Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[latin_rite]

America is the land of the Constitution. If a law is against the Constitution, then that law has no power. Judges are empowered to decide questions of law.

rossum

If one man sits on his throne over riding the elected will of the majority. You have no freedom.

 

[SeannyM]

Right. And in regards to individual’s rights such as abortion, drug use, gay marriage, etc., the constitution is clear - each state has individual control over those issues. People don’t realize that most of the constitution applies only to the federal government. Hence it is perfectly constitutional for gay marriage to remain illegal, as long as the people in that state want it to be.

Actually, in Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court found that the right to due process when dealing with “fundamental liberties” like marriage, supersedes states rights. The court also found in West Va Board of Education v Barnette that fundamental rights “may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” So, when the voters use the referendum to withhold a fundamental liberty from a class without a compelling state interest, the referendum is unconstitutional.

And, the Constitution also applies to the states… Multiple courts have interpreted the 14th amendment’s due process clause as requiring the states to conform with the Bill of Rights. This has been commonly recognized legal precedence for a very long time.

 

[rossum]

If one man sits on his throne over riding the elected will of the majority. You have no freedom.

Could a state pass a law denying all men the vote, and just allowing women to vote in every election? Such a law might get a majority, but it would be unconstitutional because of the Nineteenth Amendment. A judge would be right to strike down such a law.

One of the reasons for having the Constitution is to prevent a majority oppressing a minority unfairly. The judge obviously decided that the law was unfair in denying marriage to partners of the same sex, and hence against the requirement for equal treatment under the Constitution. The State is appealing the decision, so by the time this is finished more than one person will have decided.

Judges do not sit on thrones. Thrones are for Popes, Bishops and Monarchs.

rossum

 

[Dawnia]

Could a state pass a law denying all men the vote, and just allowing women to vote in every election? Such a law might get a majority, but it would be unconstitutional because of the Nineteenth Amendment. A judge would be right to strike down such a law.

One of the reasons for having the Constitution is to prevent a majority oppressing a minority unfairly. The judge obviously decided that the law was unfair in denying marriage to partners of the same sex, and hence against the requirement for equal treatment under the Constitution. The State is appealing the decision, so by the time this is finished more than one person will have decided.

Judges do not sit on thrones. Thrones are for Popes, Bishops and Monarchs.

rossum

And other judges have ruled the exact opposite. The law isn’t black and white. If it were, we would not need so many judges to check and recheck decisions.

You are right judges do not sit on thrones. They can be overruled by amending the Constitution. (I expect states to get out of marriage all together before I expect the Constitution to get changed over an issue like this. But, who knows. I would never have expected alcohol to be banned either, but that happened.)

 

[gilliam]

One of the reasons for having the Constitution is to prevent a majority oppressing a minority unfairly. The judge obviously decided that the law was unfair in denying marriage to partners of the same sex, and hence against the requirement for equal treatment under the Constitution.

I looked into he case a little. I don’t see it leading to any right to molest a child (pedophilia) but I do see it leading to a right of consensual adults to have polygamous relations and calling it marriage and the state issuing a license. Which is a bit ironic since the case being discussed is in Utah.

 

[LisaA]

I looked into he case a little. I don’t see it leading to any right to molest a child (pedophilia) but I do see it leading to a right of consensual adults to have polygamous relations and calling it marriage and the state issuing a license. Which is a bit ironic since the case being discussed is in Utah.

Utah would be one of the few states where this is an issue. I understand it resulted from the “Sister Wives” TV program family’s situation. Judicial fiat has rendered marriage completely meaningless in some states and there is no reason that polygamy or polyandry or any other “consenting” relationship would not receive the same protection. Why would those who choose a group marriage be denied equal protection? Same sex marriage is nothing special or unique as is traditional marriage. It’s simply a demand that state approval be given to those who want to call themselves married. It should apply to everyone with capacity to engage in a contractual arrangement.

Lisa

 

[Dawnia]

I looked into he case a little. I don’t see it leading to any right to molest a child (pedophilia) but I do see it leading to a right of consensual adults to have polygamous relations and calling it marriage and the state issuing a license. Which is a bit ironic since the case being discussed is in Utah.

From Monday’s hearing on the stay…

THERE’S GREAT IRONY IN THE FACT THAT THE – TO BE ALLOWED
TO BECOME A STATE UTAH WAS COMPELLED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TO ADOPT A DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AS BEING A UNION OF ONE MAN
AND ONE WOMAN, AND NOW THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS IMPOSED
UPON UTAH TO ABANDON THAT TRADITIONAL DEFINITION AND HAS
ORDERED UTAH TO CHANGE ITS DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE TO INCLUDE
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

 

[Farsight001]

Actually, in Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court found that the right to due process when dealing with “fundamental liberties” like marriage, supersedes states rights. The court also found in West Va Board of Education v Barnette that fundamental rights “may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” So, when the voters use the referendum to withhold a fundamental liberty from a class without a compelling state interest, the referendum is unconstitutional.

And, the Constitution also applies to the states… Multiple courts have interpreted the 14th amendment’s due process clause as requiring the states to conform with the Bill of Rights. This has been commonly recognized legal precedence for a very long time.

I am no stranger to their findings. I’m merely pointing out that the constitution clearly says otherwise. Part of the problem is that those who swore to uphold the constitution are blatantly and willingly contradicting it with their rulings.

 

[LisaA]

From Monday’s hearing on the stay…THERE’S GREAT IRONY IN THE FACT THAT THE – TO BE ALLOWED
TO BECOME A STATE UTAH WAS COMPELLED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TO ADOPT A DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AS BEING A UNION OF ONE MAN
AND ONE WOMAN, AND NOW THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS IMPOSED
UPON UTAH TO ABANDON THAT TRADITIONAL DEFINITION AND HAS
ORDERED UTAH TO CHANGE ITS DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE TO INCLUDE
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE…

A terrible irony and evidence of a judiciary off the rails.

I lived in Utah for several years and had two aunts who were LDS. Polygamy was an incredible source of shame for the state and for the LDS religion. Those in the church excused the practice with suggestions that it was a result of past circumstances, men dying and leaving behind wives and children who would be unable to survive the kind of hardships the early Mormon settlers experienced. But the reality was that this practice resulted from a couple of men who followed their aberrant desires to have sex with multiple women, thus justifying the practice for others. Mormons today do not want their faith tainted with this unfortunate past practice and now a judge has provided cover for modern day hedonists.

Further I do not doubt for one minute that pedophilia is the next world to conquer. In fact one of the most egregious practices of “Fundamentalist LDS” is the marrying of young girls against their will. At this point neither type of marriage is recognized by the state but clearly the trend is to provide state protection of all sorts of sexual arrangements. I don’t think this advances civilization, do you?
Lisa

 

[SeannyM]

I am no stranger to their findings. I’m merely pointing out that the constitution clearly says otherwise. Part of the problem is that those who swore to uphold the constitution are blatantly and willingly contradicting it with their rulings.

But it doesn’t say otherwise… “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.”

When it says “No State shall make or enforce…” it is quite evident that it is intended to apply to the states.

 

[SeannyM]

A terrible irony and evidence of a judiciary off the rails.

I lived in Utah for several years and had two aunts who were LDS. Polygamy was an incredible source of shame for the state and for the LDS religion. Those in the church excused the practice with suggestions that it was a result of past circumstances, men dying and leaving behind wives and children who would be unable to survive the kind of hardships the early Mormon settlers experienced. But the reality was that this practice resulted from a couple of men who followed their aberrant desires to have sex with multiple women, thus justifying the practice for others. Mormons today do not want their faith tainted with this unfortunate past practice and now a judge has provided cover for modern day hedonists.

Further I do not doubt for one minute that pedophilia is the next world to conquer. In fact one of the most egregious practices of “Fundamentalist LDS” is the marrying of young girls against their will. At this point neither type of marriage is recognized by the state but clearly the trend is to provide state protection of all sorts of sexual arrangements. I don’t think this advances civilization, do you?
Lisa

I do believe that it advances civilization… We are slowly becoming a country in which there truly is liberty, and justice for all. I also find it extremely offensive to compare gay marriage to pedophilia… It’s both offensive and incorrect. There is no correlation between the two. One involves a commitment between two consenting adults, and the other involves the violation of a child’s innocence. The two are not comparable. Now polygamy, I don’t necessarily see how we can justify a ban on it. If someone’s religion allows it, and it doesn’t harm anybody, then I don’t see a reason for the government to intrude in the matter. Which brings up a great point. Why are religious conservatives so against government intrusion when it comes to things like schooling, and healthcare, but go in the complete opposite direction as soon as something is against their religion? You can’t have it both ways… the government does not exist to enforce your religious tenets. So, either you’re against government intrusion, or you’re not.

 

[Farsight001]

But it doesn’t say otherwise… “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.”

When it says “No State shall make or enforce…” it is quite evident that it is intended to apply to the states.

Yes, but there is more to it. The ending says “without due process of law”. It is stating that the state cannot simply create laws out of the blue without going through the proper processes, EXACTLY as the judge has done here.

It does not say “no abridging privileges”. It says 'no abridging privileges without due process". That’s what it meant for years and there is case after case after case supporting this interpretation. Just recently have people declared that it means something else.

 

[Monkey1976]

I do believe that it advances civilization… We are slowly becoming a country in which there truly is liberty, and justice for all. I also find it extremely offensive to compare gay marriage to pedophilia… It’s both offensive and incorrect. There is no correlation between the two. One involves a commitment between two consenting adults, and the other involves the violation of a child’s innocence. The two are not comparable.

81% of the victims of sexual abuse by priests would likely disagree, being male themselves. Of those 81%, the vast majority were in their teens. Right now, there are pushes in various countries where same-sex “marriage” has been imposed to lower the age of consent as well - generally to the same age range of those in the 81%.

Now polygamy, I don’t necessarily see how we can justify a ban on it. If someone’s religion allows it, and it doesn’t harm anybody, then I don’t see a reason for the government to intrude in the matter.

Doesn’t harm anybody? Google “FLDS abuse cases” for an introduction into how modern polygamy does great harm to women and children.

Which brings up a great point. Why are religious conservatives so against government intrusion when it comes to things like schooling, and healthcare, but go in the complete opposite direction as soon as something is against their religion? You can’t have it both ways… the government does not exist to enforce your religious tenets. So, either you’re against government intrusion, or you’re not.

Why, then, must the government enforce the tenets of your religion? After homosexual activity was decriminalized, there was no law preventing your ecclesial community from performing whatever ceremonies they wished to call two men or two women “married”. Why is it incumbent on the government to enforce your redefinition of marriage into something it has never been, forcing the rest of us to go along or face the loss of our livelihoods for refusing to accept your definition? Before you start throwing around Loving and white-supremacist religions, I would note that the anti-miscegenation laws were themselves a redefinition of marriage away from the simple model of male and female by bringing race into the equation. To head off your objection about the Church “not recognizing” marriages outside the Church, I would also point out when approaching a tribunal for a decree of nullity, all marriages are presumed valid until proven otherwise. It doesn’t matter where it took place, or who officiated, or what the spouses’ religion(s) might be - until challenged, any first marriage between one male and one female is valid in the eyes of the Church.

 

[SeannyM]

Yes, but there is more to it. The ending says “without due process of law”. It is stating that the state cannot simply create laws out of the blue without going through the proper processes, EXACTLY as the judge has done here.

It does not say “no abridging privileges”. It says 'no abridging privileges without due process". That’s what it meant for years and there is case after case after case supporting this interpretation. Just recently have people declared that it means something else.

It still applies to the states. And there is a clear due process violation in Utah’s Amendment 3. Creating a law that explicitly creates an unequal application of a fundamental right without a legitimate state interest is a violation of due process.

 

[Monkey1976]

It still applies to the states. And there is a clear due process violation in Utah’s Amendment 3. Creating a law that explicitly creates an unequal application of a fundamental right without a legitimate state interest is a violation of due process.

How was it unequal? SSA individuals had the same right to marry as heterosexual individuals, subject to the exact same limitations. Why is it “unequal” just because you don’t happen to like the choices provided by those limitations?

 

[SeannyM]

81% of the victims of sexual abuse by priests would likely disagree, being male themselves. Of those 81%, the vast majority were in their teens. Right now, there are pushes in various countries where same-sex “marriage” has been imposed to lower the age of consent as well - generally to the same age range of those in the 81%.

Doesn’t harm anybody? Google “FLDS abuse cases” for an introduction into how modern polygamy does great harm to women and children.

Why, then, must the government enforce the tenets of your religion? After homosexual activity was decriminalized, there was no law preventing your ecclesial community from performing whatever ceremonies they wished to call two men or two women “married”. Why is it incumbent on the government to enforce your redefinition of marriage into something it has never been, forcing the rest of us to go along or face the loss of our livelihoods for refusing to accept your definition? Before you start throwing around Loving and white-supremacist religions, I would note that the anti-miscegenation laws were themselves a redefinition of marriage away from the simple model of male and female by bringing race into the equation. To head off your objection about the Church “not recognizing” marriages outside the Church, I would also point out when approaching a tribunal for a decree of nullity, all marriages are presumed valid until proven otherwise. It doesn’t matter where it took place, or who officiated, or what the spouses’ religion(s) might be - until challenged, any first marriage between one male and one female is valid in the eyes of the Church.

They aren’t enforcing my religion… otherwise, they would be requiring all churches to perform gay marriage. The Judge in this case was just allowing the benefits of marriage to be applied to same sex couples. If you read the opinion the court found correctly that “because it’s always been this way,” is not a valid defense of a law that restricts a fundamental liberty. And, you didn’t answer the question. Why do conservative claim to be against government interference until there is an issue that involves enforcement of religious tenets?

 

[jmr_1985]

Could a state pass a law denying all men the vote, and just allowing women to vote in every election? Such a law might get a majority, but it would be unconstitutional because of the Nineteenth Amendment. A judge would be right to strike down such a law.

One of the reasons for having the Constitution is to prevent a majority oppressing a minority unfairly. The judge obviously decided that the law was unfair in denying marriage to partners of the same sex, and hence against the requirement for equal treatment under the Constitution. The State is appealing the decision, so by the time this is finished more than one person will have decided.

Judges do not sit on thrones. Thrones are for Popes, Bishops and Monarchs.

rossum

States have always had the right to regulate morality as part of their “police power.” The police power is unlimited under our system unless restricted by the Constitution. The right of states to not recognize or allow marriages they find immoral is horn book law in this country. The 14 Amendment was enacted regarding the treatment of race. It was never thought when voted on by states that it would apply to same sex marriage. To comeback 150 years later and apply it to same sex marriage is judicial activism. Amend the Constitution regarding SS marriage, fine. That’s what we did with slavery and voting rights. Don’t make a text that was designed at its core to be limited and say it says something it does not. So yes, modern, liberal judges do sit on thrones.

 

[Monkey1976]

They aren’t enforcing my religion… otherwise, they would be requiring all churches to perform gay marriage. The Judge in this case was just allowing the benefits of marriage to be applied to same sex couples. If you read the opinion the court found correctly that “because it’s always been this way,” is not a valid defense of a law that restricts a fundamental liberty. And, you didn’t answer the question. Why do conservative claim to be against government interference until there is an issue that involves enforcement of religious tenets?

They are forcing the public to accept the definition supported by your particular religion. When we express support for marriage as male and female, it’s claimed that we’re trying to impose our definition. By enforcing your religion’s definition, any position or business that deals even remotely with weddings or decisions that involve the marital status of an individual is now closed to those who uphold marriage against this lie.

Since the decriminalization of homosexual activity, nothing has blocked businesses from offering benefits or services to same-sex “couples”. When I was an employee at AT&T, domestic partner benefits were only available to homosexual “couples”. Heterosexual couples had to marry or go with only the employee covered.

 

[SeannyM]

How was it unequal? SSA individuals had the same right to marry as heterosexual individuals, subject to the exact same limitations. Why is it “unequal” just because you don’t happen to like the choices provided by those limitations?

That argument is also addressed in the ruling:

“The alleged right to same-sex marriage that the State claims the Plaintiffs are seeking issimply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner withwhom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond. This right is deeply rootedin the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty because it protects anindividual’s ability to make deeply personal choices about love and family free from governmentinterference. And, as discussed above, this right is enjoyed by all individuals. If the right tosame-sex marriage were a new right, then it should make new protections and benefits availableto all citizens. But heterosexual individuals are as likely to exercise their purported right tosame-sex marriage as gay men and lesbians are to exercise their purported right to opposite-sexmarriage. Both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are therefore simply manifestations of oneright—the right to marry—applied to people with different sexual identities.”- Judge Shelby’s decision.

 

[jmr_1985]

SeannyM:

Why do conservative claim to be against government interference until there is an issue that involves enforcement of religious tenets?

The interference is an unelected federal judiciary of limited power telling a sovereign state it lacks the freedom to enforce its laws. The Constitution is silent on this issue. Amend the Constitution or leave the sovereign state to be governed by the people.