Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[byu71]

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.

Hang in there Jacob. Just because I no longer care doesn't mean I think those of you who do should succumb to bullying.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

I've already said everything I feel like saying on the topic.

[SeattleUte]

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.

Justice Scalia disagrees with you. Here's what he wrote about Windsor:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion ... is that DOMA is motivated by “bare ... desire” to harm couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

As for Justice Shelby's reasoning in part he just agreed with Scalia:

The court agrees with Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Windsor. ... And Justice Scalia even recommended how this court should interpret the Windsor decision when presented with the question that is now before it.

Justice Scalia is on the Supreme Court, so I think he knows better than you.

[Jacob]

Justice Scalia disagrees with you. Here's what he wrote about Windsor:



As for Justice Shelby's reasoning in part he just agreed with Scalia:



Justice Scalia is on the Supreme Court, so I think he knows better than you.

Exactly!

[DrumNFeather]

...and now VA.

[imanihonjin]

...and now VA.

Kinda funny that the judge who made a ruling that the law is unconstitutional, doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/14/VA-Same-Sex-Marriage-Ruling-Confuses-Declaration-Of-Independence-With-Constitution

[Nakoma]

Kinda funny that the judge who made a ruling that the law is unconstitutional, doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...h-Constitution

The judge should fire his law clerk.

[imanihonjin]

The judge should fire his law clerk.

The clerk should have caught it, but so should a judge who is a writing an opinion on the constitutionality of anything.

[SoCalCoug]

The clerk should have caught it, but so should a judge who is a writing an opinion on the constitutionality of anything.

Eh, on little things like that, it's easy to gloss over when you're more concerned about the actual substance of the opinion. Had he simply cited the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution, it would be a non-issue, as it doesn't change the substance of the opinion. Regardless of the source, that is still a fundamental belief underlying the establishment of our nation.

[imanihonjin]

Eh, on little things like that, it's easy to gloss over when you're more concerned about the actual substance of the opinion. Had he simply cited the Declaration of Independence rather than the Constitution, it would be a non-issue, as it doesn't change the substance of the opinion. Regardless of the source, that is still a fundamental belief underlying the establishment of our nation.

You never clerked, did you? I assure you that the judge (its a she, by the way, not a he) doesn't consider that a little thing. The judge I worked for would have had a fit over a mistake that was far more innocuous and less meaningful than this one.

[Applejack]

You never clerked, did you? I assure you that the judge (its a she, by the way, not a he) doesn't consider that a little thing. The judge I worked for would have had a fit over a mistake that was far more innocuous and less meaningful than this one.

Agreed. That judge is pissed this morning.

[San Juan Sun]

Wait, is it the judge's opinion, or the clerk's? If it has your name on it, you own it, IMO.

[KillerDog]

YAWN! Gay people marrying is one of the stupidest political conflicts ever. The Church in particular has made this a thing when it shouldn't be. It's like no one can differentiate between the sacrament of marriage,a purely religious issue, and state sanctioned marriage, a purely political and governmental issue that should be allowed to all people equally. Let's talk about something cool like gun control.

[SeattleUte]

YAWN! Gay people marrying is one of the stupidest political conflicts ever. The Church in particular has made this a thing when it shouldn't be. It's like no one can differentiate between the sacrament of marriage,a purely religious issue, and state sanctioned marriage, a purely political and governmental issue that should be allowed to all people equally. Let's talk about something cool like gun control.

The LDS Church, as always, is just flat-assed wrong. I've never seen an organization be wrong about everything like the LDS Church. It's wrong about how the world started, how it will end, wrong about Indians and blacks, wrong about women, wrong about gays, wrong about oral sex and so on -- comically, ludicrously wrong about everything.

[Topper]

YAWN! Gay people marrying is one of the stupidest political conflicts ever. The Church in particular has made this a thing when it shouldn't be. It's like no one can differentiate between the sacrament of marriage,a purely religious issue, and state sanctioned marriage, a purely political and governmental issue that should be allowed to all people equally. Let's talk about something cool like gun control.

You favor gun control?