Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[SeannyM]

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.

The decision has NOTHING to do with religion. They aren’t enforcing my religion, or anyone else’s. They also aren’t changing the definition of marriage… they aren’t creating a new right… they are changing the application of the right. It has literally nothing to do with religion. Also, you aren’t required to accept it, you are simply required to follow the law if it applies. And civil unions are not equal application of the law, especially since the federal government doesn’t recognize them.

 

[Monkey1976]

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.

Then I humbly submit that Judge Shelby is talking out of an orifice other than the mouth. Nowhere in our nations history has marriage simply been “an intimate and sustaining emotional bond”. In every case involving the right to marry until this assault, marriage has been defined as a fundamental right because of the right for an individual to procreate - something impossible for same-sex couples.

 

[SeannyM]

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.

The constitution is silent on all kinds of issues… that doesn’t mean that they aren’t considered fundamental liberties. That’s why the 9th amendment exists: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

And the judiciary is supposed to be unelected so that they remain above the influence of the electorate. This allows them to impartially interpret the law. They are supposed to stop states from enforcing their laws when they are unconstitutional. Is it possible that you are under the impression that we are still governed by the Articles of Confederation?

 

[SeannyM]

Then I humbly submit that Judge Shelby is talking out of an orifice other than the mouth. Nowhere in our nations history has marriage simply been “an intimate and sustaining emotional bond”. In every case involving the right to marry until this assault, marriage has been defined as a fundamental right because of the right for an individual to procreate - something impossible for same-sex couples.

The historical or traditional application of the law is of no consequence… it doesn’t establish a legitimate state interest.

From the ruling:
“Finally, the State contends that the fundamental right to marriage cannot encompass the right to marry someone of the same sex because this right has never been interpreted to have this meaning in the past. The court is not persuaded by the State’s argument. The Constitution is not so rigid that it always mandates the same outcome even when its principles operate on a new set of facts that were previously unknown: Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. Here, it is not the Constitution that has changed, but the knowledge of what it means to be gay or lesbian. The court cannot ignore the act that the Plaintiffs are able to develop a committed, intimate relationship with a person of the same sex but not with a person of the opposite sex. The court, and the State, must adapt to this changed understanding”

 

[SeannyM]

Then I humbly submit that Judge Shelby is talking out of an orifice other than the mouth. Nowhere in our nations history has marriage simply been “an intimate and sustaining emotional bond”. In every case involving the right to marry until this assault, marriage has been defined as a fundamental right because of the right for an individual to procreate - something impossible for same-sex couples.

Also, Judge Shelby correctly notes that the ability to produce offspring is not a legal or constitutional qualification for marriage. Many people who disagree quote several court cases that note that “marriage and procreation are fundamental the the existence of society.” This is true, however, that statement does not establish any requirement for procreation as a qualification for marriage. It simply establishes the right to marriage and the right to procreate… but it does not make them inseparable. There is also a right not to procreate.

 

[jmr_1985]

The constitution is silent on all kinds of issues… that doesn’t mean that they aren’t considered fundamental liberties. That’s why the 9th amendment exists: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

And the judiciary is supposed to be unelected so that they remain above the influence of the electorate. This allows them to impartially interpret the law. They are supposed to stop states from enforcing their laws when they are unconstitutional. Is it possible that you are under the impression that we are still governed by the Articles of Confederation?

Sir, I am a 3rd year law student. Your approach to constitutional interpretation is a product of the 1960s. Just because it is liberal orthodoxy does not make it the proper interpretation. Your line of thinking has led to the slaughter of 50 million innocent children. A constitution protecting “rights” that evolves to mean whatever a judge thinks it means is no constitution at all.

 

[SeannyM]

Sir, I am a 3rd year law student. Your approach to constitutional interpretation is a product of the 1960s. Just because it is liberal orthodoxy does not make it the proper interpretation. Your line of thinking has led to the slaughter of 50 million innocent children. A constitution protecting “rights” that evolves to mean whatever a judge thinks it means is no constitution at all.

You’ll have to forgive me if I choose to go with the interpretation of the Federal Judge over the third year law student. And I’m not sure which law school you go to, but your interpretation, or rather disregard of the Supremacy Clause is disheartening.

 

[jmr_1985]

You’ll have to forgive me if I choose to go with the interpretation of the Federal Judge over the third year law student.

As you’ll have to forgive me if I side with Justice Scalia.

 

[SeannyM]

As you’ll have to forgive me if I side with Justice Scalia.

That’s okay!! So did Judge Shelby!! He quoted his dissenting opinion in Windsor , and applied it in support of the plaintiffs’ due process claim.

 

[jmr_1985]

That’s okay!! So did Judge Shelby!! He quoted his dissenting opinion in Windsor , and applied it in support of the plaintiffs’ due process claim.

Yes, he used Justice Scalia’s warnings which date back to Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 that same sex marriage by judicial fiat would be the inevitable result of the Court’s interference with state police power regarding homosexuality. Basically, he said, yes Justice Scalia, your warnings were correct.

 

[SeannyM]

Yes, he used Justice Scalia’s warnings which date back to Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 that same sex marriage by judicial fiat would be the inevitable result of the Court’s interference with state police power regarding homosexuality. Basically, he said, yes Justice Scalia, your warnings were correct.

True… I have hoped he would be correct since Lawrence v Texas. I’ve always wondered how the 14th amendment didn’t render laws like Utah’s Amendment 3 and DOMA unconstitutional sooner than this. But, better late than never.

 

[Dawnia]

True… I have hoped he would be correct since Lawrence v Texas. I’ve always wondered how the 14th amendment didn’t render laws like Utah’s Amendment 3 and DOMA unconstitutional sooner than this. But, better late than never.

Don’t hold your breath that this ruling will stay intact.

Judge Shelby in Monday’s hearing admitted that the ruling was simply a guess as to how SCOTUS would rule. It seems as if a lot of Judges are making assumptions that SCOTUS will ultimately rule a certain way. They may or they may not. SCOTUS is a rather difficult court to nail down.

 

[Brendan_64]

You have forgotten one very important reality: there is religious marriage and civil marriage. Millions of people get married every day with no involvement of any religious institution. As a practicing Catholic, I have absolutely no problem with gay and lesbian couples getting married civilly. They do not remotely hurt my marriage or undermine traditional marriage in any way shape or form. People who claim that same-sex marriage does do those things have no facts to back them up.

And you are therefore arguing that the teaching of our Church is wrong and has no backing.

Our Church clearly teaches that gay ‘marriage’ undermines the institution of marriage. The Church’s view on marriage is not confined to marriages carried out by the Church. A marriage between two atheist heterosexuals carried out in a registry office is (so long as neither have been married and divorced) a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church. It is not a sacramental marriage, but it is a valid marriage under Natural law. Natural law has been created by God and is inherent in human nature. Gay ‘marriage’ undermines Natural law, it undermines God’s law. God’s law is not confined within the boundaries of the physical Church.

And asserting that belief in marriage is weak because of gay marriage is a logical fallacy. Someone would have to prove by statistics that states, for example, where gay marriage has been instituted have had an accelerated rate of divorce/steep decline in new marriages and show that those couples were directly influenced by gay marriage. Facts count, and so far they do not support assertions against gay marriage: phys.org/news/2013-06-traditional-marriage-unaffected-states-same-sex.html

We are bound to follow the teaching of the Church on the issue of gay ‘marriage’ (and on all other issues of morality). We are not given the liberty to make up our own mind at odds with the Church’s teaching on issues of faith or morals. To do so is to deny the revelation that Christ entrusted to the Church. We cannot, as Catholics, support same-sex ‘marriage’. We are not permitted to hold opinions on issues of morality that are at odds with the teachings of our Church. If we are inclined to hold such an opinion, we must accept that we are wrong, subjugate that opinion and accept the teaching of the Church.

 

[davidedwards]

We don’t blame to any one it is just a darkness in the earth but laws are laws which should be created by human or destroy by the him and it is just ahere are persons who, thanklessly casting away so many other blessings of redemption, despise also or utterly ignore the restoration of marriage to its original perfection. It is a reproach to some of the ancients that they showed themselves the enemies of marriage in many ways; but in our own age, much more pernicious is the sin of those who would fain pervert utterly the nature of marriage, perfect though it is, and complete in all its details and parts

 

[RACJ]

You’ll have to forgive me if I choose to go with the interpretation of the Federal Judge over the third year law student. And I’m not sure which law school you go to, but your interpretation, or rather disregard of the Supremacy Clause is disheartening.

Judges are usually well-connected political lawyers who study case law to the exclusion of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Your respect for judges who overstep their bounds and invent law is puzzling. It’s called tyranny. I’ll take the opinion of a third year law student (if he respects the Constitution) any day. Rob

 

[Farsight001]

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.

I didn’t say it didn’t. however, as I already explained, the violation of due process was the judge dictating the law, as rights such as this are to be put up to vote of the people of the state.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Utah marriage case on way to the Court (US Supreme Court that is)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, finding that the state of Utah has not made its case for delaying same-sex marriages, refused on Tuesday night to block a federal judge’s order striking down a voter-approved ban on those marriages. State officials then told news organizations in the state that they would now ask the Supreme Court to issue a delay, with a filing there likely on Thursday.

In a two-page order, a two-judge motions panel of the Tenth Circuit found that a stay was not warranted, expressing some uncertainty that the state’s position against same-sex marriage would ultimately prevail in court. The judges set the case (Kitchen v. Herbert (Circuit docket 13-4178)) for expedited review, with a briefing schedule to be issued shortly.

A request to the Supreme Court for a delay of the ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby of Salt Lake City would go first to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is the Circuit Justice for the geographic area that includes Utah. She would have the option to act alone or to refer the issue to her colleagues.

The state’s planned plea to the Supreme Court would be the first time the issue of same-sex marriage had returned to the Justices since their rulings in late June — one of which, United States v. Windsor, provided the basic constitutional reasoning that Judge Shelby applied in nullifying Utah’s state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriages — even though the *Windsor *decision was not a ruling on state authority to bar such unions.

It could be a significant test of whether the Court is ready to confront the power of states to ban same-sex marriages — an issue they explicitly did not resolve in those June decisions.

scotusblog.com/2013/12/utah-marriage-case-on-way-to-the-court/#more-202638

This does not look good for the State of Utah’s case

It has been noted by various commentators and briefs that went to the Supreme court before the Prop 8 and DOMA rulings, and I paraphrase, that the shadow of Roe v Wade lies over the supreme court intervening and imposing a ruling on all 50 states. The Supreme court could of declared that state bans on homosexual marriage were unconstitutional earlier this year and they did not and it would be tragic for them to impose homosexual marriage by fiat if future marriage cases go to the Supreme court. As noted by Ryan E Anderson, Roe v wade has created a 40 year culture war.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Utah marriage case on way to the Court (US Supreme Court that is)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, finding that the state of Utah has not made its case for delaying same-sex marriages, refused on Tuesday night to block a federal judge’s order striking down a voter-approved ban on those marriages. State officials then told news organizations in the state that they would now ask the Supreme Court to issue a delay, with a filing there likely on Thursday.

In a two-page order, a two-judge motions panel of the Tenth Circuit found that a stay was not warranted, expressing some uncertainty that the state’s position against same-sex marriage would ultimately prevail in court. The judges set the case (Kitchen v. Herbert (Circuit docket 13-4178)) for expedited review, with a briefing schedule to be issued shortly.

A request to the Supreme Court for a delay of the ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby of Salt Lake City would go first to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is the Circuit Justice for the geographic area that includes Utah. She would have the option to act alone or to refer the issue to her colleagues.

The state’s planned plea to the Supreme Court would be the first time the issue of same-sex marriage had returned to the Justices since their rulings in late June — one of which, United States v. Windsor, provided the basic constitutional reasoning that Judge Shelby applied in nullifying Utah’s state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriages — even though the *Windsor *decision was not a ruling on state authority to bar such unions.

It could be a significant test of whether the Court is ready to confront the power of states to ban same-sex marriages — an issue they explicitly did not resolve in those June decisions.

scotusblog.com/2013/12/utah-marriage-case-on-way-to-the-court/#more-202638

This does not look good for the State of Utah’s case

It has been noted by various commentators and briefs that went to the Supreme court before the Prop 8 and DOMA rulings, and I paraphrase, that the shadow of Roe v Wade lies over the supreme court intervening and imposing a ruling on all 50 states. The Supreme court could of declared that state bans on homosexual marriage were unconstitutional earlier this year and they did not and it would be tragic for them to impose homosexual marriage by fiat if future marriage cases go to the Supreme court. As noted by Ryan E Anderson, Roe v wade has created a 40 year culture war.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Utah marriage case on way to the Court (US Supreme Court that is)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, finding that the state of Utah has not made its case for delaying same-sex marriages, refused on Tuesday night to block a federal judge’s order striking down a voter-approved ban on those marriages. State officials then told news organizations in the state that they would now ask the Supreme Court to issue a delay, with a filing there likely on Thursday.

In a two-page order, a two-judge motions panel of the Tenth Circuit found that a stay was not warranted, expressing some uncertainty that the state’s position against same-sex marriage would ultimately prevail in court. The judges set the case (Kitchen v. Herbert (Circuit docket 13-4178)) for expedited review, with a briefing schedule to be issued shortly.

A request to the Supreme Court for a delay of the ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby of Salt Lake City would go first to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is the Circuit Justice for the geographic area that includes Utah. She would have the option to act alone or to refer the issue to her colleagues.

The state’s planned plea to the Supreme Court would be the first time the issue of same-sex marriage had returned to the Justices since their rulings in late June — one of which, United States v. Windsor, provided the basic constitutional reasoning that Judge Shelby applied in nullifying Utah’s state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriages — even though the *Windsor *decision was not a ruling on state authority to bar such unions.

It could be a significant test of whether the Court is ready to confront the power of states to ban same-sex marriages — an issue they explicitly did not resolve in those June decisions.

scotusblog.com/2013/12/utah-marriage-case-on-way-to-the-court/#more-202638

This does not look good for the State of Utah’s case

It has been noted by various commentators and briefs that went to the Supreme court before the Prop 8 and DOMA rulings, and I paraphrase, that the shadow of Roe v Wade lies over the supreme court intervening and imposing a ruling on all 50 states. The Supreme court could of declared that state bans on homosexual marriage were unconstitutional earlier this year and they did not and it would be tragic for them to impose homosexual marriage by fiat if future marriage cases go to the Supreme court. As noted by Ryan E Anderson, Roe v wade has created a 40 year culture war

 

[_Abyssinia]

Utah marriage case on way to the Court (US Supreme Court that is)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, finding that the state of Utah has not made its case for delaying same-sex marriages, refused on Tuesday night to block a federal judge’s order striking down a voter-approved ban on those marriages. State officials then told news organizations in the state that they would now ask the Supreme Court to issue a delay, with a filing there likely on Thursday.

In a two-page order, a two-judge motions panel of the Tenth Circuit found that a stay was not warranted, expressing some uncertainty that the state’s position against same-sex marriage would ultimately prevail in court. The judges set the case (Kitchen v. Herbert (Circuit docket 13-4178)) for expedited review, with a briefing schedule to be issued shortly.

A request to the Supreme Court for a delay of the ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby of Salt Lake City would go first to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is the Circuit Justice for the geographic area that includes Utah. She would have the option to act alone or to refer the issue to her colleagues.

The state’s planned plea to the Supreme Court would be the first time the issue of same-sex marriage had returned to the Justices since their rulings in late June — one of which, United States v. Windsor, provided the basic constitutional reasoning that Judge Shelby applied in nullifying Utah’s state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriages — even though the *Windsor *decision was not a ruling on state authority to bar such unions.

It could be a significant test of whether the Court is ready to confront the power of states to ban same-sex marriages — an issue they explicitly did not resolve in those June decisions.

scotusblog.com/2013/12/utah-marriage-case-on-way-to-the-court/#more-202638

This does not look good for the State of Utah’s case

It has been noted by various commentators and briefs that went to the Supreme court before the Prop 8 and DOMA rulings, and I paraphrase, that the shadow of Roe v Wade lies over the supreme court intervening and imposing a ruling on all 50 states. The Supreme court could of declared that state bans on homosexual marriage were unconstitutional earlier this year and they did not and it would be tragic for them to impose homosexual marriage by fiat if future marriage cases go to the Supreme court. As noted by Ryan E Anderson, Roe v wade has created a 40 year culture war.