Gay marriage in Utah put on hold
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Finally something in here worth reading. Why is this not its own thread? I'm assuming Fesenko performed the ceremony?
Sirkickyass said:
I agree with everything you're saying (and feel strongly about it as well). What I'm saying, is that for me personally, I would do what I needed to do to marry the person I love. Regardless of whether or not the state I live in officially recognized it. I would know it happened and was real. **** everyone else.
Maybe saying it's "crap" wasn't the right phrase, but that's just the way I talk
Knowing some of the backstory, allow me to offer my sincerest congratulations, as well.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Oh thank goodness!
I'm so grateful for Senator Lee. Looking out for the real victims of the gay marriage debate. I would hate for my fellow American brothers and sisters to be discriminated against.....
https://m.heraldextra.com/news/loca...553a-9f36-1ad3f1846d75.html?mobile_touch=true
For being such a Constitutional Expert, Lee sure does seem to know nothing about it. Aren't churches and individuals sort of protected already?
I'm so grateful for Senator Lee. Looking out for the real victims of the gay marriage debate. I would hate for my fellow American brothers and sisters to be discriminated against.....
https://m.heraldextra.com/news/loca...553a-9f36-1ad3f1846d75.html?mobile_touch=true
For being such a Constitutional Expert, Lee sure does seem to know nothing about it. Aren't churches and individuals sort of protected already?
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't realize that there had to be a certain number of gays for them to be eligible for civil rights.
What does "significant" mean to you? Can it only be quantified numerically? Even if it's only 1% of the population, you're talking 3 million and change. That isn't a significant group?
Sent from the JazzFanz app
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
At no time in U.S. history has homosexual marriages been forced on a state against its will...and yet here we are setting all kinds of new "precedents" in Obamanation.
For some unknown reason I was asked to provide what I think the negative effects of homosexual marriage will be. I don't have any delusions that they matter enough to even be considered "fear mongering," seeing as I wouldn't have supplied them unless asked.
I do find it interesting that all of the sudden feminazis support marriage as a positive and valuable thing, when their doctrine is that marriage is a form of slavery for women.
In 1967 13 states were forced to accept interracial marriage against their will. Because marriage laws vary by state, and the influence of the Full Faith and Credit clause, many states are forced to accept marriages that they would not permit.
Do let me know when you can point to one of the mythical feminazis. I think they hang out by the unicorn herds.
Last edited:
I could really give a s**t less about his education on the constitution. But if this is all it takes, let's make sure it's worded correctly and pass that thing.
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
First, the Federal Government should have nothing to do with marriage. If you look at the history of civil marriage in this country, it was enacted to stop interracial marriages, and to define property. And property at the time was the wife, as women were considered property. This went on for hundreds of years. With our current interpretation of the constitution and additional amendments, the whole purpose for civil marriage would not survive constitutional muster.
This is not just a fundamental right issue. Because the Federal Government has decided to afford different benefits to married people, by not availing gay couples of those same benefits, it is an equal protection issue. If you are married you get different income tax benefits, estate tax benefits (estates passing to a spouse are not subject to estate tax) insurance benefits, etc. I personally think the Federal Government has no business regulating marriage, or providing different benefits to those that are married, but because they do, they need to provide those benefits under a constitutionally acceptable standard.
Under U.S. v. Windsor, the standard used under a equal protection claim for sexual preference was ruled to be a quasi-suspect classification that required intermediate scrutiny (When intermediate scrutiny is involved, the courts are more likely to oppose the discriminatory law when compared to a rational basis review, particularly if a law is based on gender, or sexual orientation. Romer v. Evans 116 S.Ct. 1620 (1996), Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003), Windsor v. United States,133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013).
So there you go, there is a Supreme Court decision that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional because laws that classify people (and benefits) on the basis of sexual orientation could not survive constitutional muster.
Based on the Windsor ruling, I don't see how the 10th Circuit could overrule Judge Shelby's decision based on current case law. To overturn the case, the 10th circuit must find legal error. Based on Windsor, I don't think they can.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, I thought the main reason the Supreme Court struck down DOMA was due to state's rights--they ruled that the federal government had no right to not recognize a marriage solemnized by a state. That's why I think there's an excellent chance that the Supreme Court *will* find that states have rights to define marriage as heterosexual only.
SO honest question.
Aside from the term marriage, does anyone have a problem with same sex couples having the same rights and privileges under the law as hetero couples? Such as medical decisions, life insurance benefits, social security benefits...?
Also if a couple has those benefits in one state (gay marriage allowed) and they move to a state that does not allow gay marriage do they lose those benefits? Even if they are federal benefits such as Social Security?
Aside from the term marriage, does anyone have a problem with same sex couples having the same rights and privileges under the law as hetero couples? Such as medical decisions, life insurance benefits, social security benefits...?
Also if a couple has those benefits in one state (gay marriage allowed) and they move to a state that does not allow gay marriage do they lose those benefits? Even if they are federal benefits such as Social Security?
Someone please respond to Stoked's post.
In the mean time:
https://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_9092.shtml?wap=0
Suck it, Utah!
In the mean time:
https://www.kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_9092.shtml?wap=0
Suck it, Utah!
J
JAZZGASM
Guest
Yes, the decision focused on the rights of gay couples that were married in a state, and were not recognized by federal law due to DOMA (it had to, because DOMA dealt with State's Rights). You are right, much of Windsor discussed the rights of states and state autonomy, but if you read the majority, a main concern was the way the law discriminated against gay couples (equal protection under the 5th amendment). The main question presented by the DOJ was "Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection" for same sex partners. But the big piece, was the affirmation of intermediate scrutiny review for sexual preference. ""It is easy to conclude that homosexuals have suffered a history of discrimination." Thus they were part of a quasi-suspect class that deserves any law restricting its rights to be subjected to intermediate scrutiny. Because DOMA could not pass that test, Judge Jacobs wrote (court of appeals), it is unconstitutional under the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
Kennedy writing for the majority: "Our straightforward legal analysis sidesteps the fair point that same-sex marriage is unknown to history and tradition, but law (federal or state) is not concerned with holy matrimony. Government deals with marriage as a civil status—however fundamental—and New York has elected to extend that status to same-sex couples."
The case ruled that DOMA was a violation of the equal protection clause under the fifth amendment, so the ruling was based only on federal law. However, the 14th amendment applies those same rules to the states. Based on Windsor's use of intermediate scrutiny to determine a law that involves a quasi-suspect class---the case defined sexual preference as such---I think the 10th circuit will have to uphold the lower court's decision.
Edit: The case in New Jersey used Windsor as a springboard to overturn gay marriage in that state. Christie dropped his appeal because the state supreme court signaled it would likely agree with the lower court.
The Judge in the present Utah matter also used the equal protection and other precedent from Windsor.
Last edited by a moderator:
Where does freedom of religion and non-discrimination meet? In abstract of all the medical benefits etcetera seem obvious thinks to extend to all people.
How does providing any of those benefits infring on religion?
In the same place they do now, for churches that oppose interracial marriages.
My answers
to the first question: nobody has any problems with extending those benefits, rights, privileges, whatever to same-sex couples
to the second question: if they move to a state that does not allow/endorse gay marriage (or whatever you choose to call it) they should keep the federal benefits. Benefits granted by the state might be treated differently if the federal government allows this to stay a "states' rights" issue.