Page 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 232

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

  1. #181
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    And Agent J, just keep repeating the same old nonsense. No matter how many times you repeat it, your opinions won't equal fact.
    translation: you have ZERO facts to support you, yes we know that, let us know when you do.
    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

  2. #182
    Professor
    wolfsgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 09:49 PM
    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
    Again, arguing the wrong point with the wrong person. I agree, the SCOTUS decision is final. My point is that they clearly went against constitution to avoid ruling on the central issue. It's my view they did so because they knew that if they heard the argument they would, constitutionally, have to rule for the state.

    And Agent J, just keep repeating the same old nonsense. No matter how many times you repeat it, your opinions won't equal fact.
    So you believe that the state had a winning case in the original case it lost, and the group that took it to the 9th and the Ca supreme court had a winning case even though they lost both times? Please explain your legal reasoning on why they should have won?
    " May you live as long as you wish, and love as long as you live"
    R.A. Heinlein

  3. #183
    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 Deuce View Post
    Hahahah you keep telling yourself that SCOTUS is going to rule against same-sex marriage.

    No, they rejected the last case on standing. See, they ruled that these "pro-family" groups don't have standing to appeal the case to SCOTUS in the first place. Because these groups aren't affected by the situation in any way. SCOTUS straight-up said that the anti-SSM crowd doesn't have a dog in the fight.
    Didn't read the link did you? I don't know if the SCOTUS will eventually rule for or against homosexual marriage. However, in denying the standing that both the Ninth and the CA supreme upheld, it gives a window into how they wish to rule but cannot. Why else would they avoid the issue so steadfastly? It's not like there haven't been cases that are clear opportunites for such a ruling, if they only took them.

    I believe it's part of the modern historical behavior of the court. They know how they wish to rule, but to ignore the constitution requires they wait until the bulk of society will look the other way.

    Roe is a great example. Had they ruled that way just a decade prior every one of them would have been impeached and the court set on it's end. The court has gone extra constitutional, long having abandoned their oaths and duty. They are now cast as social engineers and their tool is the "living document".
    Last edited by clownboy; 01-10-14 at 06:48 PM.

  4. #184
    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 AGENT J View Post
    translation: you have ZERO facts to support you, yes we know that, let us know when you do.
    Another excellent, on point self-descriptor.

  5. #185
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Another excellent, on point self-descriptor.
    its awesome that you have nothing else and you continue to deny facts.

    lets look at the facts again:

    Fact 1:
    right now those UTAH marriages are 100% legal and recognized by the fed granting all LEGAL and LAWFUL federal rights to them, the state will also be granting any FEDERAL rights to them too, so NO they are factually NOT meaningless and YES they do have force of law behind them

    Proof:
    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...-sex-marriages

    The legal status of same-sex married couples in Utah has become a little murky in recent days. Attorney General Eric Holder tried to bring some clarity to the issue this afternoon.

    Last month, a federal court struck down Utah’s ban on marriage equality, immediately opening the door to equal-marriage rights statewide. Roughly 1,300 couples took advantage of the opportunity and tied the legally recognized knot.

    The U.S. Supreme Court, however, issued a stay this week, reinstating Utah’s ban while the appeals process unfolds. And as Adam Serwer explained, state officials “took the additional step of telling the couples who were married in the meantime that, in the eyes of the state of Utah, while the litigation is ongoing, those marriages don’t count.”

    AG Holder offered a response today, letting those same couples know that as far as the federal government is concerned, their marriages do count. For those who can’t watch clips online, he said in a new video:

    “Last June, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision – in United States v. Windsor – holding that Americans in same-sex marriages are entitled to equal protection and equal treatment under the law. This ruling marked a historic step toward equality for all American families. And since the day it was handed down, the Department of Justice has been working tirelessly to implement it in both letter and spirit – moving to extend – federal benefits to married same-sex couples as swiftly and smoothly as possible.

    “Recently, an administrative step by the court has cast doubt on same-sex marriages that have been performed in the state of Utah. And the governor has announced that the state will not recognize these marriages pending additional court action.

    “In the meantime, I am confirming today that, for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages. These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds. In the days ahead, we will continue to coordinate across the federal government to ensure the timely provision of every federal benefit to which Utah couples and couples throughout the country are entitled – regardless of whether they in same-sex or opposite-sex marriages. And we will continue to provide additional information as soon as it becomes available.”
    Facts > your wrong opinion

    Fact 2
    SSM is an equal rights issue has determined by rights, laws, facts, court cases and court prcedence

    Proof: COurt cases and dealing with 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 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]

    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] 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"

    Facts > your wrong opinion

    remind us all what you have support your proven wrong posts?
    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

  6. #186
    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

    Repeat the same debunked nonsense, deny any other opinions, and then repeat. I know you enjoy the pattern you've established, the rest of us see through it.

  7. #187
    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 Deuce View Post
    And if you want to understand why all of those reasons have been rejected, you read the Prop 8 case material. All of it.

    There, I'm done. I've proven why same-sex marriage bans are wrong!
    hehe.. Umkay.. I've read every motion, every filing since the beginning, so please forgive me if I take your opinion of the case and flush it where it belongs.

    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

  8. #188
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,827

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

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Repeat the same debunked nonsense, deny any other opinions, and then repeat. I know you enjoy the pattern you've established, the rest of us see through it.
    The facts and links in post 158 proves you wrong
    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

  9. #189
    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 shrubnose View Post
    No state has the right to deny any of its citizens the rights that it grants to others.
    Marriage recognition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain America View Post
    If I ran the government..... I would keep it simple.....
    You left off this part, and pay for those than want them.

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfsgirl View Post
    The state DID defend the law, and failed.
    They defended it to SCOTUS?

  10. #190
    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 AGENT J View Post
    The facts and links in post 158 proves you wrong
    No, they don't. Probably why you needed to roll another thread on this, because deep down you know your adopted rinse, repeat tactic isn't working for you here.

Page 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... 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
  •