Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[gracepoole]

Of course, concluding that marriage must therefore always remain between one man and woman for this reason would be offering an argument from tradition, which would be fallacious.

Appeal to tradition is not always wrong or fallacious.

Argumentum ad novitatem can be fallacious as well.
,

Accepting a conclusion as truth because “that’s the way it has always been done” is always fallacious, yes. That’s why I phrased my response in the way that I did. I’m not familiar with any pro-same-sex marriage arguments that are based on the notion that it should be accepted exclusively because it’s new.

 

[Monkey1976]

Accepting a conclusion as truth because “that’s the way it has always been done” is always fallacious, yes. That’s why I phrased my response in the way that I did. I’m not familiar with any pro-same-sex marriage arguments that are based on the notion that it should be accepted exclusively because it’s new.

Humans have always required food, water, and oxygen. Should we withhold these things from newborns until it is proven that they require it, or should we care for them because “that’s the way it has always been done”?

 

[SeannyM]

Only if this Judge is correct, which remains to be seen. Other courts have said otherwise.

And there are many cases that deal with who may marry whom.

SCOTUS cited Loving in the Windsor decision, so yes, it applies. Also, pretty much all of the other cases were cited too.

 

[Dawnia]

SCOTUS cited Loving in the Windsor decision, so yes, it applies. Also, pretty much all of the other cases were cited too.

Uh no they weren’t.

 

[JamesTheJust]

But David did not sin by having multiple wives. God even offered him more. (2 Samuel 12:8) David’s sins were adultery and killing Uriah, not marrying multiple wives.

“Inevitably”? I think not. Ruth the Moabitess was not Jewish; she married a Jew and was the ancestor of David. Was David “inevitably” pagan? I think not; your justification for the rule appears to be incorrect. Whatever the reasons behind it, the verse shows a Biblical rule against miscegenation more than 200 years ago. My point remains.

You need to think through what you say before posting. Check things carefully, because those you are arguing against will certainly do so.

rossum

1. From John Gil’s Exposition of the Entire Bible (yes, I know he was a Protestant, but that does not factor in here):

and thy master’s wives into thy bosom; though we read of no more than one that belonged to Saul, if he is meant by his master, excepting Rizpah his concubine, nor ever of David taking them into his bosom and bed; wherefore this can be understood only of his having them at his disposal, to give them to whom he pleased; the word may be rendered his “women”, as well as his “wives”, and may design his daughters, Merab and Michal, who were both given to David, though taken again and given to others…

1. Ruth converted to Judaism (Ruth 1:16-17) and feared the Lord, thus she would not have brought paganism into Israel. The passage in Nehemiah is not even a law proper, but nevertheless, I will address it: the act of marrying a foreigner was not itself evil, but association with pagans was, hence why Ruth is allowed to marry into the Kingdom after her aforementioned conversion.

I could direct the same comment back towards you, since you clearly didn’t research Ruth.

 

[SeannyM]

Uh no they weren’t.

Well, they cited the following cases that pertain to marriage:

1. Loving v Virginia
2. Windsor v US
3. Perry v Brown
4. Sosna v Iowa
5. Romer v Evans
6. Mass. v Us Dept of Health and Human Services
7. Svecik v Sandoval
8. Maynard v Hill
9. Meyer v Nebraska
10. Skinner v Oklahoma
11. Griswold v Conn.
    12 M.L.B v S.L.J.
    13 Cleveland Board of Educ. v LaFleur
    14 Carey v Population Services Int’l
    15 Hodgeson v Minn.
    16 Planned Parenthood of souther PA v Casey
    17 Zablocki v Redhail
    18 Turner v Safley

I don’t actually know of any that they missed that could even come close to being applicable… either way, this is a very minimum MOST of the cases relating to marriage.

 

[gracepoole]

Humans have always required food, water, and oxygen. Should we withhold these things from newborns until it is proven that they require it, or should we care for them because “that’s the way it has always been done”?

Do you only believe that humans require food, water, and oxygen because humans have traditionally believed this?

 

[gilliam]

On the Utah Attorney General’s Website:

Posted on: December 26th, 2013 by rbruckman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
“The Attorney General’s Office is preparing an application to the United States Supreme Court requesting a stay of the district court’s order. Due to the necessity of coordination with outside counsel the filing of the appeal may be delayed for a few days. It is the intent of the Attorney General’s Office to file with the Supreme Court as soon as possible.”

attorneygeneral.utah.gov/2013/12/26/updatepossible-delay-in-filing-of-appeal-to-supreme-court/

 

[SeannyM]

On the Utah Attorney General’s Website:

Posted on: December 26th, 2013 by rbruckman
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
“The Attorney General’s Office is preparing an application to the United States Supreme Court requesting a stay of the district court’s order. Due to the necessity of coordination with outside counsel the filing of the appeal may be delayed for a few days. It is the intent of the Attorney General’s Office to file with the Supreme Court as soon as possible.”

attorneygeneral.utah.gov/2013/12/26/updatepossible-delay-in-filing-of-appeal-to-supreme-court/

Yeah… Sotomayor is assigned to the 10th circuit right now… I would be amazed if she granted a stay, especially since every other court it’s been to has denied it. The state has to show that not granting the stay would cause “irrevocable harm.” They can’t do that in this case since over 1000 couples are already married, and since gay marriage has occurred in other states without “irrevocable harm.”

Plus… It’s Sotomayor!!

 

[Dawnia]

Well, they cited the following cases that pertain to marriage:

1. Loving v Virginia
2. Windsor v US
3. Perry v Brown
4. Sosna v Iowa
5. Romer v Evans
6. Mass. v Us Dept of Health and Human Services
7. Svecik v Sandoval
8. Maynard v Hill
9. Meyer v Nebraska
10. Skinner v Oklahoma
11. Griswold v Conn.
    12 M.L.B v S.L.J.
    13 Cleveland Board of Educ. v LaFleur
    14 Carey v Population Services Int’l
    15 Hodgeson v Minn.
    16 Planned Parenthood of souther PA v Casey
    17 Zablocki v Redhail
    18 Turner v Safley

I don’t actually know of any that they missed that could even come close to being applicable… either way, this is a very minimum MOST of the cases relating to marriage.

PP v Casey? Really? On what planet is that a marriage case? Or Romer or Griswold or many of the cases on that list.

I’d get fired if I did this poor of a job.

 

[gilliam]

Yeah… Sotomayor is assigned to the 10th circuit right now… I would be amazed if she granted a stay, especially since every other court it’s been to has denied it. The state has to show that not granting the stay would cause “irrevocable harm.” They can’t do that in this case since over 1000 couples are already married, and since gay marriage has occurred in other states without “irrevocable harm.”

Plus… It’s Sotomayor!!

Chances are she will defer to a decision by the entire court to grant a stay or not. That is normally what is done with high profile cases.

 

[Dawnia]

Yeah… Sotomayor is assigned to the 10th circuit right now… I would be amazed if she granted a stay, especially since every other court it’s been to has denied it. The state has to show that not granting the stay would cause “irrevocable harm.” They can’t do that in this case since over 1000 couples are already married, and since gay marriage has occurred in other states without “irrevocable harm.”

Plus… It’s Sotomayor!!

Utah Ruling Means No Respite for the Supreme Court on Same-Sex Marriage

The question for the Supreme Court in the short term will be whether to block Judge Shelby’s ruling while appeals proceed. The state’s request will initially be directed to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the member of the court responsible for overseeing the Tenth Circuit, but she will almost certainly refer the matter to the full court.

 

[SeannyM]

Chances are she will defer to a decision by the entire court to grant a stay or not. That is normally what is done with high profile cases.

I’m not sure with this one though… since it is very rare that SCOTUS grants a stay when all other courts have denied it. I don’t see it being an issue that requires deliberation and (name removed by moderator)ut from the entire court… while it is high profile, it’s still a pretty cut-and-dry decision. They tend to allow the lower courts procedural decisions to stand when they are unanimous.

 

[rossum]

1. From John Gil’s Exposition of the Entire Bible…

That is his opinion. How many wives did Abraham have? How many wives did Jacob have? There are many Biblical patriarchs I can quote who had multiple wives and/or concubines. Marriage has not always been one woman and one man. There is this religion called “Islam”, which you might have heard of…

1. Ruth converted to Judaism

Ruth was still a Moabitess. The fact that she converted merely shows that your ‘inevitable paganism’ argument was doubly wrong. The passage from Nehemiah used to be quoted to support anti-miscegenation laws.

rossum

 

[gilliam]

I’m not sure with this one though… since it is very rare that SCOTUS grants a stay when all other courts have denied it. I don’t see it being an issue that requires deliberation and (name removed by moderator)ut from the entire court… while it is high profile, it’s still a pretty cut-and-dry decision. They tend to allow the lower courts procedural decisions to stand when they are unanimous.

I don’t know if the SCOTUS will grant a stay or not. If they feel there is any chance the lower court ruling will be over turned; they probably will. Stopping the issuing of marriage licenses is preferable to invalidating a whole bunch of marriage licenses.

It is very likely though that the whole court will rule on if a stay should be granted or not simply because no one justice wants such a decision in such a high profile case on their say so alone. That would be a bit unprecedented and would shed an undo light on that particular justice; which neither the court nor the justice really wants.

 

[JamesTheJust]

That is his opinion. How many wives did Abraham have? How many wives did Jacob have? There are many Biblical patriarchs I can quote who had multiple wives and/or concubines. Marriage has not always been one woman and one man. There is this religion called “Islam”, which you might have heard of…

Ruth was still a Moabitess. The fact that she converted merely shows that your ‘inevitable paganism’ argument was doubly wrong. The passage from Nehemiah used to be quoted to support anti-miscegenation laws.

rossum

1. No, that’s not just his “opinion”. That’s years of scholarship, exegesis, and study that he put in to be able to write an exposition on the Bible. You wouldn’t call a history textbook an opinion, would you? If you’d like to refute his exegesis, feel free to do so, but calling it things doesn’t make it go away. As for Abraham and the patriarchs, exceptions to the rule do not prove the non-existence of the rule. At the creation of marriage, God says: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)
2. No, the fact that she converted is important. That she was allowed to marry into Israel only shows that miscegenation itself was not evil. However, no conversion is mentioned in the passage from Nehemiah, and it is unlikely any of the foreigners did, because the very next verse has Nehemiah reminding the Israelites of how Solomon was led into sin by pagan women. There’s a thing called context, you may have heard of it…

Since the foreigners didn’t convert, my “inevitable paganism” applies there.

 

[rossum]

1. No, that’s not just his “opinion”.

Of course it is his opinion, it is his scholarly opinion. He is not one of the Bible writers, so all he can give us is his opinion, which we are free to accept or reject. I note that you failed to answer my point about the number of wives Abraham and Jacob had. There are other Biblical polygamists I can point to as well. Your point in post #398:

marriage has always been between one man and one woman.

Is false, and can be shown to be false in the Bible from Lamech (Genesis 4:19) forward.

1. No, the fact that she converted is important.

No it is not. Nehemiah says nothing about conversion. There were anti-miscegenation laws more than 200 years ago. Again your post #398 was incorrect.

You appear to think that the present ideal of Catholic marriage applies universally. It does not. Many different countries and many different religions had, and have, different definitions of “marriage”. It is not a single entity, but is multiple entities gathered under the same name.

rossum

 

[_Abyssinia]

USCCB Subcommittee Chair Responds To Recent Court Decisions

December 23, 2013

WASHINGTON—Responding to the decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court to redefine marriage and the decision of the U.S. District Court in Utah declaring Utah’s marriage amendment unconstitutional, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone said, “In a visit to the United States of America, Pope John Paul II –who will be canonized by Pope Francis– declared, ‘Vast sectors of society are confused about what is right and what is wrong, and are at the mercy of those with the power to “create” opinion and impose it on others.’ Both the New Mexico Supreme Court and the Federal Court in Utah imposed a wrong decision about the meaning of marriage onto the people of their respective states.”

The Archbishop further said, “We must start off with the right question. It is not, ‘Is there a government interest in not recognizing alternative types of relationships as marriage?’, but rather, ‘Is there a public interest in societal recognition and regulation of the only kind of relationship that brings children into the world?’ Every human society in history has recognized that there is. By losing sight of this fundamental reality, confusion and error triumph.”

Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco is the chairman of U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Of course it is his opinion, it is his scholarly opinion. He is not one of the Bible writers, so all he can give us is his opinion, which we are free to accept or reject. I note that you failed to answer my point about the number of wives Abraham and Jacob had. There are other Biblical polygamists I can point to as well. Your point in post #398:

Is false, and can be shown to be false in the Bible from Lamech (Genesis 4:19) forward.

No it is not. Nehemiah says nothing about conversion. There were anti-miscegenation laws more than 200 years ago. Again your post #398 was incorrect.

You appear to think that the present ideal of Catholic marriage applies universally. It does not. Many different countries and many different religions had, and have, different definitions of “marriage”. It is not a single entity, but is multiple entities gathered under the same name.

rossum

1. Okay, you can reject his scholarly opinion, but you can’t do so on a rational basis until you refute his exegesis.

I did address your point, maybe you didn’t read my entire post. I have said both these things in previous posts: The Bible does not condone everything it records, and exceptions to the rule do not prove the non-existence of the rule.

1. I’m getting tired of reiterating my point, but I’ll do so again.

The fact that Nehemiah said nothing about conversion is important. Ruth converted, and thus would not have brought paganism into Israel. Hence why Ruth, a foreigner, was allowed to marry into Israel. Since Nehemiah does not say that the women converted, and in fact hints that they didn’t when he makes the analogy of the marriages he was condemning to the marriages of Solomon to pagan women, it is safe to assume that the Israelites’ actions were condemned because they were associating with pagans, not because they were marrying foreigners.

I would recommend that you respond to my entire post instead of just quoting bits and pieces of it that you feel safe refuting.

 

[ReConverted]

It does seem that some people are incapable of learning from the past. In his ruling, Judge Shelby discusses the arguments presented by the State of Utah and compares them with the arguments used in Loving v Virginia:

In 1966, attorneys for the State of Virginia made the following arguments to the Supreme Court in support of Virginia’s law prohibiting interracial marriage: (1) “The Virginia statutes here under attack reflects [sic] a policy which has obtained in this Commonwealth for over two centuries and which still obtains in seventeen states”; (2) “Inasmuch as we have already noted the higher rate of divorce among the intermarried, is it not proper to ask, ‘Shall we then add to the number of children who become the victims of their intermarried parents?’”; (3) “(I)ntermarriage constitutes a threat to society”; and (4) “(U)nder the Constitution the regulation and control of marital and family relationships are reserved to the States.” Brief for Respondents at 47-52, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), 1967 WL 113931. These contentions are almost identical to the assertions made by the State of Utah in support of Utah’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. For the reasons discussed above, the court finds these arguments as unpersuasive as the Supreme Court found them fifty years ago.

rossum