Utah's same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional.

[DennisBreene]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 6–7, 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]

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]

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]

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—as this deplorable experience proves—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-...‎
by Neal Broverman
May 21, 2012 - Worley believes that placing gays in camps will ensure homosexuality dies out since gays "don't reproduce." Worley isn't apologizing for his ...

Pastor Calls For Gays in Concentration Camps - The Daily Beast

www.thedailybeast.com/.../north-carolina-pastor-put...‎
May 25, 2012
... he advocated putting all homosexuals into...well, let's call it what it is: he advocated putting all ...

CA Pastor Echoes Call For Gays To Be Put Into Concentration ...

instinctmagazine.com/.../ca-pastor-echoes-call-gays-be-put-concentration...‎
Oct 11, 2013 - A pastor in Santa Clara, California has invoked calls of throwing gays into concentration camps into what he seems to have meant to be a ...

GOP politician calls trans people 'disgusting freaks', should be put in ...

www.gaystarnews.com › News‎
Oct 17, 2013 - And there are people who think you should all be put in a camp. ... Describing gays as being 'ok' and female bisexuality as the 'Mona Lisa of ...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.