Utah's same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional.

[Steve]

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]

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]

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]

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]

: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]

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’s rape conviction for impersonating a woman’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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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


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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

No so fast Utah

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