Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[ERCougar]

Ken Jennings is acting like this is some decades old prejudice only held by a few southern governors, Obama publicly held the same position 3 years ago. You must be confused about a lot of things apparently it you didn't get the gist of that.

I was confused at the connection too.

From a cynical point of view, Obama is a politician. The political climate has changed. I would think a Romney supporter might understand (unless you're easily confused).

From a less cynical one, I think it is possible that Obama really may have changed his mind on this issue as it has become a more central issue of debate, this joining the ranks of millions of other Americans who are willing to hear opinions other than their own.

So yeah, I think Jennings point stands.

[old_gregg]

Not to go all Donuthole on you, but 'why' is unnecessary in your statement. Just trying to help. Also, I'm pretty sure the courts weren't established for the purpose of short-circuiting the democratic process...but of course I'm no legal scholar.

you're not going all donuthole because he wouldn't have been wrong. oh and you're wrong about the other thing too.

[TripletDaddy]

It is the nature of many to form an opinion and insist that their's is the only opinion based upon a sound logical foundation. For many, their hubris and lack of self-awareness prevent them from seeing the hypocrisy of calling on those who oppose them to be embarrassed by their position.

For some it is hubris that prevents it. For others it is religious dogmatism that shifts from time to time over time.

for the rest of us, common sense helps avoid that problem!

[cowboy]

We were talking to our teenage kids about the court ruling yesterday and their attitude is "Why would anybody ever think it's OK to deny some gay people from marriage? Why is this even a thing? What is wrong with people?"

You missed a great opportunity to give your kids a civics lesson. The SCOTUS was not tasked with, nor did it have the authority to, determine specifically whether it was morally acceptable to allow gay people to marry. Rather, and this is an important distinction, they were tasked with deciding whether the constitution allowed voters to pass state laws defining marriage to be between a man and woman. The debate and discussion is about constitutionality, not fairness or morality.

... I think it is possible that Obama really may have changed his mind on this issue as it has become a more central issue of debate, this joining the ranks of millions of other Americans who are willing to hear opinions other than their own.

Would you give the same latitude to someone who listened to opinions outlining the reason marriage should remain defined between a man and a woman, and then changed their opinion to hold that point of view?

you're not going all donuthole because he wouldn't have been wrong. oh and you're wrong about the other thing too.

I will concede if you offer a compelling reason for 'why' being necessary after 'reason'. Otherwise, I will assume you are stubbornly making the baseless assertion that you are right, which you seem to do a lot. On the subject of the courts, can you explain why you believe they were created by the constitution to deny people the democratic process that the same constitution grants and protects?

For some it is hubris that prevents it. For others it is religious dogmatism that shifts from time to time over time.

for the rest of us, common sense helps avoid that problem!

Unfortunately, much of the time, people are only credited with common sense if their opinions align with the prevailing opinions of the group. Example: your fashion decisions may be deeply rooted in common sense, but if you attended the Cody rodeo with me Friday (you're invited if you wish to come) you may well be categorized by the group as a fashion moron.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Ken Jennings is acting like this is some decades old prejudice only held by a few southern governors, Obama publicly held the same position 3 years ago. You must be confused about a lot of things apparently it you didn't get the gist of that.

I was confused at the connection too.

From a cynical point of view, Obama is a politician. The political climate has changed. I would think a Romney supporter might understand (unless you're easily confused).

From a less cynical one, I think it is possible that Obama really may have changed his mind on this issue as it has become a more central issue of debate, this joining the ranks of millions of other Americans who are willing to hear opinions other than their own.

So yeah, I think Jennings point stands.

I think Jennings is pretty much right on the mark. Certainly racial prejudice and discrimination existed throughout the North and South during the 20th Century, but most of the country was on board with the '64 Civil Rights Act. It was the southern governors (Maddux, Faubus, Wallace et al.) who vowed to fight the new legislation. Fifty years later, we have (former) Gov. Huckabee soundling a lot like his southern forebears. And sure, Obama once opposed gay marriage, just as LBJ once resisted civil rights, but both changed their minds. It was the southern governors that were, and apparently to some extent still are, among the the last to come around.

[CardiacCoug]

You missed a great opportunity to give your kids a civics lesson. The SCOTUS was not tasked with, nor did it have the authority to, determine specifically whether it was morally acceptable to allow gay people to marry. Rather, and this is an important distinction, they were tasked with deciding whether the constitution allowed voters to pass state laws defining marriage to be between a man and woman. The debate and discussion is about constitutionality, not fairness or morality.

I'm just glad my kids know what is fair and moral.

I'll probably just skip the civics lesson on how to justify doing what's unfair and immoral in the name of the constitution.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I was confused at the connection too.

From a cynical point of view, Obama is a politician. The political climate has changed. I would think a Romney supporter might understand (unless you're easily confused).

From a less cynical one, I think it is possible that Obama really may have changed his mind on this issue as it has become a more central issue of debate, this joining the ranks of millions of other Americans who are willing to hear opinions other than their own.

So yeah, I think Jennings point stands.

I doubt that, privately, Obama had the same beliefs. He was saying he opposed gay marriage until Joe Biden forced his hand.

But this isn't like the church waiting until 1978 to allow blacks to hold the priesthood. Obama publicly until 2012 was espousing the same opinion professed by the likes of Mike Huckabee.

This is has been a very quick shift in public opinion all over the country and Jennings is being an asshole comparing it to segregation. Most of the country outside the South had been desegregated for over a century prior to the 60s.

Gay marriage became legal in one state less than 15 years ago and Obama and Hillary's stance on gay marriage three years ago was basically indistinguishable from Mike Huckabee's position now.

Ken Jennings' point is dumb.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think Jennings is pretty much right on the mark. Certainly racial prejudice and discrimination existed throughout the North and South during the 20th Century, but most of the country was on board with the '64 Civil Rights Act. It was the southern governors (Maddux, Faubus, Wallace et al.) who vowed to fight the new legislation. Fifty years later, we have (former) Gov. Huckabee soundling a lot like his southern forebears. And sure, Obama once opposed gay marriage, just as LBJ once resisted civil rights, but both changed their minds. It was the southern governors that were, and apparently to some extent still are, among the the last to come around.

Exactly. And then as well as now, politicians across the country flipped positions in the preceding years once they saw the tide turning. Not sure why CMBF is so confused.

[creekster]

I'm just glad my kids know what is fair and moral.

I'll probably just skip the civics lesson on how to justify doing what's unfair and immoral in the name of the constitution.

I know you feel strongly about this and that is certainly understandable. But, honestly, you are just completely missing what is going on with respect to the constitution.

[LA Ute]

We were talking to our teenage kids about the court ruling yesterday and their attitude is "Why would anybody ever think it's OK to deny some gay people from marriage? Why is this even a thing? What is wrong with people?"

It's a special brand of middle-aged and elderly person, fundamentalist religion-inspired stupidity that could ever come up with "I'm sorry, we believe in the Constitution and in protecting due process and legal rights for all people. To us that means that means straight people have the legal right to get married but gay people do not have that legal right."

You missed Roberts' point about the proper role of the courts. What's with all the ad hominem stuff, anyway?

[LA Ute]

...if you attended the Cody rodeo with me Friday (you're invited if you wish to come) you may well be categorized by the group as a fashion moron.

Cardiac, you should go. Some of my best childhood memories are from Cody, Wyo., and that rodeo!

[Armenag]

And sure, Obama once opposed gay marriage, just as LBJ once resisted civil rights, but both changed their minds.

Technically Obama changed his mind twice -- he was for gay marriage, then against it, then for it again:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-gay-marriage/

[SoCalCoug]

I think it will be interesting to watch the debate that will surely happen concerning polygamy. I would assume no one who supports gay marriage would find themselves arguing that polygamy is not a "traditional marriage".

I support gay marriage and I agree that it is a much more true claim that polygamy is "traditional marriage" than the form of marriage we have today in the U.S. is "traditional marriage." Also, I'm fine with legalizing polygamy. I pretty much always have been.

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.

It's funny how many constitutional scholars there are now among the Republican party. It's not a new concept that the Constitution might protect citizens' marriage as a liberty interest that can't be deprived without due process of law (i.e., legislative authorization). It's a principle found in Loving v. Virginia and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, among others. It's a little disingenous to me for people to be arguing on one hand that marriage is such a sacred institution and fundamental part of our society that extending it to gays would lead to its devaluation and destruction, while on the other hand claiming that marriage is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Seems a little inconsistent to me.

I've been a lawyer for 18 years. I've handled more than 50 appeals over the years (among other trial-level work). I've litigated civil rights case. I don't pretend to be a constitutional scholar. But reading the actual opinion, and reading informed commentary and analysis of the opinion, I don't get the sense that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds, as is being argued vehemently by many around here. The ruling seems consistent with my understanding of Constitutional principles. I get the impression that a lot of people (not saying you or anyone else here) are just throwing around "due process" and "fourteenth amendment" and "legislating from the bench" because that's what the political honks are throwing out right now, trusting that they know what they're talking about.

I'm more of a big picture person. I recall a line from the Declaration of Independencs as follows:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

To me, the Declaration of Independence contains the very basic principles underlying the break from England and formation of the United States. I would have a hard time rationally arguing that marriage to the spouse of my choice does not fall under the "inalienable rights" endowed by the Creator of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

But I guess technically you're right about same sex marriage not being in the Constitution; the court found it's guaranteed by the language of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

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.

States can make laws (and draft state constitutions) so long as they don't limit the rights of their citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution and its Amendments. The Supreme Court has now officially ruled (I think correctly) that the denial of gays the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice is prohibited by the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. That's entirely consistent with the spirit of the Constitution, as I understand it.

A lot of the criticism of this sort of decision, i.e., "where in the Constitution does it guarantee gay marriage?", seems to be based upon a false premise, that we are some sort of code-based system of government, like they have (so my law professor taught me) in France. As I understand it, any rights and prohibitions in a code-based are specifically spelled out. Maybe there are those who would like that sort of clarity, but man, that seems like it can become unwieldy pretty quickly. We're a constitution-based government, which as I understand it means we're governed more by core principles and rely on the checks and balances of the three branches of government to sort out exactly what those principles really mean, as questions and issues come up. That's exactly what happened here. Gay marriage isn't something that was an issue for the Founding Fathers, so it wasn't spelled out in the Constitution. But the process put in place by the Constitution has worked to get us to this point.

Far from evidence of a broken system, the Obergefell decision is evidence that it's working.

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.

It was both due process and equal protection, with the Court noting that the two are so often intertwined.

As for the tax exempt status, what part of the Constitution guarantees churches tax-exempt status?

Closing paragraph of ruling.

Honestly, to me that's beautifully stated and I think as years pass it will be seen as a particularly eloquent discussion of marriage and one of the great conclusions to a Supreme Court decision.

It's so funny to me that some people see legalization of gay marriage as a decline in morality. In ten years everybody is going to acknowledge it as an improvement and advancement in morality except for hard-core bigots.

Also these pseudo-academic legalistic arguments against gay marriage are so ridiculous, just embarrassing to those who advance them. People should be treated the same. No decent, moral society would stop people from marrying because of their sexual orientation. Duh!!

That's what it comes down to. The basic principles that our government is based on is the equality of the citizens. I don't know why people work so hard to try to treat any group of person as lesser (other than criminals - society can't allow one citizen to harm another without repurcussion).

Ken Jennings is acting like this is some decades old prejudice only held by a few southern governors, Obama publicly held the same position 3 years ago. You must be confused about a lot of things apparently it you didn't get the gist of that.

The tide of public opinion has changed significantly over the last 20 years. That isn't just because people with one opinion have died, and others with another opinion have matured. People holding one opinion have necessarily changed to now hold a different opinion, over time. I'm not sure why this is a criticism of anyone, including the President of the United States - that their opinion about gay marriage has changed with the passage of time. It happens. People learn and experience things, and they change their opinions.

Oh, and shame on you for believing what a politician says he thinks is really what he thinks. You should know better by now.

From Roberts' dissent:



Nothing to be embarrassed about in that analysis.

Well, I think he should be a little embarrassed about forgetting the prior decisions where the right to marry was found to be a fundamental interest protected by the due process clause.

We were talking to our teenage kids about the court ruling yesterday and their attitude is "Why would anybody ever think it's OK to deny some gay people from marriage? Why is this even a thing? What is wrong with people?"

It's a special brand of middle-aged and elderly person, fundamentalist religion-inspired stupidity that could ever come up with "I'm sorry, we believe in the Constitution and in protecting due process and legal rights for all people. To us that means that means straight people have the legal right to get married but gay people do not have that legal right."

Your reasoning here displays a lack of understanding of the concept of due process. Just because you support a legal idea doesn't mean it is necessarily embodied in substantive due process

Just because you don't support a legal idea doesn't mean it's not. I thought Justice Kennedy spelled it out pretty well in the opinion.

[CardiacCoug]

I know you feel strongly about this and that is certainly understandable. But, honestly, you are just completely missing what is going on with respect to the constitution.

And I guess you feel strongly about prioritizing some type of theoretical legal stuff over the happiness of actual people living in homophobic states but no big deal. A majority of the Supreme Court agrees with me!

[PaloAltoCougar]

I’m fine with the result. Indeed, fifteen years ago I resisted rather strongly the Church’s efforts in support of Prop. 22 (the precursor to Prop. 8) and said then that the legalization of gay marriage was inevitable. I’m also bothered by the strained legal arguments people sometimes make against against gay marriage, arguments they very likely wouldn’t advance if the underlying issue were more in line with their moral sensibilities.

But I think it’s also dangerous to dismiss all such arguments simply because one likes the result. I think the discussion about whether due process or equal protection (I tend to favor the latter) is the better choice for defending gay marriage is interesting, even if for lay people it’s sounds like a bunch of sophistry. But at times those attacking the dissent sound a little like laypersons who rip on a court’s decision to acquit or release a criminal who is known to have committed a crime. “BUT HE DID IT!”, they protest, and the fact that there may have been a misstep by the police shouldn’t let someone off the hook, or so they sincerely believe. Yes, gays should be able to marry, but how one reaches that decision is, in a constitutional system that relies so much on precedent, just as important as the decision itself. I’m not at all convinced the Roberts’ dissent is correct and, as noted, I’m fine with the result, but I’m wary of being derisive of those who voted no.