• 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!

Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage[W:780]

Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Just keep pumping out those lies...

Please explain how they are lies. If you think they are lies, then obviously you know the truth...please enlighten me.

Here you go, please feel free to be specific:

Lursa said:
So you couldnt. You then DO recognize that a family thru gay marriage is no different than a straight family that used IVF, has biological step children, adopted, etc?

Good. See...facts are your friends!
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

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). 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.

#Human/Civil/EqualRightsRWinnning
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

But it does have to do with how our constitution works, and how equal protection works. There's a century's worth of constitutional law based on this. The burden is on the state to justify a gender-based classification, it doesn't matter whether it's a state's right to define marriage or not. Federal or state, either has to justify it under equal protection. They have failed. Therefore defining marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.
No, that is your opinion, that has not been established. That is the argument of the left. I guess it's just been overlooked for over two centuries by our courts, politicians, gays, etc...

Before someone mentions polygamy again, gender is a protected classification, hence the requirement for a state interest. "Number of persons" is not a protected classification.

That does not matter one bit, and you should know it. They will go to court for their new rights. And, I predict, the left will be supporting them, and for the exact same reason they support gays, votes.

There are children literally starving to death in Africa, therefore you don't get to whine about communism.

A joke, I hope. Do you even get the irony? Communisim - starvation... get it?
Otherwise, no one could argue just about anything, including gay marriage.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

That does not matter one bit, and you should know it. They will go to court for their new rights. And, I predict, the left will be supporting them, and for the exact same reason they support gays, votes.

I know you don't understand that someone could feel empathy for a minority group that is being discriminated against, but some of us actually do. Some of us actually care about individual freedom for people other than ourselves. Since same-sex marriage has no effect on my life, I have no business denying that right to others, and as an American I feel obligated to support that freedom for others.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

1.)No, that is your opinion, that has not been established.
2.) That is the argument of the left.
3.) I guess it's just been overlooked for over two centuries by our courts, politicians, gays, etc...
4.) That does not matter one bit, and you should know it. They will go to court for their new rights.
5.) And, I predict, the left will be supporting them, and for the exact same reason they support gays, votes.

1.) no its a fact as already proven
2.) also it has very little to do with the left, this straw man fails every time you mention it since plenty on the right/conservatives support equal rights.
3.) overlooked? you mean like equal rights for women and minorities were and like interracial marriage?
4.) 100% CORRECT . . . . "NEW" rights not equal and theres no case precedent from hetero/homo sexual marriage they can use, and they are free to do so but it will have nothing to do with hetero/homo sexual marriage
5.) see #2 this strawman already failed
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I know you don't understand that someone could feel empathy for a minority group that is being discriminated against, but some of us actually do. Some of us actually care about individual freedom for people other than ourselves. Since same-sex marriage has no effect on my life, I have no business denying that right to others, and as an American I feel obligated to support that freedom for others.

not some, the majority actually do but thats just a bonus since it doesnt matter to equal/civil rights

but you are correct the majority of people support equal rights RIGHT and LEFT and dont support discrimination and or bigotry against equality.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I know you don't understand that someone could feel empathy for a minority group that is being discriminated against, but some of us actually do. Some of us actually care about individual freedom for people other than ourselves. Since same-sex marriage has no effect on my life, I have no business denying that right to others, and as an American I feel obligated to support that freedom for others.

also something about this EXCELLENT point

while i totally understand if some dont feel obligated and or simply cant support it because of personal reasons religious views etc, as an american they most certainly should NOT fight against it and try to stop it, if they do that is purely hypocritical and bigoted. But they can FEEL its wrong all they want.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I know you don't understand that someone could feel empathy for a minority group that is being discriminated against, but some of us actually do. Some of us actually care about individual freedom for people other than ourselves. Since same-sex marriage has no effect on my life, I have no business denying that right to others, and as an American I feel obligated to support that freedom for others.

There is no need to lie on every post. More irony, that the left's so-called empathy is destroying this country and making things worse for everyone.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Now the governor of Utah says that none of the marriages that have already happened will be recognized by the state.

Utah Will Not Recognize Same-Sex Marriages That Have Already Been Performed: Governor's Office

going by other court cases he doesnt get to make that decision, that too would have to go to court even if equal rights is not established in Utah. They can be currently stayed but thats it. And even that is a grey area.

Just chest pounding from a bigot.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Let's see, the chief executive has no say in something that falls within his duties to administer? Interesting concept. If that is the case, we ARE ruled exclusively by the judiciary. I don't recall that particular constitutional grant for state or federal.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

What im hoping for is that this gets pushed and pushed and the decision itslef actually makes it to the supreme court, that would be awesome.

The faster people push it to them the faster equal rights for gays will be national!

I love all the victories equal rights is having but its gonna be awesome when the last nail in the coffin against bigotry and or discrimination is driven home!

Maybe this Utah case will be one of the major parts, there are some other lining up to make it to SCOTUS too. I cant wait, makes me proud as an american to be alive and witness this greatness! I hope Utah is on of the final straws.

#BigotryIsLosing
#equalRightsIsWinning

just a reminder im leaving Utah on the list unless its over turned

1/5/14 Version 3.3

18 States with Equal Rights

Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
Utah – December 20. 2013 (appealed stay supreme court! :) )
Illinois - June 1, 2014 effective

21 States Working Towards Equal Rights

14 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alaska (Suit to be filed this month)
Kentucky
Idaho
Louisiana
Michigan (Feb 2014 Trial)
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (June 14 Trial)
South Carolina
Tennessee (Direct US Constitution Challenge)
Texas (Jan 2014 Trial, Direct US Constitution Challenge)
Virginia (two different suits, one involves Prop8 lawyers)
West Virginia

4 States with Court Case(s) and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Arizona
Arkansas (Decesion Pending and 2016 ballot)
Nevada
Ohio (December 2013 trial) Trial had narrow ruling that ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.

3 States with Legislation to Establish Equal Rights
Colorado
Florida
Oregon

thats 39 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Just keep pumping out those lies...

How is saying "a family thru gay marriage is no different than a straight family that used IVF, has biological step children, adopted, etc?" a lie? I'd love to know how an IVF kid from a lesbian couple is different from an IVF kid from a straight couple...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

I know you don't understand that someone could feel empathy for a minority group that is being discriminated against, but some of us actually do. Some of us actually care about individual freedom for people other than ourselves. Since same-sex marriage has no effect on my life, I have no business denying that right to others, and as an American I feel obligated to support that freedom for others.

totally agree.

Since the mid80s, when I first realized the injustice, I've been in favor of SSM.

I could marry my b/f any day (and finally did) and get him covered by health insurance. A same sex couple couldn't.

A longtime -we're talking 20 or 30 years - couple - one of them died; his partner had to sell the house because property taxes jumped up so high. This wouldn't have happened if they were married -the property taxes would have been the same.

So I totally feel for L/G couples who couldn't get married, even though I personally wasn't a lesbian. As you say " Since same-sex marriage has no effect on my life, I have no business denying that right to others, and as an American I feel obligated to support that freedom for others"

Why Anthony thinks you're telling a lie, I have no idea.
 
That's, wow, out of the blue. The state can appeal the ruling, of course. I haven't been able to figure out if same-sex couples can have a license issued in the state of Utah, or not? Anyone?

Federal judge strikes down Utah



Obama appointment, btw.

It appears the Feds have never heard of the Tenth Amendment.

Our federal government believes they can do whatever the **** they want....

We don't have a ****ing democracy - we have an authoritarian federal government...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

They have a license; the ceremony was performed; the marriages exist, whether the governor wants to recognize them or not. He's being willfully blind

Are you saying this is illegal?
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

They have a license; the ceremony was performed; the marriages exist, whether the governor wants to recognize them or not. He's being willfully blind

Nope, the state has issued licences and can revoke them as well for state reasons.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

States should just ignore the feds.... What the hell are the feds going to do about it anyways? what can they do? send in the National Guard? :lamo

If I was a governor and if the feds got involved with my state business I would tell them to go **** off....

Some of these constitution loving politicians really need to grow a pair and remind the federal government that they have limited powers....

If they want to "legalize" gay marriage then they should amend the constitution - until that happens they can go **** off...
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

States should just ignore the feds.... What the hell are the feds going to do about it anyways? what can they do? send in the National Guard? :lamo

If I was a governor and if the feds got involved with my state business I would tell them to go **** off....

Some of these constitution loving politicians really need to grow a pair and remind the federal government that they have limited powers....

If they want to "legalize" gay marriage then they should amend the constitution - until that happens they can go **** off...

There are so many ways the federal can punish states for ignoring their proclamations. I understand your frustration at the creeping loss of the United States portion of the United States of America.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

There are so many ways the federal can punish states for ignoring their proclamations. I understand your frustration at the creeping loss of the United States portion of the United States of America.

Like how?

Federal funding?

So what.

The feds cant do anything.... They're like North Korea with all the **** they talk....

What the hell can they actually do?

A state could secede right now and no one that has the actual capability to fight it would (civil war)....
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

totally agree.

Since the mid80s, when I first realized the injustice, I've been in favor of SSM.

I could marry my b/f any day (and finally did) and get him covered by health insurance. A same sex couple couldn't.

A longtime -we're talking 20 or 30 years - couple - one of them died; his partner had to sell the house because property taxes jumped up so high. This wouldn't have happened if they were married -the property taxes would have been the same.

So I totally feel for L/G couples who couldn't get married, even though I personally wasn't a lesbian. As you say " Since same-sex marriage has no effect on my life, I have no business denying that right to others, and as an American I feel obligated to support that freedom for others"

Why Anthony thinks you're telling a lie, I have no idea.

yep and the majority people do care about equal rights and their fellow americans, i could never discriminate against my fellow american and deny them the same rights i have.
 
It appears the Feds have never heard of the Tenth Amendment.

Our federal government believes they can do whatever the **** they want....

We don't have a ****ing democracy - we have an authoritarian federal government...

LMAO the 10 isnt tact
the FED did exactly what they are supposed to do, they are protecting individual rights.

THis is why the 10th hasnt come up in the many court cases where EQUALITY was.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

1.)States should just ignore the feds.... What the hell are the feds going to do about it anyways? what can they do? send in the National Guard? :lamo

2.)If I was a governor and if the feds got involved with my state business I would tell them to go **** off....

3.)Some of these constitution loving politicians really need to grow a pair and remind the federal government that they have limited powers....

4.)If they want to "legalize" gay marriage then they should amend the constitution - until that happens they can go **** off...

1.) nope just grant the people thier rights like they have the right to do
2.) you would never be governor and if you broke the law you would simply be in jail lol
3.) correct and this is within their power,
4.) factually not needed

anger like this over people gaining equal rights is hilarious.
 
Back
Top Bottom