Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[scottie]

Have there been any updates from that hunger strike guy? What is he up to these days? Gay marriage has been suspended for now in Utah but it is still legal elsewhere, so I assume that while he is eating again, he is only lightly snacking until all of this gay marriage business is abolished across the country.

I just FB stalked him, these are some of his recent updates:

Let's be clear about something, my mission, my purpose in life is to stand against the homosexual movement. Not to persecute or hate gay individuals, but to stand against and defeat the homosexual movement.

I will never stop, as long as I draw breath. I will stand against them when they attack the churches. I will stand against them when they attack individuals. I will stand against them in my old age. I will stand against them in sickness and health. They can kill my body, but my spirit will never submit to their tyranny. I will expose their hate and rage. I will expose their persecution of religion. And I will expose their hidden plans. This secret combination has made a powerful foe. This is only the beginning!

Let's confront some of the myths of the gay movement:
Myth #1: It's genetic they are just born that way and cannot help themselves.

Actually, that is a baseless hypothesis of the gay community that is presented as absolute fact. There is no solid evidence to support a genetic link.

Myth #2: Gays are being bullied and committing suicide because of it.

Let's think about that for a minute. I have no doubt that in a country of over 300 million people this has happened. And it should not. But to paint it as some kind of social trend is ridiculousness. If anybody is being bullied it is people of faith who refuse to submit to the gay agenda.

The reality is that suicide is the #1 unnatural cause of death in America. It cuts across every spectrum of society. Sadly, we all know someone who has committed suicide. Yet, we are slapped in the face with the implication that it is just the gays suffering, because everyone hates them.

You don't see people of faith trying to guilt others every time we lose someone in this horrible way. The way the homosexual movement tries to use the tragedy of suicide to advance their cause and guilt others, is perhaps the most sickening aspect of that movement.

Myth #3 They just want the same rights as everyone else.

Keep in mind, everything I am about to say is about the homosexual movement, not individuals.

They don't want equality, they want superiority. They want and are receiving government mandated preferential hiring in the public and private sector. They seek to use the government to force society to change the definition of marriage and family to suit them, regardless of others objections. They make it a crime for a business owner to refuse to participate in their lifestyle. They want to make it a hate crime for individuals to even criticize their lifestyle. They use intimidation tactics to harass churches and church leaders who dare teach homosexuality is a sin. They seek legislation that would punish churches who teach anything they deem hateful. And by hateful they mean not agreeing with them.

Myth # 4: Other than religious objections, homosexuality has no negative impact on anyone

It has a terrible health impact on the participants, not only from a physical standpoint, but also psychologically. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

Myth #5 Gay Marriage will not affect you in any way.

I marvel at this one. They really expect us to believe that radically changing the fundamental unit of society will not impact us in any way?

I guess that parents with children in public schools will not have to worry about their children being brainwashed with homosexual propaganda against their wishes; as has happened in states where gay marriage is law. I guess they think that gay activists will not purposefully conduct overtly sexual displays in public places in the view of children, hoping to trap business owners with a discrimination lawsuit for stopping them; as has happened in states with gay marriage. I guess we will not have to worry about gay activists harassing churches and church members who dare proclaim repentance. All you have to do is look around to understand that gay marriage will have a profound negative impact on us, those around us, and society as a whole.

Myth #6: the 14th Amendment makes laws against gay marriage illegal.

The 14th makes no mention of sexuality and certainly no mention of gay marriage. The ruling of judge Shelby was a travesty that he knew was incorrect.

To understand the Constitution, it is essential that we look at the intent of the authors. When and why was the 14th created? It was to help society and free slaves adjust to a historic social shift. To establish racial equality in a nation struggling to heal. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. If we were to hop into a time machine and ask the framers of the 14th if it applied to homosexuality, they would overwhelmingly say no.

Seems like a nice enough guy. https://www.facebook.com/trestin.meacham

[YOhio]

I just FB stalked him, these are some of his recent updates

Seems like a nice enough guy. https://www.facebook.com/trestin.meacham

lol. He's a Ute fan.

[Lost Student]

lol. He's a Ute fan.

He also names "Skeletor" as an interest. Strike 2.

[scottie]

Weird -- when I look at my post on Tapatalk with all those quotes it looks like I kept quoting DDD instead of Trestin. Anyone else see the same thing?

[Bruiserstone]

Before I thought he was a giant douche. Now I can see he it just utterly insane.

[Applejack]

Kennedy would obviously be the 5th vote, but who would be the 6th? In Windsor, all 4 of the others dissented specifically to ensure that everybody knew that their ruling had nothing to do with a case like the Utah case.

I agree with AA on this one: getting Roberts to strike down Utah's amendment seems much more likely than getting Kennedy to vote to uphold it. Roberts is a super smart dude and he's going to be on the court for a long, long time. He knows that in ten years (when he'll still be young) a vote against same sex marriage will be a black mark on his legacy.

Scalia and Thomas obviously don't care. Not sure about Alito, but I doubt he joins the liberals.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just interested in why you think it is a nearly impossible task. At least 4 of 9 supreme court justices will certainly find in favor of the State of Utah's argument. It is also fairly likely that there is a 5th, as the most recent case on the subject matter (though this is a case of first impression) stated that they were not ruling in favor of the argument for gay marriage in states. There could be as many as 7 votes in Utah's favor. But, there could be 5, at most, against. I'm not confident the SC will rule correctly, but at worst, I give Utah's arguments even odds of winning the day.

[Jacob]

I agree with AA on this one: getting Roberts to strike down Utah's amendment seems much more likely than getting Kennedy to vote to uphold it. Roberts is a super smart dude and he's going to be on the court for a long, long time. He knows that in ten years (when he'll still be young) a vote against same sex marriage will be a black mark on his legacy.

Scalia and Thomas obviously don't care. Not sure about Alito, but I doubt he joins the liberals.

Roberts just voted against the much less radical decision to strike down parts of DOMA, good luck getting him to agree to invent a constitutional right to a gay marriage license the next day. Even if he is a "super smart dude."

[All-American]

Roberts just voted against the much less radical decision to strike down parts of DOMA, good luck getting him to agree to invent a constitutional right to a gay marriage license the next day. Even if he is a "super smart dude."

I expect a 5-4 vote, but Roberts could slip into the majority by invoking stare decisis. That's much more likely, at any rate, than Kennedy effectively reversing his Windsor opinion.

[Jacob]

I expect a 5-4 vote, but Roberts could slip into the majority by invoking stare decisis. That's much more likely, at any rate, than Kennedy effectively reversing his Windsor opinion.

What? stare decisis? This will be a case of first impression for the supreme court. Are you sure you know what stare decisis means? You think Roberts may accept the case, and then issue a decision merely deferring to the lower courts ruling on an issue like this? That's crazy talk. There is no supreme court precedent here.

[UVACoug]

I agree with AA on this one: getting Roberts to strike down Utah's amendment seems much more likely than getting Kennedy to vote to uphold it. Roberts is a super smart dude and he's going to be on the court for a long, long time. He knows that in ten years (when he'll still be young) a vote against same sex marriage will be a black mark on his legacy.

Scalia and Thomas obviously don't care. Not sure about Alito, but I doubt he joins the liberals.

Roberts has made his position on gay marriage quite clear. He is a staunch Catholic. There is really only one swing vote--Kennedy. There are good arguments for him going either direction.

[All-American]

What? stare decisis? This will be a case of first impression for the supreme court. Are you sure you know what stare decisis means? You think Roberts may accept the case, and then issue a decision merely deferring to the lower courts ruling on an issue like this? That's crazy talk. There is no supreme court precedent here.

Scalia's Windsor dissent would suggest otherwise.

[San Juan Sun]

Are you sure you know what stare decisis means?

Banzai!

[Jacob]

Scalia's Windsor dissent would suggest otherwise.

So, I guess you don't quite get stare decisis.

1. Without looking, I'm pretty sure Roberts didn't join that part of Scalia's dissent.
2. A dissent is not precedent.
3. There is no getting around that this is not settled law. The supreme court must decide the case. They cannot simply rely on any earlier case because the issue has never been before them. They will cite other cases, of course. That's their job.

[All-American]

So, I guess you don't quite get stare decisis.

1. Without looking, I'm pretty sure Roberts didn't join that part of Scalia's dissent.
2. A dissent is not precedent.
3. There is no getting around that this is not settled law. The supreme court must decide the case. They cannot simply rely on any earlier case because the issue has never been before them. They will cite other cases, of course. That's their job.

You're working very hard not to understand what I'm saying. I'm not going to work much harder to explain how something I don't think will happen can happen, so I'll leave just it at this. The most likely outcome of this legal battle is a 5-4 majority saying exactly what Justice Scalia, in his Windsor dissent, predicted they would say: the principles of equal protection which determined the outcome of that case likewise determine the outcome of this case. There is a slight possibility that Justice Roberts will sign on to that majority, though an unlikely one, since his own Windsor dissent contradicted that suggestion. But if you're asking who of the two is more likely to disavow what they said in Windsor, it's not likely to be Justice Kennedy, since his opinion was the majority's.