• 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

Ooookay. Again, my argument has always been that if the state wins the case those licenses are void. Of course if the state loses the case the licenses will be upheld. Right this moment however those licenses are meaningless, have no force of law, are just worthless paper. Only a decision against the state will make them valid.

IF. that is the issue. Currently they are not voided, they are put on hold pending the case finishing.
 
100% wrong again as the article about the fed already proves, put please continue to ignore the facts.
right now those marriages are 100% legal and recognized by the fed granting all LEGAL and LAWFUL federal rights to them
so NO they sre factually NOT meaningless and YES they do have force of law behind them

No they aren't. The fed does not license marriage they only have the power to recognise IN FORCE marriages. Those licenses are not currently in force and will not be unless Utah loses the appeal.
 
IF. that is the issue. Currently they are not voided, they are put on hold pending the case finishing.

Indeed and on hold means they are not in force. The license cannot be exercised. Thus, as they sit now, worthless pieces of paper that cannot be honored.
 
nothing you posted changes the fact its an equal rights issue, nothing :lamo
YES please go further because that was freaking hilarious!!!

thanks for further proving me right again

Are you alright? Is there something wrong with you? You're posting like someone that appears to be drunk?

You said the governor was a bigot, I showed you why with specificity you were wrong on that assertion. You then claimed that SSM is an equal rights issue, and I stated (in good faith) that it was an equal rights issue to some, a civil matter to some, and a social issue to some. The courts have many instances where they also share the same opinion depending on who you cherry pick, that it is a social issue, a civil matter, and or an equal rights matter. Dude, what else do you require for proof? So are you now saying that because of the few examples you posted which I just debunked with text that states it's an equal rights issue that is not also a civil issue, or social issue? You're not really saying that are you? Talk about rose colored glasses, and I suspect it is why people generally avoid your brand of debate. you're completely and entirely disingenuous at best, or an outright liar at worst.


Tim-
 
No they aren't. The fed does not license marriage they only have the power to recognise IN FORCE marriages. Those licenses are not currently in force and will not be unless Utah loses the appeal.

as usual you are 100% wrong, do you ever not lie or do you ever post anythign accurate? please educate yourself to these topics.

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.

like i said the FACT is

right now those marriages are 100% legal and recognized by the fed granting all LEGAL and LAWFUL federal rights to them
so NO they are factually NOT meaningless and YES they do have force of law behind them

FACTS destroy your post again
 
Like I said, currently void.

The state did not represent their population?

The state DID defend the law, and failed. The state is not required to appeal the case.
 
I understand, but in this case you are the only interested party. In Prop 8 the State was not the only interested party.

Tim-

Take that up with the supreme court THEY are the ones that said the other group didn't have standing.
 
Indeed and on hold means they are not in force. The license cannot be exercised. Thus, as they sit now, worthless pieces of paper that cannot be honored.

And on hold does not mean VOID. Void means canceled, not on hold.
 
1.)Are you alright? Is there something wrong with you? You're posting like someone that appears to be drunk?

You said the governor was a bigot, I showed you why with specificity you were wrong on that assertion. You then claimed that SSM is an equal rights issue, and I stated (in good faith) that it was an equal rights issue to some, a civil matter to some, and a social issue to some. The courts have many instances where they also share the same opinion depending on who you cherry pick, that it is a social issue, a civil matter, and or an equal rights matter. Dude, what else do you require for proof? So are you now saying that because of the few examples you posted which I just debunked with text that states it's an equal rights issue that is not also a civil issue, or social issue? You're not really saying that are you? Talk about rose colored glasses, and I suspect it is why people generally avoid your brand of debate. you're completely and entirely disingenuous at best, or an outright liar at worst.


Tim-

right on time when facts defeat your posts you post failed insult, incivility and failed deflections. BUt facts remain and your posts are still losing to facts
you have debunked NOTHING lol

basically what your post did is this:
i said its a fact that a certain car has wheels, then you posted hahaha the car is made by ford you were just debunked! lol
Then i pointed out the fact that your post claiming its made by ford changes nothing about the fact it has wheels.
Then you posted another failed deflection and strawman and ask me, are you saying the cars not made by ford, i hope you are not saying that LMAO

nobody educated honest and objective will ever fall for such nonsense

nice try but its another complete failure and ive lied about nothing


FACTS:

by definition the governor is a bigot
SSM is an equal rights issue

let me know wehn you can present ONE fact proving otherwise because your meaningless opinion will never do so and will simply, factually, continually fail
I bet your next post is more of the same, all opinion, deflection failed insults and not facts. THis is what typically happens when one is unable to defend ones failed positions or bring any facts to the table.
 
right on time when facts defeat your posts you post failed insult, incivility and failed deflections. BUt facts remain and your posts are still losing to facts
you have debunked NOTHING lol

basically what your post did is this:
i said its a fact that a certain car has wheels, then you posted hahaha the car is made by ford you were just debunked! lol
Then i pointed out the fact that your post claiming its made by ford changes nothing about the fact it has wheels.
Then you posted another failed deflection and strawman and ask me, are you saying the cars not made by ford, i hope you are not saying that LMAO

nobody educated honest and objective will ever fall for such nonsense

nice try but its another complete failure and ive lied about nothing


FACTS:

by definition the governor is a bigot
SSM is an equal rights issue

let me know wehn you can present ONE fact proving otherwise because your meaningless opinion will never do so and will simply, factually, continually fail
I bet your next post is more of the same, all opinion, deflection failed insults and not facts. THis is what typically happens when one is unable to defend ones failed positions or bring any facts to the table.

Okay, okay I give.. I'll let me statements stand on their own, anyone interested can make up their own minds, not that anyone would care.. LOL

Sheesh.. I don't think I've ever met anyone quite like you, AGENTJ, and I've been doing this for a long, long time.


Tim-
 
Utah can try to do whatever it wants to try to do, but the U.S. government has said that it recognizes the same-sex marriage licenses issued by Utah as lawful and eligible for all federal benefits.

Read all about it here:http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/01/10/federal_government_says_it_will_recognize_utah_s_gay_marriages_despite_state.html

I believe that there's a chance that the state of Utah will end up paying any gay couples in Utah who lose any money or other benefits because of the states actions in this case a good bit of money.
 
Last edited:
1.)Okay, okay I give..
2.)I'll let me statements stand on their own, anyone interested can make up their own minds, not that anyone would care.. LOL
3.) Sheesh.. I don't think I've ever met anyone quite like you, AGENTJ, and I've been doing this for a long, long time.


Tim-

1.) good move since facts will always win
2.) correct nobody cares about opinion when there are facts at hand
3.) ok :shrug: I know a few like you, some of them are here, they are equally entertaining, some even more so.
 
The supreme court made their decision, but it doesn't matter unless they were going to overturn the lower courts decisions. Both the 9th and the CA supreme court made the same decision.

Not as to standing they didn't. Both the Ninth and the California Supremes decided the People DID have standing in the case even and especially if the state abandoned their duty.
 
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.

If Colorado can tell the feds to **** off and sell marijuana openly, then Utah has every right to regulate marriages by traditional standards.
 
And on hold does not mean VOID. Void means canceled, not on hold.

Indeed, however, in this case, those marriages ARE voided unless Utah loses the decision, in which case they will be restored. They are currently unable to exercise the license.

And Agent J, not Holder's call to make. The fed does not issue or control the issue of marriage licenses.
 
If Colorado can tell the feds to **** off and sell marijuana openly, then Utah has every right to regulate marriages by traditional standards.

You know, the Fed does seem to be selective as to which "state issues" they turn a blind eye to.
 
1.) And Agent J, not Holder's call to make.
2.) The fed does not issue or control the issue of marriage licenses.

1.)your wrong opinion is noted, yet the fact remains the marriages are being recognized by the FED and will continue to be recognized unless the court rules against equal rights.
2.) weird can you point out where i said they issued them or controlled them? oh thats right i didnt just another failed strawman by you, why do you continue to post fantasy and meaningless points

facts destroyed your post again

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

let me know when this factually changes
 
If Colorado can tell the feds to **** off and sell marijuana openly, then Utah has every right to regulate marriages by traditional standards.




Wrong.

No state has the right to deny any of its citizens the rights that it grants to others.

Anyone who thinks (Wishes, hopes, dreams.) that the U.S. Supreme Court will ever make a decision denying equal rights to all will be disappointed.

Wait and see.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Not as to standing they didn't. Both the Ninth and the California Supremes decided the People DID have standing in the case even and especially if the state abandoned their duty.

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.
 
Again, the fed can onl;y control what licences it will accept, they do not issue or authorize those licenses. If the issuing state puts a hold on said license there is nothing for the fed to recognise until the state activates the license. Holder doesn't have a legal say in the matter. 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.

The rest of your screed is just the same old repetitive nonsense you try to pass as fact.
 
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-

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!
 
Back
Top Bottom