If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(UPI)   Utah promises to appeal judge's ruling on same-sex marriage because...well, it's Utah, what did you expect?   (upi.com) divider line 86
    More: Followup, Utah, same-sex marriages, Salt Lake County, Gary Herbert, Deseret News, federal judges, federal district court  
•       •       •

959 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Dec 2013 at 2:26 PM (16 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-21 03:57:02 PM

phalamir: T-Servo: namatad: "Officials in one of the country's most conservative states vowed to appeal the decision and to ask for an emergency stay"
Emergency Stay?
WHY?
In what universe is gays and lesbians getting married an emergency to stop?
It would be AWESOME if the appellate court said "No. There is no need for an emergency stay. We can wait until your appeal has been heard and ruled on. Come back in a couple of months. ASSHOLES."

"P.S.- we're rather behind in our casework due to the sequester and October shutdown and all that other nonsense. You might have to wait a while."


the opposite of charity is justice: Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah"

That's pretty damn funny, considering the history of marriage laws in Utah.

Traditional marriage has always been a sacred, Biblical union between one man and 6-30 pre-pubescent girls


Oh, good. I thought I was the only one who read the words "traditional marriage" and "Utah" and started smirking.
 
2013-12-21 03:59:18 PM

phalamir: The emergency stay is because you risk creating a two-tiered gay community if the ruling is overturned.


I think the gay community could deal with that adversity.
 
2013-12-21 04:03:43 PM

soporific: MooseUpNorth: Ed Grubermann: It's frustrating when they are obviously on the wrong end of things, but sometimes they are right and keep society from changing in ways that are destructive.

Serious question, but do you have an example of this 'sometimes'? Because I'm drawing a total blank on when they've _ever_ been right about anything.

Believe it or not, sometimes the Left will also over-reach and try to pass laws governing personal behavior for the greater good. (the greater good.) Often these are local ordinances run amok, but that's when a proper, sane conservative party is needed to balance out the need for progress with a need for personal liberty.


Both sides are bad, so vote Republican.
 
2013-12-21 04:04:57 PM

soporific: Serious Black: I can't really disagree with the Governor and AG's moves. Part of their jobs is to defend their laws and constitutions. Doesn't mean it's not a stupid move since I see SCOTUS extending Loving v. Virginia to same-sex couples at some point in the hopefully near future, but if they think they have a defense, they would be derelict in their duty if they didn't defend it.

I'm glad they are appealing, and I hope they take it all the way back to the Supreme Court. The reason the Prop 8 decision didn't end all the gay marriage bans is because of standing, as in the people arguing in favor of Prop 8 didn't have standing to do so. This time, there is no standing issue. If the Supreme Court takes this case, then I have a feeling they will decide in favor of gay marriage nationwide.
 I do love how the people fighting these gay marriage rulings are really the ones who will make it legal nationwide. That's why I hope everyone with standing continues to fight these rulings. I want these proud crusaders for inequality to be the ones responsible for marriage equality for all. (Much how I love the fact that my home state of Texas is the reason being gay is no longer a crime in the first place.)


THIS!!!!
 
2013-12-21 04:07:14 PM
But they voted on it. Doesn't that make it a super triple double stamped, extra special, activist judge-proof law?
 
2013-12-21 04:08:05 PM

Verrai: soporific: MooseUpNorth: Ed Grubermann: It's frustrating when they are obviously on the wrong end of things, but sometimes they are right and keep society from changing in ways that are destructive.

Serious question, but do you have an example of this 'sometimes'? Because I'm drawing a total blank on when they've _ever_ been right about anything.

Believe it or not, sometimes the Left will also over-reach and try to pass laws governing personal behavior for the greater good. (the greater good.) Often these are local ordinances run amok, but that's when a proper, sane conservative party is needed to balance out the need for progress with a need for personal liberty.

Since when was conservatism about "personal liberty", whatever that is?


Well, "Liberty" is a big, pretty word.
Everybody likes to say they're all for Liberty.
But they define the term as they choose.
 
2013-12-21 04:09:40 PM

MooseUpNorth: Serious question, but do you have an example of this 'sometimes'? Because I'm drawing a total blank on when they've _ever_ been right about anything.


I remember hearing about the evils of disco and they were pretty much right about that one.
 
2013-12-21 04:13:23 PM

sprgrss: namatad: "Officials in one of the country's most conservative states vowed to appeal the decision and to ask for an emergency stay"
Emergency Stay?
WHY?
In what universe is gays and lesbians getting married an emergency to stop?
It would be AWESOME if the appellate court said "No. There is no need for an emergency stay. We can wait until your appeal has been heard and ruled on. Come back in a couple of months. ASSHOLES."

Emergency states are granted in situations where it is likely that the lower courts ruling will be overturned.  If the COA doesn't issue an emergency stay then you'll have a very good idea of where it will go with the ruling.


YUP.
The current United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit , has 5 dem appointments and 5 gop appointments, with Chief Justice Mary Beck Briscoe who was appointed by clinton.

This decision will be QUITE interesting for sure.

The state argued it was important to proceed with caution, because "no one knows right now the precise impact same-sex marriage will have on traditional marriage, children, and society at large."

Yup, because GAY MARRIAGE is such a threat, compared to say .... divorce.
 
2013-12-21 04:15:32 PM

Pincy: phalamir: The emergency stay is because you risk creating a two-tiered gay community if the ruling is overturned.

I think the gay community could deal with that adversity.


Wasnt a two tiered society created in California?
I know people who got married before it became illegal again.
HOW did they have special rights and other same-sex couples didnt have those same rights?
HOW does that not violate a number of constitutional issues at both state and federal levels?

Clearly you would have two classes of citizens: those with the rights of married people and those banned from ever getting those rights. shudder
 
2013-12-21 04:28:38 PM

namatad: Pincy: phalamir: The emergency stay is because you risk creating a two-tiered gay community if the ruling is overturned.

I think the gay community could deal with that adversity.

Wasnt a two tiered society created in California?
I know people who got married before it became illegal again.
HOW did they have special rights and other same-sex couples didnt have those same rights?
HOW does that not violate a number of constitutional issues at both state and federal levels?

Clearly you would have two classes of citizens: those with the rights of married people and those banned from ever getting those rights. shudder


Because it sets up an equality lawsuit that would be a slam-dunk. It would be the briar-patch for the Bre'er Queer. That's the point. It was also why the pro-hate forces wanted an emergency stay - they knew if gays got married legally the entire process was a solved problem.
 
2013-12-21 04:35:54 PM

EngineerAU: I remember hearing about the evils of disco and they were pretty much right about th


Yeah, I'll have to give you that one.
 
2013-12-21 04:53:03 PM

phalamir: Granted, but the conservative movement has been hijacked by the religious right, with all its dominionism and obsession with controlling access to women's hoo-hoos. As a result they are in effect incapable of thinking and acting rationally.

I was unaware that "has always been solely and totally about" is a definition of "hijacked".


Now now. They've also worked tirelessly in the past to keep non-whites from getting too uppity.
 
2013-12-21 05:15:14 PM

namatad: sprgrss: namatad: "Officials in one of the country's most conservative states vowed to appeal the decision and to ask for an emergency stay"
Emergency Stay?
WHY?
In what universe is gays and lesbians getting married an emergency to stop?
It would be AWESOME if the appellate court said "No. There is no need for an emergency stay. We can wait until your appeal has been heard and ruled on. Come back in a couple of months. ASSHOLES."

Emergency states are granted in situations where it is likely that the lower courts ruling will be overturned.  If the COA doesn't issue an emergency stay then you'll have a very good idea of where it will go with the ruling.

YUP.
The current United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit , has 5 dem appointments and 5 gop appointments, with Chief Justice Mary Beck Briscoe who was appointed by clinton.

This decision will be QUITE interesting for sure.

The state argued it was important to proceed with caution, because "no one knows right now the precise impact same-sex marriage will have on traditional marriage, children, and society at large."

Yup, because GAY MARRIAGE is such a threat, compared to say .... divorce.


You SEE the horror of gay marriage? IMAGINE the utter HORROR that will be unleashed by gay divorce...
 
2013-12-21 05:16:42 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-21 05:23:59 PM

phalamir: The emergency stay is because you risk creating a two-tiered gay community if the ruling is overturned.


HAHAHA HHAHAHA hHAHHAAA you think that THAT is the concern of the religio-fascists who are appealing this?

fark off.
 
2013-12-21 06:43:13 PM
The anti-marriage sides argument on this was that gays should be allowed to get married because if they did, it would hurt the children.

And you know what?  When I think of the people who've farked their kids up the most ... they were all straight.  We've got one guy at work who thinks he'll get primary custody back from his ex-wife because their kid's hair test just came up positive for crystal meth.  I can't think of any gay couples who went to the trouble of adopting who are that shiatty to their offspring.
 
2013-12-21 07:04:03 PM
Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah."


i.imgur.com

Oh, and Herbert?...
vampjac.com
 
2013-12-21 07:12:56 PM

Ed Grubermann: NeverDrunk23: Why do we need to drag people kicking and screaming into progress all the time? Why can't we leave them behind in their hate and watch them fade into the past?

Actually, these people server a needed purpose. They act as rudders, keeping society from spinning about faster than we can adapt. They keep societies from changing too much too fast. It's frustrating when they are obviously on the wrong end of things, but sometimes they are right and keep society from changing in ways that are destructive. The only real problem is that these are the kinds of people that have more children than other people.


When has bigotry ever been a necessary function of society?
 
2013-12-21 07:28:54 PM
I really don't think SCOTUS is going to be able to punt this one like they did with  Hollingsworth. What's more these plaintiffs finally made the right call and sued under due process. Not something I've seen the marriage equality folks do pointedly thus far, but by far one of the most effective weapons (if not the most effective) to use in civil rights cases.

And when it get to the SCOTUS I don't think they'll be able to rule against striking down gay marriage bans. The court always has to be sensitive towards its own credibility, Its been damaged by striking down portions of the civil rights act and Citizens United and they know it. They're going to probably rule against Hobby Lobby in that case (although for different reasons. The Court REALLY HATES touching anything directly or casually related to Title VII and that case has big Title VII implications) and they know they're going to have to find against Utah in this one in order to shore up the credibility of the Court in front of the electorate.

But they will be slow as molasses in winter to grant a writ of cert for this one. I would't be surprised if a call already when from D.C. to the 10th Circuit to stall as long as possible.
 
2013-12-21 07:38:07 PM

gaspode: phalamir: The emergency stay is because you risk creating a two-tiered gay community if the ruling is overturned.

HAHAHA HHAHAHA hHAHHAAA you think that THAT is the concern of the religio-fascists who are appealing this?

fark off.


You kind of missed the point. I don't think anyone was suggesting that this is what concerns the anti-equality folks; the point is that this constitutes the procedural basis for a stay.
 
2013-12-21 08:02:04 PM

gaspode: phalamir: The emergency stay is because you risk creating a two-tiered gay community if the ruling is overturned.

HAHAHA HHAHAHA hHAHHAAA you think that THAT is the concern of the religio-fascists who are appealing this?

fark off.


He wasn't referring to the religio-fascists. He was referring to the DA and other legal professionals working for the State of Utah and what their official argument would be. And he is most likely correct, and doesn't seem to be a "religio fascist" himself, so I don't know why you felt the need to be a total d!ck and tell him to fark off.
 
2013-12-21 08:39:29 PM

namatad: The state argued it was important to proceed with caution, because "no one knows right now the precise impact same-sex marriage will have on traditional marriage, children, and society at large."

Yup, because GAY MARRIAGE is such a threat, compared to say .... divorce.


It's not like the US shares the largest undefended border in the world with a country that has been allowing same sex marriages for almost a decade.

If they did, then surely you'd be able just to look there to see how same sex marriage has caused the downfall of that society.
 
2013-12-21 09:03:55 PM

miscreant: namatad: The state argued it was important to proceed with caution, because "no one knows right now the precise impact same-sex marriage will have on traditional marriage, children, and society at large."

Yup, because GAY MARRIAGE is such a threat, compared to say .... divorce.

It's not like the US shares the largest undefended border in the world with a country that has been allowing same sex marriages for almost a decade.

If they did, then surely you'd be able just to look there to see how same sex marriage has caused the downfall of that society.


I know Bostonians have been rubbing one out at their own greatness lately, but I really don't think of Massachusetts as its own country, "Commonwealth" or not.
 
2013-12-21 09:21:29 PM

Stone Meadow: I was particularly impressed by his hoisting of Justice Scalia on his own petard...er...prediction that last years' SCOTUS ruling WOULD lead to the overturning of states' ban on same-sex marriage laws.


Or Scalia's 2003 position that there is no justification for laws against gay marriage if SCOTUS ruled that states cannot have laws against sodomy.
 
2013-12-21 09:31:43 PM

Pubby: I really don't think SCOTUS is going to be able to punt this one like they did with  Hollingsworth.


If the Supreme Court takes this case there really shouldn't be an option but to make a decision one way or the other.

I think there is a good chance that they refuse to hear the case. However, whatever, this case still sets a strong precedent for cases sure to appear elsewhere (and likely forces the hands of judges in NM, CO, WY, OK< and KS) and as soon as one case goes the other way they will probably have to make a decision.
 
2013-12-21 09:33:18 PM

EngineerAU: How often do you get to see Utah on a political map colored blue?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 500x309]
Source: Wikipedia


Sucks to be Illinois, sure they were bumped by Hawaii, but it was Hawaii that got the whole ball rolling to start with. But now they are likely to be bumped by New Mexico and Utah? Ouch.
 
2013-12-21 10:45:17 PM
Utah used to be at least a little ahead of the curve:  Utah got rid of its ban on interracial marriage in 1963, 4 years before the Supreme Court invalidated such laws nationwide.
 
2013-12-21 10:53:47 PM

phalamir: The emergency stay is because you risk creating a two-tiered gay community if the ruling is overturned. As-is, gay marriage is legal in Utah. Even if the ruling is overturned, virtually no court would be willing to invalidate those marriages, since it smacks of ex post facto (not that it would be, but it would look like it). So, you would have gays who could be married in Utah, and those who couldn't (the pre-overturn marriages being valid,while no other gay couples would have that option open to them). This would pretty much insure a lawsuit claiming unequal treztment for gays. As there is a vanishingly small chance the ruling for that would invalidate the existing gay marriages, the end result would be a loss for the pro-hatred forces no matter what. They are arguing (quite correctly) that they shouldn't be locked into a loss before they can even make their case. Even the Devil is entitled to a fair hearing. Personally, if I were gay in Utah, I would bedoing everything in my power to get off a valid marriagebefore the matter can be ruled on, since it would make the issue moot, sinceeven a judge that would grznt the stay willi be loath to invalidate a marriage that was valid at the time of its creation (which it currently is)


Very well put together explanation but you might want to use spellcheck or put down the bottle.
 
2013-12-21 10:59:53 PM

ReverendJimBobHammer: phalamir: The emergency stay is because you risk creating a two-tiered gay community if the ruling is overturned. As-is, gay marriage is legal in Utah. Even if the ruling is overturned, virtually no court would be willing to invalidate those marriages, since it smacks of ex post facto (not that it would be, but it would look like it). So, you would have gays who could be married in Utah, and those who couldn't (the pre-overturn marriages being valid,while no other gay couples would have that option open to them). This would pretty much insure a lawsuit claiming unequal treztment for gays. As there is a vanishingly small chance the ruling for that would invalidate the existing gay marriages, the end result would be a loss for the pro-hatred forces no matter what. They are arguing (quite correctly) that they shouldn't be locked into a loss before they can even make their case. Even the Devil is entitled to a fair hearing. Personally, if I were gay in Utah, I would bedoing everything in my power to get off a valid marriagebefore the matter can be ruled on, since it would make the issue moot, sinceeven a judge that would grznt the stay willi be loath to invalidate a marriage that was valid at the time of its creation (which it currently is)

Very well put together explanation but you might want to use spellcheck or put down the bottle.


I was on my tablet, using a new virtual keyboard.  That was the editted version
 
2013-12-22 03:13:28 AM

phalamir: soporific: Serious Black: I can't really disagree with the Governor and AG's moves. Part of their jobs is to defend their laws and constitutions. Doesn't mean it's not a stupid move since I see SCOTUS extending Loving v. Virginia to same-sex couples at some point in the hopefully near future, but if they think they have a defense, they would be derelict in their duty if they didn't defend it.

I'm glad they are appealing, and I hope they take it all the way back to the Supreme Court. The reason the Prop 8 decision didn't end all the gay marriage bans is because of standing, as in the people arguing in favor of Prop 8 didn't have standing to do so. This time, there is no standing issue. If the Supreme Court takes this case, then I have a feeling they will decide in favor of gay marriage nationwide.
 I do love how the people fighting these gay marriage rulings are really the ones who will make it legal nationwide. That's why I hope everyone with standing continues to fight these rulings. I want these proud crusaders for inequality to be the ones responsible for marriage equality for all. (Much how I love the fact that my home state of Texas is the reason being gay is no longer a crime in the first place.)

People were agog Scalia was in the majority for that decision on standing, but he was desperate to not have a ruling on the merits.


Can they just not take any more cases?

"Nope, sorry, our only point was to say that this case shouldn't have gotten to us. We don't plan to rule on gay marriage."
 
2013-12-22 04:04:18 AM

MFAWG: Somacandra: It can be argued that its the Utah executive branch's duty to appeal the ruling, since they are specifically in charge of advocating for laws and amendments passed by the people of Utah. Even though I agree with the Federal judge's ruling, I don't hold it against the Governor's office for appealing it.

Exactly. Same thing I thought when Washington State AG Rob McKenna joined the lawsuit to stop the ACA. It's his job and it was a valid question.


Defending the law in the first place sure.

Appealing court rulings? Meh.


Should they be appealing every ruling to the highest court possible every time? I find that silly if so. If not, why is a single level of appeals their "duty" and giving up thereafter ok?
 
2013-12-22 11:26:05 AM

Somacandra: It can be argued that its the Utah executive branch's duty to appeal the ruling


I suppose it technically "can be argued", but that argument would be wrong.
 
2013-12-22 12:06:37 PM
I just hope Alaska is next. I want to be gay-married in Alaska.
/and I could see Russia from my wedding
 
2013-12-22 12:22:28 PM

sendtodave: phalamir: soporific: Serious Black: I can't really disagree with the Governor and AG's moves. Part of their jobs is to defend their laws and constitutions. Doesn't mean it's not a stupid move since I see SCOTUS extending Loving v. Virginia to same-sex couples at some point in the hopefully near future, but if they think they have a defense, they would be derelict in their duty if they didn't defend it.

I'm glad they are appealing, and I hope they take it all the way back to the Supreme Court. The reason the Prop 8 decision didn't end all the gay marriage bans is because of standing, as in the people arguing in favor of Prop 8 didn't have standing to do so. This time, there is no standing issue. If the Supreme Court takes this case, then I have a feeling they will decide in favor of gay marriage nationwide.
 I do love how the people fighting these gay marriage rulings are really the ones who will make it legal nationwide. That's why I hope everyone with standing continues to fight these rulings. I want these proud crusaders for inequality to be the ones responsible for marriage equality for all. (Much how I love the fact that my home state of Texas is the reason being gay is no longer a crime in the first place.)

People were agog Scalia was in the majority for that decision on standing, but he was desperate to not have a ruling on the merits.

Can they just not take any more cases?

"Nope, sorry, our only point was to say that this case shouldn't have gotten to us. We don't plan to rule on gay marriage."


They can't punt like that.  Well, they can, but it defeats their purpose.  SCOTUS only tries a handful of cases a year.  The ones picked are about either important issues to the population (whether or not they follow the popular opinion is another matter) or ones where different Circuit Courts are in disagreement.  Gay marriage fits both.  Also, no one is directly saying "Give us gay marriage".  It is framed as "why are we denied gay marriage when straights can marry pretty much as they please - or denied recognition of our gay marriage that is legal in State A when we move to State X when straight marriages from State A are recognized in State X", i.e.it is a pretty straightforward equality under the law issues.  Which is glaringly SCOTUS' raison d'etre.

Scalia would happily pull a find-replace on the Dred Scott decision and issue it in a heartbeat.  But he knows not everyone has his fluid, "Originalist" Opus Dei double-think view of the Constitution,  That is why he got them to agree to punt on Prop H8 due to standing - better to lose California to the dirty untermenchen than let the non-Scalia members of SCOTUS overrule his two votes.  SCOTUS didn't say "we won't hear gay marriage cases"; they said "This one was filed improperly by the pro-hate side, so we shouldn't hear it under the arcane rules of bureaucracy for the judiciary." Even Scalia lamented publicly that if a proper case were brought forth, his precious A. ramidus sensibilities wouldn't stand a chance, because "gays icky" isn't actually a Constitutionally acceptable argument.
 
2013-12-22 12:45:02 PM

phalamir: They can't punt like that.  Well, they can, but it defeats their purpose.  SCOTUS only tries a handful of cases a year.  The ones picked are about either important issues to the population (whether or not they follow the popular opinion is another matter) or ones where different Circuit Courts are in disagreement.  Gay marriage fits both.  Also, no one is directly saying "Give us gay marriage".  It is framed as "why are we denied gay marriage when straights can marry pretty much as they please - or denied recognition of our gay marriage that is legal in State A when we move to State X when straight marriages from State A are recognized in State X", i.e.it is a pretty straightforward equality under the law issues.  Which is glaringly SCOTUS' raison d'etre.


Not really. The Supreme Court could easily let this one go by them either way. They won't be too hard pressed to take a case until a different circuit decides differently on the same issue.

As for Prop 8, the entire purpose of taking the case was to rule on standing, which was certainly an interesting question relevant to the legal community (even if it was completely irrelevant to any lay person). If they agreed it had standing they would most likely affirm the appeals decision, which only applied in very specific circumstances of the government taking away an already granted right. There was essentially no possibility of them deciding anything further.

Also, I hope they don't need to use the full faith and credit arguments. That is another silly half step, which an improvement would still leave many states refusing to grant licenses.
 
2013-12-22 07:52:27 PM
Emergency stay DENIED.

Christmas miracles like this keep me believing in Santa.
 
Displayed 36 of 86 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report