Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[rossum]

Except that anti-miscegenation laws only came into play 200 years ago, whereas marriage has always been between one man and one woman.

I can see two very obvious errors there:

1. *]Solomon (and many other Biblical figures) had more than one wife. A lot more in Solomon’s case. Solomon lived more than 200 years ago.
   
   *]Nehemiah 13:25 is an anti-miscegenation text that is a lot older than 200 years.
   

   Also, similarity of argument does not equal an identical truth value, when the arguments are in different contexts

   Agreed. However, Judge Shelby explains at great length in his judgement why he considers that these arguments fail in the specific case before him. That they also failed in Loving v Virginia is interesting, but as you correctly say, not directly relevant to this case.
   
   What is relevant to the Utah case is the Supreme Court judgement in Loving v Virginia, which sets a precedent for all lower courts.
   
   rossum

 

[JamesTheJust]

I can see two very obvious errors there:

1. *]Solomon (and many other Biblical figures) had more than one wife. A lot more in Solomon’s case. Solomon lived more than 200 years ago.
   
   *]Nehemiah 13:25 is an anti-miscegenation text that is a lot older than 200 years.

1. 1. Solomon sinned by doing that (Deuteronomy 17:16-17, 1 Kings 11). The Bible does not condone everything it records.
   2. Back then, only the Israelites were God’s people. The surrounding peoples would inevitably lead them and their descendants away from God into paganism and evil, and the children of those inter-marriages would no longer be entirely of God’s chosen nation.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Human rights are not to be voted on. They are RIGHTS, not privileges. If you want to change that, then push for a theocracy.

No one voted on whether or not my wife and I could marry. Our heterosexual marriage isn’t affected in the least by gay people marrying. To say that gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage is absolute nonsense.

The United States Judiciary’s purpose isn’t to impose things on the general public that some Christians don’t like.

The European Court of Human Rights said it ‘does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.’ If homosexual marriage is a human right then why did the ECHR say it was a human right and that all EU members must legalise homosexual marriage? Also, it is noted in the article

The judges also said that if same-sex unions became lawful, any church that refuses to marry gay couples could be charged with discrimination.

catholicvoices.org.uk/monitor-blog/2012/03/european-court-rules-same-sex-marriage-not-human-right

If you believe that that marriage is a human right for two people of the opposite gender then do you not you extend the belief that marriage is a human right to people who want to marry multiple persons, inanimate objects, or relations? Where do you draw the line? Do you believe that Churches and other religious institutions should be excempt from having to conduct homosexual marriage ceremonies, and if you do, then how much of a human right do you really believe that homosexual marriage really is?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Human rights are not to be voted on. They are RIGHTS, not privileges. If you want to change that, then push for a theocracy.

No one voted on whether or not my wife and I could marry. Our heterosexual marriage isn’t affected in the least by gay people marrying. To say that gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage is absolute nonsense.

The United States Judiciary’s purpose isn’t to impose things on the general public that some Christians don’t like.

The European Court of Human Rights said it ‘does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.’ If homosexual marriage is a human right then why did the ECHR say it was a human right and that all EU members must legalise homosexual marriage? Also, it is noted in the article

The judges also said that if same-sex unions became lawful, any church that refuses to marry gay couples could be charged with discrimination.

catholicvoices.org.uk/monitor-blog/2012/03/european-court-rules-same-sex-marriage-not-human-right

If you believe that that marriage is a human right for two people of the opposite gender then do you not you extend the belief that marriage is a human right to people who want to marry multiple persons, inanimate objects, or relations? Where do you draw the line? Do you believe that Churches and other religious institutions should be excempt from having to conduct homosexual marriage ceremonies, and if you do, then how much of a human right do you really believe that homosexual marriage really is?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Human rights are not to be voted on. They are RIGHTS, not privileges. If you want to change that, then push for a theocracy.

No one voted on whether or not my wife and I could marry. Our heterosexual marriage isn’t affected in the least by gay people marrying. To say that gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage is absolute nonsense.

The United States Judiciary’s purpose isn’t to impose things on the general public that some Christians don’t like.

The European Court of Human Rights said it ‘does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.’ If homosexual marriage is a human right then why did the ECHR say it was a human right and that all EU members must legalise homosexual marriage? Also, it is noted in the article

The judges also said that if same-sex unions became lawful, any church that refuses to marry gay couples could be charged with discrimination.

catholicvoices.org.uk/monitor-blog/2012/03/european-court-rules-same-sex-marriage-not-human-right

If you believe that that marriage is a human right for two people of the opposite gender then do you not you extend the belief that marriage is a human right to people who want to marry multiple persons, inanimate objects, or relations? Where do you draw the line? Do you believe that Churches and other religious institutions should be excempt from having to conduct homosexual marriage ceremonies, and if you do, then how much of a human right do you really believe that homosexual marriage really is?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Human rights are not to be voted on. They are RIGHTS, not privileges. If you want to change that, then push for a theocracy.

No one voted on whether or not my wife and I could marry. Our heterosexual marriage isn’t affected in the least by gay people marrying. To say that gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage is absolute nonsense.

The United States Judiciary’s purpose isn’t to impose things on the general public that some Christians don’t like.

The European Court of Human Rights said it ‘does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.’ If homosexual marriage is a human right then why did the ECHR say it was a human right and that all EU members must legalise homosexual marriage? Also, it is noted in the article

The judges also said that if same-sex unions became lawful, any church that refuses to marry gay couples could be charged with discrimination.

catholicvoices.org.uk/monitor-blog/2012/03/european-court-rules-same-sex-marriage-not-human-right

If you believe that that marriage is a human right for two people of the opposite gender then do you not you extend the belief that marriage is a human right to people who want to marry multiple persons, inanimate objects, or relations? Where do you draw the line? Do you believe that Churches and other religious institutions should be excempt from having to conduct homosexual marriage ceremonies, and if you do, then how much of a human right do you really believe that homosexual marriage really is?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Human rights are not to be voted on. They are RIGHTS, not privileges. If you want to change that, then push for a theocracy.

No one voted on whether or not my wife and I could marry. Our heterosexual marriage isn’t affected in the least by gay people marrying. To say that gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage is absolute nonsense.

The United States Judiciary’s purpose isn’t to impose things on the general public that some Christians don’t like.

The European Court of Human Rights said it ‘does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.’ If homosexual marriage is a human right then why did the ECHR say it was a human right and that all EU members must legalise homosexual marriage? Also, it is noted in the article

The judges also said that if same-sex unions became lawful, any church that refuses to marry gay couples could be charged with discrimination.

catholicvoices.org.uk/monitor-blog/2012/03/european-court-rules-same-sex-marriage-not-human-right

If you believe that that marriage is a human right for two people of the opposite gender then do you not you extend the belief that marriage is a human right to people who want to marry multiple persons, inanimate objects, or relations? Where do you draw the line? Do you believe that Churches and other religious institutions should be excempt from having to conduct homosexual marriage ceremonies, and if you do, then how much of a human right do you really believe that homosexual marriage really is?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Human rights are not to be voted on. They are RIGHTS, not privileges. If you want to change that, then push for a theocracy.

No one voted on whether or not my wife and I could marry. Our heterosexual marriage isn’t affected in the least by gay people marrying. To say that gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage is absolute nonsense.

The United States Judiciary’s purpose isn’t to impose things on the general public that some Christians don’t like.

The European Court of Human Rights said it ‘does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.’ If homosexual marriage is a human right then why did the ECHR say it was a human right and that all EU members must legalise homosexual marriage? Also, it is noted in the article

The judges also said that if same-sex unions became lawful, any church that refuses to marry gay couples could be charged with discrimination.

catholicvoices.org.uk/monitor-blog/2012/03/european-court-rules-same-sex-marriage-not-human-right

If you believe that that marriage is a human right for two people of the opposite gender then do you not you extend the belief that marriage is a human right to people who want to marry multiple persons, inanimate objects, or relations? Where do you draw the line? Do you believe that Churches and other religious institutions should be excempt from having to conduct homosexual marriage ceremonies, and if you do, then how much of a human right do you really believe that homosexual marriage really is?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Human rights are not to be voted on. They are RIGHTS, not privileges. If you want to change that, then push for a theocracy.

No one voted on whether or not my wife and I could marry. Our heterosexual marriage isn’t affected in the least by gay people marrying. To say that gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage is absolute nonsense.

The United States Judiciary’s purpose isn’t to impose things on the general public that some Christians don’t like.

The European Court of Human Rights said it ‘does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.’ If homosexual marriage is a human right then why did the ECHR say it was a human right and that all EU members must legalise homosexual marriage? Also, it is noted in the article

The judges also said that if same-sex unions became lawful, any church that refuses to marry gay couples could be charged with discrimination.

catholicvoices.org.uk/monitor-blog/2012/03/european-court-rules-same-sex-marriage-not-human-right

If you believe that that marriage is a human right for two people of the opposite gender then do you not you extend the belief that marriage is a human right to people who want to marry multiple persons, inanimate objects, or relations? Where do you draw the line? Do you believe that Churches and other religious institutions should be excempt from having to conduct homosexual marriage ceremonies, and if you do, then how much of a human right do you really believe that homosexual marriage really is?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Human rights are not to be voted on. They are RIGHTS, not privileges. If you want to change that, then push for a theocracy.

No one voted on whether or not my wife and I could marry. Our heterosexual marriage isn’t affected in the least by gay people marrying. To say that gay marriage threatens heterosexual marriage is absolute nonsense.

The United States Judiciary’s purpose isn’t to impose things on the general public that some Christians don’t like.

The European Court of Human Rights said it ‘does not require member states’ governments to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.’ If homosexual marriage is a human right then why did the ECHR say it was a human right and that all EU members must legalise homosexual marriage? Also, it is noted in the article

The judges also said that if same-sex unions became lawful, any church that refuses to marry gay couples could be charged with discrimination.

catholicvoices.org.uk/monitor-blog/2012/03/european-court-rules-same-sex-marriage-not-human-right

If you believe that that marriage is a human right for two people of the opposite gender then do you not you extend the belief that marriage is a human right to people who want to marry multiple persons, inanimate objects, or relations? Do you believe that Churches and other religious institutions should be excempt from having to conduct homosexual marriage ceremonies?

 

[Dawnia]

A judge, in my experience, is an “Activist” over the past 30 years when the right doesn’t like a decision rendered by a court. As far as what is Constitutional, that’s what state and Federal judiciaries rule on.

It’s not reserved to just one side. Citizen’s United anyone?

 

[gracepoole]

Except that anti-miscegenation laws only came into play 200 years ago, whereas marriage has always been between one man and one woman.

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.

 

[Dawnia]

I can see two very obvious errors there:

1. *]Solomon (and many other Biblical figures) had more than one wife. A lot more in Solomon’s case. Solomon lived more than 200 years ago.
   
   *]Nehemiah 13:25 is an anti-miscegenation text that is a lot older than 200 years.
   
   Agreed. However, Judge Shelby explains at great length in his judgement why he considers that these arguments fail in the specific case before him. That they also failed in Loving v Virginia is interesting, but as you correctly say, not directly relevant to this case.
   
   What is relevant to the Utah case is the Supreme Court judgement in Loving v Virginia, which sets a precedent for all lower courts.
   
   rossum

1. 
   However, a case could be made that Loving doesn’t apply to these specific circumstances. Or that even if it does, the outcome is not relevant.

 

[SeannyM]

However, a case could be made that Loving doesn’t apply to these specific circumstances. Or that even if it does, the outcome is not relevant.

The argument would be incorrect, but yes, one could make it. If you read the opinion, it’s pretty difficult to argue that Loving is not applicable. Loving addresses a restriction on who can marry who… the logic used in Loving is easily applied to this case, as is the precedent set by it.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

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.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

It’s not reserved to just one side. Citizen’s United anyone?

Great idea!

 

[rossum]

However, a case could be made that Loving doesn’t apply to these specific circumstances. Or that even if it does, the outcome is not relevant.

That is for the Appeal Court, and possibly the Supreme Court to decide. The Judges there know a great deal more about the specifics of the law and precedent than I do.

rossum

 

[rossum]

1. Solomon sinned by doing that (Deuteronomy 17:16-17, 1 Kings 11). The Bible does not condone everything it records.

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.

1. Back then, only the Israelites were God’s people. The surrounding peoples would inevitably lead them and their descendants away from God into paganism and evil, and the children of those inter-marriages would no longer be entirely of God’s chosen nation.

“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

 

[Dawnia]

The argument would be incorrect, but yes, one could make it. If you read the opinion, it’s pretty difficult to argue that Loving is not applicable. Loving addresses a restriction on who can marry who… the logic used in Loving is easily applied to this case, as is the precedent set by it.

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.

 

[Dawnia]

That is for the Appeal Court, and possibly the Supreme Court to decide. The Judges there know a great deal more about the specifics of the law and precedent than I do.

rossum

It would have to made in a different case entirely. You can’t add new arguments at the Appellate level.