Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57291 ... x.html.csp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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."

YAY!!!!!

CAA Flagship wrote:YAY!!!!!

nice pic

UNHWildCats wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:YAY!!!!!

nice pic

He's got thousands more on his hard drive, if you're interested.

Grizalltheway wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote: nice pic

He's got thousands more on his hard drive, if you're interested.

HIs floppy drive just got hard.

Utah: Beautiful state, whackjobs in power.


Key word in the ruling: RATIONAL.

This is the worst kind of thing. If the people of a State go through the political process and decide they want to recognize unions between homosexuals as "marriage" they're whacked but so be it. But when a Federal Judge forces the people of a State that voted by a 2 to 1 margin not to recognize it as such that's tyranny.

There is no "fundamental right to marry" in the US Constitution. And even if there was a State defining marriage in any particular way including as involving one member of each sex is not denying anyone the right to marry. Again: Anybody who wants to can do it.

The fact that a person doesn't want to take the option available does not mean that person is being denied anything that anybody else can do.

Just another indication that the Federal Judiciary is completely out control and long ago stopped actually following the Constitution.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Utah: Beautiful state, whackjobs in power.


Key word in the ruling: RATIONAL.

The whack job in this instance is the Federal judge. And there's nothing worse than having a Federal Judge be a whack job because a Federal Judge has a lot of power yet zero accountability. Power in the absence of accountability is a very dangerous thing and that's what we've allowed to happen with our Judiciary. They weren't supposed to have power. They were protected from accountability but at the same time the idea is that the Judiciary "...has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL."

That's how the role of the Judiciary was sold to those who would make the decision as to whether or not the Constitution would be ratified. And that's obviously not how it is. It has evolved into an oligarchy that has the final word on everything and does not hesitate at all to exercise control over the direction of the society. It has imposed its WILL, as reflected by the personal philosophical inclinations of its members, many times. This is one more example.

It's tyranny. And I wish that at some point the people would put their foot down and refuse to tolerate it.

"Least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" among the three Branches as stated in The Federalist put together to sell that Constitution? Hardly. It tramples on the political rights of the Constitution on a routine basis and to a much greater extent than either of the other two Branches.

JohnStOnge wrote:This is the worst kind of thing. If the people of a State go through the political process and decide they want to recognize unions between homosexuals as "marriage" they're whacked but so be it. But when a Federal Judge forces the people of a State that voted by a 2 to 1 margin not to recognize it as such that's tyranny.

There is no "fundamental right to marry" in the US Constitution. And even if there was a State defining marriage in any particular way including as involving one member of each sex is not denying anyone the right to marry. Again: Anybody who wants to can do it.

The fact that a person doesn't want to take the option available does not mean that person is being denied anything that anybody else can do.

Just another indication that the Federal Judiciary is completely out control and long ago stopped actually following the Constitution.

Our system was set up to protect the rights of everyone, including those in the minority. The fact that the majority wants something is irrelevant.

If Utah votes to ban interracial marriage I guess you would be okay with that since nobody is beind denied anything. Everyone that wants to get married is allowed to.

Our system was set up to protect the rights of everyone, including those in the minority. The fact that the majority wants something is irrelevant.

If Utah votes to ban interracial marriage I guess you would be okay with that since nobody is beind denied anything. Everyone that wants to get married is allowed to.

Again, having the society recognize a relationship you want to be in as "marriage" is not a right. It's not something you innately have or can do. Having the relationship is a right. Having it recognized as "marriage" is not.

Let me give you a scenario then ask a question: You get a time machine and go back to the places and times of the State ratifying conventions. At each place, you get the body assembled and stand before them. You ask this question, "Does the Constitution you just ratified say that a State cannot define marriage as being between one man and one woman and thereby exclude relationships between homosexuals?"

Do you have any doubt as to what the answer would be? Do you think you would have ONE person tell you that the Constitution just ratified requires that States recognize homosexual unions as marriages?

Seriously now.

If Utah votes to ban interracial marriage I guess you would be okay with that since nobody is beind denied anything. Everyone that wants to get married is allowed to.

Yes. If the people of a State want to define marriage as between one man and one woman of the same race then they should be allowed to do so.

Same test: Go back to when the 14th Amendment was ratified and ask the people doing the ratifying if the equal protection clause means that a State can't say that marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race. What do you think the answer would be?

I think that the unanimous answer would be "no." And, Frankly, I think the first Supreme Court ruling on the issue (Pace vs. Alabama) has more credibility than subsequent cases because it was rendered more or less contemporaneously to the ratification of the Amendment and also before the Supreme Court had evolved as far into the "we don't give a crap about what the language and original understanding of the Contitution say" monster it is today.

It's kind of a same old same old: How is it that we think that a People or a Court who were around when a particular part of the Constitution was ratified don't really understand what it means but...SHAZAMMM...all of a sudden 80 or 100 years later some brilliant Justices on the Supreme Court ALL OF A SUDDEN understand what the people back then MEANT to be saying?

And I'll add that laws against interracial marriage would not deny any rights. A law against interracial relationships would. But a law saying that the people around you will not recognize that as a marriage does not. Nodoby has a legitimate right to have other people look at them or their relationships in any particular way.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Our system was set up to protect the rights of everyone, including those in the minority. The fact that the majority wants something is irrelevant.

If Utah votes to ban interracial marriage I guess you would be okay with that since nobody is beind denied anything. Everyone that wants to get married is allowed to.

Again, having the society recognize a relationship you want to be in as "marriage" is not a right. It's not something you innately have or can do. Having the relationship is a right. Having it recognized as "marriage" is not.

Let me give you a scenario then ask a question: You get a time machine and go back to the places and times of the State ratifying conventions. At each place, you get the body assembled and stand before them. You ask this question, "Does the Constitution you just ratified say that a State cannot define marriage as being between one man and one woman and thereby exclude relationships between homosexuals?"

Do you have any doubt as to what the answer would be? Do you think you would have ONE person tell you that the Constitution just ratified requires that States recognize homosexual unions as marriages?

Seriously now.

Can I also ask if the constitution that they just ratified allows for slavery? Since we had slavery for a while it's pretty obvious that sometimes the answer will be yes. By your logic, slavery should be allowed.

Can I also ask if the constitution that they just ratified allows for slavery? Since we had slavery for a while it's pretty obvious that sometimes the answer will be yes. By your logic, slavery should be allowed.

Slavery was later eliminated through the process by which the Constitution is SUPPOSED to be changed. The Amendment process.

That's kind of the point. There is no NEED for Federal Judges to effectively change the Constitution because there is a process in it for doing that through the will of the People if there is sufficient consensus for doing it. And that's how it should be. The Constitution should be followed according to an honest effort to follow the language in the context of an honest effort to divine the original understanding. And it shouldn't change from the original understanding unless and until the People say it should change.

Take the first Amendment establishment clause. There is no way it was understood the way it's implemented today when you had things like Congress holding Christian church services in the House chamber shortly after it was ratified. The way it's "interpreted" today is OBVIOUSLY patently absurd.

And the People never consented to the change. It was a change effected by a small oligarchy of unelected and completely unaccountable officials.

If we wanted to have a "Separation of Church and State" such as is in place now we could have Amended the Constitution to have one. But that's not how it was done. It was forced down the throats of the People through an act of Judicial tyranny.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Can I also ask if the constitution that they just ratified allows for slavery? Since we had slavery for a while it's pretty obvious that sometimes the answer will be yes. By your logic, slavery should be allowed.

Slavery was later eliminated through the process by which the Constitution is SUPPOSED to be changed. The Amendment process.

That's kind of the point. There is no NEED for Federal Judges to effectively change the Constitution because there is a process in it for doing that through the will of the People if there is sufficient consensus for doing it. And that's how it should be. The Constitution should be followed according to an honest effort to follow the language in the context of an honest effort to divine the original understanding. And it shouldn't change from the original understanding unless and until the People say it should change.

Take the first Amendment establishment clause. There is no way it was understood the way it's implemented today when you had things like Congress holding Christian church services in the House chamber shortly after it was ratified. The way it's "interpreted" today is OBVIOUSLY patently absurd.

And the People never consented to the change. It was a change effected by a small oligarchy of unelected and completely unaccountable officials.

If we wanted to have a "Separation of Church and State" such as is in place now we could have Amended the Constitution to have one. But that's not how it was done. It was forced down the throats of the People through an act of Judicial tyranny.

Slavery was ended by the Emancipation Proclamation, which was an executive order.

Slavery was ended by the Emancipation Proclamation, which was an executive order.

You know you've got something there. I guess it's just one more example of how Lincoln violated the Constitution and overstepped the authority the Constitution gives the President. Kind of veers into the whole subject of how Lincoln is venerated as this big hero but he was actually a tyrant who had a horrible impact on the structure of the nation. Basically a dictator who got away with being a dictator through force of arms.

Also there was that war and all that created a situation where something that would never have been ratified at that time in history was ratified because of the way the victors reconstructed things. I don't know if I'd say the proper process is to have a war like that, etc.

Still, the Constitution was amended to end slavery.

The point is that there is a process for changing it. It's just that it requires a widespread consensus to do it. And to me that's the way it should be. To me the whole point of having a Constitution is that it establishes a set of principles and procedures that can't be changed by small groups of people or by relatively minor swings in public opinion. And the whole point is lost when you allow a situation to develop in which a simple majority of 9 unelected and completely unaccountable officials can effectively change the rules at any time.

We like to say we're a country of laws and not of men. But it's not true. When we have a situation where the law says whatever the Justices say it says and they don't constrain themselves to the original understanding of law or Constitutional language we are most certainly a country of men (with "men" being a general term here including female Justices). We can say we're governed by the Constitution but we're not. Not at all.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Slavery was ended by the Emancipation Proclamation, which was an executive order.

You know you've got something there. I guess it's just one more example of how Lincoln violated the Constitution and overstepped the authority the Constitution gives the President. Kind of veers into the whole subject of how Lincoln is venerated as this big hero but he was actually a tyrant who had a horrible impact on the structure of the nation. Basically a dictator who got away with being a dictator through force of arms.

Also there was that war and all that created a situation where something that would never have been ratified at that time in history was ratified because of the way the victors reconstructed things. I don't know if I'd say the proper process is to have a war like that, etc.

Still, the Constitution was amended to end slavery.

The point is that there is a process for changing it. It's just that it requires a widespread consensus to do it. And to me that's the way it should be. To me the whole point of having a Constitution is that it establishes a set of principles and procedures that can't be changed by small groups of people or by relatively minor swings in public opinion. And the whole point is lost when you allow a situation to develop in which a simple majority of 9 unelected and completely unaccountable officials can effectively change the rules at any time.

We like to say we're a country of laws and not of men. But it's not true. When we have a situation where the law says whatever the Justices say it says and they don't constrain themselves to the original understanding of law or Constitutional language we are most certainly a country of men (with "men" being a general term here including female Justices). We can say we're governed by the Constitution but we're not. Not at all.

History is written by the winners. You know this. The ONLY problem I have with Lincoln, was that from the begining, he should have stated that the civil war was over slavery not states rights.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Slavery was ended by the Emancipation Proclamation, which was an executive order.

You know you've got something there. I guess it's just one more example of how Lincoln violated the Constitution and overstepped the authority the Constitution gives the President. Kind of veers into the whole subject of how Lincoln is venerated as this big hero but he was actually a tyrant who had a horrible impact on the structure of the nation. Basically a dictator who got away with being a dictator through force of arms.

Also there was that war and all that created a situation where something that would never have been ratified at that time in history was ratified because of the way the victors reconstructed things. I don't know if I'd say the proper process is to have a war like that, etc.

Still, the Constitution was amended to end slavery.

The point is that there is a process for changing it. It's just that it requires a widespread consensus to do it. And to me that's the way it should be. To me the whole point of having a Constitution is that it establishes a set of principles and procedures that can't be changed by small groups of people or by relatively minor swings in public opinion. And the whole point is lost when you allow a situation to develop in which a simple majority of 9 unelected and completely unaccountable officials can effectively change the rules at any time.

We like to say we're a country of laws and not of men. But it's not true. When we have a situation where the law says whatever the Justices say it says and they don't constrain themselves to the original understanding of law or Constitutional language we are most certainly a country of men (with "men" being a general term here including female Justices). We can say we're governed by the Constitution but we're not. Not at all.

Man are you over-thinking this one JSO.

"Marriage" does not appear in the constitution. The constitution does not define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The constitution does mention liberty and inalienable rights.

Marriages are civil contracts that bestow certain rights according to the states. Those rights should not be based on gender. States have chosen to allow churches to approve marriages. That's the whole problem with this. If a church does not want to preside over gay marriages, that should be their choice. But as long as certain rights accompany marriage the state cannot discriminate and must provide the ability for everyone.

Marriage is simply a word and is neither owned or defined by the church or personal opinions...under the law.

Man are you over-thinking this one JSO.

No I'm not. It's very simple. Just ask yourself if the people who ratified the 14th Amendment construed anything in it to mean that States could not define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and/or opt not to recognize homosexual relationships as "marriage." Ask yourself what people would have said to you if you had your time machine and go back and ask them that question.

And I think if you're honest with yourself you'll say the answer is "no way."

BTW I just decided to look it up and the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the United States. Below is one example of an article on that but you can find a lot of them if you Google "Did the Emancipation Proclamation end slavery?"

http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112391/myth_8.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Slavery in the United States was ended by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW I just decided to look it up and the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the United States. Below is one example of an article on that but you can find a lot of them if you Google "Did the Emancipation Proclamation end slavery?"

http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112391/myth_8.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Slavery in the United States was ended by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

It shouldn't have taken a constitutional amendment to end slavery. Slavery was clearly wrong, and the fact that it happened is proof that the constitution is not perfect. Would you be okay with slavery if the 13th amendment was repealed?

Some things are clearly wrong. So wrong that they shouldn't have to be enumerated in a document.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Man are you over-thinking this one JSO.

No I'm not. It's very simple. Just ask yourself if the people who ratified the 14th Amendment construed anything in it to mean that States could not define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and/or opt not to recognize homosexual relationships as "marriage." Ask yourself what people would have said to you if you had your time machine and go back and ask them that question.

And I think if you're honest with yourself you'll say the answer is "no way."

Giant swing and a miss. The 14th amendment doesn't address marriage either. Perhaps you should push for an amendment to specifically exclude gay marriage.

BlueHen86 wrote: Slavery was clearly wrong, and the fact that it happened is proof that the constitution is not perfect.

HOLY CRAP!!! You just alienated yourself with half the Tea Party!

What's next? The Bible isn't perfect?...................There goes the other half!!!



BTW, I agree with your statement!!!!

VictorG wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote: Slavery was clearly wrong, and the fact that it happened is proof that the constitution is not perfect.

HOLY CRAP!!! You just alienated yourself with half the Tea Party!

What's next? The Bible isn't perfect?...................There goes the other half!!!



BTW, I agree with your statement!!!!

it's really this simple:
If States are going to provide special privileges to those who are married - then any and all - consenting adults should be NOT DENIED those privileges

The real question John is why are states involved..?

or am I missing something

Chizzang wrote:it's really this simple:
If States are going to provide special privileges to those who are married - then any and all - consenting adults should be NOT DENIED those privileges

The real question John is why are states involved..?

or am I missing something

You really need some help coming out of the closet, Rand