Utah's same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional.

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.