Utah's Gay Marriage Ban struck down

[JakeStarkey]

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.

If the 10th upholds the judge and the state appeals, SCOTUS will refuse to hear it,

"the will of tens of millions" means nothing in terms of 14th Amendment protections. And now the majority of Americans favor same sex marriage. Sil, you and your buds are in the minority.

The proponents of Jacksonian democracy do not grasp the meaning of the Constitution.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Tens of millions? There are less than three million people in Utah.

State constitutions can't violate the US Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Tens of millions? There are less than three million people in Utah.

State constitutions can't violate the US Constitution.

Interesting. He's not trying to pad the voting rolls now, is he?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The Supreme Court will rule affirming the lower courts’ invalidation of the Utah statute, as the statute fails even a rational basis test.

As we saw in both Romer and Lawrence, strict scrutiny need not be applied when reviewing such laws that seek to deny homosexuals their civil liberties, and consequently homosexuals needn’t be considered a suspect class.

As Justice Kennedy observed in Romer:

It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance. "`Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.'" Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 635 (1950) (quoting Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 22 (1948)). Respect for this principle explains why laws singling out a certain class of citizens for disfavored legal status or general hardships are rare. A law declaring that in general it shall be more difficult for one group of citizens than for all others to seek aid from the government is itself a denial of equal protection of the laws in the most literal sense. "The guaranty of `equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.' " Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942) (quoting Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (1886)).

Same-sex couples clearly manifest a certain class of citizens singled out for “disfavored legal status or general hardships” when a state seeks to deny them their equal protection rights concerning access to marriage law.

Indeed, the similarities between Colorado’s Amendment 2 and Utah’s Amendment 3 are both striking and significant, where a consistent application of 14th Amendment jurisprudence will render the Utah measure un-Constitutional and invalid, without the need of conferring upon homosexuals a suspect class designation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

In our Constitutional Republic the majority lacks the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil liberties; and one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence.

Same-sex couples in Utah are American citizens first and foremost, and their civil rights cannot be violated by any state government or state constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

If the 10th upholds the judge and the state appeals, SCOTUS will refuse to hear it,

"the will of tens of millions" means nothing in terms of 14th Amendment protections. And now the majority of Americans favor same sex marriage. Sil, you and your buds are in the minority.

The proponents of Jacksonian democracy do not grasp the meaning of the Constitution.

Don't go to Vegas. You'll lose your ass there..lol..

I'll repeat this until it sinks in. In DOMA, the SCOTUS mentioned Loving v Virginia and then didn't apply it to gay marriage. They expressly instead said that gay marriage was only "allowed" "in some states". And they said that the subject of gay marriage was to be decided properly by a consensus in each state. One step further, they bestowed upon that consensus a constitutional protection of it retroactive to the founding of the country. There's the sign you need to read that says that they aren't thinking the 14th applies to your limited sexual behavioral group called "LGBT". Utah is a state famous for battling against polygamy. Do the math.

If the US Supreme Court thought that gay marriage was worthy of the 14th, they would've said so in DOMA. They didn't. Worse, they brought up your hinge case citation during the discussion and then refused to apply it. Sorry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the 10th upholds the judge and the state appeals, SCOTUS will refuse to hear it,

"the will of tens of millions" means nothing in terms of 14th Amendment protections. And now the majority of Americans favor same sex marriage. Sil, you and your buds are in the minority.

The proponents of Jacksonian democracy do not grasp the meaning of the Constitution.

Don't go to Vegas. You'll lose your ass there..lol..

I'll repeat this until it sinks in. In DOMA, the SCOTUS mentioned Loving v Virginia and then didn't apply it to gay marriage. They expressly instead said that gay marriage was only "allowed" "in some states". And they said that the subject of gay marriage was to be decided properly by a consensus in each state. One step further, they bestowed upon that consensus a constitutional protection of it retroactive to the founding of the country. There's the sign you need to read that says that they aren't thinking the 14th applies to your limited sexual behavioral group called "LGBT". Utah is a state famous for battling against polygamy. Do the math.

If the US Supreme Court thought that gay marriage was worthy of the 14th, they would've said so in DOMA. They didn't. Worse, they brought up your hinge case citation during the discussion and then refused to apply it. Sorry.

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law as written by the states, where two equal partners may enter into a marriage contract, be they same- or opposite-sex.

The issue has nothing to do with something being ‘worthy’ of the 14th Amendment, in fact the notion makes no sense whatsoever.

The sole issue concerns the state of Utah seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The burden rests alone with the state to justify its desire to legally disadvantage this class of persons, and the state has failed to meet this burden; as Amendment 3 seeks only to make same-sex couples different from everyone else, absent a proper legislative end.

“This [Utah] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

 

[Silhouette]

There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage,’ there is only marriage law as written by the states, where two equal partners may enter into a marriage contract, be they same- or opposite-sex.

The issue has nothing to do with something being ‘worthy’ of the 14th Amendment, in fact the notion makes no sense whatsoever.

The sole issue concerns the state of Utah seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The burden rests alone with the state to justify its desire to legally disadvantage this class of persons, and the state has failed to meet this burden; as Amendment 3 seeks only to make same-sex couples different from everyone else, absent a proper legislative end.

“This [Utah] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

Why just two? ..lol..

It's funny you know...using the "people in love and committed to each other" argument by GLBTs, but not all the other possibilities; to dismantle thousands-years standing definition of marriage...and then limiting that number in a very bigoted way to just "two". Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court understands how precedent works. If one "people in love" argument sticks, then all others have to also. Or else the Court would be arbitrarily discriminating against other consenting adults in love. I've known corporations that have "two equal partners" "three equal partners" "six equal partners" etc.

Nice try though...lol..

 

[Silhouette]

The issue has nothing to do with something being ‘worthy’ of the 14th Amendment, in fact the notion makes no sense whatsoever.

The sole issue concerns the state of Utah seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The burden rests alone with the state to justify its desire to legally disadvantage this class of persons, and the state has failed to meet this burden; as Amendment 3 seeks only to make same-sex couples different from everyone else, absent a proper legislative end.

“This [Utah] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

If the issue had nothing to do with being 'worthy' of the 14th Amendment, then why did SCOTUS bring up Loving v Virginia in the discussion of LGBT marriage in DOMA and then refuse to apply it? If the sole issue is of Utah refusing to apply the 14th to gay marriage in their boundaries, then Utah is in good company since SCOTUS brought up the 14th in "Loving" and then didn't apply it to gay marriage. How many ways are you going to try to dance around that sad harbinger for gay marriage and the 14th?

Same sex couples ARE different from everyone else for many reasons that I won't go into here. For the purposes of this topic, they are different in the sense that they are not one man and one woman. That is the definition of marriage in Utah. That definition was arrived at by a constitutionally-protected consensus on the topic of the privelege of marriage within its boundaries. Boys are different from girls in many ways. We don't change the definition of "girl" to "boy", blending the two. This creates an abomination of language where the fabric of reality itself is in jeopardy. If this trend continues, where will it end? Mull that one over for awhile.

Things are what they are. LGBT is not a race. It's a limited group of alternate sexual behavior practitioners. We as a nation set standards and qualifiers for behaviors every single day; for what they are allowed and not allowed to do. Utah said "gay behaviors may not marry". That's their right. If you take away their right to regulate behaviors in their boundaries, where will that end? Surely not before polygamy has it's day in Court?

So, don't get your hopes up. The question before SCOTUS will be judicial activism v the Will of the People in consensus when it comes to gay marriage. The co-issue will be "is LGBT" an innate state of being or a set of fixated behaviors acquired along the way, like drug addiction or obsessive-compulsive disorders that also feel "innate" to the experiencees. Conditioned habits are very powerful and feel innate to those that have them. But if you understand conditioning, you understand compulsive behaviors.

So those are your issues to tackle. Get your teams of lawyers on it ASAP.

Oh, and work on that "think of the children of gay couples" sympathy-play on the Court vs the Harvey-Milk problem. It's going to be a bit of a trick to convince the court that you want kids best interests in mind while you simultaneously require them to worship a pedophile as "the embodiment of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world"....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette has trouble understanding that "The sole issue concerns the state of Utah seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment."

This is the only issue. When the 10th rejects the state's appeal and if Utah appeals to SCOTUS, the appeal will not be accepted. Reyes, the new AG in Utah, may have already informed the governor of such.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If the issue had nothing to do with being 'worthy' of the 14th Amendment, then why did SCOTUS bring up Loving v Virginia in the discussion of LGBT marriage in DOMA and then refuse to apply it? If the sole issue is of Utah refusing to apply the 14th to gay marriage in their boundaries, then Utah is in good company since SCOTUS brought up the 14th in "Loving" and then didn't apply it to gay marriage. How many ways are you going to try to dance around that sad harbinger for gay marriage and the 14th?

That's pretty obvious. The dicta was talking about regulation of marriage, Loving was sited as one of two cases where the courts addressed state powers as a function of government when compared to required "constitutional rights" of persons. Loving provides an readily understood example of where a State exceeded it's Constitutional powers by denying individuals their rights to equal treatment under the law.

Loving is mentioned in exactly ONE place in the whole decision, as an example of States exceeding their powers. It was in no way mentioned as a justification for overturning the challenged section of DOMA.

"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.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 (1975)."​

The court, in United States v. Windsor did not apply the 14th Amendment because this was a case about Federal law, not State law. The 14th applies to states, the basis of this ruling was the 5th Amendment and only applies to the Federal recognition.

The core question, and the basis of granting certiorari ("In granting certiorari on the question of the constitutionality of §3 of DOMA...") was concerning Federal law and had nothing to do with State law.

As Chief Justice Roberts has said (and I paraphrase): That will be a different case.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

If the issue had nothing to do with being 'worthy' of the 14th Amendment, then why did SCOTUS bring up Loving v Virginia in the discussion of LGBT marriage in DOMA and then refuse to apply it? If the sole issue is of Utah refusing to apply the 14th to gay marriage in their boundaries, then Utah is in good company since SCOTUS brought up the 14th in "Loving" and then didn't apply it to gay marriage. How many ways are you going to try to dance around that sad harbinger for gay marriage and the 14th?

That's pretty obvious. The dicta was talking about regulation of marriage, Loving was sited as one of two cases where the courts addressed state powers as a function of government when compared to required "constitutional rights" of persons. Loving provides an readily understood example of where a State exceeded it's Constitutional powers by denying individuals their rights to equal treatment under the law.

Loving is mentioned in exactly ONE place in the whole decision, as an example of States exceeding their powers. It was in no way mentioned as a justification for overturning the challenged section of DOMA.
>>>>

The Court doesn't often like to contradict itself. That's the Prime Rule of the US Supreme Court. Justice whoever saying that the same challenge in essence will be met with a different conclusion as to Loving v Virginia in a subsequent case, holds as much water as a sieve.

The Court lives, eats and breathes on precedent, and when it overturns Itself, it isn't within the same year's time or even five years' time...

Yes, they cited Loving v Virginia as an example of allowing a type of marriage without state approval. And yet they went on to say at the conclusion of DOMA that "only in some states" is gay marriage "allowed." And they said this just before Affirming that each state's broad consensus has the "unquestioned authority" to define marriage within its boundaries.

Keep dancing. Don't get dizzy spinning around that one...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now Sil is an expert on the culture and dynamics on SCOTUS.

You have been constantly wrong on the issue, Sil.

You will continue to be so.

 

[Silhouette]

Now Sil is an expert on the culture and dynamics on SCOTUS.

You have been constantly wrong on the issue, Sil.

You will continue to be so.

Instead of criticizing me and using ad hominem, explain to readers here how you conclude that SCOTUS instead likes to overturn Itself within a year or five years' time? Explain why SCOTUS cited the Loving case and refused to apply it to gay marriage; when they just as easily could have and been done with the whole appeal mess on the matter?

Don't just criticize: defend your position.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, they cited Loving v Virginia as an example of allowing a type of marriage without state approval.

No they didn't, they used Loving in the entire decisoin only once, as an example of States exceeding their powers to discriminate against it's citizens. The only reason that Loving was mention was to highlight that while Civil Marriage laws are a function of the State, that those functions are limited based on individuals constitutional guarantees.

Again as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out, the DOMA decision has nothing to do with State laws on Civil Marriage, that will have to be a different case. It may very well be the Utah case as it works it's way to the SCOTUS over the next year or two. Timing will depend a lot on: (a) if the 10th Circuit Accepts and appeal, (b) if they do, when will arguments be scheduled, (c) if arguments occur when the decision will be issued, (d) if a decision is appealed to the SCOTUS, (e) if the SCOTUS accepts an appeal, when will it be scheduled for arguments, and (f) when the SCOTUS will issue an opinion [or if they will find a reason to punt - again].


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

No they didn't, they used Loving in the entire decisoin only once, as an example of States exceeding their powers to discriminate against it's citizens. The only reason that Loving was mention was to highlight that while Civil Marriage laws are a function of the State, that those functions are limited based on individuals constitutional guarantees.

Again as Chief Justice Roberts pointed out, the DOMA decision has nothing to do with State laws on Civil Marriage, that will have to be a different case. It may very well be the Utah case as it works it's way to the SCOTUS over the next year or two. Timing will depend a lot on: (a) if the 10th Circuit Accepts and appeal, (b) if they do, when will arguments be scheduled, (c) if arguments occur when the decision will be issued, (d) if a decision is appealed to the SCOTUS, (e) if the SCOTUS accepts an appeal, when will it be scheduled for arguments, and (f) when the SCOTUS will issue an opinion [or if they will find a reason to punt - again]

That they mentioned Loving at all is significant that they then went on to leave gay marriage up to each state individually to "allow" as they would. The Court will be asked why they did this. To which they have already answered in DOMA when they discussed other oddball marriages like first cousins and 13 year olds. And then left the choice of gay marriage up to the states. If they would have struck down Prop 8, that would be a different manifestation of the Court's intent. But they didn't do that, did they? And they didn't apply Loving.

I guess it's remotely possible that even after all that they will do an about face in the Utah case and overtly strike down it and California's consensus laws banning gay marriage; and therefore any other state whose citizenry doesn't want gay marriage and have said so by vote. I guess they might allow that gay marriage is valid, along with all the other types of marriages that can be argued as legitimate between "consenting adults in love". Then later, as the lavender activists progress in their fiat and coup, they can nudge that age of consent lower and lower and lower. Maybe all states will have the 13 year old age mandated because teenagers in love and sexually active no doubt have the right to bond with their chosen in marriage like everyone else. Don't be such an age-bigot...etc. etc. etc.

Except that I'm pretty sure that this SCOTUS will be looking ahead to the future, to all potential candidates for the "consenting...in love" precedent for dismantling marriage and forcing it upon the states in new and bizarre ways against the will of the governed. I'm pretty sure LGBT will be seen as an incomplete group for the purposes of arguments and questions will be put to the LGBT lobby/attorneys as to how and why should people like polygamists still be banned after just LGBT practitioners are selectively allowed to marry?

You aren't talking about polygamy much WorldWatcher. But the Court will be. Especially in the Utah case...

if the SCOTUS accepts an appeal, when will it be scheduled for arguments, and (f) when the SCOTUS will issue an opinion [or if they will find a reason to punt - again].

This situation is coming to a head. Punting is no longer an option. The Court will be hounded to once and for all render a decision: do the states get to decide on LGBT behaviors marrying or does the fed override all 50 states and apply the 14th. It's that simple. And since they already brought up the 14th by mentioning Loving and did nothing but talk about 13 year olds and first cousins marrying; then left Prop 8 alone, you can deduce that they are not keen on forcing weird marriages on the separate states. Weird behaviors make weird marriages. People of all races though can marry each other; men and women. Two women getting together by the base definition of the word "marriage" throughout time immemorial is not a marriage. Neither is two men. It's something; just not marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Hey Sil...I know how you like pictures of lines...did ya see these?

 

[Katzndogz]

There is little doubt that SCOTUS will uphold same sex marriage. The believe they are fashioning a more accepting and inclusive culture. They are just wrong. An accepting and inclusive culture can't be made either judicially or legislatively. Have the civil rights laws helped black people? No. There might be more racism today than before all those laws. We might pretend harder. It's been two generations since the civil rights era. Not all that much has changed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You aren't talking about polygamy much WorldWatcher. But the Court will be. Especially in the Utah case...

What Utah case involves polygamy?

1. Not the SSCM case as polygamy is not a factor.

and

2. Not the cohabitation case as the court specifically did not strike polygamy, they only ruled that the State making cohabitation between consenting adults illegal was unconstitutional.​

>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is little doubt that SCOTUS will uphold same sex marriage. The believe they are fashioning a more accepting and inclusive culture. They are just wrong. An accepting and inclusive culture can't be made either judicially or legislatively. Have the civil rights laws helped black people? No. There might be more racism today than before all those laws. We might pretend harder. It's been two generations since the civil rights era. Not all that much has changed.

the election of obama has set the unification of the races back further than it was in 1960.