Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 232

Thread: Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay

  1. #131
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfsgirl View Post
    The original filers had standing at the state level. The lower court ruling still stands. The governor and state officials did have standing in the lower court cases, they lost and decided not to appeal. Then another group decided to appeal, but they have no standing to do so.

    So like I said. The lower court decision, which had proper standing, stands, and they found that the state constitutional amendment was unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment.
    Yes, I know, but ask yourself, like they did, if the state refuse to appeal, who does have standing? The brief argues that in other precedent in 9th Circuit appeals, those who brought the imitative did have standing to appeal, and have done so, but in Prop 8 apparently they do not, even though the 9th circuit said they did, obviously since they heard it. Weird, eh?


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  2. #132
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,789

    Re: Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Again no facts, just your incorrect opinions. You still haven't learned that repitition of opinion does not equal fact.
    accept we do have facts and you cant present any this is why the lies you post get destroyed by multiple posters with facts every time

    Court cases concerning SSM

    Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (Massachusetts)
    In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said it was asked to determine whether Massachusetts "may deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens."


    Hollingsworth v. Perry (Cali)
    Judge Walker heard closing arguments on June 16, 2010.[90]
    On August 4, 2010, Walker announced his ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, overturning Proposition 8 based on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Walker concluded that California had no rational basis or vested interest in denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses:


    Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (Conn)
    The Court issued its opinion on October 10, 2008.[8] The Court ruled 4-3 that denying same-sex couples the right to marry, even granted them a parallel status under another name like civil unions, violated the equality and liberty provisions of the Connecticut Constitution.[9]
    Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Joette Katz, Flemming L. Norcott, Jr., and Connecticut Appellate Court Judge Lubbie Harper, Jr. (who replaced the recused Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers).[b] The Court found a substantial difference between marriages and civil unions:
    Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal.

    Varnum v. Brien (Iowa)

    The Court noted that Iowa has a long history of progressive thought on civil rights. Seventeen years before the Dred Scott decision, the Iowa Supreme Court "refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions."[10] Eighty-six years before "separate but equal" was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled such practices unconstitutional in Iowa.[10] In 1869, Iowa was the first state in the union to admit women to the bar and allow them to practice law.[10] Three years later the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois' decision to deny women admission to the bar.[10]
    The Court stated that the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution requires that laws treat alike all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law, and concluded that homosexual persons are similarly situated compared to heterosexual persons for purposes of Iowa's marriage laws.

    New Mexico Supreme Court
    On December 19, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state constitution required the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples.[90][91] Its decision said that the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution required that "All rights, protections, and responsibilities that result from the marital relationship shall apply equally to both same-gender and opposite-gender married couples."[92] The decision made New Mexico the 17th state to recognize same-sex marriages.[93] The following day, the clerk and chief deputy clerk in Roosevelt County resigned. The clerk said she could not comply with the court's ruling with "a clear conscience" and added: "I felt like I'd be letting down the majority of people who voted for me."[94]
    In response to the Supreme Court decision, state Senator Bill Sharer proposed a joint resolution that, if passed by both houses of the legislature, would put a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman to a popular vote. January 6, 2014, Governor Martinez said she would not support efforts to reverse the Supreme Court's decision by enacting a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. She said: "I think what I said before was that yes, the people should have decided on it, but the Supreme Court has decided.... And it's now the law of the land."[95]

    New Jersey Superior Court
    On September 27, 2013, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson, granting summary judgement to the plaintiffs, ruled that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry. Unless a higher court rules otherwise, or grants a stay, the effective date of Judge Jacobson's order legalizing same-sex marriage in New Jersey is October 21, 2013.[34]
    In her ruling, Judge Jacobson states "Since Windsor, the clear trend has been for [Federal] agencies to limit the extension of benefits to only those same-sex couples in legally recognized marriages." She points out that many of these agencies, including the IRS, CMS, and DOL, that are extending benefits to same-sex couples in a marriage, do not recognize New Jersey civil unions for benefits purposes. She points out that the proper issue before the court is whether the New Jersey civil union scheme is unconstitutional because "of the manner it is applied and incorporated by the Federal government." She goes on to reason that this disparate treatment of civil unions versus marriage raises an equal protection claim under both state and Federal constitutions, but only if a state action led to this situation. Because New Jersey enacted a civil union statute that created a "parallel" structure to marriage (the state action) and the N.J. Supreme Court deferred to the Legislature on the actual label "as long as the classifications do not discriminate arbitrarily among persons similarly situated," the situation ended up changing post-Windsor. This change leads to Judge Jacobson's determination that "the parallel legal structures created by the New Jersey Legislature therefore no longer provide same sex couples with equal access to the rights and benefits enjoyed by married heterosexual couples, violating the mandate of Lewis and the New Jersey Constitution's equal protection guarantee."[35]

    and Hawaii and New York call their legislation "Marriage Equality Act"

    i didnt look and i cant remember but id be willing to bet that other legislation has similar names or refers to equality in their verbiage also..


    so again, the fact is SSM is an equal rights issue. Facts, rights, laws, court cases and court precedent make it so. Opinions are meaningless to this fact.

    the writing is on the wall equality is winning and discrimination and bigotry is losing, america is righting one of its wrongs and fixing the unjust act of discrimination.

    #EqualRightsISWinnning
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #133
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfsgirl View Post
    No. they are not being recognized by the state. When a marriage is voided, it is like it never happened. Voiding is basically canceling. The marriages are not canceled, just put on hold.
    Once again, the state licenses, NOT the fed. If the decision goes for the state those licenses are void.

  4. #134
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,789

    Re: Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    I answered your claims several time(s) now directly.
    2.)I rest..


    Tim-
    1.)yes you "answered" with your OPINIONS and zero FACTS, I agree 100%
    2.) I can imagine arguing against facts makes you tired as its always a lossing battle
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #135
    Guru
    scatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    02-09-17 @ 10:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,721

    Re: Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfsgirl View Post
    No. they are not being recognized by the state.
    Because they are currently null and void, sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfsgirl View Post
    The group that decided to appeal did not have standing.
    Like I said, they had no standing to sue.

  6. #136
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay

    It's not an equality issue. Of the examples you posted only one mentions the 14th and that is not the prevailing decision in the matter. The rest deal with their own state constitutions. The SCOTUS had a clear opportunity to rule for the federal constitution, but they did not, essentially landlocking the decision. THAT is fact. Familiarize yourself with it.

  7. #137
    Professor
    wolfsgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,140

    Re: Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Yes, I know, but ask yourself, like they did, if the state refuse to appeal, who does have standing? The brief argues that in other precedent in 9th Circuit appeals, those who brought the imitative did have standing to appeal, and have done so, but in Prop 8 apparently they do not, even though the 9th circuit said they did, obviously since they heard it. Weird, eh?


    Tim-
    No one. If I file a wrongful death lawsuit and lose and decide not to appeal no one else has standing to file a wrongful death suit. The state is the only one that can defend its laws, they decided not to waste more money on appeals, so the case is over. Joe Blow can't just decide to file a case where he has no standing. Well he can, but it will be booted back to lower court decision just like the prop 8 case.
    " May you live as long as you wish, and love as long as you live"
    R.A. Heinlein

  8. #138
    Professor
    wolfsgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,140

    Re: Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Once again, the state licenses, NOT the fed. If the decision goes for the state those licenses are void.
    He did not VOID the marriages. He is not RECOGNIZING them until the case is finished. There is a difference. VOID means canceled. Waiting for the case to finish means on hold.
    " May you live as long as you wish, and love as long as you live"
    R.A. Heinlein

  9. #139
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Again no facts, just your incorrect opinions. You still haven't learned that repitition of opinion does not equal fact.



    Anyone who thinks (Wishes, hopes, dreams.) that the U.S. Supreme Court will support any intolerant state law that denies anyone equal rights will be disappointed.

    That is not going to happen.

    Wait and see.




    "Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

  10. #140
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfsgirl View Post
    No one. If I file a wrongful death lawsuit and lose and decide not to appeal no one else has standing to file a wrongful death suit. The state is the only one that can defend its laws, they decided not to waste more money on appeals, so the case is over. Joe Blow can't just decide to file a case where he has no standing. Well he can, but it will be booted back to lower court decision just like the prop 8 case.
    That's incorrect, the state can step in and sue. In the Prop 8 case, where the state abrogated it's duty to defend the will of the people, the people should have the standing to step in.

Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •