Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[SeattleUte]

I agree, it could go that way. The writing has been on the wall since Romer. That's why some were pushing for a US constitutional amendment regarding marriage. Because they feared that ruling.

Amending the Constitution to restrict individual liberty. Barf. And without rational basis.

[All-American]

But that's what you are saying. In Windsor, Kennedy (and the entire majority), affirmed that states are the sole arbiters of marriage law. Now you say that he will likely change his mind. Whatever. Lets just drop it.

It's not. Really, it's not.

And nobody ever said that states are the "sole arbiters of marriage law"-- not after Loving v. Virginia, anyway. Really, you're reading way too much into the discussion of the role of the states in the opinion. The only thing the lip service Justice Kennedy paid to federalism did to move along his argument was to put the ball on the tee: sometimes the federal government can do stuff with marriage, and sometimes, it can't. When the majority said why THIS particular intervention was impermissible, it was because the act discriminates against gays. That same reasoning will carry the day when the next case comes up, too. The new context won't matter.

[Topper]

Amending the Constitution to restrict individual liberty. Barf. And without rational basis.

We did it without amending the Constitution through the Patriot Act. No rational basis and we did it by Congressional Act.

[Solon]

HJR001:
This resolution proposes to amend the Utah Constitution to:
13 prevent a religious organization, association, or society, or individual acting in a
14 role connected with a religious organization, association, or society, from being
15 required or compelled to solemnize, officiate in, or recognize a marriage or religious
16 rite of marriage in violation of their right of conscience or their free exercise of
17 religion.
http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/HJR001.html

Is this a surrender of sorts?
Or just more circling the wagons?

[TripletDaddy]

Is this a surrender of sorts?

oh no, Trestin....better eat a big meal tonight bro!

[SCcoug]

Is this a surrender of sorts?
Or just more circling the wagons?

I guess suddenly there will be all sorts of baker, photography or reception hall "societies" pop up so as to deny service to gays?

[TripletDaddy]

I guess suddenly there will be all sorts of baker, photography or reception hall "societies" pop up so as to deny service to gays?

if an LDS business owner ran a restaurant, they would serve gays and smokers and drinkers and non tithe payers. So why would they exclude gays if they owned a cake business or a photography business? I agree with you that some might but I don't really get it.

Also, the gay wedding industry is actually big biz. They should get in on that and market themselves ironically as the Mormon Gay Wedding Guru.

[YOhio]

if an LDS business owner ran a restaurant, they would serve gays and smokers and drinkers and non tithe payers. So why would they exclude gays if they owned a cake business or a photography business? I agree with you that some might but I don't really get it.

Also, the gay wedding industry is actually big biz. They should get in on that and market themselves ironically as the Mormon Gay Wedding Guru.

Irony is big these days too. Double win.

[Donuthole]

Same-sex marriage now coming to Nevada, also. And the 9th circuit uses Windsor to establish gays as a protected class which requires intermediate scrutiny. . . . at least as far a jury selection goes. This link is fairly one-sided (do you expect anything else from Slate) but it walks you quickly through the procedure leading to yesterday's withdrawal by Nevada's AG.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/11/nevada_gay_marriage_ban_how_a_single_gay_juror_brought_it_down.html

[byu71]

Same-sex marriage now coming to Nevada, also. And the 9th circuit uses Windsor to establish gays as a protected class which requires intermediate scrutiny. . . . at least as far a jury selection goes. This link is fairly one-sided (do you expect anything else from Slate) but it walks you quickly through the procedure leading to yesterday's withdrawal by Nevada's AG.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...t_it_down.html

After a long discussion with my boys this weekend, I am now an advocate of gay marriage everywhere. Like they said, once the LGBT (I think that is the initials) has the ability to marry they will feel equal and normal like straights and we won't have LGBT issues to argue about any more.

Nevada is doing the right thing. I hope the church doesn't start a petition drive in Nevada.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Same-sex marriage now coming to Nevada, also. And the 9th circuit uses Windsor to establish gays as a protected class which requires intermediate scrutiny. . . . at least as far a jury selection goes. This link is fairly one-sided (do you expect anything else from Slate) but it walks you quickly through the procedure leading to yesterday's withdrawal by Nevada's AG.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...t_it_down.html

More dominoes falling.

From the article:

These sentences did nothing less than herald a new era of gay rights. For decades, gay activists have strived for this precise constitutional protection; now the 9th Circuit had afforded it to them. No longer, the 9th Circuit declared, can gays be denied basic rights based on some vague notion of traditional values. Instead, a state must have a compelling interest in discriminating against gays—and because no such interest exists, they must be afforded the same rights as everybody else.

The ruling only applied to those states within the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction, including—you guessed it—Nevada. When the Abbott opinion was handed down, Nevada’s attorney general was already struggling to defend the state’s marriage ban; following Windsor, she asked for a series of extensions in light of the changing legal landscape. A federal judge had upheld the ban in late 2012, but that was during the dark days of DOMA; now, in the shadow of Windsor, the state’s argument that it must discriminate against gays in order to “preserve traditional marriage” was beginning to look a little flimsy.

Utah's case is doomed, because that ("traditional values") seems to be the foundation of their case. The flaw in that logic is further dissected here:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57523455-82/state-utah-marriage-amendment.html.csp

I look forward to Jacob setting us all straight.

[byu71]

case is doomed, because that ("traditional values") seems to be the foundation of their case. The flaw in that logic is further dissected here:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/57523455-82/state-utah-marriage-amendment.html.csp

I look forward to Jacob setting us all straight.

He would have to argue there is such a thing as "traditional values". At some point those two words together will be shunned. That point is probably right now amongst progressives and some people like my boys are so sick of hearing about it, it is like picking up a crying baby so it will stop crying.

Do parents let their babies cry themselves to sleep anymore? My guess in our modern society, that is probably a no, no.

[Jeff Lebowski]

He would have to argue there is such a thing as "traditional values". At some point those two words together will be shunned. That point is probably right now amongst progressives and some people like my boys are so sick of hearing about it, it is like picking up a crying baby so it will stop crying.

Do parents let their babies cry themselves to sleep anymore? My guess in our modern society, that is probably a no, no.

So you and your boys are for gay marriage because you hope it will make the crybabies stop crying?

That's deep, man.

[byu71]

So you and your boys are for gay marriage because you hope it will make the crybabies stop crying?

That's deep, man.

LOL, so everyone has to be a deep thinker. I would hope that those of your persuasion when gay marriage comes won't also insist it isn't good enough until everyone bows down to your great wisdom and claims to have seen the light.

Do you ever wonder about getting brain damage from having to think so deeply on every issue?

That was a classic reply. Not the standard you are an idiot, but you aren't a deep enough thinker.

[Donuthole]

I look forward to Jacob setting us all straight.

Not to mention UVACoug once again assuring us that gays will not be found to be a protected class.