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.

(Washington Post)   US Supreme Court halts Utah same-sex marriages pending appeal. Sorry, procrastinators   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 150
    More: Followup, Supreme Court, Utah, opponents of same-sex marriage, Supreme Court halts, U.S. Court of Appeals  
•       •       •

1274 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jan 2014 at 1:35 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-06 01:22:12 PM  
A sad step backwards for equality.  But hey, 2013 was a great year for it.  Question for legal eagles out there:  What are the odds of someone using the new precedent of DOMA violating equal protection to challenge same sex marriage bans nationwide?  And more importantly, what are the odds of it working?  I seriously doubt there's any other way to get it in all 50 states without it going the route of the courts.
 
2014-01-06 01:33:00 PM  
Agree with you there, nekon, certainly a sad step backwards for equality.

As Utah put same-sex marriages up for a referendum vote, similar to what Alabama did for a new amendment to its constitution to ban same-sex marriages, how can that be constitutional? I highly doubt the same situation would fly if Alabama had put civil rights for African-Americans up to a referendum vote back in the 1960s with a white majority running things.

/SCOTUS, do the right thing here.
//We don't nead another Dred Scott decision here.
 
2014-01-06 01:39:22 PM  
Yay for having so many varying state laws so we can halt progress to wait for the derper states to catch up.
 
2014-01-06 01:44:04 PM  

AirForceVet: I highly doubt the same situation would fly if Alabama had put civil rights for African-Americans up to a referendum vote back in the 1960s with a white majority running things.


I hate to cheapen in any way what African-Americans suffered through, because it was EXTREMELY horrible, but there are a lot of parallels there.  Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?  Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right?  In my personal opinion, every state that bans it is violating their right to equal protection under the law, but I'm not on the SCOTUS and admittedly I have my own bias (gay relatives) though even if I didn't know anyone who had a stake in it, seems to me that it's only fair.

CSB:  My wife's uncle was one of those who got illegally gay married when a clerk in Montgomery county decided "fark this, I'm issuing them anyway"
/it doesn't count, but they thought it was cool
//Keep an eye on PA, lots of stuff up in the air on this issue here.
 
2014-01-06 01:45:23 PM  
So, how many couples DID get married during this time?
 
2014-01-06 01:46:31 PM  
The district court should have stayed its ruling in the first place.  Now all those people who rushed to get marriage licenses under this court ruling could have their marriage licenses invalidated, if the ruling gets overturned on appeal.
 
2014-01-06 01:47:48 PM  
Issuing a stay pending appeal for a hot-button issue that has many legal ramifications is pretty standard...
 
2014-01-06 01:49:35 PM  
What are the odds of someone using the new precedent of DOMA violating equal protection to challenge same sex marriage bans nationwide?  And more importantly, what are the odds of it working?

Depends on what Justice Kennedy has for lunch the day he hears oral arguments.  If it's Tikka Masala, forget it.  (Seriously, if Kennedy sticks to the precedent in Windsor, there's no way he won't go for that argument.)

I seriously doubt there's any other way to get it in all 50 states without it going the route of the courts.

Not necessarily.  It did take 41 years, though.
 
2014-01-06 01:50:09 PM  
Is that dumbass off his hunger strike now?
 
2014-01-06 01:51:14 PM  

nekom: I hate to cheapen in any way what African-Americans suffered through, because it was EXTREMELY horrible, but there are a lot of parallels there.  Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?  Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right?  In my personal opinion, every state that bans it is violating their right to equal protection under the law, but I'm not on the SCOTUS and admittedly I have my own bias (gay relatives) though even if I didn't know anyone who had a stake in it, seems to me that it's only fair.


Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of race an inalienable constitutional right? Yes
Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right? Buffering...

I have yet to hear a single good argument against same sex marriage that isn't rooted in the religious beliefs of inbred, illiterate, goat herders.
 
2014-01-06 01:55:19 PM  
Just in the nick of time too... I was going to have to marry a turtle next weekend. Guess I dodged a bullet on that one.
 
2014-01-06 01:56:39 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: nekom: I hate to cheapen in any way what African-Americans suffered through, because it was EXTREMELY horrible, but there are a lot of parallels there.  Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?  Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right?  In my personal opinion, every state that bans it is violating their right to equal protection under the law, but I'm not on the SCOTUS and admittedly I have my own bias (gay relatives) though even if I didn't know anyone who had a stake in it, seems to me that it's only fair.

Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of race an inalienable constitutional right? Yes
Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right? Buffering...

I have yet to hear a single good argument against same sex marriage that isn't rooted in the religious beliefs of inbred, illiterate, goat herders.


BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???
 
2014-01-06 02:01:05 PM  

Pincy: Monkeyhouse Zendo: nekom: I hate to cheapen in any way what African-Americans suffered through, because it was EXTREMELY horrible, but there are a lot of parallels there.  Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?  Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right?  In my personal opinion, every state that bans it is violating their right to equal protection under the law, but I'm not on the SCOTUS and admittedly I have my own bias (gay relatives) though even if I didn't know anyone who had a stake in it, seems to me that it's only fair.

Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of race an inalienable constitutional right? Yes
Is the right to marry the person you love regardless of gender an inalienable constitutional right? Buffering...

I have yet to hear a single good argument against same sex marriage that isn't rooted in the religious beliefs of inbred, illiterate, goat herders.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???


WHEN GAY CHILDREN GROW UP THEY CAN MARRY OTHER GROWN UP GAY CHILDREN, SO CHILDREN ARE GOOD.
 
2014-01-06 02:03:55 PM  

Pincy: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???


Same-sex couples already have children, and they are doing quite well thankyouverymuch.
 
2014-01-06 02:05:26 PM  
Pincy:
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???

That may be one of the dumber ones out there.  My daughter is 6 and she's aware of gay people.  That conversation was super easy!  Daddy, what does gay mean?  "Oh, well you know how sometimes a man and a woman fall in love?  Well some people fall in love with people of the same gender.  So you may have a couple that are both men or both women."  "Oh, ok I get it."

So far, she hasn't gay married any turtles.
 
2014-01-06 02:07:06 PM  

SkinnyHead: Now all those people who rushed to get marriage licenses under this court ruling could have their marriage licenses invalidated, if the ruling gets overturned on appeal.


Or it could go like it did in California where the marriages were considered valid.  You remember California's Prop 8, don't you?  You should.  The shellacking you took from being wrong at every point of that fiasco probably still stings.
 
2014-01-06 02:09:46 PM  
While it's a setback, I think this is more procedural than anything else.  I'm guessing that SCOTUS wants this to see this case complete its way through the Utah courts before making their own decision...and SCOTUS will end up ruling on this soon (this year or next year).
 
2014-01-06 02:10:36 PM  

nekom: A sad step backwards for equality.  But hey, 2013 was a great year for it.  Question for legal eagles out there:  What are the odds of someone using the new precedent of DOMA violating equal protection to challenge same sex marriage bans nationwide?  And more importantly, what are the odds of it working?  I seriously doubt there's any other way to get it in all 50 states without it going the route of the courts.


Well states are using it for just that. So it all depends if it bubbles up to that federal level.
 
2014-01-06 02:11:26 PM  
I wouldn't call it a "Setback" I would only call it a "Delay" so far.
 
2014-01-06 02:11:58 PM  

qorkfiend: Issuing a stay pending appeal for a hot-button issue that has many legal ramifications is pretty standard...


Especially when it's a federal court overturning a portion of a state constitution.  You want to be really careful about those ones.  I completely support gay marriage and even think the Supreme Court might uphold the federal court's ruling.  But even I think this stay was probably the right call.
 
2014-01-06 02:18:43 PM  

nekom: Basically at the core here is which trumps which?  The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?


The civil rights. The first part of the sentence should have been "The opinions of the majority of the people", not "rights". There is plenty of precedent, from women voting to slavery and all sorts of other issues.

If one asked people in Arkansas "Should we kill all Mooslims?", the majority might vote yes. That's not how things work, fortunately. Just because a majority "wants" something doesn't mean it will apply to any sort of law. The majority of a state might want the speed limit to be 100, the majority of the US might want a Congresscritter to make $30K a year.
 
2014-01-06 02:19:58 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-06 02:20:32 PM  
This is really just about getting all the ducks in a row. At the end of the day I think we'll see a higher court allow marriage for any couple. But since this is state law, the federal system has decided it should stay hands off until all the state avenues are exhausted. So it makes sense that SCOTUS has "removed" the federal ruling.

That doesn't mean I like it but I understand it.
 
2014-01-06 02:20:44 PM  

nekom: Pincy:
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???

That may be one of the dumber ones out there.  My daughter is 6 and she's aware of gay people.  That conversation was super easy!  Daddy, what does gay mean?  "Oh, well you know how sometimes a man and a woman fall in love?  Well some people fall in love with people of the same gender.  So you may have a couple that are both men or both women."  "Oh, ok I get it."

So far, she hasn't gay married any turtles.


Well of course, she is not at the age of consent.  Which is 7 for turtle marriage. I suggest a head of lettuce or an aquarium as a dowry, as mandated by the turtle's parents.
 
2014-01-06 02:21:40 PM  
I'd rather watch the fundies fry slowly under a magnifying glass than be squashed anyway, so bravo.
 
2014-01-06 02:22:44 PM  
Also, do you know what I really DON'T want to explain to my daughter?  Why there are poor people in this country.  Why people in Africa die of starvation.  Why people in best Korea are tortured.  Those things are OBSCENE.  Gays, that's an easy one.  Some people are gay.  That one's simple.
 
2014-01-06 02:23:38 PM  
I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.
 
2014-01-06 02:23:40 PM  
Procrastinating polygamists peeved?
 
2014-01-06 02:26:17 PM  
I firmly disagree with the injunction, the state failed to show any sort of harm at all, let alone irreparable harm.
 
2014-01-06 02:28:59 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: SkinnyHead: Now all those people who rushed to get marriage licenses under this court ruling could have their marriage licenses invalidated, if the ruling gets overturned on appeal.

Or it could go like it did in California where the marriages were considered valid.  You remember California's Prop 8, don't you?  You should.  The shellacking you took from being wrong at every point of that fiasco probably still stings.


California was different situation.  In California, the state supreme court discovered that the state constitution guarantees gay marriage.  Same sex marriages became legal once that court decision became final.  Prop 8 amended the state constitution to define marriage as between man and woman.  Because Prop 8 was seen as a change in the state constitution, those who were legally married before Prop 8 remained legally married.

In Utah, there is no non-final judgment declaring a federal constitutional right to a gay marriage.  Court decisions don't become final until time for appeal expires.  If the lower court decision gets reversed on appeal, Utah is free to enforce its own state law to invalidate those marriages.
 
2014-01-06 02:32:58 PM  

firefly212: I firmly disagree with the injunction, the state failed to show any sort of harm at all, let alone irreparable harm.


They think its icky and that thinking about icky things like man on man buttsex is irreparably harmful due to the decay in moral character something something reasons God.
 
2014-01-06 02:33:44 PM  

ampoliros: This is really just about getting all the ducks in a row. At the end of the day I think we'll see a higher court allow marriage for any couple. But since this is state law, the federal system has decided it should stay hands off until all the state avenues are exhausted. So it makes sense that SCOTUS has "removed" the federal ruling.

That doesn't mean I like it but I understand it.


No... that isn't it at all... the federal judciary (Shebly) invalidated it, it is going to the next higher federal court, the to SCOTUS... the federal judiciary is elbows deep in this, and will be the arbiter of whether or not it is compliant with the US Constitution, regardless of which way it goes... there is no state avenue for this particular matter. The state itself has no standing to determine whether or not its own laws are compliant with the US Constitution, that's pretty plainly the responsibility of the federal judiciary.
 
2014-01-06 02:34:28 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: firefly212: I firmly disagree with the injunction, the state failed to show any sort of harm at all, let alone irreparable harm.

They think its icky and that thinking about icky things like man on man buttsex is irreparably harmful due to the decay in moral character something something reasons God.


Mainlining mountain dew and mormonism can be dangerous.
 
2014-01-06 02:38:05 PM  

firefly212: Mainlining mountain dew and mormonism can be dangerous.


You've basically described the modern-day Boy Scouts of America.
 
2014-01-06 02:38:58 PM  
I love the fact that this is going to the supreme court, and specifically under the concept that preventing two people from getting married is a violation of their constitutional rights, and not as any sort of states rights or voting rights argument.

It will be fascinating to see the crazies on the court trying to explain how it's constitutional to treat two classes of people differently.
 
2014-01-06 02:41:20 PM  
I live in Utah. I can tell you most Mormon here know it's going to happen eventually. I like Mormons, they are not bad people they are just incline to herd thinking. For example if you get them in groups they will rage against pot legalization. If you catch them alone most think it's fine.  They have to keep up a certain appearance for the community they belong too. I guess most humans are like that.


\If you really want to slam dunk them bring up polygamy. I generally never do this unless they start bashing my gay friends.
 
2014-01-06 02:45:25 PM  

Smoking GNU: So, how many couples DID get married during this time?


From what I've read, 930 couples, or all the gay people in Utah.
 
2014-01-06 02:45:34 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Just in the nick of time too... I was going to have to marry a turtle next weekend. Guess I dodged a bullet on that one.


If Nevada reverses their constitutional ban on marriage equality, one of the Vegas wedding chapels should troll the religious crowd by offering Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles themed wedding packages.
 
2014-01-06 02:49:16 PM  

Beerguy: I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.


Can a devout Mormon marry a non-Mormon and it be condoned by the church? Don't you like have to have a temple name, magical underwear, etc. to have an LDS wedding? Did you go through the motions, did she not care about having a church wedding, or did she convert after you wed?
 
2014-01-06 02:50:00 PM  

nekom: So far, she hasn't gay married any turtles.


You shrug it off now, but wait until she finds out that she can legally marry a black man.
 
2014-01-06 02:50:03 PM  

t3knomanser: firefly212: Mainlining mountain dew and mormonism can be dangerous.

You've basically described the modern-day Boy Scouts of America.


*snert*. That's a good one.
 
2014-01-06 02:50:50 PM  

nekom: Basically at the core here is which trumps which? The rights of the majority of the people or the civil rights?


Exactly, and in this case, civil rights trump the majority, because the majority cannot prove any specific harms caused by the minority getting to marry. In fact, the Prop 8 ruling codified that straights have no standing to oppose gay marriage because they cannot demonstrate how they are harmed.

Even if the majority might feel it is harmed, it has to prove that this harm is so substantial to deprive the minority of its rights. Take the case of Westboro Baptist Church: the majority feels it is harmed because it has to put up with Westboro saying things they don't like. However, despite the fact that the majority disapproves of Westboro, the minority does not need the majority's approval to exercise its rights. Because having your feelings hurt, getting offended, or hating the fact that a bunch of people say things that make your blood boil isn't enough of a harm to ban others from saying things you don't like.

In fact, I would love to see someone cite the Westboro case in defense of gay marriage, and it would be absolutely delicious if Westboro was cited as the precedent that made gay marriage legal in the United States. That would make me so very, very happy.
 
2014-01-06 02:53:21 PM  

soporific: In fact, I would love to see someone cite the Westboro case in defense of gay marriage, and it would be absolutely delicious if Westboro was cited as the precedent that made gay marriage legal in the United States. That would make me so very, very happy.


You're talking abstract political philosophy about majoritarianism vs. minority rights, not actual legal analysis. As a practical matter, a 1st Amendment free speech case is unlikely to have anything to do with a 14th Amendment equal protection ruling.
 
2014-01-06 02:57:39 PM  

firefly212: ampoliros: This is really just about getting all the ducks in a row. At the end of the day I think we'll see a higher court allow marriage for any couple. But since this is state law, the federal system has decided it should stay hands off until all the state avenues are exhausted. So it makes sense that SCOTUS has "removed" the federal ruling.

That doesn't mean I like it but I understand it.

No... that isn't it at all... the federal judciary (Shebly) invalidated it, it is going to the next higher federal court, the to SCOTUS... the federal judiciary is elbows deep in this, and will be the arbiter of whether or not it is compliant with the US Constitution, regardless of which way it goes... there is no state avenue for this particular matter. The state itself has no standing to determine whether or not its own laws are compliant with the US Constitution, that's pretty plainly the responsibility of the federal judiciary.


I'd say it's because SCOTUS knows it will come to them and their decision if against Utah makes gay marriage legal everywhere in the US and they don't want to seem bias before it gets to them.
 
2014-01-06 02:58:57 PM  

Churchill2004: soporific: In fact, I would love to see someone cite the Westboro case in defense of gay marriage, and it would be absolutely delicious if Westboro was cited as the precedent that made gay marriage legal in the United States. That would make me so very, very happy.

You're talking abstract political philosophy about majoritarianism vs. minority rights, not actual legal analysis. As a practical matter, a 1st Amendment free speech case is unlikely to have anything to do with a 14th Amendment equal protection ruling.


"Community Standards" are a huge part of the anti-gay marriage arguments. As in: "Why should our community have to put up with gay people openly being gay and getting gay married? Why don't we in the majority have a right to ban that which we don't like?"

A right is a right is a right. Someone's right to free speech is not determined by the majority, just as someone's right to marry is not determined by the majority. Furthermore, it is a First Amendment issue because many religions support gay marriage. Why should their rights be infringed upon by a majority of people whose religion is against it? Why is the government supporting one religious belief over another?

So yes, the two cases are connected, and it is still my dream that Westboro is cited as to why it is unconstitutional for the majority to vote against gay marriage.
 
2014-01-06 03:01:16 PM  

Amish Tech Support: I live in Utah. I can tell you most Mormon here know it's going to happen eventually. I like Mormons, they are not bad people they are just incline to herd thinking. For example if you get them in groups they will rage against pot legalization. If you catch them alone most think it's fine.  They have to keep up a certain appearance for the community they belong too. I guess most humans are like that.


\If you really want to slam dunk them bring up polygamy. I generally never do this unless they start bashing my gay friends.


I bet that whole "Curse of Ham" thing is still a sensitive issue too.
 
2014-01-06 03:02:18 PM  

tinfoil-hat maggie: firefly212: ampoliros: This is really just about getting all the ducks in a row. At the end of the day I think we'll see a higher court allow marriage for any couple. But since this is state law, the federal system has decided it should stay hands off until all the state avenues are exhausted. So it makes sense that SCOTUS has "removed" the federal ruling.

That doesn't mean I like it but I understand it.

No... that isn't it at all... the federal judciary (Shebly) invalidated it, it is going to the next higher federal court, the to SCOTUS... the federal judiciary is elbows deep in this, and will be the arbiter of whether or not it is compliant with the US Constitution, regardless of which way it goes... there is no state avenue for this particular matter. The state itself has no standing to determine whether or not its own laws are compliant with the US Constitution, that's pretty plainly the responsibility of the federal judiciary.

I'd say it's because SCOTUS knows it will come to them and their decision if against Utah makes gay marriage legal everywhere in the US and they don't want to seem bias before it gets to them.


That's not the legal standard for having an injunction though... the legal standard is that the state would have to show that there could be irreparable harm were the injunction not to be issued. In this case, the state has repeatedly failed to show harm, and in many filings, even failed to declare that there would be any harm.
 
2014-01-06 03:02:49 PM  

Churchill2004: Beerguy: I asked my wife who is Mormon if she thought gay marriage should be legal and of course her answer was, "no". I asked her why and she told me that her religion taught her that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, I then asked her, "what if there was another religion out there that was taught that people who are more that 10 years apart in age shouldn't be allowed to marry because their holy book said so?" And what if that group influenced lawmakers to make that the law?

She got pissed at me and said it isn't the same thing.

We are 12 years apart in age.

Can a devout Mormon marry a non-Mormon and it be condoned by the church? Don't you like have to have a temple name, magical underwear, etc. to have an LDS wedding? Did you go through the motions, did she not care about having a church wedding, or did she convert after you wed?


We got married at a Mormon church (traditional wedding, not Mormon). I am not, nor will I ever be Mormon, therefore we can't be "sealed" in their temple as Mormon couples usually do.

My wife continues in vain to convert me.

/Beer drinking, heathen
 
2014-01-06 03:03:24 PM  

soporific: In fact, the Prop 8 ruling codified that straights have no standing to oppose gay marriage because they cannot demonstrate how they are harmed.


I hadn't thought of that, but I suppose that too is precedent now.  I was thinking the DOMA ruling on the equal protection clause might be used.  Perhaps they both will.  The legal system is something I have only a very basic understanding of, I'm don't even have an internet GED in law, but it is fun to watch it all unfold.  It's also REALLY fun to watch conservative heads asplode, which is reason enough for me to love legal same sex unions even if I didn't have gay relatives who I wish could marry their partners.  If nothing else, it could really shore up our strategic conservative tears supply.
 
2014-01-06 03:05:16 PM  

soporific: Churchill2004: soporific: In fact, I would love to see someone cite the Westboro case in defense of gay marriage, and it would be absolutely delicious if Westboro was cited as the precedent that made gay marriage legal in the United States. That would make me so very, very happy.

You're talking abstract political philosophy about majoritarianism vs. minority rights, not actual legal analysis. As a practical matter, a 1st Amendment free speech case is unlikely to have anything to do with a 14th Amendment equal protection ruling.

"Community Standards" are a huge part of the anti-gay marriage arguments. As in: "Why should our community have to put up with gay people openly being gay and getting gay married? Why don't we in the majority have a right to ban that which we don't like?"

A right is a right is a right. Someone's right to free speech is not determined by the majority, just as someone's right to marry is not determined by the majority. Furthermore, it is a First Amendment issue because many religions support gay marriage. Why should their rights be infringed upon by a majority of people whose religion is against it? Why is the government supporting one religious belief over another?

So yes, the two cases are connected, and it is still my dream that Westboro is cited as to why it is unconstitutional for the majority to vote against gay marriage.


Well if it's Utah that brigs marriage equality to all 50 states I'd say that's already pretty funny.
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report