Utah's Gay Marriage Ban struck down

[kaz]

In my case, I just don't care about gay government marriage. I see no need for it. I also see no need for gay straight marriage. I don't really care if we have it as long as it's done legitimately through the legislature until we get smart enough to get government out of the marriage business.

I'm pro-choice, but I oppose Roe v. Wade as the Constitutional abomination that it is, there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to have any say at all on abortion.

I am consistent in that I'm not stupid enough like Clayton to think that if you give the Federal government the power to make life fair then the Federal government will not use that power against the people.

Equal application of the law is a pretty big deal.

Pawning this off as an issue of "fair" doesn't fly. It's not just "fair". It's the US Constitution.

Right now, I'm curious what's going to happen with the Article IV cases working through the courts. When my state marries two people, we expect the other states to recognize our decision that they are married.

Gay marriage is not in the Constitution. And Equal protection does not apply prima facie. Whether you are gay or straight does not change who you can enter into a government marriage with. The only possible way courts can decree it is based on "fairness" which is not a Constitutional power of the courts.

There is a solution, convince people and get it passed through the legislature. Stop being so lazy and do it the right way. With the attitudes of the young in this country, it's only a matter of time. Asking judges to engage in criminal fiats and decree gay marriage is just wrong.

 

[sfcalifornia]

In my case, I just don't care about gay government marriage. I see no need for it. I also see no need for gay straight marriage. I don't really care if we have it as long as it's done legitimately through the legislature until we get smart enough to get government out of the marriage business.

I'm pro-choice, but I oppose Roe v. Wade as the Constitutional abomination that it is, there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to have any say at all on abortion.

I am consistent in that I'm not stupid enough like Clayton to think that if you give the Federal government the power to make life fair then the Federal government will not use that power against the people.

Gay straight marriage? What does that even mean?

I meant I see no reason for any government marriage, gay or straight.

Got it.

But you do realize the only thing government does regarding marriage is extend legal protections?

Other than that, I don't see how government is actually involved in marriage.

 

[kaz]

Gay straight marriage? What does that even mean?

I meant I see no reason for any government marriage, gay or straight.

Got it.

But you do realize the only thing government does regarding marriage is extend legal protections?

Other than that, I don't see how government is actually involved in marriage.

No, that isn't all they do regarding marriage. And everything that government does for marriage should be done or available to all citizens. No one should pay a tax for dying. People should be able to chose anyone to make their living/dying decisions for them if they are unable. Insurance should be a private agreement between insurers and citizens or employers and employees. Taxes should be flat. There is nothing in marriage that could not be solved without marriage. Government should recognize all citizens of it's country as equal citizens and not discriminate based on associations between citizens. Marriage should be religious or civil and people could back it up with contracts detailing what they agreed to. But there should be no such thing as government "marriage."

 

[sfcalifornia]

I meant I see no reason for any government marriage, gay or straight.

Got it.

But you do realize the only thing government does regarding marriage is extend legal protections?

Other than that, I don't see how government is actually involved in marriage.

No, that isn't all they do regarding marriage. And everything that government does for marriage should be done or available to all citizens. No one should pay a tax for dying. People should be able to chose anyone to make their living/dying decisions for them if they are unable. Insurance should be a private agreement between insurers and citizens or employers and employees. Taxes should be flat. There is nothing in marriage that could not be solved without marriage. Government should recognize all citizens of it's country as equal citizens and not discriminate based on associations between citizens. Marriage should be religious or civil and people could back it up with contracts detailing what they agreed to. But there should be no such thing as government "marriage."

There never has been and never will be government marriage. Government makes laws. There are people who work for the government who perform civil ceremonies if the couple decides they don't want a religious ceremony but that's about it.

People already choose who they want to make their living/dying decisions.... government makes laws guaranteeing that.

Insurance already is a private agreement between insurers and citizens... government makes laws guaranteeing that.

Every law the government extends regarding marriage is to protect the people involved in the marriage.

There has obviously been a need for government to legislate those protections because the government doesn't just make laws for fun.

 

[WillReadmore]

In my case, I just don't care about gay government marriage. I see no need for it. I also see no need for gay straight marriage. I don't really care if we have it as long as it's done legitimately through the legislature until we get smart enough to get government out of the marriage business.

I'm pro-choice, but I oppose Roe v. Wade as the Constitutional abomination that it is, there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to have any say at all on abortion.

I am consistent in that I'm not stupid enough like Clayton to think that if you give the Federal government the power to make life fair then the Federal government will not use that power against the people.

Equal application of the law is a pretty big deal.

Pawning this off as an issue of "fair" doesn't fly. It's not just "fair". It's the US Constitution.

Right now, I'm curious what's going to happen with the Article IV cases working through the courts. When my state marries two people, we expect the other states to recognize our decision that they are married.

Gay marriage is not in the Constitution. And Equal protection does not apply prima facie. Whether you are gay or straight does not change who you can enter into a government marriage with. The only possible way courts can decree it is based on "fairness" which is not a Constitutional power of the courts.

There is a solution, convince people and get it passed through the legislature. Stop being so lazy and do it the right way. With the attitudes of the young in this country, it's only a matter of time. Asking judges to engage in criminal fiats and decree gay marriage is just wrong.

The courts solved your problem with "prima facie" by stating that there is a right to marriage. Plus, the state offers marriage and thus must do so equally as long as there isn't adequate justification for discrimination - and so far they've ruled repeatedly and in many venues that such justification has not been presented.

As for your "lazy" comment - nice ad hom! Equal rights should stand as equal rights without requiring a law for each combination of right and minority. And, we've seen over and over again that discrimination is quite popular. We had that problem with slavery, suffrage, racial intermarriage, equal rights for women, etc. When it comes to rights and equality, the courts really are the logical direction. We don't need new laws - we just need to have a few unconstitutional ones dumped.

Plus, I don't see anything about the speed of current progress on this issue that would indicate the movement is being lazy - the fact is that there have been decades of hard work that have now borne fruit. The forces of discrimination and government imposition are losing pretty fast right now, I'd say.

 

[SwimExpert]

Gay marriage is not in the Constitution. And Equal protection does not apply prima facie. Whether you are gay or straight does not change who you can enter into a government marriage with. The only possible way courts can decree it is based on "fairness" which is not a Constitutional power of the courts.

One of the things that most people on both sides fail to recognize when it comes to this subject, is that the 14th amendment does not guarantee equal privileges. It guarantees equal protection under the law. This detail is a truly important one. From the doctrine of equal protection has arisen the concept of suspect classes. The essence of the equal protection clause is to prevent the government from actions which add up to the discrimination of a class of people.

So the issue becomes a matter of whether or not the laws in question serve a legitimate purpose, or whether the purpose of the laws is to discriminate against a class of people.

 

[WillReadmore]

There never has been and never will be government marriage. Government makes laws. There are people who work for the government who perform civil ceremonies if the couple decides they don't want a religious ceremony but that's about it. [...][

Well, religious marriage and civil marriage are two different things that have the same name. Having a religious marriage gives you no recognition from the state. And, churches have no need to recognize civil marriages.

If you want to be seen as married in the eyes of your church, you need to talk to your church. If you want the state to recognize that you are married, you need to apply to the state for a state marriage license and then execute that license as per state law.

Some are confused by the fact that a couple may have a religious marriage AND execute their state marriage license at the same time. But, that civil marriage license is required and it was granted after the couple successfully applied to the state.

 

[Silhouette]

One of the things that most people on both sides fail to recognize when it comes to this subject, is that the 14th amendment does not guarantee equal privileges. It guarantees equal protection under the law. This detail is a truly important one. From the doctrine of equal protection has arisen the concept of suspect classes. The essence of the equal protection clause is to prevent the government from actions which add up to the discrimination of a class of people.

So the issue becomes a matter of whether or not the laws in question serve a legitimate purpose, or whether the purpose of the laws is to discriminate against a class of people.

Good points. Marriage laws that define marriage that exclude minors, polygamists & gays by stating marriage is "between a man and a woman" do not have the purpose of singling out any one of those other three groups. They are all equally disqualified and none are singled out.

 

[WillReadmore]

Gay marriage is not in the Constitution. And Equal protection does not apply prima facie. Whether you are gay or straight does not change who you can enter into a government marriage with. The only possible way courts can decree it is based on "fairness" which is not a Constitutional power of the courts.

One of the things that most people on both sides fail to recognize when it comes to this subject, is that the 14th amendment does not guarantee equal privileges. It guarantees equal protection under the law. This detail is a truly important one. From the doctrine of equal protection has arisen the concept of suspect classes. The essence of the equal protection clause is to prevent the government from actions which add up to the discrimination of a class of people.

So the issue becomes a matter of whether or not the laws in question serve a legitimate purpose, or whether the purpose of the laws is to discriminate against a class of people.

It's always been understood that there can be adequate justification for state benefits to be distribute unevenly. One needs to look no further than our entire social safety net.


In the case of marriage, it seems like Loving v Virginia along with more recent removal of sodomy laws such as in Texas pretty much does the trick.

I believe it was Justice Scalia in Lawrence v Texas who said in his dissenting opinion that the decision was the removal of the last possible justification for marriage discrimination against gays.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right has demonstrated hate etc here, as well as ignorance.

The Constitution exists only in case law.

Folks have a right to their opinion but that is all what that is if they can't cite case law.

 

[WillReadmore]

One of the things that most people on both sides fail to recognize when it comes to this subject, is that the 14th amendment does not guarantee equal privileges. It guarantees equal protection under the law. This detail is a truly important one. From the doctrine of equal protection has arisen the concept of suspect classes. The essence of the equal protection clause is to prevent the government from actions which add up to the discrimination of a class of people.

So the issue becomes a matter of whether or not the laws in question serve a legitimate purpose, or whether the purpose of the laws is to discriminate against a class of people.

Good points. Marriage laws that define marriage that exclude minors, polygamists & gays by stating marriage is "between a man and a woman" do not have the purpose of singling out any one of those other three groups. They are all equally disqualified and none are singled out.

No, sorry, that is not how it works. The court has standards that are used to weight the state's interests against a constitutional right.

The question is what interest does the STATE have in denying equal access to marriage by same sex applicants.

Obviously, the fact that the state may be discriminating against many different groups or individuals is not relevant. For example, the discrimination based on age would have justifications that are very different from possible justifications for being of the same sex. Those are two different cases and one does not justify the other.

So, for example, in Loving v. Virginia, the fact that Virginia practiced marriage discrimination against children, dead people, animals, etc. had absolutely no effect on the decision that Virginia had to stop discrimination on the bases of not being of the same color.

 

[Silhouette]

No, sorry, that is not how it works. The court has standards that are used to weight the state's interests against a constitutional right.

The question is what interest does the STATE have in denying equal access to marriage by same sex applicants.

Obviously, the fact that the state may be discriminating against many different groups or individuals is not relevant. For example, the discrimination based on age would have justifications that are very different from possible justifications for being of the same sex. Those are two different cases and one does not justify the other.

So, for example, in Loving v. Virginia, the fact that Virginia practiced marriage discrimination against children, dead people, animals, etc. had absolutely no effect on the decision that Virginia had to stop discrimination on the bases of not being of the same color.

The trouble with your premise is that "LGBT" is not an all-inclusive group when it comes to "other than hetero monogamous" consideration for marriage. Oops.

And about the bit in bold above. The US Supreme Court already weighed in on that. Y'all should REALLY read that DOMA Opinion since it is what will be consulted when the chips are down on the Utah case. That's why the circuit judge made a point of citing Windsor/DOMA, to force the Court to rely on it when deciding the Utah case:

Page 17-on:

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.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404 1975). 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 domiciled within its borders”). The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[protection 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.” Haddock v.
Haddock, 201 U. S. 562,575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594(1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States”)...

...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...

...Against this background DOMA rejects the long-established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next. Despite these considerations, it is unnecessary to decide whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance. The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism....

...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.
Supreme Court DOMA Ruling: Read Full Decision Here [DOC] | HEAVY

Since so much emphasis was placed by the Court on State's power to regulate marriage, the gay activists have their work cut out for them. The only allowance to any exceptions to this rule was Loving v Virginia. But that was about race, not what sexual practice one does or how old one is or how closely related by blood. Those other quailfiers have to prove they are equivalent to race to win this matter using Loving v Virginia.

Yet there is a problem with that. A big and significant problem: polygamy and other deviant sexual behaviors from hetero-monogamous. They are arbitrarily left out of the "LGBT" "class" of people. And you know how the Big Court feels about arbitrary discrimination. So when considering Loving v Virginia with respect to gay marriage, the Court is not going to limit its consideration as gay activists conveniently do, to just "LGBT" pracitioners. They will look ahead to all possibilities. After all, they don't want to be rehearing this same case every single time a new behavioral group calling itself a 'class' waltzs another case through its doors on the question of marriage.

The Big Court made it emphatically clear that it wants state's consensuses to decide the matter of marriage. With the only exception as "constitutionally protected rights". It didn't say it was granting those rights to gays in DOMA. In fact it went on to state that gay marriage is only "allowed" "in some states". That right there is a vote of no-confidence already in place as to how gay marriage is going to fare using Loving v Virginia.

Sorry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette, bless her soul, never gives up.

Bully for her.

Our family here ranges from neo-pagan and deistic to high church Protestant and LDS.

Among the hardcore in our family who believe in "traditional" marriage, their hearts are broken for the hurt of the same sex couples have felt for scores of years.

I think the 10th will not issue a stay, uphold Shelby's decision, and appeal by the AG's office will be refused by SCOTUS.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette, bless her soul, never gives up.

Bully for her

Why would anyone give up when all this started with civil unions. Then it had to be marriage. Then it had to be teaching kids in schools in Ca that a pedophile is "cool". Then it's bans on teens getting therapy in CA and NJ to throw off unwanted artificial sexual orientation, even when it was from being molested. Then it morphed into drugging minors with hormones to complete their delusions they are the other gender, culminating in amputating their healthy organs to complete the farce. After that it's that opposite gendered kids can enter and use the other's bathrooms in schools.

You know, for all the scoffing you folks do at people who say the gay agenda is a slippery slope that endangers children, you sure don't reel back the reality of that in practice.

That's why I and millions of others are not "giving up". There are children to protect. Nothing organizes and congeals a movement like when children are being threatened...

 

[WillReadmore]

No, sorry, that is not how it works. The court has standards that are used to weight the state's interests against a constitutional right.

The question is what interest does the STATE have in denying equal access to marriage by same sex applicants.

Obviously, the fact that the state may be discriminating against many different groups or individuals is not relevant. For example, the discrimination based on age would have justifications that are very different from possible justifications for being of the same sex. Those are two different cases and one does not justify the other.

So, for example, in Loving v. Virginia, the fact that Virginia practiced marriage discrimination against children, dead people, animals, etc. had absolutely no effect on the decision that Virginia had to stop discrimination on the bases of not being of the same color.

The trouble with your premise is that "LGBT" is not an all-inclusive group when it comes to "other than hetero monogamous" consideration for marriage. Oops.

Nonsense - color isn't an "all-inclusive group", either. Neither is race.

It comes down to what is demanded of two people who want to be married.

There isn't adequate justification for the state to have an opinion on the sex of the applicant (such as in transgender cases), let alone whether the state's opinion of the sex of the applicants is a justifiable basis for discrimination.

Right now I'm interested in the Article IV cases working though the courts.

When my state (and 15 or so others) marries a couple, that couple is married, and other states need to recognize that.

My bet is that this could add relatively significant pressure on backwards states even if rights cases don't fully turn our nation against this discrimination.

 

[WillReadmore]

Since so much emphasis was placed by the Court on State's power to regulate marriage, the gay activists have their work cut out for them. The only allowance to any exceptions to this rule was Loving v Virginia. But that was about race, not what sexual practice one does or how old one is or how closely related by blood. Those other quailfiers have to prove they are equivalent to race to win this matter using Loving v Virginia.

Yet there is a problem with that. A big and significant problem: polygamy and other deviant sexual behaviors from hetero-monogamous. They are arbitrarily left out of the "LGBT" "class" of people. And you know how the Big Court feels about arbitrary discrimination. So when considering Loving v Virginia with respect to gay marriage, the Court is not going to limit its consideration as gay activists conveniently do, to just "LGBT" pracitioners. They will look ahead to all possibilities. After all, they don't want to be rehearing this same case every single time a new behavioral group calling itself a 'class' waltzs another case through its doors on the question of marriage.

The Big Court made it emphatically clear that it wants state's consensuses to decide the matter of marriage. With the only exception as "constitutionally protected rights". It didn't say it was granting those rights to gays in DOMA. In fact it went on to state that gay marriage is only "allowed" "in some states". That right there is a vote of no-confidence already in place as to how gay marriage is going to fare using Loving v Virginia.

Sorry.

That statement I bolded carries all the weight of a really cheap insult.

Those same sex oriented couples seeking marriage have zero responsibility for answering for anyone but themselves, nor have they been asked to by the courts - a fact you seem to have totally missed.

The Loving's weren't asked for their solution to polygamy, LGBT issues, etc. And, to now base discrimination against same sex couples on polygamists (or ??) is certainly not going to be the court's approach this time, either.

The only question I see here is whether these cases will be decided based on intermediate or strict scrutiny.

 

[WillReadmore]

Silhouette, bless her soul, never gives up.

Bully for her

Why would anyone give up when all this started with civil unions. Then it had to be marriage. Then it had to be teaching kids in schools in Ca that a pedophile is "cool". Then it's bans on teens getting therapy in CA and NJ to throw off unwanted artificial sexual orientation, even when it was from being molested. Then it morphed into drugging minors with hormones to complete their delusions they are the other gender, culminating in amputating their healthy organs to complete the farce. After that it's that opposite gendered kids can enter and use the other's bathrooms in schools.

You know, for all the scoffing you folks do at people who say the gay agenda is a slippery slope that endangers children, you sure don't reel back the reality of that in practice.

That's why I and millions of others are not "giving up". There are children to protect. Nothing organizes and congeals a movement like when children are being threatened...

It's totally shocking - sooner or later they're going to expect to be treated like Americans!!

But, that comment on "teaching that pedophile is cool" - you need to supply a link for that. If that's true, it would require serious opposition.

 

[bodecea]

Silhouette, bless her soul, never gives up.

Bully for her

Why would anyone give up when all this started with civil unions. Then it had to be marriage. Then it had to be teaching kids in schools in Ca that a pedophile is "cool". Then it's bans on teens getting therapy in CA and NJ to throw off unwanted artificial sexual orientation, even when it was from being molested. Then it morphed into drugging minors with hormones to complete their delusions they are the other gender, culminating in amputating their healthy organs to complete the farce. After that it's that opposite gendered kids can enter and use the other's bathrooms in schools.

You know, for all the scoffing you folks do at people who say the gay agenda is a slippery slope that endangers children, you sure don't reel back the reality of that in practice.

That's why I and millions of others are not "giving up". There are children to protect. Nothing organizes and congeals a movement like when children are being threatened...

Wait...what?

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette, bless her soul, never gives up.

Bully for her

Why would anyone give up when all this started with civil unions. Then it had to be marriage. Then it had to be teaching kids in schools in Ca that a pedophile is "cool". Then it's bans on teens getting therapy in CA and NJ to throw off unwanted artificial sexual orientation, even when it was from being molested. Then it morphed into drugging minors with hormones to complete their delusions they are the other gender, culminating in amputating their healthy organs to complete the farce. After that it's that opposite gendered kids can enter and use the other's bathrooms in schools.

You know, for all the scoffing you folks do at people who say the gay agenda is a slippery slope that endangers children, you sure don't reel back the reality of that in practice.

That's why I and millions of others are not "giving up". There are children to protect. Nothing organizes and congeals a movement like when children are being threatened...

Wait...what?

You haven't heard?

The 1,000,000 Supporting Traditional Marriage Facebook page has put out a California Parent Alert regarding the upcoming holiday that celebrates Harvey Milk, who made history when he became one of the first openly gay officials in the United States in 1977.

Harvey Milk Day is celebrated each year on May 22. The holiday is organized by the Harvey Milk Foundation and celebrated in memory of Harvey Milk, a gay rights activist. However, there are several organization trying to prevent this holiday from taking place at all.

Savecalifornia.com, is urging parents to “protect their children from ‘Harvey Milk Gay Day’” stating that a state law signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2009 called upon all K-12 government schools to teach children as young as 5 years old to honor homosexual activist and sexual predator, according to his biography, Harvey Milk.
It's up to teachers and schools to decide every May whether kids will perform pro-Milk "exercises" (the week before or after May 22, Milk's birthday). There is NO parental permission or notification.

The organization’s website discusses a biography about Milk called "The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk" written by Randy Shilts, a homosexual San Francisco Chronicle reporter.

According to the biography, Milk repeatedly engaged in adult-child sex and advocated for polygamous homosexual relationships. The group is outraged that SB 572 would call upon school systems to do "exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk." Gay activist holiday upsets many California parents - Atlanta Women's Issues | Examiner.com

 

[Iceman]

This is funny. America is a joke.

Enjoy the decline everyone...