Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, Utah, same-sex marriages, Salt Lake County, Gary Herbert, Deseret News, federal judges, federal district court  
•       •       •

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



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

Archived thread
 
2013-12-21 10:59:04 AM  
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.
 
2013-12-21 10:59:25 AM  
That might not work out the way you're hoping, y'all.

It's past time, but I am hoping that we can put this recockulousness to rest soon. Worrying about what other folks do in their own churches, and in their own homes, with other consenting adults is childish, and it's time to put away childish things...
 
2013-12-21 11:07:56 AM  
So they're arguing that as many women can enter into a marriage as you like, as long as the one doing the liking has a penis?

Let me know how that works out.
 
2013-12-21 11:19:40 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: So they're arguing that as many women can enter into a marriage as you like, as long as the one doing the liking has a penis?


upload.wikimedia.org

No, you're thinking of Mswati III, the current King of Swaziland.
 
2013-12-21 12:17:40 PM  
"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."
 
2013-12-21 12:34:51 PM  
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?
 
2013-12-21 12:54:55 PM  
This is finally the perfect storm for marriage equality proponents, a state that actually will defend its marriage ban and a favorable judiciary.  Marriage equality will be across this land by the end of the decade.
 
2013-12-21 12:59:57 PM  

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.
 
2013-12-21 01:08:21 PM  
You'd think they would be at the forefront of marriage equality for all sorts of alternative marriages.
 
2013-12-21 02:35:07 PM  

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.
 
2013-12-21 02:36:06 PM  
Good riddance. I'm thoroughly enjoying watching all these backwards troglodytes' collective world views crumble before them.
 
2013-12-21 02:42:04 PM  
Same sex appeal?

/oh my
 
2013-12-21 02:43:04 PM  

sprgrss: Emergency states are granted in situations where it is likely that the lower courts ruling will be overturned.


Emergency stays are also granted when there would be irreparable harm done.   For example, if there was a ruling that says it is OK to demolish a house, a stay will usually be granted until appeals are exhausted.   The though thing for the state is trying to show that same-sex marriages cause any harm, let alone irreparable harm.
 
2013-12-21 02:43:18 PM  
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)
 
2013-12-21 02:45:07 PM  
Guess who recommended the judge to Obama for appointment to this position?  Orrin Hatch! All aboard the karma train! Choo-choo!
 
2013-12-21 02:51:23 PM  

phalamir: creating a two-tiered gay community


That sounds totally hot.
 
2013-12-21 02:55:22 PM  
FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah."
"I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said
."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

Yeah, the guy's a totes librul activist.
 
2013-12-21 02:56:29 PM  

gingerjet: phalamir: creating a two-tiered gay community

That sounds totally hot.


Considering Utah is also cool my polygamy, it is totally doable, if it's your thing
 
2013-12-21 02:58:20 PM  

Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah"

There was a time I would've said I'm eagerly awaiting republican legislation that will increase the difficulty of obtaining a divorce from a hetero marriage, but we've sunk to the point that repubs like Cuccinelli have tried that as well.

 
2013-12-21 02:58:20 PM  

Stone Meadow: FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah."
"I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

Yeah, the guy's a totes librul activist.


If the judge had just included the line "and raping multiple teenage girls is totes cool" he would be hailed as a state hero
 
2013-12-21 03:00:25 PM  

the opposite of charity is justice: Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah"
There was a time I would've said I'm eagerly awaiting republican legislation that will increase the difficulty of obtaining a divorce from a hetero marriage, but we've sunk to the point that repubs like Cuccinelli have tried that as well.


The Cooch just wants that to prevent his wife from leaving him when he is inevitably caught being used as a cum-dumpster in a truckstop bathroom
 
2013-12-21 03:02:20 PM  
meh  i hope they get no stay.   Seriously they should pack it in and not waste any more of the people of Utah's money on a lost cause.
 
2013-12-21 03:02:35 PM  

phalamir: 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.


But they're already too late. As of yesterday, there are gay couples in Utah who are now married and recognized as married by that state. It does explain some crazy shiat that appeared to be going down at whatever office was issuing the marriage licenses yesterday. Andrew Sullivan re-posted a string of tweets from one of the first people in line to get married.

In short, a few hundred gay couples lined up to get married yesterday, but then the DA showed up and tried to stop it. He failed and the marriages went through. The horse is out of the barn.
 
2013-12-21 03:03:56 PM  

Stone Meadow: FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah."
"I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

Yeah, the guy's a totes librul activist.


Quit using logic!
 
2013-12-21 03:03:58 PM  
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.
 
2013-12-21 03:06:44 PM  

phalamir: Stone Meadow: FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah."
"I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

Yeah, the guy's a totes librul activist.

If the judge had just included the line "and raping multiple teenage girls is totes cool" he would be hailed as a state hero


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.
 
2013-12-21 03:07:56 PM  

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?


Because they breed and teach their kids the same ways.
 
2013-12-21 03:11:45 PM  

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.
 
2013-12-21 03:12:33 PM  

Stone Meadow: FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah."
"I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

Yeah, the guy's a totes librul activist.


The funny thing is that marriage equality SHOULD be the fall back Conservative position. Less interference, recognition of religious freedom, equal access under the law, and for privacy reasons. What folks do in their own homes, in their own churches, with consenting adults, where no one is harmed, is no one else's damn business. The desire to poke their noses into other folks' business, and tell OTHER ministries what rites and ceremonies they can perform is a radical position, and it would be nice if the Radical Right would own up to it...
 
2013-12-21 03:14:21 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.


It would be epic to see the meltdown if there were a 7-2 ruling by SCOTUS in favor of marriage equality. Scalia and Thomas against and Roberts writing the majority opinion. It's more likely that whatever the Tenth Circuit rules will be allowed to stand without a hearing since it appears the SCOTUS wants this ruled on a state by state basis, at least until the majority of the states have marriage equality.
 
2013-12-21 03:14:37 PM  

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.)
 
2013-12-21 03:15:42 PM  

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."


That's what the NJ Supreme Court said to Chris Christie. We'll see. I would have thought it impossible, but then the NJ Supreme Court did it, unanimously. Really depends a lot on who ends up on the 10th Circuit panel.
 
2013-12-21 03:20:15 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: phalamir: 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.

But they're already too late. As of yesterday, there are gay couples in Utah who are now married and recognized as married by that state. It does explain some crazy shiat that appeared to be going down at whatever office was issuing the marriage licenses yesterday. Andrew Sullivan re-posted a string of tweets from one of the first people in line to get married.

In short, a few hundred gay couples lined up to get married yesterday, but then the DA showed up and tried to stop it. He failed and the marriages went through. The horse is out of the barn.


Well, then they are screwed. Because I don't think even Kennedy will vote for forcibly de-marrying people who were legally valid to marry at the time of said marriage. Scalia would do it in a heartbeat, and his Tom would folow right along, but from there the Opus Kampf camp gets more shakey
 
2013-12-21 03:23:17 PM  

hubiestubert: Stone Meadow: FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah."
"I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

Yeah, the guy's a totes librul activist.

The funny thing is that marriage equality SHOULD be the fall back Conservative position. Less interference, recognition of religious freedom, equal access under the law, and for privacy reasons. What folks do in their own homes, in their own churches, with consenting adults, where no one is harmed, is no one else's damn business. The desire to poke their noses into other folks' business, and tell OTHER ministries what rites and ceremonies they can perform is a radical position, and it would be nice if the Radical Right would own up to it...


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.
 
2013-12-21 03:23:24 PM  

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."


The fear is that some folks might be happy, and their neighbors might become Massholes by association. Suddenly, it would lead to Catholics and dog groomers EVERYWHERE...
 
2013-12-21 03:26:00 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.)


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.
 
2013-12-21 03:26:08 PM  

EngineerAU: 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.

It would be epic to see the meltdown if there were a 7-2 ruling by SCOTUS in favor of marriage equality. Scalia and Thomas against and Roberts writing the majority opinion. It's more likely that whatever the Tenth Circuit rules will be allowed to stand without a hearing since it appears the SCOTUS wants this ruled on a state by state basis, at least until the majority of the states have marriage equality.


I would shiat a brick if the 10th Circuit affirmed the district ruling. That would bring marriage equality to Brownbackistan and Fred Phelps's backyard!
 
2013-12-21 03:26:30 PM  

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.
 
2013-12-21 03:28:09 PM  

Stone Meadow: hubiestubert: Stone Meadow: FTFA: "Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, promised to "defend traditional marriage within the borders of Utah."
"I am very disappointed an activist federal judge is attempting to override the will of the people of Utah," he said."

You mean a federal judge so respected by Utah's conservative state government that he served on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee, and whose nomination to the federal bench was supported and endorsed by Senators Orin Hatch and the arguably most conservative US Senator of all, Mike Lee?

Yeah, the guy's a totes librul activist.

The funny thing is that marriage equality SHOULD be the fall back Conservative position. Less interference, recognition of religious freedom, equal access under the law, and for privacy reasons. What folks do in their own homes, in their own churches, with consenting adults, where no one is harmed, is no one else's damn business. The desire to poke their noses into other folks' business, and tell OTHER ministries what rites and ceremonies they can perform is a radical position, and it would be nice if the Radical Right would own up to it...

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".
 
2013-12-21 03:30:08 PM  

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
 
2013-12-21 03:30:11 PM  

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.
 
2013-12-21 03:32:35 PM  

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.


Well, they were right that not treating darkies as farm machinery would lead to Southerns being dipshiats (well, bigger dipshiats than normal - which is highly dipshiatty)
 
2013-12-21 03:32:48 PM  
How often do you get to see Utah on a political map colored blue?

upload.wikimedia.org
Source: Wikipedia
 
2013-12-21 03:41:13 PM  

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.
 
2013-12-21 03:43:53 PM  

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.


Not at all the same thing. The ACA in no way conflicted with any provision of Washington law. McKenna was acting against the will of the governor and the majority of voters in the state, and he was way out of line on that one.

And in any event, the executive branch is under no legal or moral obligation to defend or enforce legislative acts which the executive believes, in good faith, is contrary to the Constitution. Just as the Feds may decline to enforce DOMA, or federal marijuana prohibition in Washington and Colorado, the state would be completely within its rights to simply accept the District Court ruling as dispositive. Of course, the state is also within its rights to appeal.
 
2013-12-21 03:48:48 PM  

hubiestubert: The desire to poke their noses into other folks' business, and tell OTHER ministries what rites and ceremonies they can perform is a radical position,


but but jesus. or leviticus. one of them anyway.

as i'm sure you are aware it's been going on since 32 AD to a greater or lessor extent.
 
2013-12-21 03:49:26 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.


Since when was conservatism about "personal liberty", whatever that is?
 
2013-12-21 03:51:32 PM  

soporific: 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.


You're absolutely right, but we have Democrats for that now.
 
2013-12-21 03:54:53 PM  
If I understand this correctly, it is OK to think there was a guy with magical glasses who transcribed the "real" Bible to let us know Jesus was American and God cursed the Native Americans to have red skin, but it is NOT OK to think it's OK for two men to get married?

Makes perfect sense.

By the way, I like the photos of the clashes between the gay-marriage supporters and the WBC psychos.
 
2013-12-21 03:55:45 PM  
The first same-sex weddings in Utah were held late Friday, hours after a federal judge ruled the state's ban was unconstitutional.

so everything has descended into chaos in Utah? No? Well fark you, governor.
 
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 86 of 86 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report