• 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

And the 9th and the Ca supreme court are not the US supreme court. Take it up with them if you have an issue. I would rather they have heard the case in full, but they did what they did and I have to live with the courts decision.

You're arguing the wrong point with the wrong person there. Yes, the SCOTUS ignored the rulings of both the Ninth and the CA supreme and their word is final. My argument is WHY they did so, it clearly wasn't based upon any constitutional principle, in fact just the reverse.
 
1.)Again, the fed can onl;y control what licences it will accept, they do not issue or authorize those licenses.
2.) If the issuing state puts a hold on said license there is nothing for the fed to recognise until the state activates the license.
3.) Holder doesn't have a legal say in the matter.
4.) In fact, this opens up yet another court case based upon the 10th if the IRS provides benefit while the state licenses are in limbo.
5.) The rest of your screed is just the same old repetitive nonsense you try to pass as fact.

1.) again NOBODY debated this its meaningless footer that doesnt change the fact your statments were proven 100% wrong
2.) 100% false as already proven with facts and links which trump your OPINION, it even says speciaffically they will recognize it while on hold and the state will alsw recognize them on hodl when it comes to any federal issues.

this is fact would you like to read it AGAIN? lol

3.) you are free to have this wrong opinion but facts prove you wrong
4.) see #3
5.) see #3

lets go over the facts that prove you wrong again

Feds recognize same-sex couples in Utah

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.

The action will enable the government to extend eligibility for federal benefits to these couples. That means gay and lesbian couples can file federal taxes jointly, get Social Security benefits for spouses and request legal immigration status for partners.

Attorney General Eric Holder said the families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their benefits while courts decide the issue of same-sex marriage in Utah.

In a statement Friday afternoon, Herbert's office issued a statement that said Holder's announcement was unsurprising, but state officers should comply with federal law if they're providing federal services.

your post/opinion is once again destroyed by facts


if you disagree simply provide for us what FACTS you have to support your proven wrong opinion

FACTS:
SSM is an equal rights issue

right now those 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

no amount of your opinion will change this fact
 
You're arguing the wrong point with the wrong person there. Yes, the SCOTUS ignored the rulings of both the Ninth and the CA supreme and their word is final. My argument is WHY they did so, it clearly wasn't based upon any constitutional principle, in fact just the reverse.

Read the 500 page link that Hiccup linked. That tells you their decision. I don't claim to understand how the supreme court operates, or why they make any decision they do. I just have to accept their decisions and go on with my life. I wish they had made a ruling, but they didn't. Eventually they will make a ruling on SSM.
 
Read the 500 page link that Hiccup linked. That tells you their decision. I don't claim to understand how the supreme court operates, or why they make any decision they do. I just have to accept their decisions and go on with my life. I wish they had made a ruling, but they didn't. Eventually they will make a ruling on SSM.

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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:
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-show/holder-us-recognizes-utah-same-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). 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?
 
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.
 
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-
 
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 :shrug:
 
The facts and links in post 158 proves you wrong :shrug:

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.
 
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.

yes they do and lying about it wont change this fact.
Facts already worked here, each post you make with ZERO facts to support you proves this. Thats the BEST part.
If you disagree simply post any facts that you have that make those facts not true, lol we'd love to read them.
 
They defended it to SCOTUS?

They are not required to do anything after the initial case. They lost, and didn't choose to appeal.
 
Yep, they choose to nor represent their population.

Nope. they decided not to waste taxpayer money to defend a losing case. The governor gets to make the decision to appeal or not.
 
Nope. they decided not to waste taxpayer money to defend a losing case. The governor gets to make the decision to appeal or not
.




The government of the state of Utah is likely to waste a lot of taxpayer money trying to defend an unconstitutional law that will not withstand Supreme Court scrutiny.
 
Yep, the population that voted down gay marriage.



Probably be easier to vote again (except for that fear).
You can vote until your blue in the face, but if the law you vote in is unconstitutional it will not stand. Sorry.
 
You can vote until your blue in the face, but if the law you vote in is unconstitutional it will not stand.

This sure seems like opinion (because it is).
 
yes they do and lying about it wont change this fact.
Facts already worked here, each post you make with ZERO facts to support you proves this. Thats the BEST part.
If you disagree simply post any facts that you have that make those facts not true, lol we'd love to read them.

You've once again managed to perfectly describe your own posts, good work!
 
Back
Top Bottom