Utah's Gay Marriage Ban struck down

[JakeStarkey]

I read the judge's opinion in this matter. And I've read all of the DOMA decision which he cites to justify his decision.

heh...

All I can say is that all of you reading this should very carefully read the DOMA decision first, which will decide this case as it goes to the US Supreme Court soon. Then read the judge's decision here on the Utah question: http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/utah-ssm.pdf

I found the narrative very odd in the Utah decision. The judge goes into great detail about how each plaintiff found themselves to be "gay". Weird, right? Very odd to include such detail and then wrap up each vignette with a very brief "and then they decided to get married".

..lol..

You have missed the point that SCOTUS would rather not have this type of case.

If the 10th upholds the decision and the state appeals to SCOTUS, that court will simply not receive it and let the decision stand.

The only hope for the status quo folks is that the 10th does not sustain the decision.

 

[Silhouette]

...Prop 8 would have remained in effect because the California Supreme Court upheld it's case. However, Prop 8 lost in Federal court and was ruled unconstitutional. The SCOTUS did not vacate that ruling and allowed the District Court Judges ruling to stand.

>

Here's what was said about the Utah case in reference to Windsor & Prop 8's Opinions last Summer. It's straight from the horse's mouth: the federal judge who just wrote the Utah opinion

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/utah-ssm.pdf
The State of Utah contends that what is at stake in this lawsuit is the State’s right to
define marriage free from federal interference. The Plaintiffs counter that what is really at issue is an individual’s ability to protect his or her fundamental rights from unreasonable interference by the state government. As discussed above, the parties have defined the two important principles that are in tension in this matter. While Utah exercise the “unquestioned authority” to regulate and define marriage, Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693, it must nevertheless do so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of its citizens. See id. at 2692 (noting that the “incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage” may vary from state to state but are still “subject to constitutional guarantees&#8221. As a result, the court’s role is not to define marriage, an exercise that would be improper given the states’ primary authority in this realm. Instead, the court’s analysis is restricted to a determination of what individual rights are protected by the Constitution. The court must then decide whether the State’s definition and regulation of marriage impermissibly infringes those rights....

...After the nation’s wrenching experience in the Civil War, the people adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, which holds: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to “matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal constitution from invasion by the States.”...

... [then quoting the Hon. judge Harlan II]

"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be
found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere
provided in the Constitution. This “liberty” is not a series of isolated points
pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and
religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches
and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking,
includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless
restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive
judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the
state needs asserted to justify their abridgement."

About that last bit in bold...lol...lawyers are so clever. Hmm..what could I give as an example of "a series of isolated points" that might infringe upon the the "rational continuum" which "broadly speaking" includes a freedom from "all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints"?

About that I will say just two things. 1. "LGBT" is a "series of isolated points pricked out" of a much broader continuum and 2. The Supreme Court may elect to hear this case and Brown v Utah at the same time.

Democrats, be very afraid for your results in 2014, as I've been warning you for years.

Lawyers...lol... You either love their clever word play or you hate it, depending on which side of the decision you find yourself on. "LGBT" [but "arbitrarily" not other non-monogamous hetero sexual orientations of which there are literally hundreds] people had better not count their chickens before they hatch.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I wonder if SCOTUS is going to hear Brown v Utah and this case at the same time? It's interesting to me how gay activists hear a case like this, of extreme legal gravity like striking down a constitutional provision of a state without the governed's permission, and automatically assume it's a done deal at the SCOTUS level. I wonder if these same activists have sat down and considered what would happen if SCOTUS consults its own decision in DOMA/Windsor and concludes that yes, it agrees with itself in that each state has a constitutional right to consensus to decide gay marriage and that no one, including a lower federal court judge, can remove that right from them?

Guess what that means? That means that in each state that has a ban on gay marriage brought about by a consensus, including Prop 8, gay marriage is retroactively illegal back to the founding of the country; as was stated in DOMA/Windsor is the span of time each state's citizenry has possessed this right.

Don't want to really burst any bubbles too hard here but this is the stone wall I predicted and gays need to be cushioned for the blow that is coming.

You are knowledgeable, but unfortunately, you funnel all the info to twist a pre-set philosophy, the which empirical data does not support.

 

[Katzndogz]

Utah having gay marriage is great, but it really is quite hilarious with all the Mormons out there doing all their hate-talk toward gays. I mean....really....Utah??? I think one of the LAST states to accept gay marriage in my book would've been Utah, right before Alabama and Mississippi. It really shows how much momentum this movement has gained, which is fantastic!!

This is what I meant when I said that liberals would pretend that the people accepted same sex marriage.

Of course they didn't. It was imposed by one judge. There is a legal right to marry and a social price that must be paid.

Maybe that's why so many same sex marriages are ending after a short time. One poor woman killed herself. They experience a whole new set of circumstances most of them unpleasant.

Are you saying Straight Marriages don't end in divorce or suicide?

Not at all. Gay marriages are as unstable as liberals have made heterosexual marriages. But they really can't go around saying that gay marriages have stability because they don't.

 

[alan1]

.

Judge strikes down Utah's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional | Fox News New Link provided by Intense.


A federal judge in Utah Friday struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby. "Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional." [...]


<snip>
.

This will open the door to bigamy and plural-marriage! You OK with that?

I am. It is none of your business or the governments business.

Next could be siblings marrying. You OK with that?

I am. It is none of your business or the governments business.

Lastly if could be an adult to a minor. Where do you draw the line? One uniqueness opens the door to more uniqueness.

It is already decided that minors cannot make that decision, give up that strawman argument. We are talking legal adults here.

 

[Katzndogz]

Of course there will be plural marriages, animal brothels and with a small change in the age of consent laws, marriages to minors.

Once a country starts accepting depravity it doesn't stop. It takes it all the way to the end of the line.

 

[Silhouette]

You are knowledgeable, but unfortunately, you funnel all the info to twist a pre-set philosophy, the which empirical data does not support.

It is an empirical fact that "LGBT" is not a complete set of non: "monogamous-hetero-adult" sexual orientations. Why are they arbitrarily "pricked out"? The Supreme Court will address that very question; especially if they decide to hear Brown v Utah at the same time...

Re-read what the judge said from my last post:

Here's what was said about the Utah case in reference to Windsor & Prop 8's Opinions last Summer. It's straight from the horse's mouth: the federal judge who just wrote the Utah opinion

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/utah-ssm.pdf
The State of Utah contends that what is at stake in this lawsuit is the State&#8217;s right to
define marriage free from federal interference. The Plaintiffs counter that what is really at issue is an individual&#8217;s ability to protect his or her fundamental rights from unreasonable interference by the state government. As discussed above, the parties have defined the two important principles that are in tension in this matter. While Utah exercise the &#8220;unquestioned authority&#8221; to regulate and define marriage, Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2693, it must nevertheless do so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of its citizens. See id. at 2692 (noting that the &#8220;incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage&#8221; may vary from state to state but are still &#8220;subject to constitutional guarantees&#8221. As a result, the court&#8217;s role is not to define marriage, an exercise that would be improper given the states&#8217; primary authority in this realm. Instead, the court&#8217;s analysis is restricted to a determination of what individual rights are protected by the Constitution. The court must then decide whether the State&#8217;s definition and regulation of marriage impermissibly infringes those rights....

...After the nation&#8217;s wrenching experience in the Civil War, the people adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, which holds: &#8220;No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.&#8221; U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. The Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to &#8220;matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal constitution from invasion by the States.&#8221;...

... [then quoting the Hon. judge Harlan II]

"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be
found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere
provided in the Constitution. This &#8220;liberty&#8221; is not a series of isolated points
pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and
religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches
and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking,
includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless
restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive
judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the
state needs asserted to justify their abridgement."

About that last bit in bold...lol...lawyers are so clever. Hmm..what could I give as an example of "a series of isolated points" that might infringe upon the the "rational continuum" which "broadly speaking" includes a freedom from "all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints"?

About that I will say just two things. 1. "LGBT" is a "series of isolated points pricked out" of a much broader continuum and 2. The Supreme Court may elect to hear this case and Brown v Utah at the same time.

Democrats, be very afraid for your results in 2014, as I've been warning you for years.

Lawyers...lol... You either love their clever word play or you hate it, depending on which side of the decision you find yourself on. "LGBT" [but "arbitrarily" not other non-monogamous hetero sexual orientations of which there are literally hundreds] people had better not count their chickens before they hatch.

 

[Silhouette]

What will be decided, based on this lower court's obvious prompting [to anyone who understands what lawyers do and how they do it] is "does LGBT include all possibilities to changing traditional marriages"? And if they don't, do we as a country want to "go there" without permission of the governed?

Key to deciding all of this will be deep and learned, frank, honest and open discussion and weigh ins from professionals from all walks of sociology, psychology, comparative psychology, anthropology, historians and so forth to determine once and for all if gays are innate, ie: "born that way" or if they are like other compulsive behaviors; learned and picked up along the way; like we already know we can train into all species of warm blooded creatures. Gays and their lawyers would have to prove to the Court that homo sapiens is the singular exception to all other species that can be trained to permanently fixate on artificial sexual orienatations, post natally, to which the sky is the limit using classical conditioning.

And, good luck with that. Because if gay is a behavior, it is just one of hundreds of non: "monogamous hetero adult" sexual activities. And if we allow one to marry, we have to allow them all. We cannot arbitrarily "prick them out" of a much larger continuum.

 

[kaz]

Oh please.

Not that pile of dog crap again.

Read the judge's decision and say exactly what part of the US Constitution you want repealed.

Gay or straight, every American can enter into a man woman marriage. The judge is a criminal.

It would be criminal for the judge to find for the State, as there is no case law in support of such a ruling.

Yes, of course it's right in the Constitution that it's illegal to not be leftist. I hear ya man, I think that's like in the Bill of Rights, isn't it? The right to be liberal and have government make life fair for you?

 

[kaz]

Oh please.

Not that pile of dog crap again.

Read the judge's decision and say exactly what part of the US Constitution you want repealed.

Gay or straight, every American can enter into a man woman marriage. The judge is a criminal.

If they were gay, why the hell would they?

Can you show me in the Constitution the part about where if you want something different then the law is applied to you differently?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both Kaz and Silhouette need to reread about the 14th Amendment and how it applies to SCOTUS decision making today.

 

[bodecea]

Can't blame the regular people when fags start getting bashed now can we? Just more polluting of society. The jew's ultimate plan. They have integrated our schools,taught women they are just like men and should work and not have babies,now pushing for marriage for faggots. A nation destroyed is easier to take over and control.

^This is what the RW position has spawned.

 

[Silhouette]

Both Kaz and Silhouette need to reread about the 14th Amendment and how it applies to SCOTUS decision making today.

SCOTUS already addressed the question of whether or not gay marrige is applicable to the 14th. After addressing that, they declared that gay marraige is currently only "allowed" "in some states". Maybe JakeStarkey needs to reread about DOMA instead.

And to reread this quote from the appelate judge from the Utah upset:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/utah-ssm.pdf
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be
found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere
provided in the Constitution. This &#8220;liberty&#8221; is not a series of isolated points
pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and
religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches
and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking,
includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless
restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive
judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the
state needs asserted to justify their abridgement."

Tell me Jake, how complete is the phrase "LGBT"on the "continuum" of sexual orientations that are not adult monogamous hetero? Then tell me if you believe that the US Supreme Court will hear Brown v Utah or not a the same time as the Utah case?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You are knowledgeable, but unfortunately, you funnel all the info to twist a pre-set philosophy, the which empirical data does not support.

It is an empirical fact that "LGBT" is not a complete set of non: "monogamous-hetero-adult" sexual orientations. Why are they arbitrarily "pricked out"? The Supreme Court will address that very question...

The Supreme Court has already made that determination:

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

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

Whether it’s Colorado’s Amendment 2 denying homosexuals access to anti-discrimination law or Utah’s Amendment 3 denying homosexuals access to marriage law, both issues are subject to the same 14th Amendment jurisprudence, where homosexuals do indeed constitute a class of persons entitled to equal protection of the law, and where their civil liberties cannot denied absent a legitimate legislative end.

 

[Star]

.

Judge strikes down Utah's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional | Fox News New Link provided by Intense.


A federal judge in Utah Friday struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process.

"The state’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby. "Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional." [...]


<snip>
.

This will open the door to bigamy and plural-marriage! You OK with that?

I am. It is none of your business or the governments business.

Next could be siblings marrying. You OK with that?

I am. It is none of your business or the governments business.

Lastly if could be an adult to a minor. Where do you draw the line? One uniqueness opens the door to more uniqueness.

It is already decided that minors cannot make that decision, give up that strawman argument. We are talking legal adults here.

B-ing-go Alan1 and-----and shouldn't this be the con-servative itsy-bitsy government position or-----or have the conservatives just been conning us about "drown in a bathtub" government all this time?
.

 

[Silhouette]

LGBT are not a class of persons. They are an incomplete group of behaviors. And if you think that isn't true and that the fed has finally defined whether or not that is true, you will be very bitterly disappointed on what's coming on this Utah thing.

If they hear Brown v Utah at the same time as this appeal, the question of "is LGBT arbitrarily incomplete" as to the question of dismantling traditional marriages as defined in constitutionally-protected broad consensus in each state [see DOMA 2013 for complete details] will most certainly be parsed out.

Prepare your arguments accordingly because the very question of whether or not LGBT is a "complete class of people" is going to be discussed...in depth...using expert testimony....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gay or straight, every American can enter into a man woman marriage. The judge is a criminal.

It would be criminal for the judge to find for the State, as there is no case law in support of such a ruling.

Yes, of course it's right in the Constitution that it's illegal to not be leftist. I hear ya man, I think that's like in the Bill of Rights, isn't it? The right to be liberal and have government make life fair for you?

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law. “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

You have every right to hate liberals, or homosexuals, or whomever you wish; you have every right to exhibit your ignorant of, or contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, and the courts that administer that law.

But you are not at liberty to attempt to codify that hate and ignorance.

 

[Silhouette]

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law. &#8220;But that&#8217;s not in the Constitution&#8221; is a failed and ignorant &#8216;argument.&#8217;

You have every right to hate liberals, or homosexuals, or whomever you wish; you have every right to exhibit your ignorant of, or contempt for, the Constitution and its case law, and the courts that administer that law.

But you are not at liberty to attempt to codify that hate and ignorance.

What if disagreeing with the gay agenda doesn't automatically = hate? What if disagreeing with it instead = wanting to protect children from the same natural progression of gays insidious march to get at their pysches via marriage and normalizing what they do that way; as what's happening in CA? What if disagreeing with the gay agenda = a legitimate homophobia spurred by gays themselves and what legal accomplishments they've been up to in California, like requiring children to celebrate a pedophile and forcibly denying them therapy if they want autonomy over their own sexuality [but only to go straight from gay. To go gay from straight is offered every type of counselling under the sun]?

You are not at liberty to attempt to codify exclusion of other sexual orientations from LGBT that don't fall under hetero/monogamous/adult. How can you arbitrarily limit your rogue group to just LGBT? What about polygamy?

Yes, what about polygamy? Will SCOTUS hear Brown v Utah at the same time it hears Utah v this outrageous stripping of Utah's right as a sovereign state?

 

[Star]

Of course there will be plural marriages, animal brothels and with a small change in the age of consent laws, marriages to minors.

Once a country starts accepting depravity it doesn't stop. It takes it all the way to the end of the line.

I draw the line at animal brothels - they should have to go meat markets and church socials... like the rest of us.
Project much? -pewsh!-
.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gay or straight, every American can enter into a man woman marriage. The judge is a criminal.

If they were gay, why the hell would they?

Can you show me in the Constitution the part about where if you want something different then the law is applied to you differently?

Here:

Amendment XIV

SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As we saw in Romer, Perry and now the case in Utah, to deny same-sex couples access to any law, including marriage law, absent a rational basis, a compelling governmental interest, and a legitimate legislative end, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In addition, the issue has nothing to do with wanting a law applied to someone ‘differently,’ as if by some capricious whim; rather, the issue concerns compelling the state to meet its burden when it indeed seeks to deny American citizens who happen to reside in a given state their civil liberties. And when the state fails to meet that burden, as Utah in fact failed to do, such laws are appropriately invalidated.

The irony of all this, of course, is the ruling comports with what was once traditional conservative doctrine, where the authority of the state is diminished and the rights of the individual safeguarded. That most conservatives have lost their way in this regard is primarily the consequence of the bane of the social and religious right, which has clouded what was once clear conservative thought.

Pity.