Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[smokymountainrain]

Really? Interesting. I wouldn't think so. Odd that this concern never reared its head 10 years ago. Of course, I would never tell them what sort of relationship they should enter into in the first place. None of my business.

But if you do make it your business and tell them what relationship(s) they can't enter into, don't you think you would have a difficult time selling that you support them? I don't know. Marriage is a pretty big deal to a lot of people. I imagine if you deny me my marriage, but turn around and tell me you love and support me, I may question your sincerity.

[UVACoug]

I don't know that Jacob's doing that. I too think the gay marriage ban is ridiculous, but I came away with the same impression after listening to the back and forth between the two. I don't know how these things are supposed to go down, but the judge came across as boorish and much more interested in making his own arguments and points than actually asking questions of the AG (or is it "solicitor"?)--i don't think he actually let him answer a single question. I've always rolled my eyes at charges of judicial activism from the right, but this exchange makes me wonder a little bit what really goes on in these high courts.

Judge Posner has one of the greatest legal minds in history, but he is also very arrogant and likes to get on his high horse about things and speak down to people that disagree with him. I agree that his questioning was boorish and really didn't even make much sense. Oral argument is his bully pulpit, but his written decisions are masterful. I'll be interested to see if he writes an opinion in this case. The gay marriage fight is all but over, but I still think there are some serious problems with the reasoning of the decisions that have held that gay marriage is a constitutional right. The decisions I have read to this point tend to just pretend like those problems don't exist. Posner is too proud to overlook them, so it will be interesting to see how he'll solve them. Obviously he'll vote to strike down the Indiana law.

[wuapinmon]

So if I have a child who is living common law marriage, I can't object to that and love and support them at the same time?

It is all or nothing??

I think the real problem in your example is that your common law child at least has the option of marrying and achieving legitimacy for his/her intimacy.

[cowboy]

But if you do make it your business and tell them what relationship(s) they can't enter into, don't you think you would have a difficult time selling that you support them? I don't know. Marriage is a pretty big deal to a lot of people. I imagine if you deny me my marriage, but turn around and tell me you love and support me, I may question your sincerity.

This may seem like splitting hairs, but marriage is not a relationship. The relationship may lead to the desire to marry, but my understanding is that marriage is a contract, granting legal rights to one another. A relationship can exist with or without marriage.

[Uncle Ted]

Same-sex marriage may not being coming to Louisiana...

Louisiana Gay Marriage Ban Upheld By Federal Judge

Bucking a nationwide trend, a federal judge in Louisiana upheld a state ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, writing that "any right to same-sex marriage is not yet so entrenched as to be fundamental" and that gay marriage was "inconceivable until very recently."


"The Court is persuaded that a meaning of what is marriage that has endured in history for thousands of years, and prevails in a majority of states today, is not universally irrational on the constitutional grid," U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, wrote.


Feldman noted that his was the only federal court to uphold a gay marriage ban since the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act last year.
[...]
Feldman said that "inconvenient questions persist" about the recognition of same-sex marriage and posed a few slippery-slope questions of his own.


"For example, must the states permit or recognize a marriage between an aunt and niece? Aunt and nephew? Brother/brother? Father and child? May minors marry? Must marriage be limited to only two people? What about a transgender spouse? Is such a union same-gender or male-female? All such unions would undeniably be equally committed to love and caring for one another, just like the plaintiffs," he wrote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/03/louisiana-gay-marriage_n_5760012.html

[woot]

a meaning of what is marriage that has endured in history for thousands of years

Again with this. Has no one who speaks about gay marriage read any history?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Supreme court denies (will not hear) Utah appeal, along with 5-6 other states.

Can someone elaborate on what this means in the long run? I assume they could eventually choose to hear another similar case in the future.

[Donuthole]

Supreme court denies (will not hear) Utah appeal, along with 5-6 other states.

Can someone elaborate on what this means in the long run? I assume they could eventually choose to hear another similar case in the future.

They could. But as I understand it, until they do, any ban on same sex marriage in those states is essentially lifted.

[Jeff Lebowski]

They could. But as I understand it, until they do, any ban on same sex marriage in those states is essentially lifted.

Wow. Going to be an interesting week here in Utah.

[Pheidippides]

They could. But as I understand it, until they do, any ban on same sex marriage in those states is essentially lifted.

Yes, that's how I read it too. Gay marriage, legal in Utah since the appellate court, can now go forward because the stay should be automatically terminated.

This makes the Oaks talk on Saturday perhaps the only prophetic thing to come out of conference. (I was, on the whole, a fan of that talk btw).

[Northwestcoug]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...court-24489269

Utah is going directly to the nation's highest court to challenge a federal appeals court ruling that gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, the state attorney general's office announced Wednesday.


The state opted to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court rather than request a review from the entire 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. That option is now off the table, no matter what the high court decides.

JL's tax dollars at work.

I seem to recall discussion that Utah's decision to bypass a court of appeals review was risky. So now after today, what was the chance that the Denver court would have repealed the original court ruling? It seems unlikely to me, though I suppose it would have delayed Utah recognizing SSM.

[Topper]

It seems that tactic was a mistake for supporters of the ban. With no circuit opposing gay marriage the Supreme Court did not have to opine.

[Uncle Ted]

Wow. Going to be an interesting week here in Utah.

Maybe the LDS church will established a (New) Zion in Louisiana...

Gay marriage in Louisiana remains banned after Supreme Court denies appeals

A U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday not to take up gay marriage cases this term won't lead to same-sex weddings in Louisiana any time soon, but it has raised the stakes for a lawsuit challenging the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage.


The high court announced, without further comment, that it would not hear lower court cases that struck down bans in five states. The decision means gay marriage will become legal in the three federal appeals courts districts whose appeals were pending before the Supreme Court -- jurisdictions that include the five states where lower courts had ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, and six other states where same-sex marriage is banned.


The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi, has yet to rule on a same-sex marriage case, but there are two cases pending: a ruling struck down the gay marriage ban in Texas and a ruling by U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman that upheld Louisiana's ban.
[...]
The New Orleans-based 5th Circuit is considered a conservative court that might be the first federal appeals court to rule against gay marriage. A ruling against gay marriage in one of the 11 federal appeals court jurisdictions would create a "split" in the federal system, a situation that typically would force the Supreme Court to make a definitive ruling.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/10/gay_marriage_in_louisiana_rema.html

It might be time to get out your handcarts and grease up the wheels.

[SeattleUte]

They could. But as I understand it, until they do, any ban on same sex marriage in those states is essentially lifted.

Not only that, any ban in a state within a federal circuit that has found same sex marriage to be consitutionally protected is a dead letter. Is that half the country or more? Moreover, federal circuit court decisions are persuasive in circuits that have not addressed the issue, particlularly where, as here, there is no disagreement among the circuits that have addressed the issue. Moreover, if the Supreme Court wasn't troubled enough about these disputes to even accept certiorari, I don't know how a federal circuit that has not addressed the issue could decide against the unanimity of the prevailing decisions without damaging its crediblity and public confidence in our judicial system (and everything we hold dear hangs on that faith; it's much more about that faith than an actual effective functioning of the courts). Finally, as time passes and stare decisis becomes a factor, how is the Supreme Court going to be in any position to find there is no constiutional right to same sex marriage?

[Uncle Ted]

Not only that, any ban in a state within a federal circuit that has found same sex marriage to be consitutionally protected is a dead letter. Is that half the country or more? Moreover, federal circuit court decisions are persuasive in circuits that have not addressed the issue, particlularly where, as here, there is no disagreement among the circuits that have addressed the issue. Moreover, if the Supreme Court wasn't troubled enough about these disputes to even accept certiorari, I don't know how a federal circuit that has not addressed the issue could decide against the unanimity of the prevailing decisions without damaging its crediblity and public confidence in our judicial system (and everything we hold dear hangs on that faith; it's much more about that faith than an actual effective functioning of the courts). Finally, as time passes and stare decisis becomes a factor, how is the Supreme Court going to be in any position to find there is no constiutional right to same sex marriage?

What if a state just doesn't recognize any form of marriage? Us Libertarians would like it if the government just got out of the business of marriage all together and left it up the individuals and/or religions to figure out how it is defined or not-defined (with no legal binding). Just think how much time that would save when a couple wants to get baptized. They wouldn't have to get (legally) married first. The church could just declare the couple married.