Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Uncle Ted]

I apologize for the late response here, but even if these marriages are eventually invalidated after appeal, there are employers out there who recognize same-sex spouses for benefits purposes, for example. There is at least one very large employer in the state of Utah that will not retroactively disallow those marriages in the event they are invalidated by the state.

Benefits for spouses is such a pre-ACA idea...

More Companies Plan To Cut Health Coverage For Spouses

Your company may be having second thoughts about the health insurance it offers to your spouse. That means you might wind up paying more for that coverage or have to switch your spouse to another plan as early as next year.


Some employers are considering adding a surcharge to cover the health care expenses of their workers' spouses. Others, like package deliverer United Parcel Service Inc., are excluding spouses from coverage if they are able to get insurance through another employer.


Twenty percent of nearly 600 large employers in a survey completed earlier this year charged a spousal surcharge in 2013. An additional 13 percent plan to do so next year, according to the study, which was conducted by benefits consultant Towers Watson and the nonprofit National Business Group on Health. Those surcharges average about $100 a month, or roughly double what they averaged a couple years ago.


The study also found that 4 percent of companies excluded spouses from their health plans when similar coverage was available through the spouse's employer. And another 8 percent planned to do so next year.
[...]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3908786.html

[Topper]

The existence of something is not science. Discovering that something exists doesn't justify a patent. You can't patent a planet.

You can patent whatever the law says you can patent. In general theory, I agree one should not be an inventor for merely discovering something, but the patents have been awarded more for the test for identifying the existence of something. The law and economics can set up media of exchange for anything it wishes. You may become personally frustrated with a legal decision, but we are not part of the old Soviet Union, where nobody has proprietary rights to any discovery. We are at the opposite end of the spectrum.

[Topper]

El Jefe should burn in hell.

There is no hell, remember? Maybe he should live in Oklahoma instead.

[Non Sequitur]

The law is balancing science and economics. The law is not requesting this, commerce is. You forget the first rule of law, follow the money. It is obvious you have limited understanding of the world. Stick to research and allow others to make economic and social decisions. You are ill-equipped to enter that arena.

Follow the money? I would think someone trained in the art of persuasion could make a defense of his profession that didn't make it sound so whorish.

[ERCougar]

Sooner, stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

So I think the statute issue uva raises is interesting, but I'm skeptical, mostly because I'm not hearing about this anywhere else and I would think there are smart people in these counties who would be looking for any out they can find. This one seems obvious.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[byu71]

I apologize for the late response here, but even if these marriages are eventually invalidated after appeal, there are employers out there who recognize same-sex spouses for benefits purposes, for example. There is at least one very large employer in the state of Utah that will not retroactively disallow those marriages in the event they are invalidated by the state.

Why didn't this very large employer do it before forced to? If they do continue even if the appeal wins, good for them, but no big pat on the back from me for not having the nuts to do it before forced to.

[Topper]

I saw 3 different posts on CB linking that. All three disappeared within minutes. That made me chuckle.

I don't understand the piling on, me too part of the participation by public personas. Is it a question of monetizing his living in San Francisco? Will he increase his marketability generally?

Tears of joy? Really? This over-emotionality strikes me a bit strange. Previously, gays could have civil unions. Now, they can have marriage, a little bit of a difference. As a libertarian, I support this change. I am irked by the fact that those who are most vociferous in support of this particular "liberty", do not often support liberties en masse. They typically do not support the Second Amendment, property rights, sound monetary-fiscal policies, freedom of speech, or freedom of association. So they are uniformly inconsistent in their support of personal liberties. But this liberty is the end-all, be-all. WTF. We have lots of other liberties deserving expansion or protection. What about right of privacy in terms of NSA observation? The gay marriage right is a right of limited application, but property rights, freedom of speech, privacy rights, Second Amendment and others have general widespread application. Yet we have no widespread emotionality over these more general and widespread rights. If gay rights would get behind these liberties, I would be more impressed. Long live personal liberties, all of them!

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm happy to say that both my wife and I didn't vote for either Utah's amendment 3 or Cali's prop 8.

So looking the history of Utah's Amendment 3 it looks like 82% of Utah county voted for it... more than any other county in the state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Co...al_Amendment_3

Proud member of the 20%.

[UVACoug]

Sooner, stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

So I think the statute issue uva raises is interesting, but I'm skeptical, mostly because I'm not hearing about this anywhere else and I would think there are smart people in these counties who would be looking for any out they can find. This one seems obvious.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

There are only a few counties that are issuing licenses, and the clerks in those counties (who aren't lawyers) are likely predisposed to wanting to grant the license in the first place. There may be something I am missing, but it does seem pretty obvious. Not sure where Shelby gets off stating that the clerks that are not issuing licenses are breaking the law.

This isn't like California where striking down Proposition 8 restored the California Supreme Court's prior order legalizing same-sex marriage.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't understand the piling on, me too part of the participation by public personas. Is it a question of monetizing his living in San Francisco? Will he increase his marketability generally?

That's a real douchebag response right there.

[byu71]

I don't understand the piling on, me too part of the participation by public personas. Is it a question of monetizing his living in San Francisco? Will he increase his marketability generally?

Tears of joy? Really? This over-emotionality strikes me a bit strange. Previously, gays could have civil unions. Now, they can have marriage, a little bit of a difference. As a libertarian, I support this change. I am irked by the fact that those who are most vociferous in support of this particular "liberty", do not often support liberties en masse. They typically do not support the Second Amendment, property rights, sound monetary-fiscal policies, freedom of speech, or freedom of association. So they are uniformly inconsistent in their support of personal liberties. But this liberty is the end-all, be-all. WTF. We have lots of other liberties deserving expansion or protection. What about right of privacy in terms of NSA observation? The gay marriage right is a right of limited application, but property rights, freedom of speech, privacy rights, Second Amendment and others have general widespread application. Yet we have no widespread emotionality over these more general and widespread rights. If gay rights would get behind these liberties, I would be more impressed. Long live personal liberties, all of them!

Well said. Some who are champions of tolerance seem to have that famous mote in their eye. They are so self absorbed in their belief as to not allow someone's belief on the subject is contrary, but that belief has to be ignorant, uninformed or bigoted.

I could almost accept that ignorant and bigotted explanation, except when I look around and see a lot of these so called ignorant, uninformed or bigoted people are anything but. When the change is complete it will be because over time those against gay marriage will become tired of fighting the fight, it won't be worth it to them or they will just decide the culture has overtaken them. It won't be because they have become enlightened through the efforts of the learned.

[smokymountainrain]

Benefits for spouses is such a pre-ACA idea...


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3908786.html

Yes, some are cutting benefits for spouses, while others are expanding their coverage for spouses, such as allowing benefits for same-sex spouses.

[Applejack]

In true Christmas spirit, I'd like to apologize to any lawyer out there that I might have offended (except All-American).

Now could someone please tell me how conservative the 10th circuit is? I've been trying to figure it out, and I'm befuddled. All I know at this point is that there are 5 republican appointees, 5 democrat appointees, and 2 open seats that have been blocked by republican senators.

The 10th Circuit is very conservative by circuit court standards. Not conservative as the 5th, but conservative nonetheless. For example, this summer the 10th circuit overruled the dismissal of Hobby Lobby's religious freedom claim about Obamacare.

Of course, as AllAmerican notes, what really matters is the 3-judge draw, not the circuit as a whole (unless the circuit decides to take the case en banc as it did with Hobby Lobby).

[smokymountainrain]

Why didn't this very large employer do it before forced to? If they do continue even if the appeal wins, good for them, but no big pat on the back from me for not having the nuts to do it before forced to.

They aren't forced to, even now. It took longer than I would have hoped, but late is better than never or if they are forced to.

[UVACoug]

And the Utah A.G.'s office proves their complete ineptitude again. The Tenth Circuit correctly strikes down their first motion for a stay on the grounds that the rules do not allow for it before the district court has heard a similar motion, and what is the reaction of Utah ... to file the same motion again (despite the fact that the rules haven't changed), but make it 30 pages long. Surprise, surprise ... that one got shot down too (correctly).