Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[TripletDaddy]

While I'm not opposed to states allowing gay marriage, I side with the dissent on this because I feel like the court short-circuited the democratic process. States were eventually going to legalize it anyway, so this whole thing reinforces the notion that the will of judges, not the people will rule the country. The majority opinion that same-sex marriage bans interfered with the freedoms of "expression, intimacy, and spirituality" is total bullshit.

The system has never been set up to let the "majority opinion" dictate terms, it is just that most of the time the majority opinion happens to agree with the rule of law. Perhaps that is part of the frustration that folks are expressing with the sentiment you posted above. Letting majority rule when the majority don't understand the rule of law is a dangerous precedent, one that is unsustainable when the alleged majority continue to pursue an avenue that is dubious, at best, from a legal perspective. We aren't a democracy, we are a republic, and this is one of many instances in which the distinctions between the two concepts are on full display. The process wasn't short circuited...this has been at issue for years and years and wound its way up the chain the way the system is designed.

at any rate, let's be honest here, Mormons don't want majority rule. Mormons want status quo. two entirely different things.

[byu71]

lol. you are a documented homophobe!

OUCH!! Being labeled by the intellectual, PC, progressive clique on here strings.

[LVAllen]

While I'm not opposed to states allowing gay marriage, I side with the dissent on this because I feel like the court short-circuited the democratic process. States were eventually going to legalize it anyway, so this whole thing reinforces the notion that the will of judges, not the people will rule the country. The majority opinion that same-sex marriage bans interfered with the freedoms of "expression, intimacy, and spirituality" is total bullshit.

Not even the will of judges. The will of 'A' judge. If significant issues like this are divided on 5-4 lines, than the only judge whose vote really matters is the "swing" vote.

[creekster]

The system has never been set up to let the "majority opinion" dictate terms, it is just that most of the time the majority opinion happens to agree with the rule of law. Perhaps that is part of the frustration that folks are expressing with the sentiment you posted above. Letting majority rule when the majority don't understand the rule of law is a dangerous precedent, one that is unsustainable when the alleged majority continue to pursue an avenue that is dubious, at best, from a legal perspective. We aren't a democracy, we are a republic, and this is one of many instances in which the distinctions between the two concepts are on full display. The process wasn't short circuited...this has been at issue for years and years and wound its way up the chain the way the system is designed.

at any rate, let's be honest here, Mormons don't want majority rule. Mormons want status quo. two entirely different things.

I fail to see how the systemic distinction between a democracy and a republic has anything to do with this whatsoever. That was not the argument Cowboy was making. His was based in federalism and the very legitimate concern that there is simply no federal constitutional basis to require same-sex marriage nationwide. You are serving up platitudes and a Hollywood-esque soliloquy, much like the majority opinion, but fail to address the point that Cowboy and Roberts are making: while they (and I) agree that same sex marriage is fine and a good thing, that right is not found in the constitution. I find it very surprising that the majority goes so far as to hang its reasoning on an argument (due process) that the solicitor general would not make. This might be the right result, in many respects, but it is the wrong process and done for incorrect reasons in this case.

[TripletDaddy]

Not even the will of judges. The will of 'A' judge. If significant issues like this are divided on 5-4 lines, than the only judge whose vote really matters is the "swing" vote.

Yes but that is true of all judicial decisions, not just same sex marriage. This "the system failed" argument is a strawman. This is how the system has always worked. Easy come, easy go.

[Northwestcoug]

The system has never been set up to let the "majority opinion" dictate terms, it is just that most of the time the majority opinion happens to agree with the rule of law. Perhaps that is part of the frustration that folks are expressing with the sentiment you posted above. Letting majority rule when the majority don't understand the rule of law is a dangerous precedent, one that is unsustainable when the alleged majority continue to pursue an avenue that is dubious, at best, from a legal perspective. We aren't a democracy, we are a republic, and this is one of many instances in which the distinctions between the two concepts are on full display. The process wasn't short circuited...this has been at issue for years and years and wound its way up the chain the way the system is designed.

at any rate, let's be honest here, Mormons don't want majority rule. Mormons want status quo. two entirely different things.

I've seen some of my circles bring up Ireland's experience as an argument that it would have been much better had the US voted on marriage equality. I suppose it would have looked more 'neat' or 'democratic' if there was a national referendum on the issue. But when was that going to happen? States were already legislating differently, and the parties who disagreed with the various opinions used their legal options to appeal their case. Today's ruling seems like a very logical end to the whole process.

And yeah, Mormons wanted majority rule when it was the status quo. Now they are fighting for minority rights. Weird.

[TripletDaddy]

I fail to see how the systemic distinction between a democracy and a republic has anything to do with this whatsoever. That was not the argument Cowboy was making. His was based in federalism and the very legitimate concern that there is simply no federal constitutional basis to require same-sex marriage nationwide. You are serving up platitudes and a Hollywood-esque soliloquy, much like the majority opinion, but fail to address the point that Cowboy and Roberts are making: while they (and I) agree that same sex marriage is fine and a good thing, that right is not found in the constitution. I find it very surprising that the majority goes so far as to hang its reasoning on an argument (due process) that the solicitor general would not make. This might be the right result, in many respects, but it is the wrong process and done for incorrect reasons in this case.

marriage is not a state issue. maybe that is the confusion here?

cowboy brought up the democratic process. what "democratic" process? we have officials and representatives that will make decisions that sometimes go against the will of some constituents. everyone doesnt get a direct vote.

on a positive note, nobody seems to be making moral arguments anymore, thank goodness.

[creekster]

marriage is not a state issue. maybe that is the confusion here?

cowboy brought up the democratic process. what "democratic" process? we have officials and representatives that will make decisions that sometimes go against the will of some constituents. everyone doesnt get a direct vote.

on a positive note, nobody seems to be making moral arguments anymore, thank goodness.

I'm not confused. And, yes, marriage is precisely a state issue. No one, ever, has received a federal marriage license. You again don't seem to address any of the issues raised in the court's opinions. Cowboy was echoing Roberts' dissent, which was joined by two other justices. Personally, I find that opinion the most persuasive. I think we all understand your point that a democracy is not a republic. It's just not relevant.

[HBCoug]

OUCH!! Being labeled by the intellectual, PC, progressive clique on here strings.

Great, now '71 is mocking Asian people.

[BigFatMeanie]

is grapevine writing the church's press releases these days?

grape isn't that terse

[Tex]

This chart showed up with some of my sample plots in R. It is fascinating, showing the rapid acceptance of social issues. I think this chart was prepared for Bloomberg, but I havent seen it before.

One thing to keep in mind with a chart like that ... the vast majority of those 36 states that legalized gay marriage also did so via the judicial system, not the popular vote.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I fail to see how the systemic distinction between a democracy and a republic has anything to do with this whatsoever. That was not the argument Cowboy was making. His was based in federalism and the very legitimate concern that there is simply no federal constitutional basis to require same-sex marriage nationwide. You are serving up platitudes and a Hollywood-esque soliloquy, much like the majority opinion, but fail to address the point that Cowboy and Roberts are making: while they (and I) agree that same sex marriage is fine and a good thing, that right is not found in the constitution. I find it very surprising that the majority goes so far as to hang its reasoning on an argument (due process) that the solicitor general would not make. This might be the right result, in many respects, but it is the wrong process and done for incorrect reasons in this case.

I haven't read the opinion on this, was it substantive due process instead of equal protection? If so, I said years ago that was going to the be the grounds. Recoginizing a fundamental right for two dudes to marry is a lot easier to get to than recognizing sexual orientation as a specially protected class of people.

I want to retract what I said a year and a half ago, the libs are absolutely going after churches and their tax exempt status if they don't perform gay marriages.

The outrage mob never stops. Hell, Apple banned an app that was a game that simulated the civil war merely because it depicted the conferate flag. Meanwhile they have a similar app about WW2 that features the Nazi flag and that's still fine because the juice right now is about being Outraged about the confederate flag.

Gay marriage is fine and I hope this settles the issue and people on both sides will let everyone be, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Uncle Ted]

From 12/23/2013. I would give myself a "swish", but it wasn't a particularly difficult prediction to make.

So I wonder how long it will take for people to start pretending they didn't fight against gay marriage. Not very long, I predict. (admittedly, another easy prediction )

Yeah, about as quick as the church took to issue a statement...

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/articl...ne-on-marriage

[Donuthole]

Great, now '71 is mocking Asian people.

well prayed.

[Northwestcoug]

Huckabee sounding his usual rational self:

“The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.

“This ruling is not about marriage equality, it’s about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court’s most disastrous decisions, and they have had many. The only outcome worse than this flawed, failed decision would be for the President and Congress, two co-equal branches of government, to surrender in the face of this out-of-control act of unconstitutional, judicial tyranny.”

“The Supreme Court can no more repeal the laws of nature and nature’s God on marriage than it can the laws of gravity. Under our Constitution, the court cannot write a law, even though some cowardly politicians will wave the white flag and accept it without realizing that they are failing their sworn duty to reject abuses from the court. If accepted by Congress and this President, this decision will be a serious blow to religious liberty, which is the heart of the First Amendment.”