Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[_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.

 

[LisaA]

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.

And even Justice Ginsberg says Roe was poorly decided. Read it sometime and it’s pretzel logic creating rights out of a pneumbra of hot air emitting from the Justice’s mouth is dazzingly illogical.

Marriage may be a right but the parties who are eligible have been limited in different ways. It truly boggles the mind that in the last couple of decades activists and activist judges have simply decided that they know better than thousands of years of law, tradition, biology, sociology and history. Marriage has never been about state support of a sexual activity. And in the final analysis that is ALL that homosexuals want. It would make about as much sense to say that there could be marriages based on a proclivity to oral sex or mutual enjoyment of porn. When your entire case is based on protecting a non-creative sexual activity, it debases the intrinsic humanity we are all born with. People are more than genitalia and what is done with them but homosexuals are now self described and personally identified with this activity as a unique element of themselves.

It’s truly amazing and sad what has happened because a tiny minority of the population wants to inflict its practices on the country. As you noted, Roe has not only resulted in the death of millions of American citizens but has created a culture war with many more casualties. When we defy Natural Law the consequences are devastating. Species do not normally engage in self destructive behavior. Even if you don’t accept God’s Law you can’t fool Mother Nature.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

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.

jmr I enjoy your thoughtful and logical posts. Welcome to the Forum and as a former Methodist, welcome Home.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

I do believe that it advances civilization… We are slowly becoming a country in which there truly is liberty, and justice for all. I also find it extremely offensive to compare gay marriage to pedophilia… It’s both offensive and incorrect. There is no correlation between the two. One involves a commitment between two consenting adults, and the other involves the violation of a child’s innocence. The two are not comparable. Now polygamy, I don’t necessarily see how we can justify a ban on it. If someone’s religion allows it, and it doesn’t harm anybody, then I don’t see a reason for the government to intrude in the matter. Which brings up a great point. Why are religious conservatives so against government intrusion when it comes to things like schooling, and healthcare, but go in the complete opposite direction as soon as something is against their religion? You can’t have it both ways… the government does not exist to enforce your religious tenets. So, either you’re against government intrusion, or you’re not.

Your cause is NOT creating more liberty but in fact it is creating the tyranny of the minority. And a tyranny of the “offended.” Not everyone accepts the (frankly ridiculous) presumption that homosexual sexual activity is the equivalent of heterosexual sexual activity. But anyone who mentions basic biology (not to mention theology, sociology or history) is deemed a H8ER. The recent Duck Dynasty flap is a perfect example. GLAAD and other pro homosexual groups did not provide a cogent argument as to why Phil Robertson’s comments were incorrect, they simply demanded he be silenced, that the network take him off the air, that he grovel and prostrate himself before the great and might Lavender Mafia activists. Tyranny of the “offended.” We have multiple cases of homosexuals suing small businesses into obliviion because they don’t want to bake a cake or photograph a same sex “wedding.” Activists in government support this tyranny and have made objecting to a behavior that has long been considered abnormal a ‘hanging offense.’

Oh and don’t pull out the comparison card, it doesn’t work. There is significant documentation of the desires if not demands that age limits for consensual sex be reduced…NAMBLA anyone? Your side has a rather checkered history with regard to preying upon young people. It’s part of the culture, the obsession with youth due to a relationship based on sexual pleasure uber alles.

Lisa

 

[rossum]

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.

I agree. I think that the Supremes will probably punt on this one. As with interracial marriage, they will probably wait until a majority of the states have recognised same-sex marriage individually, before moving to mandate it nationally. It is noteworthy that they struck down Prop 8 on very narrow grounds that only applied to California and didn’t set a clear precedent for other states to follow, which they could easily have done had they wished.

Where they might move early, is in cases like the current Ohio case which involves recognition of valid marriages in other states. There is already a lot of precedent on that. States where first cousins cannot marry, or with higher ages of consent, already recognise valid marriages from other states that are not legal in the state itself. I would expect to see cross-state recognition before SSM in every state.

$0.02

rossum

 

[latin_rite]

Could a state pass a law denying all men the vote, and just allowing women to vote in every election? Such a law might get a majority, but it would be unconstitutional because of the Nineteenth Amendment. A judge would be right to strike down such a law.

One of the reasons for having the Constitution is to prevent a majority oppressing a minority unfairly. The judge obviously decided that the law was unfair in denying marriage to partners of the same sex, and hence against the requirement for equal treatment under the Constitution. The State is appealing the decision, so by the time this is finished more than one person will have decided.

Judges do not sit on thrones. Thrones are for Popes, Bishops and Monarchs.

rossum

The constitution says a law for the people by the people. And even the constitution says if it cannot provide this it should be torn up and rewritten.
Judges are your kings. You must rise when they enter and you must not sit until they command you to.

 

[SeannyM]

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.

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.

Catholic teaching has no bearing on civil laws… No one is saying that Church doctrine should be required to change. The court is just recognizing that church doctrine is not a valid reason the withhold equal protection.

 

[Brendan_64]

Catholic teaching has no bearing on civil laws…

Oh yes it does. As a Catholic (as you say you are) you ought to recognise that Church teaching has a bearing on every aspect of society, particularly the law. We cannot follow God and Mammon. You cannot hold a view that Church law is to apply to when we go to Church on Sundays and applies only to Catholics in the privacy of our own homes, but that civil law ought to take precedence when we walk outside the doors of our homes. All Catholics are bound (at all times) to submit to Church teaching on issues of faith and morals.

No one is saying that Church doctrine should be required to change. The court is just recognizing that church doctrine is not a valid reason the withhold equal protection.

Equal protection? This is not equal protection, this is granting equal status to true marriage and homosexual unions. This is completely in opposition to Church teaching and should be opposed by all Catholics (we are of course bound to follow the Church in issues of faith and morals).

Our faith is not a private matter, our Church laws are not something that we ought to regard as applying only in private. Our Church laws are God’s laws, they should pervade all aspects of culture. We are called to bring these laws (which are part of the Word of God) to all humanity, that is part of the Great Commission.

As soon as accept that any civil law ought to take precedence over any Church law then we have ceased to serve God and have chosen to serve Mammon instead.

 

[Monkey1976]

Catholic teaching has no bearing on civil laws… No one is saying that Church doctrine should be required to change. The court is just recognizing that church doctrine is not a valid reason the withhold equal protection.

It’s not just “Catholic teaching”. It’s also Orthodox, Anglican, Baptist, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Shinto, Hindu, Buddhist, Animist, Atheist… Or is basic biology now a religious doctrine which the government cannot endorse?

When it can be shown that the sexual activity between two men or two women is equal to sexual intercourse - namely, by producing a child without the intervention of a third party - then you have a valid claim.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Yes, he is part of an Independent “Catholic” Church which calls itself the American Catholic Church. It was founded in 1999.

 

[Brendan_64]

Yes, he is part of an Independent “Catholic” Church which calls itself the American Catholic Church. It was founded in 1999.

I’ve never heard of them.

 

[LisaA]

Yes, he is part of an Independent “Catholic” Church which calls itself the American Catholic Church. It was founded in 1999.

Interesting. Just as those who wish alternative arrangements be called marriage they also want alternative teaching to be called Catholic…that relativism once again.

Lisa

 

[SeannyM]

Oh yes it does. As a Catholic (as you say you are) you ought to recognise that Church teaching has a bearing on every aspect of society, particularly the law. We cannot follow God and Mammon. You cannot hold a view that Church law is to apply to when we go to Church on Sundays and applies only to Catholics in the privacy of our own homes, but that civil law ought to take precedence when we walk outside the doors of our homes. All Catholics are bound (at all times) to submit to Church teaching on issues of faith and morals.

Equal protection? This is not equal protection, this is granting equal status to true marriage and homosexual unions. This is completely in opposition to Church teaching and should be opposed by all Catholics (we are of course bound to follow the Church in issues of faith and morals).

Our faith is not a private matter, our Church laws are not something that we ought to regard as applying only in private. Our Church laws are God’s laws, they should pervade all aspects of culture. We are called to bring these laws (which are part of the Word of God) to all humanity, that is part of the Great Commission.

As soon as accept that any civil law ought to take precedence over any Church law then we have ceased to serve God and have chosen to serve Mammon instead.

The problem is that you have no right to impose church laws on “all humanity.” One of the greatest ideals of America is religious liberty and respect for other’s beliefs. The RCC does not have the right or ability to try and define what God’s law is for people of different faiths. My church has a different interpretation of God’s law than yours does. I would never want to impose my beliefs on you, or try to tell you that your church’s interpretation is wrong, because I respect your right to hold your own beliefs.

 

[Monkey1976]

The problem is that you have no right to impose church laws on “all humanity.” One of the greatest ideals of America is religious liberty and respect for other’s beliefs. The RCC does not have the right or ability to try and define what God’s law is for people of different faiths. My church has a different interpretation of God’s law than yours does. I would never want to impose my beliefs on you, or try to tell you that your church’s interpretation is wrong, because I respect your right to hold your own beliefs.

And yet you have no problem with this judge redefining marriage in a way that suits your particular religion.

 

[SeannyM]

And yet you have no problem with this judge redefining marriage in a way that suits your particular religion.

Again, his ruling has nothing to do with religion. There is a big difference between restricting a right and broadening it’s application. If you restrict it, as you would prefer, then you cause harm to those you are denying access to… If you broaden the application it harms no one. Either way, it isn’t even remotely about religion, it’s a civil law that is in no way dependent on a religious ceremony, figure or belief.

 

[Monkey1976]

Again, his ruling has nothing to do with religion. There is a big difference between restricting a right and broadening it’s application. If you restrict it, as you would prefer, then you cause harm to those you are denying access to… If you broaden the application it harms no one. Either way, it isn’t even remotely about religion, it’s a civil law that is in no way dependent on a religious ceremony, figure or belief.

It harms no one, apart from those who are now faced with the choice of violating their conscience or closing their businesses/changing their careers.

Nobody was preventing two women or two men from calling themselves married. What’s happening is that we are now being forced to agree with that against conscience and reason.

 

[SeannyM]

It’s not a condition, it is an orientation. Any assertion to the contrary is simply incorrect and completely contrary to the opinions of virtually the entire psychiatric and medical community. I’m actually quite happy being gay, so I definitely reject the term “sufferers.”