Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeannyM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
Men will never be the equivalent of women, yet both men and women have the same legal rights under the law. What you have to show is that the differences justify different treatment under the law. The differences between men and women do not generally justify different treatment so they are treated equally in law.

For example, what differences between heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships justify different treatment under tax laws?

rossum
Click to expand...
You put on the same plane men v women as singular entities (e.g., as consumers and voters) and heterosexual relations v homosexual relations as social partnerships on which marriage should be based?

Of course men and women (should) have equal and the same legal rights under the law.

Man-woman pairing in marriage is not the same as the pairing of two men or two women in marriage. These are two different configurations with two different outcomes, the first potentially, biologically fruitful for the replenishment of society’s next crop of citizens, the second impossibly productive in that respect. You expect the same tax treatment? I don’t, even if five Supreme Justices on the Windsor v United States case prevailed in favor of the plaintiff, outnumbering the dissenting side by one. They made the wrong ruling. The select few who don judicial robes are expected to rule based on knowledge, technical merits and wisdom. The five justices stopped at using the first two.
,
 
It maybe time to perhaps reach for some middle ground here???

It would seem that we as a society are shifting from religious teachings. There are those that believe…those that don’t…and those who really couldn’t care less, as long as it doesn’t effect them.

Why the shift?
Religious wars perhaps? The fall from grace and betrayal of trust by some of the clergy? A failure of religious leaders to agree on the teachings of the Bible?

If the people who have reportedly studied the thing can’t agree???

So now we have to come to terms with a society that for the most part believes that “marriage” is simply a declaration of love. Do you love someone enough to make such a public declaration and enter into a committed relationship? A stable environment to perhaps raise a family…adopted, foster or otherwise?

Probably the common ground?

For the religious though…marriage runs deeper. It is a sacrament.

So if I must concede to the laws of the land on this issue…They cannot take away my religious views or my sacramental way of life. To be honest…they probably don’t even care…and by the empty seats at church…neither does pretty much anyone else…bar a few of the old faithful.
I think that we will all probably find, that once they have the word “marriage” it will become a scarey prospect for them. Divorce, child support, asset division, adultery, joint tax obligations, marital pressures with even their own partners arguing over the need to get married. The old cliches of “we don’t need a piece of paper to show how much we love each other”. Good luck! lol

Jesus lived his life by example and if the people agreed with his teachings…they followed. Always a free choice. Even when the Eucharistic miracle was explained…some people turned away and followed no more. He didn’t chase after them.
So my vote…should it come to it will be NO! My public support of it will be NO! I in turn will respect their right to live this way and expect that my right to my opinion be also respected. No different to abortion really. The law says yes…my opinion is NO! If asked to vote on it…It would be a NO!
The Church however, will always be there for those that have lost their way.
 
LisaA said:
Thank you for speaking the truth and the obvious instead of tossing out ridiculous examples of obscure practices of yesteryear. Heterosexual marriage has potential if not ability to create new citizens and until we learn how to live healthily forever, we will all need an up and coming generation. Thus heterosexual marriages ARE superior to any same sex “marriage” however nice and however productive the couple might be as only this marriage can assure the survival of society.
Click to expand...
Marriage has never been required to procreate nor do all heterosexuals have the will or ability to procreate either within our outside of marriage so that argument falls flat on its face
LisaA said:
There seem to be only self interest reasons for demanding same sex marriage.
Click to expand...
Not everyone believes that marriage is all about sex.
 
LisaA said:
Sexual relationships are irrelevant with respect to tax laws.
Click to expand...
But legally recognised marriages are not irrelevant to tax laws. The treatment of tax and marriages was the core of the Windsor case, decided by the Supreme Court, which overthrew part of DOMA.

rossum
 
InSearchofGrace said:
You put on the same plane men v women as singular entities (e.g., as consumers and voters) and heterosexual relations v homosexual relations as social partnerships on which marriage should be based?
Click to expand...
Yes, for legal purposes. I have not seen a sufficient legal argument for treating the two forms of relationship differently.
Of course men and women (should) have equal and the same legal rights under the law.
Click to expand...
And there were many people who disagreed and argued against giving women the vote. Those people were wrong to do so.
Man-woman pairing in marriage is not the same as the pairing of two men or two women in marriage.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I do not dispute that different marriages are different. The question is whether those differences justify different treatment under the law.

rossum
 
LisaA said:
Not out of the box at all and in fact has been kicked around some. If marriage means nothing then marriage means anything the vested parties want it to mean. I see no reason to ban polygamy or any sort of plural marriage if two of the same sex can “marry.”

Lisa
Click to expand...
When polygamy was being argued about between Utah and the US Federal government, did anyone argue a possible consequence was same sex marriage? In history did polygamy lead to same sex marriage? I think not. How, then, can same sex marriage lead to polygamy but polygamy has not led to same sex marriage? Furthermore, to touch on an earlier point, if anything but monogamous opposite sex marriage causes the downfall of society, how did polygamous or polyandrous societies survive?
 
Slavonic said:
When polygamy was being argued about between Utah and the US Federal government, did anyone argue a possible consequence was same sex marriage? In history did polygamy lead to same sex marriage? I think not. How, then, can same sex marriage lead to polygamy but polygamy has not led to same sex marriage? Furthermore, to touch on an earlier point, if anything but monogamous opposite sex marriage causes the downfall of society, how did polygamous or polyandrous societies survive?
Click to expand...
In the 1840s homosexuality was considered a crime; so it would not have been argued in that way.

Anyway, from what I can tell, with the rulings so far; if it is held that there is a constitutional right to marry and that marriage can be defined any way the State choses as long as there is no victim; I don’t see how someone couldn’t argue and win a case that polygamous relationships might be labeled marriage as well.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Marriage has never been required to procreate nor do all heterosexuals have the will or ability to procreate either within our outside of marriage so that argument falls flat on its face

Not everyone believes that marriage is all about sex.
Click to expand...
Red Herring, no one has said all marriages must procreate. The point is that elements of male female marriage…as an institution not on an individual basis…differ from same sex marriage which never has the potential of creating new members of society.

And with respect your second point, same sex marriage advocates have based their entire argument on participation in a sexual practice. There is nothing else that would make two men or two women eligible for “marriage” unless as will occur in my opinion, the term will be made meaningless by expanding it to anyone wishing to avail themselves of real or perceived benefits.

Or do you suggest that ANY two (or three or four) people be allowed to call themselves “married”?
Lisa
 
rossum said:
But legally recognised marriages are not irrelevant to tax laws. The treatment of tax and marriages was the core of the Windsor case, decided by the Supreme Court, which overthrew part of DOMA.

rossum
Click to expand...
Read your post. You referred ONLY to sexual relationships. The word marriage was not mentioned. I assure you having prepared hundreds of tax returns, there is no box that asks “Are you having sex?” With whom? How?

Lisa
 
Slavonic said:
When polygamy was being argued about between Utah and the US Federal government, did anyone argue a possible consequence was same sex marriage? In history did polygamy lead to same sex marriage? I think not. How, then, can same sex marriage lead to polygamy but polygamy has not led to same sex marriage? Furthermore, to touch on an earlier point, if anything but monogamous opposite sex marriage causes the downfall of society, how did polygamous or polyandrous societies survive?
Click to expand...
It is not “same sex marriage” that argues for opening the term to whatever someone wants it to be, it’s simply that marriage no longer has a unique meaning. When it is a contact between one male and one female, it is specific and limited. When it’s any two people who “love each other” it opens the door to any possible combination.

If self professed “love” and self identified sexual practice are the criteria, the term becomes totally relative. There is no longer any definition. I see no reason that polygamy would not be allowed under the umbrella of redefining marriage brought to us through same sex “marriage.”

You can’t have it both ways gays. If it’s only about what you want and whom you “love” then you have no standing to tell someone else their “love” and their desires to be recognized are inferior to your own.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
Red Herring, no one has said all marriages must procreate. The point is that elements of male female marriage…as an institution not on an individual basis…differ from same sex marriage which never has the potential of creating new members of society.
Click to expand...
You’ll have to pick your argument because, at the moment, you’re waffling back and forth between saying that heterosexuals should be the only people allowed to marry for the purpose of procreation then saying that procreation isn’t required for marriage. There are MANY heterosexuals who do not have the potential of procreation and, again, nor is marriage required for procreation. Some homosexuals DO create "new members of society. Continuing along your line of reasoning is pointless because it has been rejected by the courts numerous times already.
LisaA said:
And with respect your second point, same sex marriage advocates have based their entire argument on participation in a sexual practice.
Click to expand...
You are the only one of the two of us making this issue about sex and you are the only one of the two of us basing their argument on sexual practice. 🤷
 
rossum said:
Yes, for legal purposes. I have not seen a sufficient legal argument for treating the two forms of relationship differently.

And there were many people who disagreed and argued against giving women the vote. Those people were wrong to do so.

Agreed. I do not dispute that different marriages are different. The question is whether those differences justify different treatment under the law.

rossum
Click to expand...
Hardly surprising views, coming from you!

As is known to happen, the dark side, or the wrong side, sometimes prevails in court. Not because the right side is lacking in sufficient legal arguments, but because court trials are a a cr*p shoot, down, i.e., it goes one way, also dependent on time and circumstance, factors outside legal arguments. Time and circumstance have a way of affecting case proceedings. Such as when Vaughan Walker, a gay judge, ruled on Prop 8, nullifying said voter initiative in California limiting marriage to a man and a woman, such as when just one more Supreme Court justice could have voted, but did not, for the interest of the United States instead of Edith Windsor on DOMA, such as when the case challenging the voter-approved gay “marriage” ban in Utah fell in the lap of Judge Shelby in the U.S. District Court, an Obama appointee sitting on the bench for just six months.

I realize such developments favoring gay “marriage” help your advocacy, but the wind is blowing in the wrong direction for society.

Consider that the winds blew a certain way three years before Roe v Wade was decided in favor of legal abortion by the Supreme Court in 1973. In that landmark case, plaintiff Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) was pregnant, unemployed and depressed, and thereby sought an abortion. She was not raped but that was the story (for which she now regrets) she told two ambitious lawyers (Weddington and Coffee) who capitalized on the lie in challenging the Texas state law prohibiting abortion, the case going all the way to the Supreme Court. Roe v Wade is bad law, it is evil, but it is legal — 56 million American babies have been aborted and women in the millions have been harmed for over forty years. Increasingly, people would like to see this bad law allowing legal genocide of babies in the womb reversed.

Before any homosexual reading this gets bent out of shape, I am not at all posturing that homosexuals are evil. Homosexual “marriage” is.
,
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
You’ll have to pick your argument because, at the moment, you’re waffling back and forth between saying that heterosexuals should be the only people allowed to marry for the purpose of procreation then saying that procreation isn’t required for marriage. There are MANY heterosexuals who do not have the potential of procreation and, again, nor is marriage required for procreation. Some homosexuals DO create "new members of society. Continuing along your line of reasoning is pointless because it has been rejected by the courts numerous times already.

You are the only one of the two of us making this issue about sex and you are the only one of the two of us basing their argument on sexual practice. 🤷
Click to expand...
No that is not what I said nor is it correct. Male female marriage is a unique institution requiring two opposite sex participants. Male female marriage has the inherent nature and specific gender differences that same sex marriage lacks.Only opposite sex couples can produce a child. They may not produce a child but that doesn’t change the opposite sex gender and the biologic potential to have a child. Thus this is a unique definition.

Same sex couples cannot produce a child. Thus the unique features that make male/female marriage a clearly identified relationship do not exist in same sex relationships.

It’s all about definition and homosexualists want to redefine marriage to include state support for their sexual activity. It IS all about sex with this cadre. If not they should be marching in the streets demanding “marriage” for anyone who wants to fill out a form or pay a fee. The irony is that somehow this sexual activity is to be elevated beyond all others whereas other sexual relationships such as polygamy, incest, or group marriage, do not qualify.

If it’s NOT about enshrining your sex practices into legal recognition, what is it EN? It IS all about trying to equate homosexual sex with heterosexual sex and that twain will NEVER meet.

The reasons for this demand: More benefits, to use as a cudgel to extract retribution, to pretend that what they have is equivalent to male female marriage. It’s the typical self absorbed, self indulgent Lefist delusion.

Again if it’s NOT about sex EN, why do you not demand “marriage” be extended to anyone’s “love” interest whether it’s a neighbor or sibling or friend? Amazing how homosexuals demand society give them certain rights based on sexual activity but don’t extend the same rights to others.

Lisa
 
InSearchofGrace said:
Hardly surprising views, coming from you!

As is known to happen, the dark side, or the wrong side, sometimes prevails in court. Not because the right side is lacking in sufficient legal arguments, but because court trials are a a cr*p shoot, down, i.e., it goes one way, also dependent on time and circumstance, factors outside legal arguments. Time and circumstance have a way of affecting case proceedings. Such as when Vaughan Walker, a gay judge, ruled on Prop 8, nullifying said voter initiative in California limiting marriage to a man and a woman, such as when just one more Supreme Court justice could have voted, but did not, for the interest of the United States instead of Edith Windsor on DOMA, such as when the case challenging the voter-approved gay “marriage” ban in Utah fell in the lap of Judge Shelby in the U.S. District Court, an Obama appointee sitting on the bench for just six months.

I realize such developments favoring gay “marriage” help your advocacy, but the wind is blowing in the wrong direction for society.

Consider that the winds blew a certain way three years before Roe v Wade was decided in favor of legal abortion by the Supreme Court in 1973. In that landmark case, plaintiff Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) was pregnant, unemployed and depressed, and thereby sought an abortion. She was not raped but that was the story (for which she now regrets) she told two ambitious lawyers (Weddington and Coffee) who capitalized on the lie in challenging the Texas state law prohibiting abortion, the case going all the way to the Supreme Court. Roe v Wade is bad law, it is evil, but it is legal — 56 million American babies have been aborted and women in the millions have been harmed for over forty years. Increasingly, people would like to see this bad law allowing legal genocide of babies in the womb reversed.

Before any homosexual reading this gets bent out of shape, I am not at all posturing that homosexuals are evil. Homosexual “marriage” is.
,
Click to expand...
Also to the point is that marriage was instituted to protect women and children, and to provide a more prosperous and stable society. It had intrinsic benefits that might not always occur but in the overall picture, marriage did and does serve those two societal ends.

When the courts have permitted social experiments from no fault divorce to abortion, when society no longer cares whether women are married before they have a child, the results are not the butterflies and fuzzy bunnies that were promised. Remember the theory that once abortion was legal, no more abused children! Once no fault divorce came into being, no more children “scarred” by their parents’ unhappy marriage.

How’s that workin out? There is something to be said for the wisdom of the ages. Facts change but the truth does not. Social experiments tend to turn into disasters, particularly for the weakest among us. I fully believe that Same Sex “Marriage” is yet another in a long and distinguished series of assaults. The lawsuits, the harassment, the demands for silencing anyone who dares say they believe in traditional marriage all point to a very chaotic future for our country.

Lisa
 
InSearchofGrace said:
Hardly surprising views, coming from you!

As is known to happen, the dark side, or the wrong side, sometimes prevails in court. Not because the right side is lacking in sufficient legal arguments, but because court trials are a a cr*p shoot, down, i.e., it goes one way, also dependent on time and circumstance, factors outside legal arguments. Time and circumstance have a way of affecting case proceedings. Such as when Vaughan Walker, a gay judge, ruled on Prop 8, nullifying said voter initiative in California limiting marriage to a man and a woman, such as when just one more Supreme Court justice could have voted, but did not, for the interest of the United States instead of Edith Windsor on DOMA, such as when the case challenging the voter-approved gay “marriage” ban in Utah fell in the lap of Judge Shelby in the U.S. District Court, an Obama appointee sitting on the bench for just six months.

I realize such developments favoring gay “marriage” help your advocacy, but the wind is blowing in the wrong direction for society.

Consider that the winds blew a certain way three years before Roe v Wade was decided in favor of legal abortion by the Supreme Court in 1973. In that landmark case, plaintiff Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) was pregnant, unemployed and depressed, and thereby sought an abortion. She was not raped but that was the story (for which she now regrets) she told two ambitious lawyers (Weddington and Coffee) who capitalized on the lie in challenging the Texas state law prohibiting abortion, the case going all the way to the Supreme Court. Roe v Wade is bad law, it is evil, but it is legal — 56 million American babies have been aborted and women in the millions have been harmed for over forty years. Increasingly, people would like to see this bad law allowing legal genocide of babies in the womb reversed.

Before any homosexual reading this gets bent out of shape, I am not at all posturing that homosexuals are evil. Homosexual “marriage” is.

,
Click to expand...
Edit for bolded part to say:

… court trials are a a cr*p shoot, i.e., it goes one way, down, dependent on time and circumstance, factors outside legal arguments.

,
 
LisaA said:
Also to the point is that marriage was instituted to protect women and children, and to provide a more prosperous and stable society. It had intrinsic benefits that might not always occur but in the overall picture, marriage did and does serve those two societal ends.

When the courts have permitted social experiments from no fault divorce to abortion, when society no longer cares whether women are married before they have a child, the results are not the butterflies and fuzzy bunnies that were promised. Remember the theory that once abortion was legal, no more abused children! Once no fault divorce came into being, no more children “scarred” by their parents’ unhappy marriage.

How’s that workin out? There is something to be said for the wisdom of the ages. Facts change but the truth does not. Social experiments tend to turn into disasters, particularly for the weakest among us. I fully believe that Same Sex “Marriage” is yet another in a long and distinguished series of assaults. The lawsuits, the harassment, the demands for silencing anyone who dares say they believe in traditional marriage all point to a very chaotic future for our country.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Our Catholic brothers and sisters complicit in the perpetuation of these disastrous social experiments and supporting, materially cooperating with the legalization of SS"M" need to wake up and come home.
,
 
InSearchofGrace said:
Before any homosexual reading this gets bent out of shape, I am not at all posturing that homosexuals are evil. Homosexual “marriage” is.
,
Click to expand...
It’s really no better; you’re setting a pretty low standard. I still shows a fundamental lack of respect and understanding of people different from you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top