• 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

I like the Tenth Amendment....

which as no meaning in this case and is fully intact
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

How is that?

Gays are not slaves or indentured servants.

Gays ARE American citizens.

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So if a state has marriage and the legal protections that go with marriage, it can not deny ANY PERSON within it's jurisdiction the protections of marriage without showing how doing so would further a compelling state interest.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

How is that?

Gays are not slaves or indentured servants.

thank you for further proving that you have no idea about this topic lol

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Facts destory your post again
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

You really need to inform yourself before such comments. The same exact thing happened in CA and guess what? Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal = walker's decision was upheld. In this case, the judge's ruling was on firm grounds and the SC will either again refuse the appeal, and marriage will soon be legal in utah again, or the SC will issue its long overdue ruling that SSM is legal nationally.

Basically, among other things, the court said that once marriages were allowed (as they were in California and as they were in Utah) you can't take away that right.

Yeah, Utah's appeal is going to fail.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

>


For those that think the Civil Marriage performed in Utah during the period after Judge Shelby's ruling but before the SCOTUS Stay...

The State of Utah says they will not recognize their own Civil Marriages, that does not mean the Civil Marriages are void, the other states that recognize Same-sex Civil Marriages will still consider them as valid AND those couples will be able to file as "Married filing jointly" and will be considred married under Federal purposes.


Just say'n.


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

Oooookay. Apparently you think everyone in the country is gonna turn gay if same sex marriage is made legal...

Yes, really insightful. Good grief. I just have to assume it is willful, though I don't want to underestimate the lack of IQ I've seen here lately. You know who you are.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Facts recap:

It is an equal rights/equality issue
Marriages established after the ruling but before the stay are valid
The 10th inst infringed on
The 14th can apply

Also see post 1506 for some further insight on this.

Im actually excited to see how this turns out, i wanna see if the people against equality have the balls to push the actually decision all the way up.
 
Last edited:
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

The phrase "same sex marriage" should be banned. Remove "sex" from this subject. I thought marriage was "commitment", not "sex".
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

The phrase "same sex marriage" should be banned. Remove "sex" from this subject. I thought marriage was "commitment", not "sex".

I would argue that the word is referencing gender rather than intercourse.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

The phrase "same sex marriage" should be banned. Remove "sex" from this subject. I thought marriage was "commitment", not "sex".

The term "Same Sex" refers to gender, not sex as in intercourse.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Yes, really insightful. Good grief. I just have to assume it is willful, though I don't want to underestimate the lack of IQ I've seen here lately. You know who you are.

Meh, when I hear people begin making partisan ramblings I lose any interest in taking them seriously.

However, I give you credit for using something resembling a categorical imperative. Unfortunately your argument turns marriage into nothing more than a union for sexual regulation whereas I and others view it as a duty that unifies two wills. To deny marriage to same sex couples is to deny dignity and freedom for individuals to live their lives in the way they see fit. You feel justified in this denial because of your personal views on restricting marriage to partners theoretically capable of procreation despite the reality that same sex marriage can further the overall good of humanity be increasing unions of mutual respect and love.
 
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...
Both Prop 8 and DOMA were struck down on the rational that,

(1) there was no rational basis or vested interest denying gays and lesbians marriage licenses, which violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; or as the 9th Court put it, "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California" and

(2) "DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal ... The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

The Feds not recognizing Utah's same-sex couples would be just as unconstitutional and demeaning as DOMA and Prop 8.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

A passed law is valid until it is squashed/repealed (even while being challenged).

Obamacare is a perfect example.

Which would simply mean that a) the governor cannot void any of these marriages before the final decision is made by whatever highest court will make it, and b) there is still a valid case for a lawsuit since they were still legally allowed to marry. The law cannot void the marriages. They could refuse to recognize them should the state win the appeal (although it is unlikely they will), but not void them because the people did not break any laws in entering into the marriages.
 
Re: Federal judge strikes down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage

Which would simply mean that a) the governor cannot void any of these marriages before the final decision is made by whatever highest court will make it, and b) there is still a valid case for a lawsuit since they were still legally allowed to marry. The law cannot void the marriages. They could refuse to recognize them should the state win the appeal (although it is unlikely they will), but not void them because the people did not break any laws in entering into the marriages.


Technically speaking I'm not quite sure I agree with this analysis. True the Governor can't "void" the Civil Marriages and true there will be lawsuits will not ultimately be determined until the SCOTUS rules on the case.

IF the State wins the case, then the law will have been upheld from it's inception. That means those marriages would have been made at a time when such marriages were not authorized in the State. The State could then move to void the marriages as never having been legal in the first place. If they are voided then they wouldn't be

On the other hand if Marriage Equality is upheld, then the law would have voided from it's inception meaning those marriages would remain valid.



The status of the marriages isn't that cut and dried.


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

Technically speaking I'm not quite sure I agree with this analysis. True the Governor can't "void" the Civil Marriages and true there will be lawsuits will not ultimately be determined until the SCOTUS rules on the case.

IF the State wins the case, then the law will have been upheld from it's inception. That means those marriages would have been made at a time when such marriages were not authorized in the State. The State could then move to void the marriages as never having been legal in the first place. If they are voided then they wouldn't be

On the other hand if Marriage Equality is upheld, then the law would have voided from it's inception meaning those marriages would remain valid.



The status of the marriages isn't that cut and dried.


>>>>

I think there would still be a valid case to be made in court against voiding the marriages. I think they would have a legitimate suit to having their marriages legal since they did nothing wrong when entering into the marriage, which is generally what is necessary to void a marriage. The problem is that this really hasn't been an issue before, because voiding marriages is almost always done based on a case of fraud, someone lying about their ability to enter into a marriage, not the state laws being so screwed up about marriage. They won't necessarily win such a case, but the lawsuit potential is still there because of the simply legal question of where is the state's legal right to void a marriage. Not to mention, there are likely to be at least some couples who were legally married in Utah and move to other states that recognize their marriage from Utah there. Can Utah void a same sex marriage that is being legally recognized by another state just due to laws that discriminate based on sex/gender? Would that other state have a legal right to sue Utah over their citizens' right to be married? It might not happen but the potential is there and they could even show standing, even if they didn't win the actual case.

In all honesty, this is simply just another reason to ensure that the laws are simply struck down altogether because having them in place leads to further lawsuits, whether those initiating the lawsuits win or not, there is still money required to defend against them.
 
Back
Top Bottom