Federal Judge rules Utah Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[Chizzang]

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

Am I right..?
or did I miss some elusive point

[CID1990]

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

Am I right..?
or did I miss some elusive point

No, you didn't miss any point.

You're just awfully conservative/libertarian for a commie pinko

[Chizzang]

Am I right..?
or did I miss some elusive point

No, you didn't miss any point.

You're just awfully conservative/libertarian for a commie pinko

I don't think that observation is conservative..?
It's a pretty simple observation (however it did manage to slip by JohnStWrong)
But in his insane over defense of fundamentalist Christianity he misses a lot of simple stuff

[Ibanez]

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.

Um not quite. It was a war time measure that ended slavery in the states in rebellion but allowed it to remain in the Union. Essentially, it freed slaves when the Union Army took over a town, city or state. About 1 million slaves in non-rebellious states were still enslaved. It also does not outlaw slavery. The EP changed the war goal of ending slavery.

[Ibanez]

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.

Lincoln was a tyrant.

In the beginning, the goal of war was to reunite the country. Lincoln said he would keep all the slaves in bondage if it meant reuniting the country. Hell, look up the American Colonization Society. Many of the "greats' were active and supported this society, including Lincoln. The Union didn't began to focus on slaves until 1863...remember the first state to Secede did so in December 1860 and the war was going poorly for the Union until July 1863. Furthermore, Slavery was viewed as a States Rights. When you hear idiots say the South fought for States Rights instead of slavery, they don't know what they are talking about. To the south, the right to own a slave was a states right decision, not something the federal gov't should dictate.

[Cap'n Cat]

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.

Lincoln was a tyrant.

In the beginning, the goal of war was to reunite the country. Lincoln said he would keep all the slaves in bondage if it meant reuniting the country. Hell, look up the American Colonization Society. Many of the "greats' were active and supported this society, including Lincoln. The Union didn't began to focus on slaves until 1863...remember the first state to Secede did so in December 1860 and the war was going poorly for the Union until July 1863. Furthermore, Slavery was viewed as a States Rights. When you hear idiots say the South fought for States Rights instead of slavery, they don't know what they are talking about. To the south, the right to own a slave was a states right decision, not something the federal gov't should dictate.

Sorry, Marky. The states were wrong and history has borne that out.

[JoltinJoe]

The Supreme Court has stayed the Utah District Court ruling. I suspect there are still five justices who do not think the equal protection clause protects an individual's marriage preference.

[kalm]

The Supreme Court has stayed the Utah District Court ruling. I suspect there are still five justices who do not think the equal protection clause protects an individual's marriage preference.

Why don't they?

[dbackjon]

The Supreme Court has stayed the Utah District Court ruling. I suspect there are still five justices who do not think the equal protection clause protects an individual's marriage preference.

Why don't they?

Because they are a bunch of bigots.


Only a hateful, ignorant bigot that allows a 3500 fairy tale to override the US CONSTITUTION would rule against gay marriage.

Any justice that does this should be impeached, because they are not following the Constitution, and unworthy of sitting in office.

[kalm]

Why don't they?

Because they are a bunch of bigots.


Only a hateful, ignorant bigot that allows a 3500 fairy tale to override the US CONSTITUTION would rule against gay marriage.

Any justice that does this should be impeached, because they are not following the Constitution, and unworthy of sitting in office.

Why John, are you implying that they are ideologues?

[JoltinJoe]

The Supreme Court has stayed the Utah District Court ruling. I suspect there are still five justices who do not think the equal protection clause protects an individual's marriage preference.

Why don't they?

What if your marriage preference is bigamy? If an individual possesses a constitutional right to marry in accordance with his or her preference, then laws outlawing bigamy are unconstitutional, etc.

Justice Scalia wrote an opinion a few years back in which he explained why state legislatures can define and recognize marriages that provide societal benefit, but federal courts could not. He wrote that state legislatures can distinguish between marriages deemed to serve the public good, and other conduct deemed not in the public good, and those distinctions are lawful so long as the state has a rational ground to make the distinction.

Federal courts ruling on equal protection grounds have no ability to make such a distinction, Scalia noted. Once the court holds there is an equal protection right to marry in accordance with your preference, all preferences are so protected. For this reason, Scalia wrote that the states can define marriage how they choose, and their choosing is of no concern to the federal court system, but that federal courts should not intervene on the state legislative process on equal protection grounds.

I believe Scalia's opinion has had a lot to do as to why no party has ever brought a challenge to any act by any state legislature to legalize gay marriage.

You may not agree, but Scalia's opinion is really not "out there." In fact, today's action suggests that there may five justices who agree. The Supreme Court acted here to stay a ruling of a federal court, not a state legislative act.

I've always thought gay marriage advocates are better served lobbying legislatures rather than courts.

On the other hand, if the Utah ruling is ultimately upheld, gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states. I think, though, the Court needs one more justice to get to where the Utah court ruled.

[Ibanez]

Lincoln was a tyrant.

In the beginning, the goal of war was to reunite the country. Lincoln said he would keep all the slaves in bondage if it meant reuniting the country. Hell, look up the American Colonization Society. Many of the "greats' were active and supported this society, including Lincoln. The Union didn't began to focus on slaves until 1863...remember the first state to Secede did so in December 1860 and the war was going poorly for the Union until July 1863. Furthermore, Slavery was viewed as a States Rights. When you hear idiots say the South fought for States Rights instead of slavery, they don't know what they are talking about. To the south, the right to own a slave was a states right decision, not something the federal gov't should dictate.

Sorry, Marky. The states were wrong and history has borne that out.

I never said they were. Slavery was wrong.

[dbackjon]

Because they are a bunch of bigots.


Only a hateful, ignorant bigot that allows a 3500 fairy tale to override the US CONSTITUTION would rule against gay marriage.

Any justice that does this should be impeached, because they are not following the Constitution, and unworthy of sitting in office.

Why John, are you implying that they are ideologues?

Very much - Alito/Scalia/Thomas are the worst trio of judges in the SCOTUS history

[dbackjon]

So Joe - you are a State's Rights guy when it comes to civil rights then?


Jim Crow was fine?


Banning Inter-racial Marriages is fine?

[JoltinJoe]

So Joe - you are a State's Rights guy when it comes to civil rights then?


Jim Crow was fine?


Banning Inter-racial Marriages is fine?

No, neither was fine. Both practices plainly violated the EP clause of the constitution. Gay marriage can be a trickier question, because there has never been any clear indication that marriage laws exist to protect individual preferences. Marriage laws exist principally because marriage has been deemed to be a benefit to society as a whole. Many legislatures have now concluded that gay marriage provide societal benefit and have recognized them as legitimate under that same reasoning.

But from a traditional EP analysis, gay marriage laws do not contravene any class of persons protected under the equal protection clause. Under this traditional approach, both you and I are affected in the same way by laws which recognize heterosexual marriages only. Neither one of us can marry a man. This restriction, though, impinges on your preference, and thus the issue arises.

For the gay marriage advocates to prevail, either (i) the Supreme Court has to recognize gays as a "protected class" for equal protection purposes (so that they would fall within a traditional equal protection analysis) or (ii) the Court has to recognize an equal protection right to marry in accordance with a personal preference.

I don't think there is any way the Court goes for number (ii). There is a chance they go for number (i). Justice Kennedy has previously punted on the question of whether gays should be treated as a "protected class." But if he goes for it, the Court probably goes that way.

[dbackjon]

So Joe - you are a State's Rights guy when it comes to civil rights then?


Jim Crow was fine?


Banning Inter-racial Marriages is fine?

No, neither was fine. Both practices plainly violated the EP clause of the constitution. Gay marriage can be a trickier question, because there has never been any clear indication that marriage laws exist to protect individual preferences. Marriage laws exist principally because marriage has been deemed to be a benefit to society as a whole. Many legislatures have now concluded that gay marriage provide societal benefit and have recognized them as legitimate under that same reasoning.

But from a traditional EP analysis, gay marriage laws do not contravene any class of persons protected under the equal protection clause. Under this traditional approach, both you and I are affected in the same way by laws which recognize heterosexual marriages only. Neither one of us can marry a man. This restriction, though, impinges on your preference, and thus the issue arises.

For the gay marriage advocates to prevail, either (i) the Supreme Court has to recognize gays as a "protected class" for equal protection purposes (so that they would fall within a traditional equal protection analysis) or (ii) the Court has to recognize an equal protection right to marry in accordance with a personal preference.

I don't think there is any way the Court goes for number (ii). There is a chance they go for number (i). Justice Kennedy has previously punted on the question of whether gays should be treated as a "protected class." But if he goes for it, the Court probably goes that way.

As long as bigots think it is a "Preference" not a characteristic, we are fucked.

This IS no different than Loving. I can't change my orientation any more than a black person can change his skin color.


Not allowing gay marriage IS discrimination - plain and simple.

[JoltinJoe]

I don't think whether it is a "preference" or a "characteristic" changes the analysis, though.

On the plus side, though, look at it this way. This case is plainly ticketed for the Supreme Court.

Back in the early 1970s, the State of Texas cross appealed from a District Court's declaratory judgment voiding Texas' anti-abortion laws. Texas' cross appeal ultimately was heard by the Supreme Court, and the Court's ruling had the effect of striking down ALL anti-abortion laws throughout the United States.

Utah should be mindful of the adage "be careful what you ask for." Its appeal might ultimately take down all gay marriage restrictions in the US.

[Chizzang]

I don't think whether it is a "preference" or a "characteristic" changes the analysis, though.

On the plus side, though, look at it this way. This case is plainly ticketed for the Supreme Court.

Back in the early 1970s, the State of Texas cross appealed from a District Court's declaratory judgment voiding Texas' anti-abortion laws. Texas' cross appeal ultimately was heard by the Supreme Court, and the Court's ruling had the effect of striking down ALL anti-abortion laws throughout the United States.

Utah should be mindful of the adage "be careful what you ask for." Its appeal might ultimately take down all gay marriage restrictions in the US.

If the Federal Government and states got out of the business
of making marriage a financial TAX advantage the whole thing becomes a non-issue

[ASUMountaineer]

Why don't they?

Because they are a bunch of bigots.


Only a hateful, ignorant bigot that allows a 3500 fairy tale to override the US CONSTITUTION would rule against gay marriage.

Any justice that does this should be impeached, because they are not following the Constitution, and unworthy of sitting in office.

[Chizzang]

Because they are a bunch of bigots.


Only a hateful, ignorant bigot that allows a 3500 fairy tale to override the US CONSTITUTION would rule against gay marriage.

Any justice that does this should be impeached, because they are not following the Constitution, and unworthy of sitting in office.

He does have a flair for the dramatics...

[ASUMountaineer]

He does have a flair for the dramatics...

Indeed. The hyperbole is most impressive.

[dbackjon]

He does have a flair for the dramatics...

It is easy to laugh and make fun of those struggling to achieve equality.

But straight, white men for the most part don't have a clue about that.

[Chizzang]

He does have a flair for the dramatics...

It is easy to laugh and make fun of those struggling to achieve equality.

But straight, white men for the most part don't have a clue about that.

Lighten Up Francis...
You're not struggling you're fine / Equality is on the way and everybody knows that

and I'm on your side (of this issue) for possibly different reasons than you are
But we are on the same side

[CAA Flagship]

It is easy to laugh and make fun of those struggling to achieve equality.

But straight, white men for the most part don't have a clue about that.

Lighten Up Francis...
You're not struggling you're fine / Equality is on the way and everybody knows that

and I'm on your side (of this issue) for possibly different reasons than you are
But we are on the same side

Is this your coming out party?

[CID1990]

He does have a flair for the dramatics...

It is easy to laugh and make fun of those struggling to achieve equality.

But straight, white men for the most part don't have a clue about that.

Whenever some aggrieved class in America has received their 'welcome to the club' card it was handed to them by white men so your drama doesnt hold up.