Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[UVACoug]

Jacob and UVaCoug will like this next bit.




http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-in-2014.html

Why would I like this? It is clear you haven't seriously considered anything I have said. No point in continuing to have the conversation I guess.

[SCcoug]

Jacob and UVaCoug will like this next bit.




http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-in-2014.html

Holy crap there really is a gay agenda?!?

[Topper]

That's not even close to what I am saying. I am saying it is improper for a trial court judge to ignore existing Supreme Court precedent to recognize a new fundamental due process right for which there is no precedent. Windsor didn't recognize a federal due process right to gay marriage. Trial courts don't get to make up new "fundamental rights." I do believe the law should be as predictable as possible. It shouldn't be up to interpretation. A judge's first responsibility is to APPLY the law as it exists, not to "interpret it" in order to get a desired result. There are times when there is an absence of law where a judge has to engage in the "interpretation" you suggest. Those circumstances are the exception, not the rule. This is not a circumstance where there is an absence of existing law. It is a circumstance where a judge decided that it was time to set aside existing law that he disagreed with. That is not his role.

You don't understand the predictability argument as it applies to economic principles, not to evolving social institutions.

[Topper]

Why would I like this? It is clear you haven't seriously considered anything I have said. No point in continuing to have the conversation I guess.

Do you completely misunderstand sarcasm?

[Topper]

Holy crap there really is a gay agenda?!?

Now you know, so don't be caught unaware.

[imanihonjin]

I wonder who will write the dissenting opinion on this given that the legal reasoning for disallowing gay marriage is so specious (state budgetary concerns aside). I wonder if any of these people will want to go down in history as the crazy bigot who argued against gay rights. Ideally this would be a unanimous decision, since the SC justices are there simply to call balls and strikes (allegedly).

You don't understand constitutional law. Its fine that you don't, not everyone cares. But you look at this only as a gay marriage question and have concluded that it should be allowed, again there is no problem with that line of thinking. However, as a constitutional law issue there are a lot of issues concerning precedent and judicial restraint that will be hotly debated and rightfully so. It isn't black and white like you make it and those who write the dissenting opinion may or may not be a bigot but merely writing the dissenting opinion because of concerns about the process does not make one a bigot.

[Topper]

You don't understand constitutional law. Its fine that you don't, not everyone cares. But you look at this only as a gay marriage question and have concluded that it should be allowed, again there is no problem with that line of thinking. However, as a constitutional law issue there are a lot of issues concerning precedent and judicial restraint that will be hotly debated and rightfully so. It isn't black and white like you make it and those who write the dissenting opinion may or may not be a bigot but merely writing the dissenting opinion because of concerns about the process does not make one a bigot.

Triplet understands it better than you know.

There are multiple levels of analysis. Of course, the justices will consider some of the issues you delineated, but they are also more politically astute than you give them credit. Many of them worry about their legacy, so worrying about what may portray them in a negative light may go through their ruminations. You're simply ill-advised if you believe otherwise. It is the perception of being a bigot that will run through their minds.

If a dissent is authored, it could be from Scalia or his acolyte.

[imanihonjin]

This article compares laws against homosexual marriage with anti-miscegenation laws. http://hnn.us/article/4708

This is a really bad argument, IMO. The 14th Amendment was ratified to specifically deal with race related discrimination. That was the intent of the law. There is no Amendment that was ratified to specifically deal with sexual orientation discrimination. Having said that the courts have been slowly moving in the direction of extending the 14th Amendment to cover sexual orientation. I believe this is wrong and weakens the strength and purpose of having a constitution. Many will claim that I am a bigot for this and that it is only because I am homophobic that I am only now concerned about the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. My brother is gay and I happy attended his wedding. I don't have an issue with states choosing to recognize gay marriage and I believe that if a state is going to recognize any marriages (I wish they wouldn't) then they should include gay marriages as well. Society is moving in that direction. It would only be a matter of time before the majority of states recognized gay marriages. We don't need judges expanding the constitution into something it is not to meet social movements. The gay movement can achieve its goals of equality while showing fidelity to constitution if we just allow the system to work.

[imanihonjin]

Triplet understands it better than you know.

There are multiple levels of analysis. Of course, the justices will consider some of the issues you delineated, but they are also more politically astute than you give them credit. Many of them worry about their legacy, so worrying about what may portray them in a negative light may go through their ruminations. You're simply ill-advised if you believe otherwise. It is the perception of being a bigot that will run through their minds.

If a dissent is authored, it could be from Scalia or his acolyte.

Way to go out on a limb and call that Scalia or Thomas could write the dissent if one is authored. I am sure none of the 4 judges who dissented in Windsor were worried about their legacies either, right? You clearly don't understand Scalia or Thomas if you think they aren't going write a dissenting opinion. Their concern over their legacy is whether or not they practiced fidelity to the Constitution and they are not going to abandon their cause on one of the biggest opinions to ever come before them.

[Topper]

This is a really bad argument, IMO. The 14th Amendment was ratified to specifically deal with race related discrimination. That was the intent of the law. There is no Amendment that was ratified to specifically deal with sexual orientation discrimination. Having said that the courts have been slowly moving in the direction of extending the 14th Amendment to cover sexual orientation. I believe this is wrong and weakens the strength and purpose of having a constitution. Many will claim that I am a bigot for this and that it is only because I am homophobic that I am only now concerned about the Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. My brother is gay and I happy attended his wedding. I don't have an issue with states choosing to recognize gay marriage and I believe that if a state is going to recognize any marriages (I wish they wouldn't) then they should include gay marriages as well. Society is moving in that direction. It would only be a matter of time before the majority of states recognized gay marriages. We don't need judges expanding the constitution into something it is not to meet social movements. The gay movement can achieve its goals of equality while showing fidelity to constitution if we just allow the system to work.

Perhaps you intended to write, you find the analysis to be inconsistent with Constitutional jurisprudence that you find compelling. However, when social upheaval or social normalization takes place the precedents change rapidly to slumber in a stonelike appearance for another generation or two.

[Topper]

Way to go out on a limb and call that Scalia or Thomas could write the dissent if one is authored. I am sure none of the 4 judges who dissented in Windsor were worried about their legacies either, right? You clearly don't understand Scalia or Thomas if you think they aren't going write a dissenting opinion. Their concern over their legacy is whether or not they practiced fidelity to the Constitution and they are not going to abandon their cause on one of the biggest opinions to ever come before them.

"Practiced fidelity to the Constitution" blah, blah, blah.

Do you kneel five times a day, kiss your copy and pray to it as well?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Wow. Here is an unusual response. This guy is fasting until Utah stops performing same-sex marriages.

http://www.4utah.com/story/utah-man-...MEuBeRqG9aeObQ

He has lost 25 lbs so far. He also suggests that Utah invoke nullification and ignore the judge.

[TripletDaddy]

Wow. Here is an unusual response. This guy is fasting until Utah stops performing same-sex marriages.

http://www.4utah.com/story/utah-man-...MEuBeRqG9aeObQ

He has lost 25 lbs so far. He also suggests that Utah invoke nullification and ignore the judge.

Wow that guy really loves the constitution.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Wow that guy really loves the constitution.

Or at least his idea of it.

[Joe Public]

Wow that guy really loves the constitution.

You don't understand constitutional love.