• 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!

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

Rocketman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
5,660
Reaction score
1,252
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
(CNN) – Utah will not recognize the hundreds of same-sex marriages that were temporarily allowed by a federal judge's ruling but before the Supreme Court issued an injunction, the state announced Wednesday.

Officials say more than a thousand marriage licenses between gay and lesbian couples were issued in the 17 days between the initial ruling and the high court's Monday order blocking enforcement.

Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
 
That doesn't seem like the right move to me. They shouldn't just withdraw recognition of legally performed marriages.
 
That doesn't seem like the right move to me. They shouldn't just withdraw recognition of legally performed marriages.

I tend to agree, however, the legality of the matter is still at issue.

What's a few weeks/months in the big scheme of things anyway - if marriage is forever, waiting until the Supreme Court rules shouldn't be too onerous.
 
Good for Utah...... It's about time states told the feds to go **** off.....
 
I tend to agree, however, the legality of the matter is still at issue.

What's a few weeks/months in the big scheme of things anyway - if marriage is forever, waiting until the Supreme Court rules shouldn't be too onerous.

My wife would never have accepted that arrangement back in the day.
 
Good for Utah...... It's about time states told the feds to go **** off.....

Ok, I'll go along with you on that, so long as you agree that they (all states) can tell the feds to **** off on ANY issue they like.
 
My wife would never have accepted that arrangement back in the day.

I'm guessing, but I'm willing to bet the vast majority of gay couples in Utah have been living together, basically as married couples, for long stretches, perhaps years. Getting a legitimization paper from the government isn't going to change that relationship nor will waiting a few months to get it accepted. They might miss out on some state and federal sponsored benefits, but nothing they haven't been living with up until now.
 
Good for Utah...... It's about time states told the feds to go **** off.....

If you're happy about pointless and desperate gestures like this, sure. You know as well as I do how the higher courts are going to rule.
 
I'm guessing, but I'm willing to bet the vast majority of gay couples in Utah have been living together, basically as married couples, for long stretches, perhaps years. Getting a legitimization paper from the government isn't going to change that relationship nor will waiting a few months to get it accepted. They might miss out on some state and federal sponsored benefits, but nothing they haven't been living with up until now.

I hear ya, I'm just saying, let them tell it.
 
I think it's precisely what a governor who actually represents the people of his state would do in this situation. Doesn't matter how he thinks the courts will rule after this, matters that he stuck up for the will of the people of his state - there's nothing "pointless" about that.
 
I think it's precisely what a governor who actually represents the people of his state would do in this situation. Doesn't matter how he thinks the courts will rule after this, matters that he stuck up for the will of the people of his state - there's nothing "pointless" about that.

I don't think its right for a state to offer a contract legally and then renege on that later. It's not a big deal, but I don't think its right.
 
I don't think its right for a state to offer a contract legally and then renege on that later. It's not a big deal, but I don't think its right.

Yeah, except in this case the state didn't, they were forced into it by a federal judge against the wishes of the state and it's people.
 
Yeah, except in this case the state didn't, they were forced into it by a federal judge against the wishes of the state and it's people.

They still offered them even if they were being forced to. From She'by's ruling until the Supreme Court stay the marriages were legal, and I don't think the state should retroactively eliminate them.
 
I think it's precisely what a governor who actually represents the people of his state would do in this situation. Doesn't matter how he thinks the courts will rule after this, matters that he stuck up for the will of the people of his state - there's nothing "pointless" about that.

So as long as the majority want something it's ok right?
 
Yeah, except in this case the state didn't, they were forced into it by a federal judge against the wishes of the state and it's people.

They were forced into it by the United States Constitution.
 
They still offered them even if they were being forced to. From She'by's ruling until the Supreme Court stay the marriages were legal, and I don't think the state should retroactively eliminate them.

Depends upon the final court ruling. If Utah's original ban stands then yes they should. The folks who signed for the licenses knew the state's hands were being forced here and that the state was actively fighting the ruling. Sometimes the getting in through the loophole before it closes just doesn't work.
 
They were forced into it by the United States Constitution.

No, they weren't. That's not for a federal judge to decide, not part of their grant of power at all.
 
So as long as the majority want something it's ok right?

Trying staying with the context of the post you're replying to. The people of that state constitutionally banned an activity, a federal judge stepped outside his power and nullified the state constitution, the governor of the state is defending the state constitution and doing precisely what he swore in his oath of office, unlike the federal judge.
 
Depends upon the final court ruling. If Utah's original ban stands then yes they should. The folks who signed for the licenses knew the state's hands were being forced here and that the state was actively fighting the ruling. Sometimes the getting in through the loophole before it closes just doesn't work.

I can respect that, but I still disagree. I don't think states should be in the practice of reneging on contracts even in situations like this.
 
I can respect that, but I still disagree. I don't think states should be in the practice of reneging on contracts even in situations like this.

Contracts made under duress, it's a good thing when they are nullified.
 
Contracts made under duress, it's a good thing when they are nullified.

A state can't be under duress. The state was offering marriages legally for three weeks. Whether they had choice in the matter or not, those contracts should remain valid in my opinion.
 
(CNN) – Utah will not recognize the hundreds of same-sex marriages that were temporarily allowed by a federal judge's ruling but before the Supreme Court issued an injunction, the state announced Wednesday.

Officials say more than a thousand marriage licenses between gay and lesbian couples were issued in the 17 days between the initial ruling and the high court's Monday order blocking enforcement.

Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
If my weapon permit is subject to state reciprocity, then so should any marriage certificate.
 
I'm guessing, but I'm willing to bet the vast majority of gay couples in Utah have been living together, basically as married couples, for long stretches, perhaps years. Getting a legitimization paper from the government isn't going to change that relationship nor will waiting a few months to get it accepted. They might miss out on some state and federal sponsored benefits, but nothing they haven't been living with up until now.
Again the ignorance of bigotry. There are dozens of legal reasons why living together and a recognized marriage are different. Please quit with this childish representation of the legalities and rights associated with marriage.
 
Back
Top Bottom