# Utah's same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional.



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2013)

> It was joyful mayhem Friday night in the county clerk's office in Salt  Lake City, Utah, after a federal judge struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law "conflicts with the United States Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law."


http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/justice/utah-same-sex-marriage-ruling/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Utah along with 11 other states in November 2004 passed amendments to their state constitutions limiting marriage to male-female. 



> In striking down the  state law, which voters approved in 2004, U.S. District Court Judge  Robert J. Shelby wrote in a 53-page ruling that the state's "current  laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry  and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no  rational reason.
> "Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional," he said.



With that decision, Utah becomes the 18th US State to allow same sex marriage.



> Though the state has already filed a notice of appeal, the state's  lawyers did not file a motion for a stay in district court, which  allowed the marriages to begin at once. "Why they didn't ask the  district court for a stay is a mystery, to say the least," Rosky said.



Maybe they realize that the avalanche is beginning.


----------



## David43515 (Dec 21, 2013)

The one thing wrong with those statements is that no state recognizes a fundemental right to get married as far as I know. Every state I`m aware of requires you to obtain a license in order to get married.And a license, by it`s very definition, is permission from the authorities to do something that you couldn`t legally do without their permission. If it`s a right, I don`t need anyone` permission to exercise it. I may be wrong, but could someone more familiar with the basics of the law, and I`m sure there are many of you, educate me on what I`m missing? I see no reason for the govt to be involved in marriage in the first place.


----------



## DennisBreene (Dec 21, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Maybe they realize that the avalanche is beginning.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States

If you look at the legislative trends, it's pretty clear that over the past 5 years, legalization of same sex marriage is accelerating.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2013)

2 people do not need government blessing to be married. Neither do they need any religious institutions blessing.



> *Common-law marriage* (sometimes spelled without a hyphen), and also known as *sui juris marriage*, *informal marriage* or *marriage by habit and repute*, is an irregular form of marriage that can be legally contracted in an extremely limited number of jurisdictions.
> The original concept of a common-law marriage is a marriage that is  considered valid by both partners, but has not been formally registered  with a state or church registry, or a formal religious service. In  effect, the act of the couple representing themselves to others as being  married acts as the evidence that they are married. In jurisdictions  recognizing common-law marriages, such a marriage is not legally  distinct from a traditional ceremonial marriage enacted through a civil or religious ceremony in terms of the couple's rights and obligations to one another.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

recognition varies, there are some legal guidelines, which of course vary, etc.

The big stink is about getting access to the 1,000+ rights, privileges and responsibilities that the state paperwork grants.

Much of those can be obtained outside the government paperwork. At additional cost, additional time, and not without challenge.

Unlike a lot of government intrusion, I've little argument with registering a marriage to gain those 1,000+ protections. The fee's about $20-40 one time.  

I believe the entire argument is that gays deserve the same right to those protections, as straights.

No one today is stopping them from living together, buying a house together, etc. But when illness, or worse strikes, I know my wife won't have to worry about losing the house if I die.  A gay couple, in 37 US states doesn't have that piece of mind.


----------



## DennisBreene (Dec 21, 2013)

David43515 said:


> The one thing wrong with those statements is that no state recognizes a fundemental right to get married as far as I know. Every state I`m aware of requires you to obtain a license in order to get married.And a license, by it`s very definition, is permission from the authorities to do something that you couldn`t legally do without their permission. If it`s a right, I don`t need anyone` permission to exercise it. I may be wrong, but could someone more familiar with the basics of the law, and I`m sure there are many of you, educate me on what I`m missing? I see no reason for the govt to be involved in marriage in the first place.



While I agree with you that marriage (and a whole host of "regulated" issues) are not the purview of the government, and that we have somehow relinquished yet another right to the state. Practically speaking, for those who wish to have the same recognition of their unions under the law, the logical approach is to pursue legislative and legal action.  I doubt attempts to dismantle the legal structures underpinning marriage would be very timely or fruitful.  And that is avoiding all of the secondary issues involved in marriage as a contract, with issues such as property, child custody etc.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 21, 2013)

See this is what I was talking about one guy decided for an entire state to make a new law or actually reverse the will of the people.  If Gay marriage is so great change the law by vote not by judge.  The problem now is what if the next judge say naa he got it wrong.  Now you have all these marriage licenses that are illegal.  Do it right change the law by legislation or ballot box and end the confusion.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 21, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> nNo one today is stopping them from living together, buying a house together, etc. But when illness, or worse strikes, I know my wife won't have to worry about losing the house if I die.  A gay couple, in 37 US states doesn't have that piece of mind.



That's not true at all.  You don't need to be married or related to have 2 different names on a title.  My wife and I bought our first house before we were married we both had our name in it.  If I died she would have gotten it if she died I got it.  Same thing for a gay couple.


----------



## DennisBreene (Dec 21, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> See this is what I was talking about one guy decided for an entire state to make a new law or actually reverse the will of the people.  If Gay marriage is so great change the law by vote not by judge.  The problem now is what if the next judge say naa he got it wrong.  Now you have all these marriage licenses that are illegal.  Do it right change the law by legislation or ballot box and end the confusion.



By my count, starting with Vermont in 2009, 12 states have done just that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> That's not true at all.  You don't need to be married or related to have 2 different names on a title.  My wife and I bought our first house before we were married we both had our name in it.  If I died she would have gotten it if she died I got it.  Same thing for a gay couple.



Right, you can have 2 names on the title.  But what if you didn't?  If your name is on the title, and your wifes is not, and you die, as your surviving spouse she gets the house. She also would get your Social Security benefits.

But a same sex couple doesn't have that security. 
As of 12-13-13 they do get Social Security benefits.
The house however would depend on which state they were in.  In one of the 18 with equality, they should keep it.  In the other 37 however, if their name isn't on the title, the bank will take it, they'll be kicked out, and oh well.

Want to keep the lights on?  Good luck if your name isn't on the bill.
Water? Heat? Too bad.

Read this.
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/loved-and-lost-the-death-of-a-same-sex-spouse/Content?oid=1216427

If the worst happens, I can make arrangements to bury my wife.
In 37 US States, if I were married to a man, I couldn't do that.

I don't think that's right.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 21, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Right, you can have 2 names on the title.  But what if you didn't?  If your name is on the title, and your wifes is not, and you die, as your surviving spouse she gets the house. She also would get your Social Security benefits.
> 
> But a same sex couple doesn't have that security.
> As of 12-13-13 they do get Social Security benefits.
> ...


What if you didn't ?  What if my grandma had balls she would be my grand father.  If your making an investment like a house take 5 min and think it out.  Or write a will or you know take any of the other precautions most people do married or not.  I have a will and put my wife's name on things because its just smart.  

As to the bills it doesn't matter if you are married my wife can't call and make changes to our cable or electric bill and we are married.  That's not just a gay issue.  Nor can she make changes to my credit cards or bank accounts.  When we got married I added her to my checking but didn't realize my savings account at the same back also had to be changed.  She tries to transfer money from our savings to our checking once and they said no we were married and had a joint checking account.  

Stop making phony problems that are not just gay marriage issues


----------



## donald1 (Dec 21, 2013)

I don't know much on the topic but it's only fair they get there marriage too.  Yet out of curiosity even if it's legal in that state area wouldn't the church have a say whether they decide to allow the marriage or not?


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 21, 2013)

donald1 said:


> I don't know much on the topic but it's only fair they get there marriage too.  Yet out of curiosity even if it's legal in that state area wouldn't the church have a say whether they decide to allow the marriage or not?


To be married in a church yes.  But you don't need a church to get married you can get married anywhere


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2013)

I can marry people. Legally. I have the papers to prove it.



Tell ya what.  So I don't get this wrong, here's some real people stories.

[h=2]Written Senate Testimony[/h] On 20 July 2011 a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was held on the  legislative repeal of DOMA/Respect for Marriage Act - following is the  powerful written testimony submitted to the Senate Committee by Marriage  Equality USA members:


*Amy and Sherri Shore*
*Cathy Speck*
*Jane A. Leyland*
*Marvin Burrows*
*Tracey L. Cooper-Harris*
[h=2]Conversations with...[/h] 

*A Conversation with Christine Allen*
*A Conversation with Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac*
*A Conversation with Jeff Tabaco and Thom Watson*
*A Conversation with Diana Travis and MaryAnn Mueller*

Chew on this http://www.marriageequality.org/get-the-facts: 
A recent study shows that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has a negative impact on their mental health - * I  Do, But I can't: The impact of marriage denial on the mental health of  sexual citizenship of Lesbians and Gay Men in the United States* (Herdt, G. & Kertzner, R. 2006).

[h=2]The Practical[/h] *Marriage offers 1,138 Federal benefits and responsibilities, not including hundreds more offered by every state.*


In times of crisis, spouses have hospital visitation rights and  can make medical decisions in event of illness or disability of their  spouse.
Employers offer spouses sick leave, bereavement leave, access to health insurance and pension
The law provides certain automatic rights to a person's spouse regardless of whether or not a will exists.
Married couples in elderly care facilities are generally not  separated unless one spouse's health dictates hospitalization or special  care.
The dissolution of a marriage requires a determination of property  distribution, award of child custody and support and spousal support.  Absent divorce, there is no uniform system for sorting out the ending of  a relationship.
[h=2]The Financial[/h] Financial issues are complex and challenging, no matter the couple.  When home ownership, kids and other assets are a part of the equation,  planning for the present and especially the future is even more critical  for greater security.


*Married couples are permitted to give an unlimited amount of gifts to each other without being taxed.*
The law presumes that a married couple with both names on the title  to their home owns the property as "tenants by the entirety."
A married couple, by statute, has creditor protection of their marital home.
Many married people are entitled to financial benefits relating to  their spouses, such as disability, pension and social security benefits.
*With  marriage, a couple has the right to be treated as an economic unit and  to file joint tax returns (and pay the marriage penalty), and obtain  joint health, home and auto insurance policies.*
When a spouse dies, there is no need to prove ownership of every item in the household for taxable purposes.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> By my count, starting with Vermont in 2009, 12 states have done just that.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States


Yes and that's the easiest way and lest confusing way to go about it.  They don't need to worry about a new judge 5 or 10 years from now changing his mind.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes and that's the easiest way and lest confusing way to go about it.  They don't need to worry about a new judge 5 or 10 years from now changing his mind.



Only judge needed is one of the 9.
Nazgul or Supreme. Either way, there's a ring involved.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I can marry people. Legally. I have the papers to prove it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great so do it right change it by law not by some judge.  If its such a huge problem put it to a vote and fix the problem.  Or better yet remove the requirements for marriage.  Allow anyone to have the same benefits if two people dont want to be married but are together give them the same benefits


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2013)

I've contacted my elected officials, repeatedly, on this topic.  NY as a result legalized same sex marriages 2 years ago.  NY's Senators and Reps have been part of why the Federal Government is moving in the direction of same-sex marriage now.  I've run for office, repeatedly, with that as a key plank in my platform.
So, I've done a bit, a tiny tiny bit, to move things forward for equality.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I've contacted my elected officials, repeatedly, on this topic.  NY as a result legalized same sex marriages 2 years ago.  NY's Senators and Reps have been part of why the Federal Government is moving in the direction of same-sex marriage now.  I've run for office, repeatedly, with that as a key plank in my platform.
> So, I've done a bit, a tiny tiny bit, to move things forward for equality.



Its legal here too by popular vote.  I'm positive it would pass everywhere in the next few years.  Rulings like this however cause a backlash and push back that I don't think would be there if they let it happen naturally.


----------



## DennisBreene (Dec 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its legal here too by popular vote.  I'm positive it would pass everywhere in the next few years.  Rulings like this however cause a backlash and push back that I don't think would be there if they let it happen naturally.



While I agree that the trend seems to be moving strongly toward states legalizing gay marriage. Particularly so, since most legislation 10 years ago was targeting laws such as "civil union" and marriage wasn't even on the table. However, I remember the 60's, the 70's and pretty much every decade since and I don't recall a single civil rights issue or issue of similar impact and divisiveness ever coming to resolution "naturally".  The courts seemed to be an important wedge in moving the process along. Fortunately, as contentious as we Americans can be; we still seem to come through the messy process of change and respect the outcome even when we aren't totally enamored with the system. At the end of the day, it shouldn't matter what I believe, or your believe, as long as neither of us imposes our beliefs unnecessarily upon others.  To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson; If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what business is it of the government? And as messy as the courts can be, they are still useful in negating bad legislation and sometimes keeping the government out of our lives.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> While I agree that the trend seems to be moving strongly toward states legalizing gay marriage. Particularly so, since most legislation 10 years ago was targeting laws such as "civil union" and marriage wasn't even on the table. However, I remember the 60's, the 70's and pretty much every decade since and I don't recall a single civil rights issue or issue of similar impact and divisiveness ever coming to resolution "naturally".  The courts seemed to be an important wedge in moving the process along. Fortunately, as contentious as we Americans can be; we still seem to come through the messy process of change and respect the outcome even when we aren't totally enamored with the system. At the end of the day, it shouldn't matter what I believe, or your believe, as long as neither of us imposes our beliefs unnecessarily upon others.  To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson; If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what business is it of the government? And as messy as the courts can be, they are still useful in negating bad legislation and sometimes keeping the government out of our lives.


How do we know if anything would have happened naturally it wasn't given the chance.  

And that part about not forcing your beliefs on others is exactly what's happening here.  Instead of allowing people to come to a decision naturally.  The courts are totally changing rules against the will of the people.


----------



## DennisBreene (Dec 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> How do we know if anything would have happened naturally it wasn't given the chance.
> 
> And that part about not forcing your beliefs on others is exactly what's happening here.  Instead of allowing people to come to a decision naturally.  The courts are totally changing rules against the will of the people.



When the founding fathers wrote the documents that formed this country, it's pretty clear that the only fully enfranchised citizen they envisioned was the land owning white male.  Everyone else has achieved that status by virtue of some legal process, be it constitutional amendment, legislation or court decision.  I don't see this process as substantially different. At some point in time, the beliefs of enough people change and through the combination of public awareness, court decisions and legislation there occurs a critical mass effect that results in change.  I think the change in law happens because of the events on all fronts.  Do the events result in the majority of Americans changing their minds? Or, do enough minds change that it allows for legal changes that protect citizens from the "tyranny of the majority" even though the majority may still be opposed to the change? I don't really care.  I just think that this is an example of the constitutional process working. And at a time in our country when so much that is "American" is bashed on a global scale, I'm pleased to see that something fundamentally good and correct can still happen through that process.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

Well if you think one judge telling an entire state screw your opinion I'm in charge here you do what I say is fundamentally good I guess I'm not sure I see it that way.


----------



## DennisBreene (Dec 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Well if you think one judge telling an entire state screw your opinion I'm in charge here you do what I say is fundamentally good I guess I'm not sure I see it that way.



While I'm aware that you are specifically referring to one court decision in Utah.  If you check the citation I noted in my first post on this thread, I think you would agree that there has been considerably more activity both in the courts and in the legislature in Utah and throughout the country. This particular decision was in a US Federal Court and can at least in theory be appealed, so it won't ultimately be the decision of just this one judge.  Reviewing the list of court decisions in other states it becomes apparent to me that many of the legislative changes that let to legal standing for same sex civil union and subsequently marriage were precipitated by court decisions against state bans.  I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but if I understand how the system is supposed to work in some remote manner, the courts are charged with deciding if laws are constitutional.  Clearly, the time we live in, our collective "reality" so to speak, is reflected in the decisions of the courts.  I can't imagine judges of 1790 being particularly open to the concept of women voting, or judges of 1850 considering voting rights for African Americans, and the record shows a changing trend on this issue with the courts since the 1970's.  It does seem that courts have presaged emerging outcomes in the area of civil rights. The judges get labeled as activists and worse, but the laws have changed.  That seems to me to be what is happening now.  And if I'm not mistaken, civil rights have consistently trumped state's rights. So Utah has gone the way of several states before it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> How do we know if anything would have happened naturally it wasn't given the chance.
> 
> And that part about not forcing your beliefs on others is exactly what's happening here.  Instead of allowing people to come to a decision naturally.  The courts are totally changing rules against the will of the people.



If we kept to the will of the people, then women might still not be able to vote, blacks would still have separate treatment in several states, and being gay would still be a crime in several states.
The people aren't always right.

In the court cases I've reviewed, I haven't found it to be judges going "I want to let gays marry so piss on you". I've found that they are looking at these as cases of discrimination, looking at the higher laws of the nation, which all lesser laws must comply with, and ruling accordingly.

But if you want a case of happening naturally, compare how slavery ended in the US to how every other nation in the hemisphere ended slavery. We were the only one who saw our nation split in 2, our president launch an unpopular and illegal war to reunite the nation, and killed and wounded over 1 million of our citizens as a result.  



ballen0351 said:


> Well if you think one judge telling an entire state screw your opinion I'm in charge here you do what I say is fundamentally good I guess I'm not sure I see it that way.



Case Law 2010-2013



_Perry v. Schwarzenegger_, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010). California's Proposition 8 (2008) *violates fundamental right to marry under Loving v. Virginia,  violates Due Process and Equal Protection Causes of the Fourteenth  Amendment, and illegally discriminates on the basis of sexual  orientation. *Proposition 8 is driven only by animus against same-sex  couples; therefore, does not survive rational basis review. Permanently enjoins CA from enforcing Prop 8; order was stayed pending appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it was affirmed. After the Supreme Court ruling in _Hollingsworth v. Perry_, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and vacated the stay.

_Perry v. Brown_, Slip Op. (9th Cir. 2012), _Perry v. Schwarzenegger_ affirmed on the grounds that under _Romer v. Evans_,  *Proposition 8's withdrawal of the designation of "marriage" from  same-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause as there is no  legitimate government interest to sustain a rational basis review; *therefore, it is driven only by animus against gays and lesbians. The case was appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court as _Hollingsworth v. Perry_,  and the Court heard oral arguments on March 26, 2013. On June 26, 2013,  the Court ordered the dismissal of the appeal to the Ninth Circuit  Court of Appeals for lack of legal standing by the Prop 8 proponents. As  a result, on June 28, the Ninth Circuit lifted its stay in the case,  and the first same-sex marriages after the Supreme Court's ruling  occurred that same day.[SUP][212][/SUP]
[SUP][/SUP]
_Gill v. Office of Personnel Management_ 699 F. Supp. 2d 374 and _Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services_ 698 F. Supp. 2d 234 (D.Mass. 2010) challenged Section 3 of DOMA on *equal protection, due process, Tenth Amendment, and Spending Clause grounds*. Upheld at the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Implementation stayed pending filed appeal to the Supreme Court.

_Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management_, Slip Op. (N.D. Cal. 2012), *Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act  (DOMA), which defined marriage for all federal purposes as being  between one man and one woman, was held to violate the Equal Protection  Clause.* The court ruled that homosexuality is a quasi-suspect classification, meaning DOMA must substantially relate to an important government interest ("intermediate scrutiny"). The court found it could not meet that burden, and also failed rational basis review.

_Port v. Cowan_, 426 Md. 435, 44 A.3d 970 (2012). (unanimous ruling; *valid foreign same-sex marriages recognized in Maryland under doctrine of comity)*[SUP][213][/SUP]
[SUP][/SUP]
In _Jackson v. Abercrombie_, federal District Court judge Alan Kay on August 8, 2012, citing _Baker v. Nelson_  as controlling, rejected the claim by two lesbians that Hawaii's  failure to provide for same-sex marriage violated the U.S.  Constitution's guarantees of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.[SUP][214][/SUP][SUP][215][/SUP][SUP][216][/SUP]  It is the first court decision to cite the "New Family Structure"  research of Mark Regnerus, which research has been discredited by the American Sociological Society.[SUP][217][/SUP][SUP][218][/SUP]

[SUP][/SUP]

In _Sevcik v. Sandoval_, U.S District Court Judge Robert C. Jones  ruled on November 29, 2012, against plaintiffs who challenged Nevada's  denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. He held that their suit  was precluded by _Baker_, and if it was not, that the  discrimination they described merited no more than rational basis  review, and that "the protection of the traditional institution of  marriage ... is a legitimate state interest."[SUP][219][/SUP]
[SUP][/SUP]
_Windsor v. United States_  (S.D.N.Y. 2012), *successfully challenged Section 3 of DOMA on equal  protection grounds* in the case of a widow was had to pay federal estate  tax of more than $363,000 on her deceased wife's estate due to the lack  of federal recognition of their marriage, which they celebrated in  Canada in 2007. Windsor was awarded a refund of the tax plus interest  and court costs. Seeking to bypass the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Windsor's attorneys petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.[SUP][220][/SUP]  The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 27, 2013, and *ruled on  June 26 that section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional*. The United States  government began implementing the decision the same week.[SUP][221][/SUP] On July 18, 2013, BLAG, which had defended DOMA, stated in a court filing that in light of _Windsor_ they would no longer defend similar statutes and sought leave to withdraw from _McLaughlin v. Panetta_, a case involving veterans benefits for a same-sex married couples.[SUP][222][/SUP]
[SUP][/SUP]
In _Hanna v. Salazar_, New Mexico District Judge Sarah Singleton ordered Santa Fe County  Clerk Geraldine Salazar to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples  or else show why the county should not comply. Salazar released a  statement after the August 22, 2013, ruling stating her support for  same-sex marriage legalization and advising that the county will not  contest Singleton's ruling. Santa Fe County began licensing same-sex  marriages the next day.[SUP][223][/SUP] Another state district judge subsequently seconded Singleton's ruling and ordered Bernalillo County to license same-sex marriages less than a week later[SUP][224][/SUP] in the case of _Griego v. Oliver_.

In _Garden State Equality v. Dow_, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ruled on September 27, 2013, that in the wake of the _Windsor_ ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court, *New Jersey's civil unions law  violates equal protection guarantees to its citizens*, and ordered that  the state allow same-sex couples to marry beginning on October 21. The  New Jersey Supreme Court subsequently accepted the state's appeal,  scheduling oral arguments for January 6&#8211;7, 2014, but denying the state's  request for a stay of the lower court's ruling, meaning that same-sex  marriages would begin on the date ordered by Judge Jacobson. Following  the denial of its request for a stay, the state dropped its appeal,  effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey.

Only in Hanna c. Salazar do I not see citations of Constitutionality or Equality.
The 2 in red are the dissenting opinions, which cite a 40 year old case from the 70's.

1 judge can't do it.  Look at the prop 8 case. Appealed, and appealed again, all the way up from State court to Federal Court to the US Supreme Court.  
_Windsor v. United States, _and the Prop 8 cases went the whole ride, the decisions opening the floodgates.

Call it "activist judges" if it makes you feel better. It won't change the tide, it won't be true, and those who follow the case law know the truth.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

I understand how case law works I just don't agree with it. Just like I don't agree with the courts decisions to allow slavery, segregation, internment of Japanese American Citizens, Abortions,  courts get things wrong enough that some choices should be left to the citizens.  If a state feels so strongly about a topic to pass a constitutional Amendment that means something.  The Court overturns it that's fine but the court can't then allow something that never was.   If they ruled that law was illegal then the law is scrapped which means the rules are reset to what they were prelaw.  So gay marriage still wasn't allowed. I don't see how a judge can not only over turn a law but make a new law that never existed.  He not only said your rule is bad but now you also have to allow something to happen that never was in thefirst place


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

At most the law should be struck down and sent back to the state to figure it out not struck and new laws added to allow something that never was.  Judges can't create a law they can only rule yes that law is good or no its bad.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2013)

The problem is as you say. I can't recall who is was, but a US Supreme Court judge even made comment on it back in the I think 1850's, pointing out that somethings then legal under the law would later be found illegal under the same law (Constitution). He was referring to slavery but it applies to a lot of things. 

 You mention the Japanese internment in the 1940's. In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders.[SUP][8][/SUP] The rulings of the US Supreme Court in the Korematsu and Hirabayashi  cases, specifically in its expansive interpretation of government powers  in wartime, have yet to be overturned. They are still the law of the  land because a lower court cannot overturn a ruling by the US Supreme  Court.

So it looks like it would be legal to order all gays into camps.  Especially if like the Japanese internment, it's based on prejudice and gross inaccuracies. 



> Former Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark, who represented the US Department of Justice in the "relocation," writes in the epilogue to the 1992 book _Executive Order 9066: The Internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans_:[SUP][131][/SUP]
> The truth is&#8212;as this deplorable experience proves&#8212;that constitutions  and laws are not sufficient of themselves...Despite the unequivocal  language of the Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus  shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that  no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due  process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by  military action under Executive Order 9066.[SUP][132][/SUP]



This is why this is a big deal to me.  Never again, not if I can help it.



> Several significant legal decisions arose out of Japanese American  internment, relating to the powers of the government to detain citizens  in wartime. Among the cases which reached the Supreme Court were _Yasui v. United States_ (1943), _Hirabayashi v. United States_ (1943), _ex parte Endo_ (1944), and _Korematsu v. United States_ (1944). In _Yasui_ and _Hirabayashi_ the court upheld the constitutionality of curfews based on Japanese ancestry; in _Korematsu_ the court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion order. In _Endo_, the court accepted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ruled that the WRA had no authority to subject a citizen whose loyalty was acknowledged to its procedures.
> Korematsu's and Hirabayashi's convictions were vacated in a series of _coram nobis_ cases in the early 1980s.[SUP][130][/SUP] In the _coram nobis_  cases, federal district and appellate courts ruled that newly uncovered  evidence revealed an unfairness which, had it been known at the time,  would likely have changed the Supreme Court's decisions in the Yasui, Hirabayashi, and Korematsu cases.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP] These new court decisions rested on a series of documents recovered from the National Archives  showing that the government had altered, suppressed and withheld  important and relevant information from the Supreme Court, including the  Final Report by General DeWitt justifying the internment program.[SUP][130][/SUP] The Army had destroyed documents in an effort to hide the fact that alterations had been made to the report.[SUP][24][/SUP] The _coram nobis_  cases vacated the convictions of Korematsu and Hirabayashi (Yasui died  before his case was heard, rendering it moot), and are regarded as one  of the impetuses for the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.[SUP][130][/SUP]



"But Bob, no one's saying put gays in camps".


> *North Carolina Preacher Charles Worley Wants Gay People Put in ...*
> 
> www.advocate.com/.../north-carolina-preacher-charles-worley-...&#8206;
> by Neal Broverman
> ...




People are so scared of gays, so ignorant, that some follow nutters like these 2.  These are the people who will vote not based on facts, but fear.  I'd rather trust judges working through the system.  

But what do you do when the top court gets something wrong?


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

The top Court has a check and balance as well.  The problem with the courts are its takes nothing but 1 new judge to change the entire makeup of the country.  No votes no say from the people.  1 new justice and poof Abortion could be overturned.  ! new judge and poof no more Gay marriage.  Courts are to volatile. You want to change laws do it right.  Change the laws in the legislative branch.

As for people following nutters they are on all sides of all debates.  BUT the core issue here is Gay Marriage and the feelings on that are changing legally states are voting for it people are voting for it.  Do it right.  If its such a great thing do hide behind 1 judge here and 1 judge there.  Get out spread the word and get the votes.  They did it here.  They can do it elsewhere.


----------



## WaterGal (Dec 22, 2013)

David43515 said:


> Every state I`m aware of requires you to obtain a license in order to get married.And a license, by it`s very definition, is permission from the authorities to do something that you couldn`t legally do without their permission. If it`s a right, I don`t need anyone` permission to exercise it. I may be wrong, but could someone more familiar with the basics of the law, and I`m sure there are many of you, educate me on what I`m missing? I see no reason for the govt to be involved in marriage in the first place.



Can you vote with being registered, which involves proving your eligibility?  As I see it, a marriage license is much the same.  When you go to the courthouse, you're registering to exercise your right to marry and proving your eligibility to do so (single, of legal age).


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> Can you vote with being registered, which involves proving your eligibility?  As I see it, a marriage license is much the same.  When you go to the courthouse, you're registering to exercise your right to marry and proving your eligibility to do so (single, of legal age).



Not really there are lots of restrictions on who you can marry not just being gay.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The top Court has a check and balance as well.  The problem with the courts are its takes nothing but 1 new judge to change the entire makeup of the country.  No votes no say from the people.  1 new justice and poof Abortion could be overturned.  ! new judge and poof no more Gay marriage.  Courts are to volatile. You want to change laws do it right.  Change the laws in the legislative branch.
> 
> As for people following nutters they are on all sides of all debates.  BUT the core issue here is Gay Marriage and the feelings on that are changing legally states are voting for it people are voting for it.  Do it right.  If its such a great thing do hide behind 1 judge here and 1 judge there.  Get out spread the word and get the votes.  They did it here.  They can do it elsewhere.



Only way to do it right is an Amendment.  Those are hard to pass. Very hard.  You need something like 37 states.  
Interesting number.
I can see hard coded discrimination should an anti-gay-marriage amendment pass.

I agree with you that it's best left to the people, but sometimes the majority makes the wrong choice, which is why our system is supposed to protect the minority from the majority. Doesn't always work, but that's the intent.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> which is why our system is supposed to protect the minority from the majority. Doesn't always work, but that's the intent.



Which is fine until the minority start pushing its agenda on the majority Like the baker or Churchs or catering companies that just want to be left alone and not be a part of it.

Like I said before the problem with the courts system now is they are no longer impartial people "judging" the laws,  They are political pawns stacked by the party in power at the time to pass unpopular parts of their agenda for that party all while allowing the party to keep its hands clean.  Its not one party or the other they both do it,  That's why its such a big deal who gets to appoint Supreme Court Justices,  If all there were there to do was actually "Judge" the law on its merits it should not matter what party puts them there.  It just doesn't work that way.  People also know which courts are more liberal and which are more conservative so they judge shop for issues.  That's not how it was supposed to work


----------



## granfire (Dec 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Which is fine until the minority start pushing its agenda on the majority Like the baker or Churchs or catering companies that just want to be left alone and not be a part of it.
> 
> Like I said before the problem with the courts system now is they are no longer impartial people "judging" the laws,  They are political pawns stacked by the party in power at the time to pass unpopular parts of their agenda for that party all while allowing the party to keep its hands clean.  Its not one party or the other they both do it,  That's why its such a big deal who gets to appoint Supreme Court Justices,  If all there were there to do was actually "Judge" the law on its merits it should not matter what party puts them there.  It just doesn't work that way.  People also know which courts are more liberal and which are more conservative so they judge shop for issues.  That's not how it was supposed to work



The minority dies not make you enter in a same sex marriage.
The baker. Tough luck....he would rather bake cakes for dog weddings...it's part of the business license...you cannot discriminate....cost of doing business.
Have better excuses than 'I don't like gay marriages'. 'Sorry I am booked' works well. 

Insert black or jewish....and we have a different ball game. Baker was asked to make cakes, not to be part of the wedding night!


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

granfire said:


> The minority dies not make you enter in a same sex marriage.
> The baker. Tough luck....he would rather bake cakes for dog weddings...it's part of the business license...you cannot discriminate....cost of doing business.
> Have better excuses than 'I don't like gay marriages'. 'Sorry I am booked' works well.
> 
> Insert black or jewish....and we have a different ball game. Baker was asked to make cakes, not to be part of the wedding night!



Different thread on this already but I disagree with you he didn't say I don't like gay weddings he said its against his belief system big difference


----------



## granfire (Dec 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Different thread on this already but I disagree with you he didn't say I don't like gay weddings he said its against his belief system big difference



Then he needs to restrict himself to birthday cakes. 

It's the state law, tough luck.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

granfire said:


> Then he needs to restrict himself to birthday cakes.
> 
> It's the state law, tough luck.


Or people can just leave him alone and let him run his store and shop elsewhere.  you know like I do when I get bad service someplace I don't take them to court so I can come back and give them more of my money.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2013)

There are a few dozen businesses I don't patronize because I don't like a position they hold or an action they did. (For example, I refuse to do business with Snapple/Dr. Pepper based on how they screwed the Dublin bottling works. I'm avoiding hundreds of products as a result.)  My choice. I'll let people know where appropriate.  But I don't expect the government to punish them. I don't shop at Hobby Lobby because of some of their practices despite liking their selection and rest of their practices. My choice. Again, I don't expect the government to push them.

If enough people withhold support, they will either change or fail. If enough however do support them, then they will prosper without me.  That's how I think it should be.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 22, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> There are a few dozen businesses I don't patronize because I don't like a position they hold or an action they did. (For example, I refuse to do business with Snapple/Dr. Pepper based on how they screwed the Dublin bottling works. I'm avoiding hundreds of products as a result.)  My choice. I'll let people know where appropriate.  But I don't expect the government to punish them. I don't shop at Hobby Lobby because of some of their practices despite liking their selection and rest of their practices. My choice. Again, I don't expect the government to push them.
> 
> If enough people withhold support, they will either change or fail. If enough however do support them, then they will prosper without me.  That's how I think it should be.


Same for me I have a few companies I don't use for personal or moral reasons.


----------



## granfire (Dec 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Or people can just leave him alone and let him run his store and shop elsewhere.  you know like I do when I get bad service someplace I don't take them to court so I can come back and give them more of my money.



well, I would not want anybody making food for me who does not want to.

but that is beside the point. They broke state law. And I am sure in the long run it will cost them more than just sucking it up and making the damn cake. 
As stated before, insert black/Chinese/religion for gay and the picture becomes clearer....
Straight/gay only fountain anybody?


----------



## DennisBreene (Dec 23, 2013)

granfire said:


> well, I would not want anybody making food for me who does not want to.
> 
> but that is beside the point. They broke state law. And I am sure in the long run it will cost them more than just sucking it up and making the damn cake.
> As stated before, insert black/Chinese/religion for gay and the picture becomes clearer....
> Straight/gay only fountain anybody?



I can refuse to accept any individual as a patient outside of an emergency, no questions asked.  If I say "I won't see patient x because he's black, gay, Hindu, it becomes an act of discrimination against a class of individuals and then it's on me.  If MLK hadn't brought his movement into the private soda fountain, and similar businesses and pointed out the pattern of racial discrimination, he never would have achieved the level of public awareness that made his movement successful.  He chose boycotting.  Bringing a lawsuit clearly has had the same effect of bringing the issue of discrimination to public awareness. That's the strategic goal, as the obvious desired outcome is to be able to go into a place of business and conduct business without being hassled or discriminated against.  I don't think merchants would find much public support for saying that a black customer "can just use one of my competitors" these days, but in 1960, that argument was as much the target as any individual act of discrimination.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 23, 2013)

granfire said:


> well, I would not want anybody making food for me who does not want to.
> 
> but that is beside the point. They broke state law. And I am sure in the long run it will cost them more than just sucking it up and making the damn cake.
> As stated before, insert black/Chinese/religion for gay and the picture becomes clearer....
> Straight/gay only fountain anybody?



And again if your black Chinese ect would you rather know where you stand before you give someone that dislikes you your hard earned money?  What we have now is a system where they smile to you face take your cash and spit in your food behind closed doors and tell you to enjoy as you walk out.  I'd much rather shop where people respect me then have people lie to me.


----------



## granfire (Dec 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> And again if your black Chinese ect would you rather know where you stand before you give someone that dislikes you your hard earned money?  What we have now is a system where they smile to you face take your cash and spit in your food behind closed doors and tell you to enjoy as you walk out.  I'd much rather shop where people respect me then have people lie to me.



well, you can also fake it til you make it....
Sometimes people need to be forced to drink the water to see that oops...Teh Gay isn't catching, black won't rub off on you and women actually can be smart and strong and allowed to vote and earn college degrees. 

Old dogs can be taught new tricks, you know. 
And sometimes you have to hit them with the rolled up news paper to discourage marking up the house.


(BTW, I think you need hitting with the rolled up newspaper, because I am 99.999999% sure I am right now defending an argument you have made time and time again in the past! You sure like to 'discuss' all angles...)


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 23, 2013)

granfire said:


> well, you can also fake it til you make it....
> Sometimes people need to be forced to drink the water to see that oops...Teh Gay isn't catching, black won't rub off on you and women actually can be smart and strong and allowed to vote and earn college degrees.
> 
> Old dogs can be taught new tricks, you know.
> ...



It's all fun and games forcing folks to "drink the water" or "make the cake". Until it's you with the wedding cake that "accidentally" used salt instead of sugar and your wedding is ruined.
No I don't think I've ever argued private business should be forced to serve any and all.  I should be able to refuse service to anyone I want its my shop.  Just like I can refuse entrance to my home.


----------



## Steve (Dec 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> And again if your black Chinese ect would you rather know where you stand before you give someone that dislikes you your hard earned money?  What we have now is a system where they smile to you face take your cash and spit in your food behind closed doors and tell you to enjoy as you walk out.  I'd much rather shop where people respect me then have people lie to me.



I think it's a shame so many people seem to spit in your food.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> I think it's a shame so many people seem to spit in your food.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk



You don't think it happens?


----------



## Steve (Dec 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You don't think it happens?



I think it sounds like it happens a lot more to you than to most.  

A baker who will spit in someone's cake or intentionally ruin it is in the wrong business.  Exposing him is doing everyone a favor.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 23, 2013)

David43515 said:


> The one thing wrong with those statements is that no state recognizes a fundemental right to get married as far as I know. Every state I`m aware of requires you to obtain a license in order to get married.And a license, by it`s very definition, is permission from the authorities to do something that you couldn`t legally do without their permission. If it`s a right, I don`t need anyone` permission to exercise it. I may be wrong, but could someone more familiar with the basics of the law, and I`m sure there are many of you, educate me on what I`m missing? I see no reason for the govt to be involved in marriage in the first place.



Rights are not absolute. That's your major misunderstanding. The  government is involved in marriage primarily for the protection of  children and the conveyance of property. There are other reasons but  those are primary ones.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> See this is what I was talking about one guy decided for an entire state to make a new law or actually reverse the will of the people.  If Gay marriage is so great change the law by vote not by judge.  The problem now is what if the next judge say naa he got it wrong.  Now you have all these marriage licenses that are illegal.  Do it right change the law by legislation or ballot box and end the confusion.



I agree largely; however, what if the majority votes to oppress a minority? Should the court stay out of the way? No... The laws were made by a majority, most likely through elected officials who decided who was permitted the rights and protections of marriage. 

You know, my wife and I could not legally be married years ago, because we are of a different race. Our courts have generally done a good job a of protecting rights.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I understand how case law works I just don't agree with it. Just like I don't agree with the courts decisions to allow slavery, segregation, internment of Japanese American Citizens, Abortions,  courts get things wrong enough that some choices should be left to the citizens.  If a state feels so strongly about a topic to pass a constitutional Amendment that means something.  The Court overturns it that's fine but the court can't then allow something that never was.   If they ruled that law was illegal then the law is scrapped which means the rules are reset to what they were prelaw.  So gay marriage still wasn't allowed. I don't see how a judge can not only over turn a law but make a new law that never existed.  He not only said your rule is bad but now you also have to allow something to happen that never was in thefirst place




So with your outlook, white males would be the only ones voting. That's how it would be. If you dislike the roll of the courts, then you dislike the Constitution. If you dislike the Constitution, you are anti-American! (hee hee, how wonderful it is to use conservative talk show host logic.)


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> The top Court has a check and balance as well.  The problem with the courts are its takes nothing but 1 new judge to change the entire makeup of the country.  No votes no say from the people.  1 new justice and poof Abortion could be overturned.  ! new judge and poof no more Gay marriage.  Courts are to volatile. You want to change laws do it right.  Change the laws in the legislative branch.
> 
> As for people following nutters they are on all sides of all debates.  BUT the core issue here is Gay Marriage and the feelings on that are changing legally states are voting for it people are voting for it.  Do it right.  If its such a great thing do hide behind 1 judge here and 1 judge there.  Get out spread the word and get the votes.  They did it here.  They can do it elsewhere.



Pretty sad understanding of the legal system... A lower court decision only affects a given district. That district has an appellate court which affects a larger area. The Supreme Court's decision stands for the entire country.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 23, 2013)

WaterGal said:


> Can you vote with being registered, which involves proving your eligibility?  As I see it, a marriage license is much the same.  When you go to the courthouse, you're registering to exercise your right to marry and proving your eligibility to do so (single, of legal age).



You got it right. The state has an interest to prevent bigamy, because of child custody and property conveyance issues.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 23, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> Pretty sad understanding of the legal system... A lower court decision only affects a given district. That district has an appellate court which affects a larger area. The Supreme Court's decision stands for the entire country.


Ummm yeah that has nothing to do with my post and I know the legal system I work with in it every day buy thanks for playing


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 23, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> So with your outlook, white males would be the only ones voting. That's how it would be. If you dislike the roll of the courts, then you dislike the Constitution. If you dislike the Constitution, you are anti-American! (hee hee, how wonderful it is to use conservative talk show host logic.)



Not at all see woman and other minorities got the right to vote the CORRECT way by passing an amendment.  Not by some judge.  All court orders can be overturned at the drop of a hat.  Amendments and laws take a little more then one party stacking the court and getting one more judge on your team.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 23, 2013)

Steve said:


> I think it sounds like it happens a lot more to you than to most.
> 
> A baker who will spit in someone's cake or intentionally ruin it is in the wrong business.  Exposing him is doing everyone a favor.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk



Your not exposing him if he's doing it behind closed doors.  By letting people be who they really are in public that's how you expose them.  Someone refuses to serve you because your black you don't sue you protest you get your friends to protest you don't use his service.  And you definitely don't sue to force him to take your money.  You get enough people to stop shopping there he goes broke.  That's how you deal with it you don't force him to hide his real feelings so the next person is fooled into thinking he's a nice guy and giving him your money when he hates you and ruins your event.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 23, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> I agree largely; however, what if the majority votes to oppress a minority? Should the court stay out of the way? No... The laws were made by a majority, most likely through elected officials who decided who was permitted the rights and protections of marriage.
> 
> You know, my wife and I could not legally be married years ago, because we are of a different race. Our courts have generally done a good job a of protecting rights.


You don't need the courts if you get people to agree with you.  If its such a good idea then lobby and change things.  All it takes is one new judge and he could set all marriage laws back to zero.  So instead of relying on that pass laws and change them correctly


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You don't need the courts if you get people to agree with you.  If its such a good idea then lobby and change things.  All it takes is one new judge and he could set all marriage laws back to zero.  So instead of relying on that pass laws and change them correctly



Truly, for a cop, you are ignorant of how the law works. This is not a flame, it is an honest evaluation.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 23, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> Truly, for a cop, you are ignorant of how the law works. This is not a flame, it is an honest evaluation.


I'll let the rude part slide I expect nothing less from you.
What part of my comment was not correct?  One new judge or two on the Supreme court and anything is possible.  No more abortion, out law different race marriages, Outlaw gay marriage.  All these issues that were never changed through the legislative process are subject to being overturned at any time.  Just takes the right judge


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I'll let the rude part slide I expect nothing less from you.
> What part of my comment was not correct?  One new judge or two on the Supreme court and anything is possible.  No more abortion, out law different race marriages, Outlaw gay marriage.  All these issues that were never changed through the legislative process are subject to being overturned at any time.  Just takes the right judge



It takes more than that to undo a ruling; clearly, you do understand stare decisis... And in terms of ignorance, I expect nothing less from you. You are poorly educated on the law and parrot talk shows. 

The reality with your position is that only white males would have the vote. You fail to understand that our Bill of Rights protect not only against governmental tyranny, but guard the rights of minorities against the whim of the majority.


----------



## granfire (Dec 23, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> It takes more than that to undo a ruling; clearly, you do understand stare decisis... And in terms of ignorance, I expect nothing less from you. You are poorly educated on the law and parrot talk shows.
> 
> The reality with your position is that only white males would have the vote. You fail to understand that our Bill of Rights protect not only against governmental tyranny, but guard the rights of minorities against the whim of the majority.



WTF, Dude?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 23, 2013)

[h=1]Utah judge: Ruling allowing same-sex marriages still stands[/h]


> A federal judge in Utah has denied the state's request to stay his ruling allowing same-sex marriage there.





> U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby's ruling Monday comes three days after he struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage.





> Shelby said lawyers for the state had offered no evidence that  opposite-sex marriage would be affected and that their "fears and  speculations are insufficient to justify the State's refusal to dignify  the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens."





> Shelby said the state's  "current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right  to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples  for no rational reason.
> "Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional," he said.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/23/us/utah-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=us_c2

[h=1]Judge denies request to halt same-sex marriages in Utah[/h]





> A federal judge on Monday blocked a request by Utah officials to halt  same-sex weddings, allowing gay marriage to continue in the  conservative state following a surprise court decision last week.
> Judge Robert J. Shelby, who blocked the request on Monday, overturned  Utah's ban on same-sex marriage this past Friday. In a decision Utah  officials claim has caused chaos in the state, he ruled the  voter-approved measure is a violation of gay couples' constitutional  rights.





> In Shelby's 53-page ruling, he said the constitutional amendment that  Utah voters approved violates gay and lesbian couples' rights to due  process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Shelby said the  state failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect  opposite-sex marriages in any way.





> On Sunday, a federal appeals court rejected the state's emergency  request to stay the ruling, saying it couldn't rule on a stay since  Shelby had not yet acted on the motion before him. The court quickly  rejected a second request from Utah on Monday. *The state plans to ask  the court a third time to put the process on hold.*



3rd times the charm? Or 3 strikes and yer out?

But wait!


> In court Monday, Utah lawyer Philip Lott repeated the words "chaotic  situation" to describe what has been happening in Utah since clerks  started allowing gay weddings. He urged the judge to "take a more  orderly approach than the current frenzy."


He's right. Utah is descending into a state of mass chaos.  Martial Law may have to be ordered. Nazi's riding dinosaurs are whipping naked Jews through the rainbow and mauve colored streets. Mormon clergy are being lynched from turquoises lamp posts with the most satin of rope.  Butt plugs have been ordered standard issue in the schools!

Oh wait. Nothing like that's happened.  Just a few hundred couples went and got married.

Utah's State Constitution can't over ride the Federal one. 


> *Article I,  Section 3**.* *[Utah inseparable from the Union.]*
> The State of Utah is an inseparable part of the Federal Union and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.



This section is the one that's in trouble.


> *Article I, Section 29**.* *[Marriage.]*
> (1)  Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
> (2)  No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.


 Meaning with at least (2) they are in violation of the 14th Amendment and US Constitutions EP clause. IMOIANAL. 

But, this will continue.  Zarnak say, US Supreme Court petition coming shortly.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 23, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> It takes more than that to undo a ruling; clearly, you do understand stare decisis...


You do understand Courts can and have done this.  The Supreme Court has over turned past rulings before,  Surely someone of your expertise must know that



> And in terms of ignorance, I expect nothing less from you. You are poorly educated on the law and parrot talk shows.


Well that's true I aint gots no fancy college I went in the Marines instead and I've never heard a parrot talk show is it about crackers


> The reality with your position is that only white males would have the vote. You fail to understand that our Bill of Rights protect not only against governmental tyranny, but guard the rights of minorities against the whim of the majority.


No actually the reality of my position is people will come to a higher understanding on there own and will make laws that fix the problems without a judge you know like the 19th Amendment and 15th Amendment.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 23, 2013)

granfire said:


> WTF, Dude?



Hes my little buddy he loves me


----------



## granfire (Dec 23, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Hes my little buddy he loves me



nvm, Not a ladylike response...


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You do understand Courts can and have done this.  The Supreme Court has over turned past rulings before,  Surely someone of your expertise must know that
> 
> 
> Well that's true I aint gots no fancy college I went in the Marines instead and I've never heard a parrot talk show is it about crackers
> ...



You have seriously back peddled, which is fine. However, many folks who served this country also earned a degree. The GI Bill has benefitted many of them. Progress as a person comes down to drive and desire. One should not make excuses for ignorance.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 24, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> You have seriously back peddled, which is fine. However, many folks who served this country also earned a degree. The GI Bill has benefitted many of them. Progress as a person comes down to drive and desire. One should not make excuses for ignorance.


I haven't back peddled anywhere.  Courts can and do change all the time like Ive said ALL along.  And I'm not making excuses for anything I don't need a degree for my profession.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2013)

> DENVER &#8212; A federal appeals court cleared the way on Tuesday for same-sex marriages to continue across Utah, denying an emergency request from state officials to halt a flood of unions that began after a lower-court judge declared the state&#8217;s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/25/us/appeals-court-refuses-to-halt-same-sex-marriages-in-utah.html

Strike 3.



> When the judge denied Utah&#8217;s request, the state took its case to the  appeals court in Denver, but the judges rejected Utah&#8217;s request. Mr.  Rosky said the ruling suggested that the judges did not believe Utah was  likely to succeed in its appeal defending the marriage ban, and that  they saw no irreparable harm in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
> The appellate court is set to hear arguments over Utah&#8217;s ban on same-sex marriage in the coming weeks.





> Utah officials were busy Tuesday night planning an emergency appeal  to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal appeals court denied their  request to stop same-sex marriages while they try to overturn a judge's  ruling legalizing them.
> In a two-page order (.pdf)  entered late Tuesday in Denver, two judges on the 10th U.S. Circuit  Court of Appeals declined to grant Gov. Gary Herbert's request for a  stay halting the marriages while Utah pursues its appeal.
> Herbert's office didn't return a call for comment, but the state  attorney general's office &#8212; which filed the motion on his behalf &#8212; said  it would seek an emergency stay with the Supreme Court as early as  Thursday. That motion would be heard by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has  jurisdiction over the 10th Circuit.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-court-refuses-to-stop-same-sex-weddings?lite



> Herbert asked for a stay Monday after U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby upheld his own ruling that Utah's ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.
> The  appeals judges, Robert E. Bacharach and Jerome A. Holmes, fast-tracked  Utah's appeal, but they said they wouldn't stop the marriages in the  meantime, writing that the state would have a tough time proving that  letting the marriages go ahead would cause "irreparable harm" or that it  had a good shot at winning its appeal.
> Bacharach was appointed to the court by President Barack Obama; Holmes was appointed by President George W. Bush.



Meanwhile:


> Some county clerks in Utah refused Tuesday to issue marriage licenses  to gay couples, even though they could face legal consequences after a  judge struck down the state&#8217;s ban on same-sex marriage. 						The Utah attorney general&#8217;s office has warned counties they  could be held in contempt of federal court if they refuse to issue the  licenses.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...c07ef2-6c35-11e3-a5d0-6f31cd74f760_story.html

Meanwhile, Merry Christmas to the over 700 couples now married as a result of the courts choosing equality over antiquity.  While this ontinues to wind through the courts, several thousand couples will wed. And Utah will not sink into Hell, time will not end, and the 7 plagues of Egypt won't return.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I haven't back peddled anywhere.  Courts can and do change all the time like Ive said ALL along.  And I'm not making excuses for anything I don't need a degree for my profession.



You would call a lawbreaker: a criminal. An uneducated person is likewise called ignorant. I am certain you despise political correctness... So you should accept it.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 25, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> You would call a lawbreaker: a criminal. An uneducated person is likewise called ignorant. I am certain you despise political correctness... So you should accept it.



Except the ignorant one would be you who didn't know courts can reverse each other.  Maybe lay off the Rum there Rumy


----------



## granfire (Dec 25, 2013)

No more eggnog for either of you!
Have some coffee!


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 25, 2013)

granfire said:


> No more eggnog for either of you!
> Have some coffee!



Oh I'll have plenty tonight its cold I'm training someone and I've been up all day playing with my kids.  Come on 8am.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 25, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/25/us/appeals-court-refuses-to-halt-same-sex-marriages-in-utah.html
> 
> Strike 3.
> 
> ...


Hope its not overturned in next lvl of courts I can't imagine how that would feel to be married and have a new judge say naa nevermind .     I'm not really against Gay marriage to me marriage is a contract with God so the Govt should have never involved itself.  I'm against backdooring legislation through the courts instead of doing it right and changing the law through the legislative branch or popular vote.  .


----------



## granfire (Dec 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Hope its not overturned in next lvl of courts I can't imagine how that would feel to be married and have a new judge say naa nevermind .     I'm not really against Gay marriage to me marriage is a contract with God so the Govt should have never involved itself.  I'm against backdooring legislation through the courts instead of doing it right and changing the law through the legislative branch or popular vote.  .



Unless you join a monastery, God ain't got nothing to do with marriage, it's a wordly thing, contract law. 

But it would suck if all the folks running to get married now were to find out nener nener booboo, just kidding, you are not married after all.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 25, 2013)

granfire said:


> Unless you join a monastery, God ain't got nothing to do with marriage, it's a wordly thing, contract law.


Well that's your belief not mine.  I swore my devotion to my wife before God.  The state was a formality that ment nothing.  Its just another way for the state to raise cash and show they are in charge. 


> But it would suck if all the folks running to get married now were to find out nener nener booboo, just kidding, you are not married after all.



Right.  Change the law through legislation and you don't need to worry about it.


----------



## granfire (Dec 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Well that's your belief not mine.  I swore my devotion to my wife before God.  The state was a formality that ment nothing.  Its just another way for the state to raise cash and show they are in charge.
> 
> 
> Right.  Change the law through legislation and you don't need to worry about it.



Atheists get the same legal rights when they sign the license at the court house. It's secular legal crap. Nothing holy. 

The handful of bucks you pay gives you a  set of legal rights that otherwise you would have to pay a small fortune for if you didn't buy 'the bundle' via marriage! The spiritual part? You get free.

http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries


> *When did people start marrying?*
> The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates  to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, marriage  served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other  members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances,  acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes,  women had little say over whom they married. The purpose of marriage was  the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word _matrimonium_, which is derived from _mater _(mother).



https://upworthy-production.s3.amaz...2542a00030018ba/attachments/biblemarriage.jpg
http://wordofawoman.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/traditional-marriage.jpg


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 25, 2013)

granfire said:


> Atheists get the same legal rights when they sign the license at the court house. It's secular legal crap. Nothing holy.
> 
> The handful of bucks you pay gives you a  set of legal rights that otherwise you would have to pay a small fortune for if you didn't buy 'the bundle' via marriage! The spiritual part? You get free.
> 
> ...



F$60 isn't a few bucks.  But If all you wanted was legal security sign a prenump and leave the state out of it all together.  

Like I said I don't care about the state giving me "permission". I gave my vows before God.  If people are happy with the power of their marriage resting with a court clerk good for them.  To me it means a little more then that.


----------



## granfire (Dec 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> F$60 isn't a few bucks.  But If all you wanted was legal security sign a prenump and leave the state out of it all together.
> 
> Like I said I don't care about the state giving me "permission". I gave my vows before God.  If people are happy with the power of their marriage resting with a court clerk good for them.  To me it means a little more then that.



God isn't going to give  a rip about who gets what. The preacher might...but that was not the point, and 60 bucks is pittance when you have to add form over document over legal this or that.

Things you get with one signature....it is a bargain. You do not ahev to file extra POA, living wills, wills, custody, hospital issues, next of kin, and what have you. 60 bucks and one stroke of the pen, done.

BTW, in a lot of places you can have the ceremony in church, but you had better signed the papers at the courthouse before hand. 

I know, you are just being ornery again:
Church is church, and Schnaps is Schnaps. Marriages are about legal stuff, property...and last but not least, up until recent history, the wife was mere chattel....Husband in charge, and if she wasn't willing assault and rape was not a crime once the vows were exchanged...
marriage only happened because the male line needed tracking....

I cot married in the courthouse, is my marriage less than yours?


----------



## Steve (Dec 25, 2013)

Marriage is whatever it means to you.  For many, it's simply formalizing an intent to commit for life.  It's always been in "society's" best interest to encourage marriage, because people who are married tend to be more stable and conservative.  So, in every culture throughout the world, people are encouraged to marry and have kids and "settle down" and be stable, productive, consistent members of society.  

So, it's not any wonder that America would encourage marriage with tax incentives and other legal perks.

But, that in no way impacts the religious implications marriage holds for a lot of US citizens.  As someone who is indifferent to religion, but who has been married for almost 20 years, I will say that in my experience, there's no one way to look at it.  I personally would have no problem with the government getting out of the marriage business.  But, since that's not going to happen, equal access for any two consenting adults to the perks will be enough for me.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 25, 2013)

granfire said:


> God isn't going to give  a rip about who gets what. The preacher might...but that was not the point, and 60 bucks is pittance when you have to add form over document over legal this or that.
> 
> Things you get with one signature....it is a bargain. You do not ahev to file extra POA, living wills, wills, custody, hospital issues, next of kin, and what have you. 60 bucks and one stroke of the pen, done.
> 
> ...


Marriage to me is a commitment to your spouse before God.  Contract stuff is secondary and could be done without Govt.marryple make contracts all the time without Govt approval.  None of this Gay marriage stuff would even be an issue if your didn't need Govt permission to marry in the first place.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Marriage to me is a commitment to your spouse beforeinter  Contract stuff is secondary and could be done without Govt.marryple make contracts all the time without Govt approval.  None of this Gay marriage stuff would even be an issue if your didn't need Govt permission to marry in the first place.



Ok Einstein, when a contract is broken ppl go to court to have it enforced or to seek damages. The presence of the courts makes for peaceable means of resolution.  The court is the government! Absent courts, ppl might handle contracts a la wise guys like Tony Soprano.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 25, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> Ok Einstein, when a contract is broken ppl go to court to have it enforced or to seek damages. The presence of the courts makes for peaceable means of resolution.  The court is the government! Absent courts, ppl might handle contracts a la wise guys like Tony Soprano.


Correct afterwards not before .  Most contracts are made between Two people or groups without prior approval from the govt.  Marriage doesn't need govt approval the govt just took that power.  You have to go ask permission from the govt to be married.  And lay off the nonsense name calling.  If your not able to have a conversation without name calling then don't comment at all.


----------



## Steve (Dec 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Marriage to me is a commitment to your spouse before God.  Contract stuff is secondary and could be done without Govt.marryple make contracts all the time without Govt approval.  None of this Gay marriage stuff would even be an issue if your didn't need Govt permission to marry in the first place.


QFT.  But, personally, I like some of the perks.  And, I'd rather see more people get them than to see them go away.


----------



## Steve (Dec 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Correct afterwards not before .  Most contracts are made between Two people or groups without prior approval from the govt.  Marriage doesn't need govt approval the govt just took that power.  You have to go ask permission from the govt to be married.  And lay off the nonsense name calling.  If your not able to have a conversation without name calling then don't comment at all.


I agree with this almost completely.  The only thing I'd say is that there is a difference between the government taking something and the government endorsing something.  Incentives are really a matter of endorsement, and I see the government as having a vested interest in encouraging as many people as possible to settle down and be happy, productive members of society.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 25, 2013)

Steve said:


> I agree with this almost completely.  The only thing I'd say is that there is a difference between the government taking something and the government endorsing something.  Incentives are really a matter of endorsement, and I see the government as having a vested interest in encouraging as many people as possible to settle down and be happy, productive members of society.


True I agree with that  I think they could encourage marriage without requiring permission. But I see your point


----------



## granfire (Dec 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Marriage to me is a commitment to your spouse before God.  Contract stuff is secondary and could be done without Govt.marryple make contracts all the time without Govt approval.  None of this Gay marriage stuff would even be an issue if your didn't need Govt permission to marry in the first place.



:slapfight: you don't need government permission to marry...you have the government regulate the contract part.

And sadly people think that they are special little snowflakes and deserve more protection (and the right to look officially down on others, plus regulate their personal commitments to their perspective partners) 

The state couldn't care less if you are commited to your spouse, all they care is that the forms are dotted and inked in the right place.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 25, 2013)

granfire said:


> :slapfight: you don't need government permission to marry...you have the government regulate the contract part.



Really then why are Gays being denied? Because you need Govt permission.


> And sadly people think that they are special little snowflakes and deserve more protection (and the right to look officially down on others, plus regulate their personal commitments to their perspective partners)
> 
> The state couldn't care less if you are commited to your spouse, all they care is that the forms are dotted and inked in the right place.



Right the state doesn't care they just want the money from the fee and the power to say nope denied.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Change the law through legislation and you don't need to worry about it.


Until 10 or 20 years later a new law over turns the old law.

Slavery was legal, by law.  Then a new law was passed making it illegal.

Women couldn't vote, by law.  Then a new law was passed making it legal.

Drinking used to be legal.  Then a law was passed making it illegal. Then another law was passed making it legal again.

Even the "Highest Court in the Land" isn't an absolute.
10 Supreme Court cases that were later overturned.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm

Compare Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
In 1986 States could make oral sex illegal. In 2003 suddenly they couldn't.


> In 2003, the Supreme Court decided the case of Lawrence v. Texas by  rejecting Texas's anti-sodomy law, essentially declaring that the Bowers  decision was incorrect. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion  stated, "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not  correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v.  Hardwick should be and now is overruled." The dissent also specifically  noted that the court was going against _stare decisis_ by overturning _Bowers_.



Or Pace v. Alabama (1883) which wasn't overturned until 1963!


> The facts of this 1883 case are simple, and the Supreme Court's  decision abhorrent to any modern person. Tony Pace was a black man  living in Alabama, dating a white woman. Unfortunately, Alabama's *anti-miscegenation laws*  forbade sexual relations or marriage between blacks and whites. Lower  courts' logical contortions to justify the law were remarkable. For  example, Pace and his white girlfriend were charged with adultery, since  they were found living together without being married. However, state  law made it illegal for them to get married.  Alabama's Supreme Court decided that the law was not discriminatory  because it applied equally to both blacks and whites. That is, it was  illegal for a black person to marry a white person, but it was equally  illegal for a white person to marry a black person. The case was  appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which determined that  protecting the institution of marriage was a valid interest for the  state, and that the threat of interracial relationships would cause  serious harm to "white marriages." Therefore, the law couldn't be ruled  unconstitutional.
> 
> What's truly sad is that the case wasn't  overturned until 1967, and that several lower courts issued rulings  based on the same blatantly racist principles in place more than 80  years prior. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court finally ruled  unanimously that such laws had no legal standing and were merely  state-sponsored racism. They overthrew a Virginia law against  interracial marriage and rendered all other such laws invalid.



Hmmm.  "*protecting the institution of marriage* was a valid interest for the  state, and that the threat of interracial relationships would cause  serious harm to "white marriages." Therefore, the law couldn't be ruled  unconstitutional."

Let's rewrite this: "protecting the institution of marriage was a valid interest for the  state, and that the threat of same-sex relationships would cause  serious harm to "traditional marriages." Therefore, the law couldn't be ruled  unconstitutional."

2 words changed.  Still stinks.

Then there's the Sept 2013 case where "California closed  a sexual assault loophole created by a 1872 state law, expanding one  definition of rape to include unmarried people. The arcane law led to an  appeals court reluctantly overturning a man&#8217;s rape conviction for impersonating a woman&#8217;s boyfriend while she was unconscious." http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/11/2602841/california-rape-loophole-ummarried-victims/

How many people have guns in NY that last year were legal but over night became illegal because they hold 3 more bullets than the State now allows?


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 25, 2013)

That's true Bob any law can be changed but its harder to do it if its legislation then it is stacking the courts and overturning a ruling.  We could bring back slavery if we got enough votes but other then guns I can't think of many other rights that have been taken away once given.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 26, 2013)

Simply put, I don't trust the courts to do the right thing, I don't trust the legislature to do the right thing, and I don't trust the people to do the right thing. All 3 have made poor choices in the past, based on poor judgement, poor information, fear, greed, etc.  I don't worry much about it all, but I don't trust them much.  Too fickle, etc.

Don't have a fix for it all either.


----------



## DennisBreene (Dec 26, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Simply put, I don't trust the courts to do the right thing, I don't trust the legislature to do the right thing, and I don't trust the people to do the right thing. All 3 have made poor choices in the past, based on poor judgement, poor information, fear, greed, etc.  I don't worry much about it all, but I don't trust them much.  Too fickle, etc.
> 
> Don't have a fix for it all either.



Hence the checks and balances.  It's a terrible cumbersome system, but I suspect it's the best conceived yet.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 26, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Simply put, I don't trust the courts to do the right thing, I don't trust the legislature to do the right thing, and I don't trust the people to do the right thing. All 3 have made poor choices in the past, based on poor judgement, poor information, fear, greed, etc.  I don't worry much about it all, but I don't trust them much.  Too fickle, etc.
> 
> Don't have a fix for it all either.




You sound like a crybaby and a self-righteous prick. Nothing is perfect. Standing for a compassionate humanity vis-a-vis self interest is extremely difficult. You really never had to be a leader and work in a situation that requires compromise.

If we take your conclusions to the next logical step, then we could say all people are fickle and untrustworthy. Your position is overreaching and misanthropic. All institutions are subject to the humans who govern them. A healthy suspicion, which means playing an active role, helps create a balance. A government of the people demands the people become involved.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 26, 2013)

You know me so well, Not!

"A government of the people demands the people become involved."
*Washington State's 2013 voter turnout lowest in a decade *
New York: _Voter Turnout_ Appears to Be Record Low
*Detroit's 25-percent voter turnout was higher than New York, Miami ...*


Yup, they are involved. Proves my point there.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 26, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> You know me so well, Not!
> 
> "A government of the people demands the people become involved."
> *Washington State's 2013 voter turnout lowest in a decade *
> ...



Right, so there are these stats and what are we to make of them? American democracy is a failure? Or is it representative of a mixture of content with the system, apathy, loathing and laziness? Likely many reasons are in play.  America is large not only in size but diversity of race, religion and creed. One view is to take those numbers in isolation and call it a failure, which maybe you are right. Another is to compare it to other nations. I am not talking about a simplistic voter turnout comparison to say Finland, which is small and homogenous racially, but rather to look deeper at how different groups can live together.  

Lastly, you are right, I do not know you, but you made so big blanket statements, which come across as whiny. I respect the a healthy amount of suspicion, but if and when I see an unbalanced assessment, I am going to call it out. You overreached in your statement. I would be supporting you position if you had said, we are subject to the dangers of whim and fickleness in our leadership, but we do also have people who have fought for principles. We should be remind that liberty takes constant vigilance. I applaud your knowledge of current events, which demonstrates your commitment to the process. However, when you oversimplify, it sounds like propaganda or polemic instead of a reasoned argument based on the facts.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 26, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> Right, so there are these stats and what are we to make of them? American democracy is a failure? Or is it representative of a mixture of content with the system, apathy, loathing and laziness? Likely many reasons are in play.  America is large not only in size but diversity of race, religion and creed. One view is to take those numbers in isolation and call it a failure, which maybe you are right. Another is to compare it to other nations. I am not talking about a simplistic voter turnout comparison to say Finland, which is small and homogenous racially, but rather to look deeper at how different groups can live together.
> 
> Lastly, you are right, I do not know you, but you made so big blanket statements, which come across as whiny. I respect the a healthy amount of suspicion, but if and when I see an unbalanced assessment, I am going to call it out. You overreached in your statement. I would be supporting you position if you had said, we are subject to the dangers of whim and fickleness in our leadership, but we do also have people who have fought for principles. We should be remind that liberty takes constant vigilance. I applaud your knowledge of current events, which demonstrates your commitment to the process. However, when you oversimplify, it sounds like propaganda or polemic instead of a reasoned argument based on the facts.



For 1, I made the statement after being up near 20 hours so was terse due to tiredness. I'm a Strict Constitutionalist who desires extremely limited government, held under strong checks and balances that are strongly enforced by an informed, educated and involved populace.  Or as some might say, a fantasy buff.  You want to know where I stand on things, read the archives here from my 3 Presidential campaigns, my hosted forum where I've interjected social and political commentary interspersed with randomness, or the major debates in The Study and US Politics forums.

What we have in cases such as Utah is the desire of a religiously influenced majority to push their view on the populace at large running into courts that see conflict with those views when faced with Constitutionally protected rights, which are reinforced by established case law such as the Loving decision. Those who are in the "anti" role see these justices as "activist". Those of us in the "pro" position see them as extending legally established rights to a minority group that is facing discrimination. As to which side is correct, it depends on which side one supports. Usually.  Sometimes the side that I view as right is not the side that I support in the argument.  Same Sex Marriage is one of those conflicted cases.

If the justice had said "Utah doesnt have the right to make this decision" I would have said he was wrong, as the 10th Amendment makes it clear that anything not specifically in the USC is left to the States or the People. As there is nothing in the USC regarding marriage specifically, this would be a 10th Amendment case, where Utah holds the right to decide.

However, this is trumped by the 14th Amendment, the EOP clause, and established USC Case Law (Loving) which clearly defined "Marriage" and a universal right.  Eventually, case law will favor this. Or an Amendment will be added clarifying it. Or society will get over itself and decide it doesn't matter and move on to more pressing things.

As to voter turn out, the majority of the US populace is jaded and disenfranchised. Support for the government is at a record low. Sadly, all this means is less people will turn out and vote, because they are wrongly convinced they have to pick between 2 evils so there's no point in bothering. As someone who has run and strongly supports Libertarian, Whig and Green as well as independent candidates, I see them as wrong for many reasons. The only wasted vote is the one not cast, or cast in ignorance.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 26, 2013)

Bob Hubbard said:


> For 1, I made the statement after being up near 20 hours so was terse due to tiredness. I'm a Strict Constitutionalist who desires extremely limited government, held under strong checks and balances that are strongly enforced by an informed, educated and involved populace.  Or as some might say, a fantasy buff.  You want to know where I stand on things, read the archives here from my 3 Presidential campaigns, my hosted forum where I've interjected social and political commentary interspersed with randomness, or the major debates in The Study and US Politics forums.
> 
> What we have in cases such as Utah is the desire of a religiously influenced majority to push their view on the populace at large running into courts that see conflict with those views when faced with Constitutionally protected rights, which are reinforced by established case law such as the Loving decision. Those who are in the "anti" role see these justices as "activist". Those of us in the "pro" position see them as extending legally established rights to a minority group that is facing discrimination. As to which side is correct, it depends on which side one supports. Usually.  Sometimes the side that I view as right is not the side that I support in the argument.  Same Sex Marriage is one of those conflicted cases.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I attribute the angry feelings more to economics than civics. The post-WWII economic bubble continues to fade away, and people who have an expectation for a privileged lifestyle are increasingly upset and frustrated as it becomes more elusive. People could adapt by sharing resources and seeking training in employable careers but our desire for material things and social status hold us back. The knee jerk reaction is to blame the government, but they have been shaping a climate for what ppl want: a market flooded with cheap goods. We could all do better with less and learn to share more. We could be humbler instead of status driven. This are human foibles that are not easily altered.


----------



## Steve (Dec 26, 2013)

granfire said:


> Atheists get the same legal rights when they sign the license at the court house. It's secular legal crap. Nothing holy.
> 
> The handful of bucks you pay gives you a  set of legal rights that otherwise you would have to pay a small fortune for if you didn't buy 'the bundle' via marriage! The spiritual part? You get free.
> 
> ...



How can you say that it is only secular, legal crap?  Isn't it possible to be religious crap that ALSO has secular, legal implications?  Or could it be secular legal crap that, for some, is ALSO a meaningful, religious commitment?  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## granfire (Dec 26, 2013)

Steve said:


> How can you say that it is only secular, legal crap?  Isn't it possible to be religious crap that ALSO has secular, legal implications?  Or could it be secular legal crap that, for some, is ALSO a meaningful, religious commitment?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



The point is, in many places a preacher cannot legally bestow the rights that come with ONE signature on the marriage license upon you. Just because the state (AKA government) gives preachers the authority to do so does not implicate anything interms of spirituality.

How you wish to celebrate? that's your choice. Ballen's sentiments about his commitment and vows? As touching as they are, they are legally irrelevant. He gets to marry a women he can't stand as well, whom he rather hit with the cake than share it with. 
It's an economic contract. Nothing else. 
Marriages done in the courthouse are just as legally binding as those officiated in church, no more, no less.


----------



## Steve (Dec 26, 2013)

granfire said:


> The point is, in many places a preacher cannot legally bestow the rights that come with ONE signature on the marriage license upon you. Just because the state (AKA government) gives preachers the authority to do so does not implicate anything interms of spirituality.
> 
> How you wish to celebrate? that's your choice. Ballen's sentiments about his commitment and vows? As touching as they are, they are legally irrelevant. He gets to marry a women he can't stand as well, whom he rather hit with the cake than share it with.
> It's an economic contract. Nothing else.
> Marriages done in the courthouse are just as legally binding as those officiated in church, no more, no less.


I think you're the one missing the point.  There is a legal aspect to marriage, but there is also a spiritual aspect to marriage (for many).  I have several friends who are in committed, lifelong relationships who are gay.  In the decades before same sex marriage was legal in Washington, they were still getting "married."  It looks different for different people, but regardless of how you memorialize the commitment, anyone who is declaring their intent to commit to a lifelong partnership with someone whom they love is getting "married."    Some had more traditional marriages in churches, and some had whacky ceremonies where the term "marriage" was never used.  

You have completely dismissed what for many is the main part of marriage.  For many, the legal contract you are mentioning is simply a formality, like signing up for insurance or applying for social security.  

This doesn't mean that marriage ISN'T a legal contract.  Of course, it is.  But for many, that's secondary to the social contract.


----------



## granfire (Dec 26, 2013)

Steve said:


> I think you're the one missing the point.  There is a legal aspect to marriage, but there is also a spiritual aspect to marriage (for many).  I have several friends who are in committed, lifelong relationships who are gay.  In the decades before same sex marriage was legal in Washington, they were still getting "married."  It looks different for different people, but regardless of how you memorialize the commitment, anyone who is declaring their intent to commit to a lifelong partnership with someone whom they love is getting "married."    Some had more traditional marriages in churches, and some had whacky ceremonies where the term "marriage" was never used.
> 
> You have completely dismissed what for many is the main part of marriage.  For many, the legal contract you are mentioning is simply a formality, like signing up for insurance or applying for social security.
> 
> This doesn't mean that marriage ISN'T a legal contract.  Of course, it is.  But for many, that's secondary to the social contract.



There spiritual dealing is private, unlike the contract issue, which is not private. 

So yeah, contract issue trump spirituality. 

you can take or leave spirituality.

but when the rubber meets the road the 'social contract is secondary' people won't run to the lawyer to fill out extra paperwork (and pay $$ for them) but happily accept the benefits the legal social contract affords them. 

Like ballen does not ahve to file extra papers and adopt the children his wife had after they had signed the legal paper of marriage, nor will he have to write a separate will to have her inherit what's his, she can sit by his side should he become critical ill and make all the decisions about his care. No questions asked.

So, hypocrisy at work again, right? Never question what you got, but deny it to others...

He feels spiritual about getting hitched? more power to it. But that's not the intend of marriage. Never was. It's always been about stuff, rights and also duties.


----------



## ballen0351 (Dec 26, 2013)

granfire said:


> There spiritual dealing is private, unlike the contract issue, which is not private.
> 
> So yeah, contract issue trump spirituality.
> 
> ...



And if a marriage license is about stuff then it fails totally.  Plenty of divorces drag on for years over stuff.  If all that matters is stuff there are better ways to make sure stuff is divided equally without govt permission.  
You also don't need to adopt your own kids so why would that matter?  I don't need to be married to be on a birth certificate.

And when adopting a kids that's not mine.  Then yeah there is plenty of paperwork regardless of gay or straight


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 6, 2014)

No so fast Utah

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-court-puts-gay-marriage-in-utah-on-hold?lite


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 6, 2014)

> Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor received the Utah petition and then asked her colleagues to weigh in.
> The court followed up with a two-sentence order without comment that puts same-sex marriages on hold in Utah only.





> *(CNN) &#8211;* The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked  same-sex marriage in Utah, an apparently unanimous order in favor of  the state that sends the matter back to an appeals court for expedited  consideration.



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...further-same-sex-marriages-in-utah/?hpt=po_c2



> The state's request to the Supreme Court was filed with Justice Sonia  Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from Utah and the five other  states in the 10th Circuit. Sotomayor turned the matter over to the  entire court.
> The action now shifts to Denver, where the appeals court will  consider arguments from the state against same-sex marriage as well as  from the three gay and lesbian couples who challenged the ban in support  of Shelby's ruling. The appeals court had twice rebuffed the state's  plea to stop gay weddings pending appeal.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...y-marriage-on-hold-in-utah/?intcmp=latestnews


This is the text of the SC Order


> (ORDER LIST:  571 U.S.)
> MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2014
> ORDER IN PENDING CASE
> 13A687      HERBERT, GOV. OF UT, ET AL. V. KITCHEN, DEREK, ET AL.
> ...




http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/01/06/why-the-supreme-court-put-utah-gay-marriage-on-hold/


> University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter,  a constitutional scholar and expert on same-sex marriage law, said  Monday&#8217;s order will likely have the effect of slowing down the  legalization of gay marriage by judicial fiat until the Supreme Court  decides to revisit the issue.
> &#8220;It&#8217;s a signal to the other district courts and circuit courts across  the country that we&#8217;re not going to rush into this,&#8221; Mr. Carpenter told  Law Blog. &#8220;We&#8217;re not going to allow anybody to game the system and make  same-sex marriage legal nationwide before the Supreme Court gets to  speak to the issue.&#8221;




The eventual event is legalization.  The question is when. Not if.




[/QUOTE]


----------

