreme Court, I suspect it would be overturned. I don't believe that the SCOTUS is ready or willing to declare homosexuals a suspect class.

SCOTUS will not hear it, simply affirming the 10th's decision.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, betcha a dollar to a donut SCOTUS won't hear it?

 

[Seawytch]

And this whole time gays will be marrying like crazy in Utah, Salt Lake especially (where the largest concentration of gay parents live). Those couples will be married and will get to file a joint tax return



Barn door is open

That "children will suffer" argument isn't going to fly a second time around. Kennedy isn't going to be the one judge who inadvertently ushered in polygamy for Utah. Gays "marrying like crazy" only means they are getting married for politically expedient reasons, which cheapens and sickens the notion of marriage even more. This damage to marriage and coup on democracy isn't going to pluck at the heartstrings of the Justices continuously. Even they can see when they are being manipulated twice. Leave the kids out of it. They will be reminded of the CA Harvey Milk law at the proper time and place... If you gays are so concerned for the children, repeal that law first because at any mention of gays concern for children and that law is going to come up for contrast; as will Milk's full and complete biography...

It hasn't flown yet, why on earth would it now?...especially since our children aren't suffering and there are studies to prove it.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, betcha a dollar to a donut SCOTUS won't hear it?

Yes, I'm sure the US Supreme Court has better things to do with its time than hold a Hearing for a case where one judge nullified part of a lawfully enacted state constitutional provision, against the will of tens of millions.