• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage[W:780]

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Jayar said:
Wow. i should definitely proof-read my rants when my brain is, uh, compromised. I apologize for the incoherent lapses and missing or extra words. hehe I know, i know, the brilliance of the message makes it worth it.
maybe?


Jayar
Click to expand...

It's ok, we've all been there, done that! Your comments are still appreciated by at least some on this thread!
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
No, what I posted was evidence that they are the same.

Only YOU do not recognize that, because you do not want to.
Click to expand...


Anthony is being willfully blind. Anyone who says the Loving case doesn't have any application to the SSM case doesn't understand legal precedents in the least OR is just totally against SSM and nothing will change their mind.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

paddymcdougall said:
Anthony is being willfully blind. Anyone who says the Loving case doesn't have any application to the SSM case doesn't understand legal precedents in the least OR is just totally against SSM and nothing will change their mind.
Click to expand...

You just refuse to look at the facts, since it hurts your argument. And let me be clear, if I haven't posted this enough already. I am not arguing against "gay" marriage (though I don't support it) as much as I am arguing that the federal government, once again, is trampling on the Constitution and acting where they don't have the power to act.

If a state votes to allow it, fine. The people have spoken. If a judge then comes in and says he's decided otherwise, I've got a problem with that.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
You just refuse to look at the facts, since it hurts your argument. And let me be clear, if I haven't posted this enough already. I am not arguing against "gay" marriage (though I don't support it) as much as I am arguing that the federal government, once again, is trampling on the Constitution and acting where they don't have the power to act.

If a state votes to allow it, fine. The people have spoken. If a judge then comes in and says he's decided otherwise, I've got a problem with that.
Click to expand...

what facts? you havent provided any?

people dont get to vote on equal/civil rights and when they do and the issue is pushed to the courts, the courts fix it
in this case the fed did exactly what its supposed to do, it protected rights

so the problem you have is you, the judge is exactly who makes the decision just like with womans rights, minority rights and interracial marriage which were all ALSO factually equal/civil rights issues as facts and history prove.

facts, court cases, laws, rights, and court precedence all prove this, remind us, what do you have on your side to support your failed argument that beats all that besides "nu-huh" we'd love to read it
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Yeah! What Agent J said!
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
You just refuse to look at the facts, since it hurts your argument. And let me be clear, if I haven't posted this enough already. I am not arguing against "gay" marriage (though I don't support it) as much as I am arguing that the federal government, once again, is trampling on the Constitution and acting where they don't have the power to act.

If a state votes to allow it, fine. The people have spoken. If a judge then comes in and says he's decided otherwise, I've got a problem with that.
Click to expand...

And I explained to YOU....that the fed govt is NOT acting...the states and the voters are. Some states' SCOTUSes have already ruled on it's Constitutionality. And the fed level SCOTUS is/will be ruling on precedent, on the same interpretations of the Const. that supported Loving vs. VA.

Again....you have no idea what you are even complaining about. You are looking for 'legitimate' reasons to object to SSM....and are barking up the wrong tree.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

You got it, Lursa! he's just looking for excuses...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
I didn't say that at all.
Click to expand...

Well, that's what they've done. They've blocked a law that violates the equal protection clause. Yes, we know, you think the law doesn't. But quite a few judges now have decided it does. And you'll continue to ignore the mechanics of an equal protection challenge.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
Well, finally, as I expected, SCOTUS has spoken and halted gay marriage until the appeal can be heard.

Supreme Court puts gay marriages in Utah on hold - latimes.com
Click to expand...

Which puts them in basically the same position as California. They already have people who have been married, whether they approve or not. And it is not likely that they will void those marriages that have occurred (possible but not likely). And they are also not likely to rule against same sex marriage. They have already set precedent, at least to a small degree, in striking down California's ban (I realize it was a lower court, but they basically supported it by not addressing it and punting to the "no standing to appeal" ruling).

And this also puts another aspect for pushing this through the courts quickly, since many of these couples were married prior to the end of 2013, taxes. Whether or not these couples who have already married will be recognized as such on 2013 state and/or federal taxes.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
Which puts them in basically the same position as California. They already have people who have been married, whether they approve or not. And it is not likely that they will void those marriages that have occurred (possible but not likely). And they are also not likely to rule against same sex marriage. They have already set precedent, at least to a small degree, in striking down California's ban (I realize it was a lower court, but they basically supported it by not addressing it and punting to the "no standing to appeal" ruling).
Click to expand...

Depends on how the appeal goes. If it goes for Utah those marriages will be seen as null and void and set aside. It's not the SCOTUS that rules in the appeal.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
Depends on how the appeal goes. If it goes for Utah those marriages will be seen as null and void and set aside. It's not the SCOTUS that rules in the appeal.
Click to expand...

And (as I commented in my edited post), it will lead to many more lawsuits if they don't recognize those marriages that already occurred. In fact, they will have more issues by simply not recognizing those marriages because it means much more to fight and less chance of winning overall.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
Well, finally, as I expected, SCOTUS has spoken and halted gay marriage until the appeal can be heard.

Supreme Court puts gay marriages in Utah on hold - latimes.com
Click to expand...

I am of the same opinion. I also think if Kennedy is pressured on this he will side with a state's right to define marriage. I could see a major Supreme Court ruling on this case leading to a standoff that will last decades between both sides.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
And (as I commented in my edited post), it will lead to many more lawsuits if they don't recognize those marriages that already occurred. In fact, they will have more issues by simply not recognizing those marriages because it means much more to fight and less chance of winning overall.
Click to expand...

No, they'd have no legs to stand on if Utah wins the appeal. Wishful thinking on your part.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
Well, finally, as I expected, SCOTUS has spoken and halted gay marriage until the appeal can be heard.

Supreme Court puts gay marriages in Utah on hold - latimes.com
Click to expand...


It was a good call. I've said before that Judge Shelby should have issued a 30-day stay before Civil Marriages were allowed to begin specifically so that there would have been time to address a longer stay (through the appeals process) by either the 10th or the SCOTUS. Allowing Civil Marriages to begin prior to determining if the they would be put on hold during the rest of the process was a bad move.

JMHO of course.


>>>>
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
Depends on how the appeal goes. If it goes for Utah those marriages will be seen as null and void and set aside. It's not the SCOTUS that rules in the appeal.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. The Civil Marriages can (and likely will) remain valid, it's just that Utah may not be required to recognize them. They are likely to remain recognized in the other states that already recognize them and by the federal government.


>>>>
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
No, they'd have no legs to stand on if Utah wins the appeal. Wishful thinking on your part.
Click to expand...

You're wrong. Their marriages were legal when they entered into them in the state of Utah. Nulling/voiding a marriage only works if it was not legal prior to entering into the marriage. The marriage must have been illegal/under false pretenses from the start. They absolutely would have legal standing to challenge the voiding of their legal marriages.

Nullity of marriage


Rules

In order to obtain an annulment (nullity) of your alleged marriage, you must make an application (called a 'petition') to the Circuit Court or the High Court.
Void marriage

To prove to the court that your marriage is void you must show one of the following grounds:

At the time of the marriage ceremony there was a lack of capacity. In other words, you or your spouse was incapable of entering into a binding contract. This may happen where one of you was already validly married or in a civil partnership, where you are too closely related to each other or where you are of the same biological sex.
The formal requirements for a marriage ceremony were not followed. For example, you did not give due notice to the Registrar of Marriages.
At the time of the marriage, there was a lack of consent. In other words, you or your spouse did not give free and fully informed consent to the marriage. This may be due to duress, (i.e., you were forced into the marriage), mistake, misrepresentation or fraud. It may also be due to the fact that you or your spouse was suffering from a mental illness or was intoxicated at the time of the marriage.

Voidable marriage

To prove to the court that your marriage is voidable, you must show one of the following grounds:

At the time of the marriage ceremony, either party was impotent. You must show that either you or your spouse was unable to consummate the marriage. You cannot obtain a declaration of nullity because one of you is infertile or because one of you is simply refusing to consummate the marriage. It must be the case that one of you is incapable of sexual intercourse.
At the time of the marriage ceremony, either party was incapable of entering into and sustaining a proper or normal marriage relationship. This may be due to a psychiatric illness or personality disorder. It may also be due to the sexual orientation of one of the parties. For example, if you discover after you marry that your spouse is homosexual, the court may grant you an annulment.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
And I explained to YOU....that the fed govt is NOT acting...the states and the voters are. Some states' SCOTUSes have already ruled on it's Constitutionality. And the fed level SCOTUS is/will be ruling on precedent, on the same interpretations of the Const. that supported Loving vs. VA.

Again....you have no idea what you are even complaining about. You are looking for 'legitimate' reasons to object to SSM....and are barking up the wrong tree.
Click to expand...

Really? So it was not a federal judge that ruled against the vote taken in Utah? So "the fed is not acting"? But then you say "the fed level SCOTUS is/will be ruling..." So which is it? Make up your mind!
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
Really? So it was not a federal judge that ruled against the vote taken in Utah? So "the fed is not acting"? But then you say "the fed level SCOTUS is/will be ruling..." So which is it? Make up your mind!
Click to expand...

If you read the linked article - next step is the federal appeals court. After that, if one of the parties appeal, it would go to the Supreme Court who, of course, could choose not to consider it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Lursa said:
And I explained to YOU....that the fed govt is NOT acting...the states and the voters are. Some states' SCOTUSes have already ruled on it's Constitutionality. And the fed level SCOTUS is/will be ruling on precedent, on the same interpretations of the Const. that supported Loving vs. VA.

Again....you have no idea what you are even complaining about. You are looking for 'legitimate' reasons to object to SSM....and are barking up the wrong tree.
Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:
Really? So it was not a federal judge that ruled against the vote taken in Utah? So "the fed is not acting"? But then you say "the fed level SCOTUS is/will be ruling..." So which is it? Make up your mind!
Click to expand...

So, what part of the bold didnt you understand when you read it for at least the 2nd time? You even quoted it. The state and the voters pushed for SSM...they ACTED....the federal SCOTUS woud INTERPRET EXISTING precedent in their decision.

The feds didnt try to legalize SSM ANYWHERE. But just like any court, if they take the case they must rule on it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

roguenuke said:
You're wrong. Their marriages were legal when they entered into them in the state of Utah. Nulling/voiding a marriage only works if it was not legal prior to entering into the marriage. The marriage must have been illegal/under false pretenses from the start. They absolutely would have legal standing to challenge the voiding of their legal marriages.

Nullity of marriage
Click to expand...

You're dealing with judges here, they don't care what the rules are. They will rule whatever they want to rule, and figure out how to get there later. Besides, if the Supreme Court rules that way, you're pretty much done.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Anthony60 said:
You're dealing with judges here, they don't care what the rules are. They will rule whatever they want to rule, and figure out how to get there later. Besides, if the Supreme Court rules that way, you're pretty much done.
Click to expand...

@_@ I think I heard my 5 yr old nephew say something similar the other day, but it had to do with a case and a dog that bit someone.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

WorldWatcher said:
Not necessarily. The Civil Marriages can (and likely will) remain valid, it's just that Utah may not be required to recognize them. They are likely to remain recognized in the other states that already recognize them and by the federal government.


>>>>
Click to expand...

Since it's the state who authorizes those marriages I don't think so.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

IMO Its AWESOME that SCOTUS put this on hold. I hope people keep pushing and pushing and pushing all these cases as much as possible to get SCOTUS to make a ruling. And i hope a national ruling and not just one that is narrow.

Doesnt matter to me which people push it, whether its the people for equal rights or the bigots against it as long as many cases as possible are pushed up and up and up.

at this point no matter what little battles are won or lost the writing is on the wall.

Equal rights is coming and its winning, discrimination and or bigotry is losing! Bigots and people against equal rights and kick and stomp their feet all they want but the war is coming to an end and they lost, victory for america and equal rights will be here soon or later.

1/5/14 Version 3.3

18 States with Equal Rights

Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
Utah – December 20. 2013 (appealing to supreme court! :) )
Illinois - June 1, 2014 effective

21 States Working Towards Equal Rights

14 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alaska (Suit to be filed this month)
Kentucky
Idaho
Louisiana
Michigan (Feb 2014 Trial)
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (June 14 Trial)
South Carolina
Tennessee (Direct US Constitution Challenge)
Texas (Jan 2014 Trial, Direct US Constitution Challenge)
Virginia (two different suits, one involves Prop8 lawyers)
West Virginia

4 States with Court Case(s) and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Arizona
Arkansas (Decesion Pending and 2016 ballot)
Nevada
Ohio (December 2013 trial) Trial had narrow ruling that ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.

3 States with Legislation to Establish Equal Rights
Colorado
Florida
Oregon

thats 39 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

11 States That still have unequal rights and nothing pending to change it yet

Alabama
Indiana
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Georgia
North Dakota
Kansas
South Dakota
Wisconsin
Wyoming
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

clownboy said:
Since it's the state who authorizes those marriages I don't think so.
Click to expand...

They did authorize those marriages, wanna bet they have licenses that say "State of Utah" on them?

Look, I agree that they (both the State and the couples) are in a ****ty situation. That's why Judge Shelby should have held implementation of his ruling for 30-days to allow requests for stays to be processed by (a) the 10th Circuit, and (b) the SCOTUS if needed.



>>>>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom