Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Jeff Lebowski]

Very interesting, SU. Thanks.

[SeattleUte]

You must have given that several thousands dollars worth of thought. Who is paying you?

This is nothing. I literally did it on a napkin.

[byu71]

This is nothing. I literally did it on a napkin.

LOL, excellent.

[Topper]

This is nothing. I literally did it on a napkin.

Why bother? I doubt not that your analysis is accurate, and anybody but Jacob can see the writing on the wall.

[FMCoug]

When the girls in the office raise their eyebrows over something I say I tell them, "well this will be an interesting battle of the protected classes".

Be kind everyone, he can't help himself. We could write a movie called Posting With Dinosaurs.

I wonder if they fetch his coffee, er I mean cocoa.

71 you might consider changing your moniker to Don Draper.

[byu71]

Be kind everyone, he can't help himself. We could write a movie called Posting With Dinosaurs.

I wonder if they fetch his coffee, er I mean cocoa.

71 you might consider changing your moniker to Don Draper.

I will watch an episode and decide. Is that the same show Obama referred to in his speech? That would be one strike against it. I like the man as a family man, Obama that is. His ideas and philosophy I don't care much for.

Hey, aren't you one of the guys I got a ticket for at a Vegas Bowl or was it Nikuman, that Cowboy, PAC and some others were sitting together. If so, I would think you would go a litlle less hard on me with the old people stuff. I swear it wasn't me that passed the stink bomb. I still lean toward PAC as the culprit.

[FMCoug]

I will watch an episode and decide. Is that the same show Obama referred to in his speech? That would be one strike against it. I like the man as a family man, Obama that is. His ideas and philosophy I don't care much for.

Hey, aren't you one of the guys I got a ticket for at a Vegas Bowl or was it Nikuman, that Cowboy, PAC and some others were sitting together. If so, I would think you would go a litlle less hard on me with the old people stuff. I swear it wasn't me that passed the stink bomb. I still lean toward PAC as the culprit.

I don't recall the Vegas bowl thing. In any case, my comment had nothing to do with age.

[Pheidippides]

Very interesting, SU. Thanks.

SU is far more versed in this than I am, but I agree generally. There are a few horrible arguments in there too, but SU has pointed out the worst: one parent homes are bad, therefore kids need a mom and dad, therefore gay marriage is bad. And they harp on the fact that man - woman marriage is as old as the hills. So are racism, patriarchy, sexism and slavery, but we don't hold to those ideas now.

[Jacob]

I look forward to Jacob setting us all straight.

Oh, Brother.

I've already said everything I feel like saying on the topic. I'll just wait for the courts to rule now.

Just to be clear, these are the points and predictions I've made repeatedly.

1. I am not really concerned about gay marriage, per se. I've always said they are and should be free to enter into any relationship they want.
2. The Judge's reasoning in Windsor is a joke.
3. The Supreme Court will likely overturn Windsor, but I will not be surprised if they affirm, but with different logic and reasoning. All depends on Kennedy.
4. The constitution has nothing to say on whether a man should be issued a marriage license to another man and it should be left as a political issue. Similar to #1 above, I am not concerned that states pass laws to allow gay unions/marriages. Good for those states.

This is my doctrine. Anyone who says more or less than this is of the devil.

[Topper]

Oh, Brother.

I've already said everything I feel like saying on the topic. I'll just wait for the courts to rule now.

Just to be clear, these are the points and predictions I've made repeatedly.

1. I am not really concerned about gay marriage, per se. I've always said they are and should be free to enter into any relationship they want.
2. The Judge's reasoning in Windsor is a joke.
3. The Supreme Court will likely overturn Windsor, but I will not be surprised if they affirm, but with different logic and reasoning. All depends on Kennedy.
4. The constitution has nothing to say on whether a man should be issued a marriage license to another man and it should be left as a political issue. Similar to #1 above, I am not concerned that states pass laws to allow gay unions/marriages. Good for those states.

This is my doctrine. Anyone who says more or less than this is of the devil.

Windsor was the US Supreme Court decision striking down the IRS refusal to recognize the marriage.

[SeattleUte]

Oh, Brother.

I've already said everything I feel like saying on the topic. I'll just wait for the courts to rule now.

Just to be clear, these are the points and predictions I've made repeatedly.

1. I am not really concerned about gay marriage, per se. I've always said they are and should be free to enter into any relationship they want.
2. The Judge's reasoning in Windsor is a joke.
3. The Supreme Court will likely overturn Windsor, but I will not be surprised if they affirm, but with different logic and reasoning. All depends on Kennedy.
4. The constitution has nothing to say on whether a man should be issued a marriage license to another man and it should be left as a political issue. Similar to #1 above, I am not concerned that states pass laws to allow gay unions/marriages. Good for those states.

This is my doctrine. Anyone who says more or less than this is of the devil.

The same court that decided Windsor is going to "overturn Windsor" less than a year later?

What does the Constitutution say? It says what Supreme Court says it says. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" -- Justice Marshall.

What does the Constitution say about application of the Bill of Rights to state governments? About racially segregated schools? We take the law about these subjects for granted, as if it's writ large and clear in the Constitution. The Constitution actually says nothing about them, applying your sctrict construcion approach. It doesn't ever go into this kind of detail.

The law should be applied in a princpled way. But stare decisis, evidence and reason are the practical limitations, not anything specifically in the Constitution. "Strict construction" is the mantra of a closet moralizer. Its own kind of judicial activism.

[TripletDaddy]

Oh, Brother.

I've already said everything I feel like saying on the topic. I'll just wait for the courts to rule now.

Just to be clear, these are the points and predictions I've made repeatedly.

1. I am not really concerned about gay marriage, per se. I've always said they are and should be free to enter into any relationship they want.
2. The Judge's reasoning in Windsor is a joke.
3. The Supreme Court will likely overturn Windsor, but I will not be surprised if they affirm, but with different logic and reasoning. All depends on Kennedy.
4. The constitution has nothing to say on whether a man should be issued a marriage license to another man and it should be left as a political issue. Similar to #1 above, I am not concerned that states pass laws to allow gay unions/marriages. Good for those states.

This is my doctrine. Anyone who says more or less than this is of the devil.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The same court that decided Windsor is going to "overturn Windsor" less than a year later?

What does the Constitutution say? It says what Supreme Court says it says. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" -- Justice Marshall.

What does the Constitution say about application of the Bill of Rights to state governments? About racially segregated schools? We take the law about these subjects for granted, as if it's writ large and clear in the Constitution. The Constitution actually says nothing about them, applying your sctrict construcion approach. It doesn't ever go into this kind of detail.

The law should be applied in a princpled way. But stare decisis, evidence and reason are the practical limitations, not anything specifically in the Constitution. "Strict construction" is the mantra of a closet moralizer. Its own kind of judicial activism.

You are wasting your time, amigo. Jacob has already said everything he is going to say.

[TripletDaddy]

You are wasting your time, amigo. Jacob has already said everything he is going to say.

To be fair, after saying everything he is going to say, he went on to say stuff that he admits to have said over and over.

[Jacob]

Windsor was the US Supreme Court decision striking down the IRS refusal to recognize the marriage.

The same court that decided Windsor is going to "overturn Windsor" less than a year later?

What does the Constitutution say? It says what Supreme Court says it says. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" -- Justice Marshall.

What does the Constitution say about application of the Bill of Rights to state governments? About racially segregated schools? We take the law about these subjects for granted, as if it's writ large and clear in the Constitution. The Constitution actually says nothing about them, applying your sctrict construcion approach. It doesn't ever go into this kind of detail.

The law should be applied in a princpled way. But stare decisis, evidence and reason are the practical limitations, not anything specifically in the Constitution. "Strict construction" is the mantra of a closet moralizer. Its own kind of judicial activism.

Clearly, in haste, I erred in referring to Windsor. I meant that Shelby's ruling would be overturned and that his reasoning was a joke, including his reliance on Windsor. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Nor have I ever claimed to be a strict constructionist. Quite the contrary, I've said I'm not. Neither is any jurist on the Court. Unless you have joined in the mis-use of that term.