Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Pheidippides]

Of course. The ruling is only applicable beyond Utah insomuch as another state has a similar constitutional provision or seeks to amend their constitution to include something similar. And even then, it's only applicable when that provision or amendment becomes the subject of a lawsuit. A SCOTUS ruling isn't going to compel every state to adopt or expunge anything.

Although if the SCOTUS ruling is (hypothetically speaking) as broad as the district court opinion, I would think constitutionality changes made from other states would be likely to be upheld.

[beefytee]

Thanks for the clarifications everyone.

The more I read about this case, the more I am convinced that it is John Swallow's office that is most at blame for the current situation.

So not only is he a crook, he is responsible for the downfall of American morals.

[Donuthole]

Hey, I've seen that guy in ads for some credit union during the jazz games.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3601[/ATTACH]

[falafel]

If United Security Financial can't do it, it can't be done.

[Jacob]

I wish they would do a poll to see if the people of the State want to spend the tax payers money to fight this beyond the 10th circuit. I am OK going that far because as I have said before, I have a problem with some guy overruling a majority of the people. If you can get 3-5 guys to do it, then so be it and move on.

Bwahahaha

[CardiacCoug]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...ty.html?pg=all

Uh oh. This is gonna confirm the suspicion of the wacko right-wingers that BYU is full of liberal Mormons.

Given these options, perhaps it is time for Utahns to think about adjusting to a new reality of same-sex marriage. That would mean accepting those who are married legally as equal members of the community in terms of marital rights. It would mean acknowledging that while marriage between a man and a woman, by far, will remain the predominant form of marriage, there are exceptions for those who have same-sex attraction. Perhaps it also means rethinking what heterosexuals consider about marriage. In an age when too many people discount marriage through simply living together or opt too hastily for divorce, perhaps we should be heartened to see so many people embracing the institution of marriage.

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...ty.html?pg=all

Uh oh. This is gonna confirm the suspicion of the wacko right-wingers that BYU is full of liberal Mormons.

I saw that this morning too. Proof that the liberals have even infiltrated the BYU!

[UVACoug]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...ty.html?pg=all

Uh oh. This is gonna confirm the suspicion of the wacko right-wingers that BYU is full of liberal Mormons.

I think the abortion analogy is an apt one. Using the same reasoning as Judge Shelby, a federal judge could find that abortion violates a long-standing fundamental right to life. The right to life is much more well established than any unwritten constitutional right to marriage. Hell ... the right to life is expressly noted in the actual text of the constitution. Who cares that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the right does not extend to unborn fetuses? Much of society believes the right to life should extend to the unborn so ... to hell with precedent. If one judge can ignore decades of precedent defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, why should precedent excluding fetuses from the definition of a "life" stop a judge that finds abortion to be a travesty?

[CardiacCoug]

I think the abortion analogy is an apt one. Using the same reasoning as Judge Shelby, a federal judge could find that abortion violates a long-standing fundamental right to life. The right to life is much more well established than any unwritten constitutional right to marriage. Hell ... the right to life is expressly noted in the actual text of the constitution. Who cares that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the right does not extend to unborn fetuses? Much of society believes the right to life should extend to the unborn so ... to hell with precedent. If one judge can ignore decades of precedent defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, why should precedent excluding fetuses from the definition of a "life" stop a judge that finds abortion to be a travesty?

You keep making these legalistic points but I'm still waiting to hear in plain English a logical rationale for not letting gays get married. At some point bigoted/anachronistic precedents have to be set aside and that time is coming quickly, hopefully at the federal level. The right of divorce (for gays married in other states where it is legal) is also currently being denied in states that discriminate against gays regarding marriage. That's not right either.

[wuapinmon]

You keep making these legalistic points but I'm still waiting to hear in plain English a logical rationale for not letting gays get married. At some point bigoted/anachronistic precedents have to be set aside and that time is coming quickly, hopefully at the federal level. The right of divorce (for gays married in other states where it is legal) is also currently being denied in states that discriminate against gays regarding marriage. That's not right either.

I think the key is right here:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That's fairly plain to me and I've been saying it for a long time. The attorneys often tell me that I don't understand the Constitution and constitutional law. But, until the philosophy which holds one marriage superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, and until there no longer are second-class defining things like civil unions, until the gender of a man's spouse is of no more significance than the color of his eyes, me say war. That until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all, without regard to orientation, dis a culture war.

[UVACoug]

You keep making these legalistic points but I'm still waiting to hear in plain English a logical rationale for not letting gays get married. At some point bigoted/anachronistic precedents have to be set aside and that time is coming quickly, hopefully at the federal level. The right of divorce (for gays married in other states where it is legal) is also currently being denied in states that discriminate against gays regarding marriage. That's not right either.

I've already responded to your attempt to bait me into an argument over the morality/bigotry of opposing gay marriage. I've made my case elsewhere (a discussion I specifically remember you participating in and resorting to your usual ad hominem attacks). Not interested in rehashing old ground.

I find the "legalistic" points to be a lot more interesting and significant at this point. You obviously don't give a damn about the law, or one judge's decision to rewrite it (i.e., ignore it). To you, the ends justify the means. I doubt you would feel the same way about the judge's intellectual dishonesty and abuse of power if you didn't like the outcome. That's Professor Davis's point with the abortion analogy.

I agree with almost all of what Professor Davis says. By the way, I've taken classes from him at BYU and he is an acknowledged liberal. There are several in the BYU political science department. Not sure why you would think only right-wing extremists would put that label on him. He puts that label on himself.

[Moliere]

I've already responded to your attempt to bait me into an argument over the morality/bigotry of opposing gay marriage. I've made my case elsewhere (a discussion I specifically remember you participating in and resorting to your usual ad hominem attacks). Not interested in rehashing old ground.

I find the "legalistic" points to be a lot more interesting and significant at this point. You obviously don't give a damn about the law, or one judge's decision to rewrite it (i.e., ignore it). To you, the ends justify the means. I doubt you would feel the same way about the judge's intellectual dishonesty and abuse of power if you didn't like the outcome. That's Professor Davis's point with the abortion analogy.

I agree with almost all of what Professor Davis says. By the way, I've taken classes from him at BYU and he is an acknowledged liberal. There are several in the BYU political science department. Not sure why you would think only right-wing extremists would put that label on him. He puts that label on himself.

While I understand the abortion analogy, I don't find it persuasive mainly because the offending party is not permanently injuring anyone with SSM. If the SCOTUS strikes down the judges ruling then Utah can likely void the marriages or at least not allow more to happen. In abortion cases you can't bring a fetus back to life.

The legal viewpoint is necessary since that's how this country operates. We can't just legalize something that has a precedence of not being legal without it taking a while and without the politcal/legal process playing out. That's a good thing. But I think most everyone knows SSM will be legal everywhere in the US at some point in the future, it just a question of when.

[UVACoug]

While I understand the abortion analogy, I don't find it persuasive mainly because the offending party is not permanently injuring anyone with SSM. If the SCOTUS strikes down the judges ruling then Utah can likely void the marriages or at least not allow more to happen. In abortion cases you can't bring a fetus back to life.

The legal viewpoint is necessary since that's how this country operates. We can't just legalize something that has a precedence of not being legal without it taking a while and without the politcal/legal process playing out. That's a good thing. But I think most everyone knows SSM will be legal everywhere in the US at some point in the future, it just a question of when.

It sounds like we are on the same page. I agree that SSM will be legalized everywhere at some point and I see the benefits of having it happen quickly (ripping the bandaid off). My biggest problem with Judge Shelby's ruling is the process. If there were a referendum that passed in Utah to repeal Article 3 and legalize gay marriage, I would applaud it. But inventing a new constitutional right and using it to strike down the will of the people, and then having the arrogance to refuse a stay on the ruling until the question can be finally resolved out of a misguided belief that forcing the state to marry people will somehow sway the final resolution of the debate, is not the right way to go about this. That is not democracy.

I understand that it is important for the courts to protect the weak minority. Sometimes that requires striking down popular laws. For all the problems I see in Judge Shelby's ruling, I really have no problem with the fact that he made it. The reasoning, while novel and not in compliance with controlling precedent, is not so ludicrous that there is no chance of it being upheld. There are a lot of implications from this case that go far beyond the gay marriage issue. All of that can be resolved by the appellate process, and ultimately by the Supreme Court. But there is absolutely no excuse for refusing to grant the stay. The only reason for doing so is to allow as many gay couples to marry as possible to strengthen the opponents of Article 3's argument that it would be a big travesty to reverse Judge Shelby's ruling. This is based on the Prop 8 argument that once the state allowed gay marriage to some couples, it would be a violation of the equal protection clause to then revoke it. The problem with that argument is that Utah isn't "allowing" anything right now. It is being compelled by a federal judge to grant marriages it considers unlawful. The prop 8 equal protection argument doesn't work here. If Judge Shelby's ruling is reversed, all those marriages will be voided.

[TripletDaddy]

Thank goodness UVA is clarifying his position on this matter again today.

[Moliere]

It sounds like we are on the same page. I agree that SSM will be legalized everywhere at some point and I see the benefits of having it happen quickly (ripping the bandaid off). My biggest problem with Judge Shelby's ruling is the process. If there were a referendum that passed in Utah to repeal Article 3 and legalize gay marriage, I would applaud it. But inventing a new constitutional right and using it to strike down the will of the people, and then having the arrogance to refuse a stay on the ruling until the question can be finally resolved out of a misguided belief that forcing the state to marry people will somehow sway the final resolution of the debate, is not the right way to go about this. That is not democracy.

I understand that it is important for the courts to protect the weak minority. Sometimes that requires striking down popular laws. For all the problems I see in Judge Shelby's ruling, I really have no problem with the fact that he made it. The reasoning, while novel and not in compliance with controlling precedent, is not so ludicrous that there is no chance of it being upheld. There are a lot of implications from this case that go far beyond the gay marriage issue. All of that can be resolved by the appellate process, and ultimately by the Supreme Court. But there is absolutely no excuse for refusing to grant the stay. The only reason for doing so is to allow as many gay couples to marry as possible to strengthen the opponents of Article 3's argument that it would be a big travesty to reverse Judge Shelby's ruling. This is based on the Prop 8 argument that once the state allowed gay marriage to some couples, it would be a violation of the equal protection clause to then revoke it. The problem with that argument is that Utah isn't "allowing" anything right now. It is being compelled by a federal judge to grant marriages it considers unlawful. The prop 8 equal protection argument doesn't work here. If Judge Shelby's ruling is reversed, all those marriages will be voided.

We aren't on the same page but maybe in the same chapter. I don't find his ruling "activist" and I don't think he's inventing a new Constitutional right. I think he should have granted a stay pending further review but have no issues with him not doing that as I don't think he's harming anything (I'm fully aware I'm biased here on the stay issue). In some regards I dread this whole thing since my family is visiting from Utah at the end of January and I'm sure I'm going to have to hear about this a million times over.