Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeannyM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Abyssinia provided some interesting quotes in post #10, especially this one:
Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes,"When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared." He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.” But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.
Click to expand...
Perhaps same sex “marriage” will become widely accepted or legal acceptance mandated. This leads us into a civilization wherein marriage becomes essentially meaningless and outdated. That in turn leads to the disintegration of families, which leads to the disintegration of civilization.

Oh, that’s just sky-is-falling fear-mongering, some might say. I guess we’ll just have to see how it turns out, although being an unnatural state of affairs, the outcome can not be good.
 
It is really being pushed here, and yes we have voted on an amendment stating marriage is between a man and woman.
Can’t believe how many Catholics can see no wrong in the so called “gay marriage.”
 
SeannyM said:
huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/20/utah-same-sex-marriage_n_4482703.html

This could be the case that finally ends the debate over whether gay people are entitled to the same right to marry as straight people. In my opinion, this is an example of the court functioning as it was intended. Even in a state so deeply under the finger of a religious organization as Utah, this judge had the intestinal fortitude to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. I pray to God that this case is appealed to SCOTUS and upheld, bringing an end to codified anti-gay discrimination.
Click to expand...
Of course gays have the right to get married. They go find a church that will perform the ceremony, and viola!
The question is does the government have a power to determine who does and does not get married. Since marriage, historically, is a religious rite/sacrament/event, it seems to me the first amendment would prevent the government’s interference in marriage.

The government has no authority or power to grant rights. Rights are antecedent to government. All this ruling does is tell the people of the sovereign state of Utah that they must further violate the Constitution of the United States by now sanctioning “marriage” for same sex couples.

Jon
 
georget said:
No one to blame except ourselves, in a democracy you get the government you deserve. So goes the will of the people. Now it begins.
Click to expand...
And herein we find the biggest problem; the false notion that the United States is, or was intended to be, a democracy. The government we should get should be dependent on the constitution. This false notion, coupled with the false notion that the government grants rights, is the real culprit.

Gays have always had the right to get “married”. What they want is government sanction, which Constitutionally shouldn’t exist at all, if we are going to use the progressive model of the establishment clause to mean “separation of Church and state”.

Jon
 
Yerusalyim said:
Here’s the deal…marriage is NOT a right…marriage is a set of privileges society has granted to some relationships and not to others because those relationships support and build society.
Click to expand...
That debate has been over for decades. Marriage was defined as a civil right by the Supreme Court almost 40 years ago.
Yerusalyim said:
Otherwise, society DOES have a vested interest in granting privilege to some relationships and not to others and the courts should stay out of it.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the courts are needed to save society from itself and protect the minority from tyranny of the majority.
 
=EmperorNapoleon;11521294]That debate has been over for decades. Marriage was defined as a civil right by the Supreme Court almost 40 years ago.
Click to expand...
If it is a civil right, then government has no longer any role in access to that right, since government neither grants rights nor provides them, with the exception of legal counsel in some cases.
Sometimes the courts are needed to save society from itself and protect the minority from tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...
The way the courts could protect the minority from the government would be to overturn the government’s use of married status in all federal law, particularly the tax code. Using marriage in the tax code and then limiting who can be married is discrimination. So, government should get out of the marriage business, and not use marital status in the tax code.

Jon
 
Yerusalyim said:
So what you’re saying is ANYONE should be allowed to marry ANYONE and the state nor society has any interest in this?
Aside from the religious aspect which I won’t argue…if you allow same-sex marriage then by what rationale do you deny ANYONE the “right” to marry?

Here’s the deal…marriage is NOT a right…marriage is a set of privileges society has granted to some relationships and not to others because those relationships support and build society.

If same sex couples have the “right” to marry without the approval of society then by the same token so do polygamous couples, and incestuous couples. In fact, if society isn’t allowed (name removed by moderator)ut into whom it grants the privileges associated with marriage in the case of same-gender couples…then it has NO (name removed by moderator)ut at all…and ANYONE that is above the age of consent can and should be allowed to marry anyone else. So, I could, by your rationale…marry my mother…or father…or brother…or sister…or all four…and if we’re all of consenting age then it’s none of your business. Correct?

Otherwise, society DOES have a vested interest in granting privilege to some relationships and not to others and the courts should stay out of it.
Click to expand...
I think that two consenting adults should be able to marry… Not ANYONE. And obviously, ancestral relationships can lead to severe consequences, so yes there is a vested interest in restricting them. And yes, marriage is a constitutional right per Loving V Virginia.
 
My solution is to let them have their same-sex “marriage”, and make their mockery of it. Most young people don’t even realize they should be married anyway. The word has no meaning for the majority of society.

True marriage should be called by a different name. Matrimony, or some other word. Heck, make one up. In any case, the family must be preserved. This is, after all, a war on the family and all it represents, as demonstrated by the immense negative psychological effects on the youth prompting despair, and suicide due to divorce, adultery, lack of meaningful parental and sibling bonds.

Those who still have a grip on reality need to make a move. The times are getting darker, and the tyrants, emboldened, will not stop until everything that is worth a dime is destroyed. I favor monastery-like communities who insulate themselves from the toxic culture outside. We must protect our children.
 
CatholicViking said:
You have forgotten one very important reality: there is religious marriage and civil marriage.
Click to expand...
I agree on that one. They no longer have anything to with each other either. Civil marriage in many states is now gender neutral, does not require the couple to love each other, doesn’t have any requirements on sex and children, doesn’t require permanency, etc. The only real benefits deal with financial issues (taxes, inheritance, etc.).

With regard to this being legalized in Utah, there are two issues at hand. The first is that this is another case of a judge jamming judicial opinion on a minority issues, bypassing the legislature, and ramming it down the majority’s throats. Eventually, people will rebel in a big way against this.

Secondly, it’s stunning that Utah had to ban polygamy, yet accept gay marriage. Unlike gay marriage, which was never acceptable throughout human history on a notable scale, polygamy was, and still is in certain parts of the world (notably Islam, but also in other smaller areas and cultures).
 
I wonder, if push comes to shove, does Utah (Texas, etc) have an option of peaceful secession from the USA?

I know that certain former communist countries in Europe are seriously contemplating secession from the EU. For example Hungary - they won’t put up with the Brussels bureaucrats shoving “gay marriage” and other stuff down their throats. They had a peaceful popular revolution in 1956 and left the Warsaw Pact (well, the USSR militarily invaded Hungary and put down the peaceful Hungarian revolution in a bloody massacre), however Hungary will do the same with the EU this time, and leave the EU if necessary.

So I wonder, how about Utah and Texas and so on, if it comes to that. Will they put up with the Federal bureaucrats and Washington DC, dictating them? Will they say, enough is enough?
 
Can someone explain…if a divorced Catholic remarries in a civil ceremony isn’t that person classed as an adulterer living outside the teachings of the Catholic Church…that Catholic would have to receive an annulment from his/her previous marriage to be in full communion with the church because a civil marriage is still recognized as a valid marriage…a homosexual marriage is also outside the teachings of the church…could they at some future time claim that the Catholic Church is discriminating against them…as the church considers adultery a sin but allows annulments even in civil marraiges…so why would homosexual marriages in a civil union not be afforded the same acceptance…hope someone can figure out what I’m trying to say…I’m worried that the next move will be for homosexual couples to take the Catholic Church to court for discrimination…one way or the other.
 
OurLadyPray4US said:
I wonder, if push comes to shove, does Utah (Texas, etc) have an option of peaceful secession from the USA?

I know that certain former communist countries in Europe are seriously contemplating secession from the EU. For example Hungary - they won’t put up with the Brussels bureaucrats shoving “gay marriage” and other stuff down their throats. They had a peaceful popular revolution in 1956 and left the Warsaw Pact (well, the USSR militarily invaded Hungary and put down the peaceful Hungarian revolution in a bloody massacre), however Hungary will do the same with the EU this time, and leave the EU if necessary.

So I wonder, how about Utah and Texas and so on, if it comes to that. Will they put up with the Federal bureaucrats and Washington DC, dictating them? Will they say, enough is enough?
Click to expand...
Though it sounds like a good cause, secession of states from the US is not economically, militarily, or structurally feasible today.
 
OurLadyPray4US said:
I wonder, if push comes to shove, does Utah (Texas, etc) have an option of peaceful secession from the USA?

I know that certain former communist countries in Europe are seriously contemplating secession from the EU. For example Hungary - they won’t put up with the Brussels bureaucrats shoving “gay marriage” and other stuff down their throats. They had a peaceful popular revolution in 1956 and left the Warsaw Pact (well, the USSR militarily invaded Hungary and put down the peaceful Hungarian revolution in a bloody massacre), however Hungary will do the same with the EU this time, and leave the EU if necessary.

So I wonder, how about Utah and Texas and so on, if it comes to that. Will they put up with the Federal bureaucrats and Washington DC, dictating them? Will they say, enough is enough?
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m wrong…but "gay marriage is a state issue…not a federal issue…if I’m wrong I apologize…
 
Peebo said:
Correct me if I’m wrong…but "gay marriage is a state issue…not a federal issue…if I’m wrong I apologize…
Click to expand...
I’m frankly confused, because it looks like a federal judge is trying to dictate on a state issue.

Perhaps some legal mind can chime in and explain what’s going on…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top