Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Applejack]

Good question. Interracial marriage is not discussed in the Constitution but equal protection is. Many argue that equal protection applies to sexual orientation matters just like it does interracial matters, but I don't believe it does as the 14th Amendment was ratified in response to the Emancipation Proclamation and was passed to deal with racial discrimination. Thus race related issues such as interracial marriage are given special protection under the 14th Amendment. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, nobody considered sexual orientation to be covered by the 14th Amendment and to apply it in that way is essentially amending the constitution by the judges/justices involved in such a decision.

This is why originalism often fails in practice: the original intent doesn't decide the case one way or the other. Look at the opinion in Heller (2nd amendment): both the majority and dissent are originalist opinions, but they come to different conclusions. Why? Because the founders didn't/couldn't anticipate the distinction that arose in that case.

You say the equal protection clause covers all racial matters but nothing else (I think that is what you are saying, at least). But what about the marriage part? It is not at all clear that the drafters/senators/state representatives around in 1868 thought that states were suddenly forbidden from restricting marriage based on race. Indeed, the Supreme Court held that anti-miscegenation laws were constitutional twenty years after the 14th amendment was enacted. So to suggest that the "founders" of the 14th amendment believed that they were doing away with interracial marriage is clearly wrong. Some other theory has to explain Loving v. Virginia.

Furthermore, there is nothing in the 14th amendment itself that is limited to race. You are correct that the drafters were focused on racial issues, but why should that focus limit the clear language of the amendment? Isn't that "activist, i.e. reaching beyond the test (this is were strict constructionists differ from originalists)?" If we are constantly playing the intent game, then the text itself seems unimportant. That can't be correct. Also, if we limit the 14th Amendment to racial issues, then a state could pass a law saying that women cannot own property.

[New Mexican Disaster]

You say the equal protection clause covers all racial matters but nothing else (I think that is what you are saying, at least). But what about the marriage part? It is not at all clear that the drafters/senators/state representatives around in 1868 tho

Furthermore, there is nothing in the 14th amendment itself that is limited to race. You are correct that the drafters were focused on racial issues, but why should that focus limit the clear language of the amendment? Isn't that "activist, i.e. reaching beyond the test (this is were strict constructionists differ from originalists)?" If we are constantly playing the intent game, then the text itself seems unimportant. That can't be correct. Also, if we limit the 14th Amendment to racial issues, then a state could pass a law saying that women cannot own property.

This is the exact point I was going to make, although less articulately.

[Moliere]

Someone ought to remind him that if he didn't say a prayer before going without food then he's just starving himself. Is hate for him to get 15 days into his "fast" and realize it was useless since he forgot to start with a prayer.

[TripletDaddy]

Someone ought to remind him that if he didn't say a prayer before going without food then he's just starving himself. Is hate for him to get 15 days into his "fast" and realize it was useless since he forgot to start with a prayer.

He also will have to donate the cost of all the meals he would have eaten.

[scottie]

Someone sent food to the fasting guy's house:

http://www.tylerriggs.com/images/201...3_13-56-55.png

[Omaha 680]

Someone sent food to the fasting guy's house:

http://www.tylerriggs.com/images/201...3_13-56-55.png

They sent him a Hot Daddy, no less.

[Non Sequitur]

He should have tried the rye...he'd never go back to the 6" white bread.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

I would LOVE to attend his F&T meeting this Sunday. $20 he starts speaking in tongues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UVACoug]

UVa Coug, Jacob and imanihonjin ascribe to constitutional interpretative philosophy, while appearing noble, is rarely affected as they would have one believe.

Constitutional law requires an intimate understanding with strings of cases, interpretative constructs, and persuasive writing ability. It really isn't much different than any other long standing area of the law but because it has the appearance of supreme importance, people ascribe more to it than it deserves. My commercial paper prof ruminated that "although I don't get to talk about things as a high filutin Constitutional 'scholar', I also don't have to wake up in the morning to see what the Supreme Court did to my course outline."

These guys will have you believe that they can discern the original intent and apply it correctly all the time in all circumstances.

One of my least favorite concepts written by almost every single attorney alive, "It is clear...."

I believe nothing of the sort and have not suggested that I do. It is interesting that someone who hasn't even bothered to read the briefs or the opinion is so sure that it is reasonable. Nothing I have said has anything to do with "original intent." It is about the rule of law. I have a particular interest in this subject and have studied it for years. I'm not just pulling stuff out of my ass, as you suggest. There is black letter law (that is ... "clear") on this subject that Judge Shelby outright ignored because it would have undermined his reasoning. I realize you think that he is right to do that in order to get to the "right" decision that comports with his personal values. I think that is bullshit. If district court judges can just set aside clearly established laws every time they think they are unjust, then what's the point of having laws in the first place? Of course societal mores and values change over time, but it certainly isn't the job of a trial court to set aside established precedent based on his unsupported perception of those changes. As I pointed out above, even Judge Shelby has previously said that would be a violation of his judicial oath. If shifting societal mores justify a recognition of new "fundamental rights," it is the Supreme Court's job to make that determination. Not a single judge relying on nothing but his personal feelings.

I could care less whether you agree with me or not, but if you are going to criticize my opinion ... at least address my actual opinion. I have never once suggested that constitutional law was particularly noble, important, "high filutin," or different that other areas of law. It really isn't that complicated or difficult to understand, which is why I am discussing it here. But like all other areas of law ... it is based on certain rules and precedents. Ignoring precedents establishing constitutional rights is just as suspect as ignoring precedents establishing certain rules about commercial paper. Do you think it is appropriate for a judge to ignore a well-established rule regarding commercial paper because he feels like applying the rule would not be fair to one of the parties in a dispute? If you do, then we are much farther apart than I imagined. I think most people would find such an act antithetical to the judicial role.

[UVACoug]

Under a strict constructionist perspective, if it wasn't considered, you need another amendment. That way a minority can hold up modifications.

OTOH, I support the current interpretations of the Second Amendment and I don't want the judges to ignore the historical meaning of the Second Amendment and be able to unwrite the Amendment, which a majority be wont to do.

Strict constructionism is an extreme perspective that can often lead to absurd results. I am not aware of any judges that are strict constructionists. Justice Scalia, who often gets labeled a "strict constructionist" by his detractors called strict constructionism "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute."

[Jeff Lebowski]

The "Sarah Palin of Utah" Cherilyn Eagar organizes a rally in Highland, UT to mobilize citizens against gay marriage:

http://fox13now.com/2014/01/04/same-...r-an-uprising/

From her homeboy, Richard Mack:

“That’s a lie. That’s an absolute lie. We have a right to raise our kids without homosexuals being part of the Boy Scouts, the schools and teachers and doing everything. They can be all that, but don’t shove your agenda down my kid’s throat. We have a right to raise our kids how we want not how you want,” Mack said.

“The way you take back freedom in America is one county at a time. The sheriffs need to defend the county clerks in saying, ‘No, we’re not going to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals,’” Mack said.

[scottie]

The "Sarah Palin of Utah" Cherilyn Eagar organizes a rally in Highland, UT to mobilize citizens against gay marriage:

http://fox13now.com/2014/01/04/same-...r-an-uprising/

From her homeboy, Richard Mack:

“The people of Utah have rights, too, not just the homosexuals. The homosexuals are shoving their agenda down our throats,” Mack said.

Who knew it's been the homosexuals with all the rights in Utah.

[Moliere]

The "Sarah Palin of Utah" Cherilyn Eagar organizes a rally in Highland, UT to mobilize citizens against gay marriage:

http://fox13now.com/2014/01/04/same-...r-an-uprising/

From her homeboy, Richard Mack:

Wow, just wow. That's scary that some police officer is participating as well.

[Uncle Ted]

It seems any more the only reason to get married is wedding presents other than for religious reasons...

We need to have a frank discussion about marriage


The reasons people normally cite for getting hitched no longer make sense. We should be asking: why get married at all?

Marriage, as most know it in western countries, is regarded as the end goal of a relationship between (usually) a man and woman, and it normally has some sort of religious component. Marriage is regarded as "sacred". Weddings are planned that few really want to attend; pointless dresses are worn never to be seen again; awkward family photos are taken.


Being married supposedly conveys respectability. We regard it as "settling down", indicative of stability. For some reason we even congratulate people who are already in a relationship for, basically, signing papers (or just changing Facebook statuses) and calling it an engagement. We spend unnecessarily large amounts on engagement and wedding rings.


Yet, with low marriage rates (the US marriage rate is the lowest it's been in a century) and high divorce rates, more single (by choice) parents (not to mention gay marriage), increasing numbers of people abandoning religious traditions as a whole, and people living happier lives because they only even consider marriage later, we should thoroughly reassess the importance of marriage.


Indeed, well-known people have already done so: Oprah Winfrey unashamedly remains unmarried to her life partner of 20 years; powerful Hollywood couple Brad Pitt and Angelina have children, adopted and biological, but remain unmarried. Many of those who live in public eye are unafraid of dismissing marriage as the end goal. They don't need a marriage certificate or label to be happy.


Thus, why get married at all?
[...]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ting-the-myths

[Pheidippides]

Wow, just wow. That's scary that some police officer is participating as well.

Do they not understand that the response to this is to send in the National Guard (at the extreme?). This won't end well for them.