Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[JamesTheJust]

Correct me if I’m wrong…but "gay marriage is a state issue…not a federal issue…if I’m wrong I apologize…

Yes, civil marriage is regulated by the states. However, the federal government must recognize the marriage for the couple to recieve benefits. That was what DOMA being struck down was all about; since the SCOTUS called it unconstitutional, homosexual “marriages” are now federally recognized and homosexual “married” couples now receive benefits.

 

[_Abyssinia]

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.

Excerpt from an article written by Fr Dwight Longnecker after homosexual marriage legislation was signed by the Queen

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/07/marriage-or-holy-matrimony.html

It is now time for the Catholic Church to distance itself from civil marriage. The best thing we can do is withdraw from every aspect of civil marriage. I would be in favor of the situation which exists in France and other countries–where two people who want to be married go to the local registrar to be married civilly and then go on to the church for the Christian ceremony. This will give us a clarity. It will also allow us as pastors, to restrict church weddings to those who really intend to enter into a Catholic marriage. To do this we need to clarify what Holy Matrimony is. Here is a discussion.

I would also advocate a change in terminology. From now on I will refer to a Catholic marriage as “Holy Matrimony”. If “marriage” can be between two men or two women or multiple people or whatever other definitions people wish to put on it, then that term is no good to us. Terminology matters and I suggest that those who wish to maintain the truth of marriage now use the term “Holy Matrimony”. It may be somewhat cumbersome at first, but we will know where we stand.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Matrimony

Holy matrimony is a phrase used by Christians to describe marriage

All Christians who disagree with legalising homosexual marriage should call traditional marriage Holy Matrimony. Language matters and calling traditional marriage something different makes it clear that it is different and distinguished

 

[Peebo]

Excerpt from an article written by Fr Dwight Longnecker after homosexual marriage legislation was signed by the Queen

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/07/marriage-or-holy-matrimony.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Matrimony

All Christians who disagree with legalising homosexual marriage should call traditional marriage Holy Matrimony. Language matters and calling traditional marriage something different makes it clear that it is different and distinguished

Very interesting…I agree with what he says…one point though…if the church were to no longer recognize civil marriages…what if two people (one or both Catholic) were married in a civil ceremony…they later divorced…one (Catholic) later remarried a divorcee in another civil ceremony…the Catholic partner later wanted to return to the church with his /her partner who was not Catholic…as their marriage would not be recognized by the church…would they still need an annulment…and if so… why…as their marriage (s) were never recognized…work that out…lol

 

[KrazyKat]

Very interesting…I agree with what he says…one point though…if the church were to no longer recognize civil marriages…what if two people (one or both Catholic) were married in a civil ceremony…they later divorced…one (Catholic) later remarried a divorcee in another civil ceremony…the Catholic partner later wanted to return to the church with his /her partner who was not Catholic…as their marriage would not be recognized by the church…would they still need an annulment…and if so… why…as their marriage (s) were never recognized…work that out…lol

Hmmm, good point. Before I reverted to the Catholic Church I was married and widowed three times. I was advised by the priest that as far as the church was concerned I had never been married. I know that God blessed my marriages even if the church does not recognize them. Yes, I am a widow.

 

[Monkey1976]

And yes, marriage is a constitutional right per Loving V Virginia.

Marriage is a right for male/female couples. Look at the actual text of Loving v Virginia, and read the cases it cites. Supporting the Court’s statement that, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”, the court cited Skinner v. Oklahoma. Skinner v. Oklahoma declared forced sterilization unconstitutional because procreation is a basic civil right.

How does the “marriage” of two men or two women involve the basic civil right of procreation?

How is the “marriage” of two men or two women “fundamental to our very existence and survival”?

The Supreme Court recognized marriage as a basic civil right because it is the ideal environment for the generation and rearing of children.

The same-sex “marriage” lobby has been lying to us as to what Loving says. Unfortunately, in our culture, a lie repeated often and loudly enough tends to become a truth in the minds of the populace.

 

[Dawnia]

Very interesting…I agree with what he says…one point though…if the church were to no longer recognize civil marriages…what if two people (one or both Catholic) were married in a civil ceremony…they later divorced…one (Catholic) later remarried a divorcee in another civil ceremony…the Catholic partner later wanted to return to the church with his /her partner who was not Catholic…as their marriage would not be recognized by the church…would they still need an annulment…and if so… why…as their marriage (s) were never recognized…work that out…lol

A Catholic Church currently doesn’t recognize a civil marriage of a Catholic. If it wasn’t done in the Catholic Church, it wasn’t a marriage. But, the annulment process still has to be gone through regardless.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

If left to its own devices, I’m sure it would. But this decision wasn’t made by the state. This suit was in federal court. Hopefully, this decision can be applied to the entire country.

Actually, this is the best thing to happen. An ignorant judge in a conservative state with a conservative attorney general overrides the will of the people, and this will allow Utah to bring this to the USSC.

This is what should have happened with California, but the governor there has no spine or moral compass, and since he didn’t defend the suit, it was rejected by the USSC as not having standing.

If a state AG brings suit, the USSC will not be able to hide behind technicalities. let’s hope when it gets there, the USSC still has a soul.

Regardless, I’m not sure how anyone who supports the legitimization of homosexuality in society can see this sort of thing as a victory. Instead of working to changes people’s minds and hearts over time, you overrule them in the court system. It doesn’t show ANY progress on the actual cause. It’s like claiming someone loves you at the point of a gun. All it does is breed resentment for those you want to convince of the justness of your cause.

Luckily, history tells us when God has enough, he will spare the righteous and destroy the wicked and immoral. I’ll take my chances with the side of good on that one.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

This war is over.

Psst - you already lost the war…

In the end, God prevails, and your team loses.

I wouldn’t be so quick to make proclamations about wars being over when the only certainty is God’s reign, the Satan’s loss. Concepts like gay marriage will be relegated to the dustbin of evil history along with Lucifer. Hope you change your mind before then.

 

[SeannyM]

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…

A federal judge is ruling on the constitutionality of a state law. Which is well within the court’s purview. Just because a state has the power to regulate something (like marriage) does not mean that their regulations are exempt from federal judicial review. They still are required to meet the requirements of the US Constitution.

 

[SeannyM]

Actually, this is the best thing to happen. An ignorant judge in a conservative state with a conservative attorney general overrides the will of the people, and this will allow Utah to bring this to the USSC.

This is what should have happened with California, but the governor there has no spine or moral compass, and since he didn’t defend the suit, it was rejected by the USSC as not having standing.

If a state AG brings suit, the USSC will not be able to hide behind technicalities. let’s hope when it gets there, the USSC still has a soul.

Regardless, I’m not sure how anyone who supports the legitimization of homosexuality in society can see this sort of thing as a victory. Instead of working to changes people’s minds and hearts over time, you overrule them in the court system. It doesn’t show ANY progress on the actual cause. It’s like claiming someone loves you at the point of a gun. All it does is breed resentment for those you want to convince of the justness of your cause.

Luckily, history tells us when God has enough, he will spare the righteous and destroy the wicked and immoral. I’ll take my chances with the side of good on that one.

He made a good ruling, and I hope it makes it to the SCOTUS. I suspect that in light of their recent rulings on the issue, the ruling will be upheld.

 

[SeannyM]

Marriage is a right for male/female couples. Look at the actual text of Loving v Virginia, and read the cases it cites. Supporting the Court’s statement that, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.”, the court cited Skinner v. Oklahoma. Skinner v. Oklahoma declared forced sterilization unconstitutional because procreation is a basic civil right.

How does the “marriage” of two men or two women involve the basic civil right of procreation?

How is the “marriage” of two men or two women “fundamental to our very existence and survival”?

The Supreme Court recognized marriage as a basic civil right because it is the ideal environment for the generation and rearing of children.

The same-sex “marriage” lobby has been lying to us as to what Loving says. Unfortunately, in our culture, a lie repeated often and loudly enough tends to become a truth in the minds of the populace.

No, SCOTUS cites Loving in its decision on DOMA, so it is interpreted exactly the way we have been saying. There is no such thing as a “male/female” right by the way. Rights are required to be applied equally regardless of gender, per the 14th amendment.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

He made a good ruling, and I hope it makes it to the SCOTUS. I suspect that in light of their recent rulings on the issue, the ruling will be upheld.

Spoken like a true Catholic.

Wait, never mind. That’s the opposite of what we believe. Nice job.

 

[SeannyM]

Spoken like a true Catholic.

Wait, never mind. That’s the opposite of what we believe. Nice job.

Different faiths tend to have different beliefs… My church has a different teaching about gay marriage than the Roman Catholic Church does.

 

[Dawnia]

No, SCOTUS cites Loving in its decision on DOMA, so it is interpreted exactly the way we have been saying. There is no such thing as a “male/female” right by the way. Rights are required to be applied equally regardless of gender, per the 14th amendment.

Yet, SCOTUS made no declaration that gay marriage was a constitutional right, which they certainly could have if they believed it so. They also could have taken up the 9th Circuit Case rather than rejecting it on a technicality and solidified this “right”. Yet, again, they didn’t.

They did however go on ad nauseam about the definition and regulation of marriage being the purview of the states. Apparently the judge in this case skipped over that part. (I wouldn’t blame him, it’s rather boring.)

They did not reference Loving in the DOMA opinion the way you are implying. It was a minor reference to point out that the state’s don’t have completely unchecked authority in regards to defining marriage.

 

[SeannyM]

Yet, SCOTUS made no declaration that gay marriage was a constitutional right, which they certainly could have if they believed it so. They also could have taken up the 9th Circuit Case rather than rejecting it on a technicality and solidified this “right”. Yet, again, they didn’t.

They did however go on ad nauseam about the definition and regulation of marriage being the purview of the states. Apparently the judge in this case skipped over that part. (I wouldn’t blame him, it’s rather boring.)

They did not reference Loving in the DOMA opinion the way you are implying. It was a minor reference to point out that the state’s don’t have completely unchecked authority in regards to defining marriage.

The question wasn’t before the SCOTUS in the DOMA case, and they would never take a case in which they didn’t have standing… even if they really wanted to rule on it. The question of wether a state can ban gay marriage was never before the court.

 

[Dawnia]

The question wasn’t before the SCOTUS in the DOMA case, and they would never take a case in which they didn’t have standing… even if they really wanted to rule on it. The question of wether a state can ban gay marriage was never before the court.

If that were true, DOMA would have never been decided either. SCOTUS takes the cases they want to take.

It doesn’t have to be before the court. Federal law is also bound by the Constitution.

 

[SeannyM]

If that were true, DOMA would have never been decided either. SCOTUS takes the cases they want to take.

It doesn’t have to be before the court. Federal law is also bound by the Constitution.

True, but in order for federal law to be reviewed by the court, the law has to be challenged and taken before the court… they can’t just call up Congress and say “hey, that law ain’t gonna fly.” They can only rule on the issues before the court.

 

[SeannyM]

If that were true, DOMA would have never been decided either. SCOTUS takes the cases they want to take.

It doesn’t have to be before the court. Federal law is also bound by the Constitution.

And they had standing to rule on DOMA, not on Prop 8.

 

[Dawnia]

True, but in order for federal law to be reviewed by the court, the law has to be challenged and taken before the court… they can’t just call up Congress and say “hey, that law ain’t gonna fly.” They can only rule on the issues before the court.

Ummm…hello…DOMA was a federal law that was before the court.

 

[Dawnia]

And they had standing to rule on DOMA, not on Prop 8.

SCOTUS makes the rules and can find standing when they want to. As they did in DOMA.