• 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

Like how?

Federal funding?

So what.

The feds cant do anything.... They're like North Korea with all the **** they talk....

What the hell can they actually do?

A state could secede right now and no one that has the actual capability to fight it would (civil war)....

Yes, federal funding IS a big deal. Not to mention all the other little ways the fed could make things very uncomfortable for the state. Like requiring federal oversight for every single administrative department the state has, from police to accounting. The IRS could go into overtime checking and rechecking every Utah politicians and business tax filings and charging them for the pleasure.

Again, not saying it's right, just saying it's where we are.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

There are so many ways the federal can punish states for ignoring their proclamations. I understand your frustration at the creeping loss of the United States portion of the United States of America.

on this issue nothing is lost
the fed is doing the right thing and protecting equal rights

it should do the same thing on states that are infringing on guns rights too
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

on this issue nothing is lost
the fed is doing the right thing and protecting equal rights

it should do the same thing on states that are infringing on guns rights too

It isn't and it won't. The only reason there isn't more invocation of the 10th in federal courts is that the SCOTUS doesn't want to reinforce the existence of the tenth, they want it dead and forgotten. The tenth doesn't allow the current federal uber alles system to exist.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

It isn't and it won't. The only reason there isn't more invocation of the 10th in federal courts is that the SCOTUS doesn't want to reinforce the existence of the tenth, they want it dead and forgotten. The tenth doesn't allow the current federal uber alles system to exist.

the 10th isnt being infringed on in this case, thats why its not brought up :shrug:
the fed is protecting individual rights just like it should
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

the 10th isnt being infringed on in this case, thats why its not brought up :shrug:
the fed is protecting individual rights just like it should

No, they're protecting the federal "right" to say what are rights and what aren't. Not at all based upon the Constitution which mentions neither marriage nor sexual orientation.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Yes, federal funding IS a big deal. Not to mention all the other little ways the fed could make things very uncomfortable for the state. Like requiring federal oversight for every single administrative department the state has, from police to accounting. The IRS could go into overtime checking and rechecking every Utah politicians and business tax filings and charging them for the pleasure.

Again, not saying it's right, just saying it's where we are.

So what?

What can they actually do?

Nothing!

Cut off the federal government entirely and operate as your own independent republic via secession.

What can the government actually do to prevent that?

War??? lol.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

1.)No, they're protecting the federal "right" to say what are rights and what aren't.
2.)Not at all based upon the Constitution which mentions neither marriage nor sexual orientation.

1.) nope they are protecting individual rights/equal rights as factually proven in the cases already
2.) doesnt have to LMAO
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

So what?

What can they actually do?

Nothing!

Cut off the federal government entirely and operate as your own independent republic via secession.

What can the government actually do to prevent that?

War??? lol.

C'mon, don't jump the shark. At the extreme, Utah could be treated just like every other Indian reservation operating within the US. How would the seceded state make one dollar when their exports and imports would be controlled. Last I looked Utah is land locked.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

1.) nope they are protecting individual rights/equal rights as factually proven in the cases already
2.) doesnt have to LMAO

Yes, it does "have to". For example, how did women gain the right to vote in federal elections? Constitutional amendment. Some states already allowed women to vote, but then only in state elections, why? Because it was not in the US Constitution. And no, they are not protecting any constitutional right, the ONLY rights they are granted to protect.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

So what?

What can they actually do?

Nothing!

Cut off the federal government entirely and operate as your own independent republic via secession.

What can the government actually do to prevent that?

War??? lol.

this is funny, you want to leave america because people are being granted equal rights, well i guess that makes sense since being against equal rights isnt american.

theres an easier way though simply lever the country since you dont believe in equal rights and freedom.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

this is funny, you want to leave america because people are being granted equal rights, well i guess that makes sense since being against equal rights isnt american.

theres an easier way though simply lever the country since you dont believe in equal rights and freedom.

Or you could leave since you don't believe in the US Constitution or the system made by Constitution. Equal rights under the US and state's constitutions is not equal to your concept of equal rights.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

1.)Yes, it does "have to". For example, how did women gain the right to vote in federal elections? Constitutional amendment. Some states already allowed women to vote, but then only in state elections, why? Because it was not in the US Constitution.
2.) And no, they are not protecting any constitutional right, the ONLY rights they are granted to protect.

1.)no it doesnt have to, this fact will never change
your example is meaningless to facts laws, and rights it doesnt impact it
2.) yes they are protecting rights just like they did with minority rights, womens rights and interracial marriage. Again court cases, court precedent, laws, rights and facts all prove this and your opinions dont impact it

fact remains this is a equal rights issue and the fed is doing thier job, they are doing it slow but they are doing it
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

1.)Or you could leave since you don't believe in the US Constitution or the system made by Constitution.
2.)Equal rights under the US and state's constitutions is not equal to your concept of equal rights.

1.) you can post this lie a million times facts prove it wrong and i love that my county is protecting my fellow americans and protecting thier equal rights sorry equal rights angers you and you support discrimination.
2.) not my concept its fact has was proven earlier

facts defeat and destory your post again

it is factually an equal rights issue
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Now the governor of Utah says that none of the marriages that have already happened will be recognized by the state.

Utah Will Not Recognize Same-Sex Marriages That Have Already Been Performed: Governor's Office

This will bring more lawsuits that the state will have to defend and probably will not succeed at doing so. The reality is that in order to legally void or annul a marriage, the state has to show that the marriage was not legal to begin with. As of the latest ruling, the marriages that have already occurred are legal, whether the state approves of them or not. Should the state try to void these marriages, then they will face another lawsuit, a huge one. And when the couples win (because it is almost certain that they will win), this will simply show how much money the ignorant people like the governor are willing to waste to fight equality in marriage.

Void Marriage Law & Legal Definition

And it is not legal by Utah state law for the governor to simply void these marriages. It would have to go to court.

Utah State Courts - Marriage

Note that nothing in this says that same sex marriages in Utah are void.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Nope, the state has issued licences and can revoke them as well for state reasons.

Wrong. The license has already been used. The marriage license is for the couple to get married, enter into the marriage contract. As soon as the "marriage license" is validated it becomes a contract. It is no longer a license.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Wrong. The license has already been used. The marriage license is for the couple to get married, enter into the marriage contract. As soon as the "marriage license" is validated it becomes a contract. It is no longer a license.

Unless of course it is illegal to recognize it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

1.) you can post this lie a million times facts prove it wrong and i love that my county is protecting my fellow americans and protecting thier equal rights sorry equal rights angers you and you support discrimination.
2.) not my concept its fact has was proven earlier

facts defeat and destory your post again

it is factually an equal rights issue

The only fact is none of that is true and that it is solely your opinion.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Wrong. The license has already been used. The marriage license is for the couple to get married, enter into the marriage contract. As soon as the "marriage license" is validated it becomes a contract. It is no longer a license.

No. The state can annul any marriage contract that is not in accordance with state law.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

There is no need to lie on every post. More irony, that the left's so-called empathy is destroying this country and making things worse for everyone.

Yes, you think empathy is such a foreign concept that it must be fabricated. We get it.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Yes, it does "have to". For example, how did women gain the right to vote in federal elections? Constitutional amendment. Some states already allowed women to vote, but then only in state elections, why? Because it was not in the US Constitution. And no, they are not protecting any constitutional right, the ONLY rights they are granted to protect.

No it doesn't have to. Interracial marriage is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Segregation is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Jim Crow laws were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Sodomy was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

The problem is that too many people think that the Constitution is supposed to mention every right specifically that it protects. It isn't. The entire point of the Constitution is to limit the powers of government from taking away rights. And the 14th Amendment ensured that the Constitution, particularly the rights of the citizens are protected from state governments taking rights from the people.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

No. The state can annul any marriage contract that is not in accordance with state law.

And according to the court, the law in question is, as of right now, invalid, so the marriage contracts were valid when the people entered into them. The governor/state must show that the laws were valid when the marriages were entered into and that they shouldn't have been allowed to enter into those marriages.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Why Anthony thinks you're telling a lie, I have no idea.

Here is the lie right here...

I know you don't understand that someone could feel empathy for a minority group that is being discriminated against,

I usually don't call them out, but it's happening too much in this thread, especially by someone else.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Unless of course it is illegal to recognize it.

As of right now, it isn't. The court ruled to make the laws that would make same sex marriages illegal to enter into invalid, so that means it was legal for those couples to enter into marriage when they did.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

The only fact is none of that is true and that it is solely your opinion.

you keep saying this lie but nobody educated, honest falls for it. Facts were posted that destroy your posts and its hilarious. You have nothign besides saying "nu-huh"

fact remains its an equal rights issue and your failed opinions will never be able to change that post 1327 proves that fact and proves you wrong

if you have any facts that prove otherwise simple post them

who wants to take bets this request is dodged again?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

No it doesn't have to. Interracial marriage is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Segregation is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Jim Crow laws were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Sodomy was not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

The problem is that too many people think that the Constitution is supposed to mention every right specifically that it protects. It isn't. The entire point of the Constitution is to limit the powers of government from taking away rights. And the 14th Amendment ensured that the Constitution, particularly the rights of the citizens are protected from state governments taking rights from the people.

wheres a womans right not to be raped come from? is that in the constitution? :)
 
Back
Top Bottom