• 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 said:
Fact are in the op, your failure to grasp is on you, you lost, take it like a man. PS California has nothing to do with Utah, talk about failed deflection
Click to expand...

nothing in the OP supports you, not one thing LOL

FACTS: the marriages issued are 100% intact and legal and all those people are still factually and legally married as far as the FED is concerned and any other state that recognizes equal rights. Facts defeat your post again. See California cases. No amount of yout opinion will change this fact but its hilarious watching you try.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) ding ding ding, correct as far as YOU can tell which is meaningless but facts and the dictionary also disagree with your ability to tell
2.) but there are facts, you ignoring them doesn't change reality, your ability to deny them doesnt impact thier existence. SO the solution is very simply, preset ANY facts that make my usage wrong, Heck just present ONE fact. You cant, you wont and you will never be able to because you are factually wrong.
3.) by definition it makes him a bigot, if you dont like this fact thats your issue but his words and the definition of the word all prove you wrong.
4.) no there are none because opinions done impact fact. Bigots also though they had good reason to deny women and minorities equal rights too. All those illogical mentally retarded reasons were destoryed and proved wrong then and the same remains true today about those wanting to deny gays equal rights. But you are free to stand by your reasons all you want. ALso note i have no intrest in changing your OPINION i just pointed out the fact that OPINION is the rest of us are dealing in FACTS.
5.) yes we all get that, you dont see it because you are biased and want to deny facts based on your OPINION lol
6.) yes you have and you lost just like every other time continuing my entertainment

7.) weird dont recall ever saying there was. oh thats right i didnt just a meaningless desperate strawman that impacts nothing
8.) also meaningless to the topic, why dont you just say yellow is a color, FACT, that has just as much impact lol
9.) see #8
10.) voice of the people meaningless to equal rights, see womans rights, minority rights and interracial marriage
11.) translation you are running out of lies, deflections and meaningless failed starmen and facts are still winning

once again FACTS > Tims opinion

he is factually a bigot and SSM is factually and equal rights issue

if you disagree simply provide any FACTS that prove otherwise, i bet you cant
Click to expand...



1. Facts and the dictionary PROVE you wrong, want to see. Definition of FACT - "1.something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true" Definition of Bigot - "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas". The idea being "fairly" as the key to why you use it incorrectly. As I have explained previously to you, rationale, and fair depends on ones perspective and their interpretation of issues and events.
2. You have presented no facts that say the Governor of Utah is a bigot.
3. No it doesn't and I have shown you that the definition of what you think a bigot is, and what a bigot actually is, are not consistent with contemporary understanding.
4. Ah, but see now we're getting somewhere. You're still using bigotry in the wrong context. Not everyone that was against elevating the rights of minorities and or women were bigots. There were very good rational reasons at the time and these opinions were shared by a great many. You use equal rights as if there is some magical understanding that all people regardless of any circumstance are all necessarily equal. You're comparing the plight of homosexuals to that of race and gender, yet I find no common sense reason to do so. My assertion is that homosexuality is a choice per say, not always conscious and often unconscious, but still a choice in that we choose to put ourselves in positions where the causal nature (Still not yet understood) of homosexuality influences our normal heterosexual potential. Now you are free to disagree with that assertion, and I have no facts to back me up, but then again, neither do you. What you can present is a political effort to sway the light science communities to portray an alternative scenario in which homosexuality is not a mental state that can be prevented, but one of biology, and completely out of the control of the individual.
5. I don't deny anything. I've vested a great deal of time on the subject and have way more knowledge of it than you do, and that much is obvious. I am open minded on the subject, and have stated many times that if homosexuality were proven to be mostly or entirely biological, I would put on a gay pride shirt and march right along side them. I'm still waiting on that evidence.
6. I know that makes you feel better.
7. Weird? Hmm... But you imply in your arguments that equal rights is something that transcends all of man's whimsical nature, and that men who, by their whimsical nature deny equality, are they themselves bigots for doing so. So, by logical extension, if men decide what rights we have, then isn't it equally logical that men can also decide what rights we should not have? I guess my question to would be, whom do you define as "man"?
8. No, I chose that path of argument specifically to show you up. I know it was a little mean on my part, but I wanted to illustrate just how incoherent you are on the subject matter when applied to a more advanced level of understanding. Your arguments from what I've seen are superficial, and never really approach meaningful debate that include intangible factors and variables that promote honest discussion.
9. See #8? You originally claimed or implied that you had the facts, and the facts were that this judge had it right, and that the Governor of Utah was a bigot because he chose the side of the people who chose freely and without duress to choose to not sanction gay marriage in their state. Now, you're saying that any reference to the fundamental structure of our laws, the constitution is not applicable to any debate on that subject matter?
10. No, se that's where you wrong. The voice of the people does matter, and I argue that in matters where society can be impacted it is not only wise to seek the peoples opinion in a free society, but they have a duty and responsibility to offer it. You equating homosexual marriage to race and gender is a non sequitor, and you should know it by now.
11. I'm not running out of anything but patience.
12. Once again I've never claimed my opinion to be anything other than an opinion of my interpretation of issues and events.
13. No he's not, but SSM might be an equal rights issue, and that's for society to eventually decide.
14. Here again with the facts thingy. ;)


Tim-
 
What if they simply have their private marriage contract Recorded with that office for full faith and credit purposes? There is no need for an "official" ceremony for a natural right and purely private Act.
 
CanadaJohn said:
It wasn't an argument for or against, simply a statement of the reality of the moment.
Click to expand...
This is a debate site. As such everything is read under the light that it's an argument. The only reason to bring up cohabitation is to say SSM should be legal because gays are living together anyway.
 
Jerry said:
This is a debate site. As such everything is read under the light that it's an argument. The only reason to bring up cohabitation is to say SSM should be legal because gays are living together anyway.
Click to expand...

No, it was brought up to indicate that if gay couples had to wait a few months for the courts to work it out, their lives would not be appreciably altered simply because the majority had already been cohabiting before they got the marriage license.

My comments had nothing to do with the pros or cons of gay marriage, simple had to do with the legal process and timing.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Do you believe the State of Utah was offering these marriage licenses? I thought it was similar to California/San Francisco, where a Mayor granted licenses against State law and the referendum while the matter was still in the courts. I don't know how Utah is governed, but I believe local municipalities offer marriage licenses.
Click to expand...

Well yes it is the local counties I believe that offer them. But unlike in the San Francisco case they were legal when they were given out and I think they ought not be retroactively voided.
 
Anagram said:
Well yes it is the local counties I believe that offer them. But unlike in the San Francisco case they were legal when they were given out and I think they ought not be retroactively voided.
Click to expand...

Well, you could argue, as the State might, that while the State still had the time and ability to appeal a lesser court's ruling, they weren't actually legal. No court matter that is subject to appeal to a higher court is "settled" until such time as the last court of appeal has heard the matter and ruled or until the losing side waives their right of appeal. In this case, seems that some local counties decided to process some licenses for the very reason you state - once granted, it would seem unfair to retroactively void them. But put yourself in the State's position - if they are eventually successful, they are going to void them anyway, so that would make it even harder on some, wouldn't it?
 
Hicup said:
Equality under the law... LOL, you're kidding right? How many laws in this nation have organizations been exempt from, heck entire states have been given exemption from national laws, the ACA is a prime example if you need a recent one. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

Equal protection can be circumvented if the correct level of state interest is shown.

Name that interest in preventing a same-sex marriage.
 
CanadaJohn said:
So why is there a court case?
Click to expand...

Because there's an appeal to the decision. Issuing the certificates wasn't against state law because the state law had been overturned by the court.
 
Deuce said:
Equal protection can be circumvented if the correct level of state interest is shown.

Name that interest in preventing a same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Sums up my take on the rationale behind denying gay marriage quite nicely.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Prop.-8-petition-7-31-12.pdf

It's long but well worth the read if you or anyone else is truly interested in why society has the right and responsibility to oppose gay marriage. I doubt you'll read it, as every time I've posted it, the person I've posted it for clams up. Will you, Deuce?


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Sums up my take on the rationale behind denying gay marriage quite nicely.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Prop.-8-petition-7-31-12.pdf

It's long but well worth the read if you or anyone else is truly interested in why society has the right and responsibility to oppose gay marriage. I doubt you'll read it, as every time I've posted it, the person I've posted it for clams up. Will you, Deuce?


Tim-
Click to expand...

It's 497 pages, it doesn't "sum up" anything. Don't act like you're going for open and honest debate here. Explain the rationale yourself, don't give people a book to read and think you've won an argument.

Hell, don't even act like you have read it, because we all know you haven't.
 
Last edited:
Feds recognize same-sex couples in Utah
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Obama administration extended federal recognition to the marriages of more than 1,000 same-sex couples in Utah that took place before the Supreme Court put those unions in the state on hold

Feds recognize same-sex couples in Utah
 
Deuce said:
It's 497 pages, it doesn't "sum up" anything. Don't act like you're going for open and honest debate here. Explain the rationale yourself, don't give people a book to read and think you've won an argument.

Hell, don't even act like you have read it, because we all know you haven't.
Click to expand...

So that's a no? In terms of legal language this appeals brief is a summation of the questions surrounding the Prop 8 decision. What you think legal briefs are short? LOL.. I've never read a short one, perhaps you can show me one. In legal circles, you must be formal in your language, you must provide a timetable of events, and you must make arguments for each event and ask the court to review each based on the merits. IN an appeals brief, you're essentially asking the court to review the evidence, and the facts, and consider precedence where applicable. In short, the 9th circuit relied on a misapplication of previous decisions, it misapplied the precedence of its own courts decisions regarding how they handled similar challenges as ballot initiatives, and it also misapplied and misinterpreted how to apply a rational basis test in Prop 8. The 9th circuit relied on other states decisions that were dissimilar in context and outcome to form their majority opinion. The court, it was argued, was making law, in spite of the will of the people on a matter that was in every legally recognizable way, and based even on the courts own previous rulings, a matter left to the people to decide for themselves. Due process was served, and equal protection on a rational basis was met, and yet the court still struck down Prop 8. The brief argues that the court in its peculiar interpretation of the precedence was erroneous and egregiously legislating form the bench. It asks the SCOTUS to acknowledge these concerns and return to the people the amendment seeking to grant marriage to only that of a man and a woman, and to preserve the right of homosexuals to form civil unions. People forget that in Prop 8 they did not seek to take away rights to civil unions that was already granted in a prior legislative measure, but only to protect the traditional designation of marriage to that of a man and a woman. Still the 9th circuit ruled in its majority decision that it was the purpose of the people to punish by animosity a select group of individuals based on an unpopular charcter trait.

Of course it's more in-depth in the brief, and if you truly want to understand the reasoning behind upholding traditional marriage then read the damn thing, but as I predicted, you won't as it doesn't fit with your narrative that all that are against gay marriage are mean spirited homophobic bigots.. So continue on.


Tim-
 
Deuce said:
Because there's an appeal to the decision. Issuing the certificates wasn't against state law because the state law had been overturned by the court.
Click to expand...

What circular nonsense. You just finished telling me there was no law and now you say there was a state law but it was overturned by a court. Well, guess what, the court decision was appealled and stayed, so that means the state law is still in force until such time as the higher court rules.

It's really not that difficult to follow.
 
winston53660 said:
Feds recognize same-sex couples in Utah
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Obama administration extended federal recognition to the marriages of more than 1,000 same-sex couples in Utah that took place before the Supreme Court put those unions in the state on hold

Feds recognize same-sex couples in Utah
Click to expand...

The interesting part is how Holder agrees the governor can choose to not recognize the marriages.
 
Hicup said:
1. Facts and the dictionary PROVE you wrong, want to see. Definition of FACT - "1.something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true" Definition of Bigot - "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas". The idea being "fairly" as the key to why you use it incorrectly. As I have explained previously to you, rationale, and fair depends on ones perspective and their interpretation of issues and events.
2. You have presented no facts that say the Governor of Utah is a bigot.
3. No it doesn't and I have shown you that the definition of what you think a bigot is, and what a bigot actually is, are not consistent with contemporary understanding.
4. Ah, but see now we're getting somewhere. You're still using bigotry in the wrong context. Not everyone that was against elevating the rights of minorities and or women were bigots. There were very good rational reasons at the time and these opinions were shared by a great many. You use equal rights as if there is some magical understanding that all people regardless of any circumstance are all necessarily equal. You're comparing the plight of homosexuals to that of race and gender, yet I find no common sense reason to do so. My assertion is that homosexuality is a choice per say, not always conscious and often unconscious, but still a choice in that we choose to put ourselves in positions where the causal nature (Still not yet understood) of homosexuality influences our normal heterosexual potential. Now you are free to disagree with that assertion, and I have no facts to back me up, but then again, neither do you. What you can present is a political effort to sway the light science communities to portray an alternative scenario in which homosexuality is not a mental state that can be prevented, but one of biology, and completely out of the control of the individual.
5. I don't deny anything. I've vested a great deal of time on the subject and have way more knowledge of it than you do, and that much is obvious. I am open minded on the subject, and have stated many times that if homosexuality were proven to be mostly or entirely biological, I would put on a gay pride shirt and march right along side them. I'm still waiting on that evidence.
6. I know that makes you feel better.
7. Weird? Hmm... But you imply in your arguments that equal rights is something that transcends all of man's whimsical nature, and that men who, by their whimsical nature deny equality, are they themselves bigots for doing so. So, by logical extension, if men decide what rights we have, then isn't it equally logical that men can also decide what rights we should not have? I guess my question to would be, whom do you define as "man"?
8. No, I chose that path of argument specifically to show you up. I know it was a little mean on my part, but I wanted to illustrate just how incoherent you are on the subject matter when applied to a more advanced level of understanding. Your arguments from what I've seen are superficial, and never really approach meaningful debate that include intangible factors and variables that promote honest discussion.
9. See #8? You originally claimed or implied that you had the facts, and the facts were that this judge had it right, and that the Governor of Utah was a bigot because he chose the side of the people who chose freely and without duress to choose to not sanction gay marriage in their state. Now, you're saying that any reference to the fundamental structure of our laws, the constitution is not applicable to any debate on that subject matter?
10. No, se that's where you wrong. The voice of the people does matter, and I argue that in matters where society can be impacted it is not only wise to seek the peoples opinion in a free society, but they have a duty and responsibility to offer it. You equating homosexual marriage to race and gender is a non sequitor, and you should know it by now.
11. I'm not running out of anything but patience.
12. Once again I've never claimed my opinion to be anything other than an opinion of my interpretation of issues and events.
13. No he's not, but SSM might be an equal rights issue, and that's for society to eventually decide.
14. Here again with the facts thingy. ;)


Tim-
Click to expand...
Boom called it! just like i said you CANT, all you did is regurgitate lies and opinions that dont fool anybody educated, honest and objective. That was awesome thank you again for the entertainment.

great long post but guess what, you could have simply saved yourself time and said the truth, "NO agent J i have no facts to support me"


facts still remains your opinions have ZERO impact
you posting lies over and over again will never change anything

he is factually a bigot by definition
SSM is factually an equal rights issues as facts, rights, laws, court cases and court precedent prove

remind me again what you have on your side besides "nu-huh" because you dont like it

thansk for proving me right tim and showing you have NOTHING, ZIP, ZERO ZILCH to change the facts

and incase you didnt understand the question ill ask again, if you disagree simply provide any FACTS that prove otherwise, i bet you wont and can . . . again
 
Rocketman said:
(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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...




Sounds like Utah is going to spend a lot of money and time in court.

This will end up costing Utah a lot.

Don't be surprised if Utah ends up having to pay a lot of people a lot of money.

Utah has made a bet that it is going to lose-bigtime.

There is no upside for the state of Utah (And some other intolerant states.) in this situation.

Wait and see.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Feds recognize same-sex couples in Utah
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Obama administration extended federal recognition to the marriages of more than 1,000 same-sex couples in Utah that took place before the Supreme Court put those unions in the state on hold

Feds recognize same-sex couples in Utah
Click to expand...

yep just like i said, those marriages are 100% legal and valid according to FED and all other states that recognize equal rights for americans.
 
AGENT J said:
yep just like i said, those marriages are 100% legal and valid according to FED and all other states that recognize equal rights for americans.
Click to expand...

Not in Utah, they are 100 percent null and void, and this was confirmed by Holder to be 100 percent legal and allowable.

winston53660 said:
Where di holder say that?
Click to expand...

If it was illegal do you think Holder would not share that?
 
AGENT J said:
Boom called it! just like i said you CANT, all you did is regurgitate lies and opinions that dont fool anybody educated, honest and objective. That was awesome thank you again for the entertainment.
Click to expand...

And there we have it, a perfect self-description. Once realization finally dawns upon you, you'll finally have arrived.
 
scatt said:
Not in Utah, they are 100 percent null and void, and this was confirmed by Holder to be 100 percent legal and allowable.



If it was illegal do you think Holder would not share that?
Click to expand...


You are just making **** up now that wasnt sais or even implied
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom