Utah Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban
Offline http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/12/utahs-same-sex-marriage-ban-falls/
For those who might not remember, Utah passed an amendment to their Constitution banning same sex marriages. Yesterday, a judge struck it down. This case is very likely going to be the next gay marriage case to go to the Supreme Court- possibly alongside another one. Last term the Court explicitly avoided addressing the issue of whether or not states can ban gay marriage in a similar case Hollingsworth v. Perry. In that case, they avoided ruling one way or the other through a technicality. Which with highly controversial issues it is pretty common to delay and avoid ruling directly on the issue until seeing what the governments and lower courts do.
The interesting thing about this issue, is that left to the legislatures 29 of them have passed constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage, all of which passed with very large support. Legally, judges have been splitting. As I have said before, I believe that states can pass laws banning any kind of marriage they desire and that the equal protection argument has very little legal ground to stand on. I also find it highly unlikely that SCOTUS is going to overturn 29 state constitutional amendments.
The main problem the pro gay marriage advocates are going to run into is proving that marriage is a fundamental right, and an explanation on why state power is limited on excluding gays, but can limit based on number of people in the marriage, age, and familial relationships. Is banning gay marriage fundamentally different from laws that we have in half of our states that ban the marriage of first cousins? The way the equal protection argument is framed, I don't see how they would be different at all. There are many classes of people who can enter a legal marriage in one state that would be illegal across the border.
This brings up what I think will be the most important question for SCOTUS to answer if it does rule that states can ban gay marriage: Do states have to recognize same sex marriages legally entered into in a different state? One of the couples involved in the Utah case were legally married in Iowa and are simply seeking to have their marriage recognized.
On this issue, I believe the legal argument strongly favors the marriage being recognized since currently all states recognize all marriages regardless of whether the marriage would be legal within the state except for same sex marriage. This is fundamentally different in regards to equal protection, because with the marriage itself states discriminate among several groups and are generally recognized to have the regulatory power to do so. Since it is standard practice to give full faith and credit to all marriage licenses from other states without even checking to see if the marriage would be legal within the state, not recognizing a same sex marriage is the exception. Additionally, it might run afoul of Article IV Section 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
There was a case in Ohio earlier this year where a judge ruled that the state had to recognize the marriage as legal on a death certificate using this clause.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
OOOH! take THAT, you fuckin' prick mormon pieces of shit! right in your fuckin' polygamist backyard!
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
The reason the bans on gay marriage are all doomed to fail is because the state grants extra privileges to those who are married above those who are single.
They'd actually have a chance at success if marriage was banned in its entirety, but it'll be awhile before anyone tries that. If anyone ever tries that.
Marriage between family members is incomparable because such a union has proven genetic effects on offspring. Since a gay union cannot result in offspring, the scientific arguments against family members cannot be applied to gay couples.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Awesome!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I agree with you on that one.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
A day before, N. Dakota allowed a man to marry a woman, while he was still married to a man in another state.
It was because of complications like this that I thought the better solution would be to abolish marriage (as a state-sanctioned institution), than to legalize gay marriage. While legalizing gay marriage would correct an obvious injustice, it would potentially deepen the morass that marriage already is; with divorce and remarriage, child support and alimony.
While this made sense in the abstract, actual examples made me reconsider. One such: my friend's aunt was beaten in to a coma. Her partner was only able to visit a couple hours a day as a "friend"; whereas if their union was legally recognized, she would have been able to visit around the clock as a spouse. Furthermore, she was not able to make decisions regarding the patient's treatment, as a spouse would be able to. The farcical solution was for the patient's mother to come in and repeat verbatim the partner's instructions. So while perhaps government should never have been in the business of legislating relationships, it may be too late to reverse now; there may be too many laws attached to the institution to make practical its abolishment.
However, even as gay marriage becomes legal in more states, on what basis does the state see fit to stipulate marriage as only between 2 people? What is objectionable about 3 or more people (of either or both genders) entering a union, except perhaps increased paperwork?
There are no theists on operating tables.
And the latest news on this one :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25629797
Utah gay marriage: Weddings put on hold by US high court
The US Supreme Court has halted same-sex marriages in the state of Utah pending a legal challenge to the state's ban on gay nuptials.
Gay marriage had been allowed in Utah since 20 December, when a judge ruled the state's ban was unconstitutional.
More than 900 same-sex couples have been wed since then.
The Supreme Court order halts same-sex marriage until a Denver-based federal appeals court decides whether to uphold the ruling overturning the ban.
The Denver-based US Court of the Appeals for the 10th Circuit has twice rejected attempts by Utah to stop the weddings pending appeal.
Utah's ban against same-sex marriage was passed by voters in the overwhelmingly conservative state in 2004.
In a 20 December ruling, Federal District Judge Robert Shelby said the ban violated same-sex couples' right to equal protection under the law, and found that Utah had failed to show that allowing gay marriage would harm opposite-sex couples.
The ruling dismayed Republican Governor Gary Herbert and the Mormon church, which counts two-thirds of the state's residents as members.
Labelling the Supreme Court decision "correct" on Monday, Mr Herbert told CNN: "All Utahns deserve to have this issue resolved through a fair and complete judicial process. I firmly believe this is a state-rights issue."
Meanwhile Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes failed to indicate whether the state would attempt to challenge the validity of the same-sex marriages conducted since 20 December.
"There is not clear legal precedence for this particular situation," he said in a statement. "It is very unfortunate that so many Utah citizens have been put into this legal limbo."
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
So the mormons are saying no to gay but yes to pedo inbreeding? Who would have thought it eh?
Well it's only been 15 or 20 years that it has become such a big deal. Religions don't tend to be quick at keeping up with culture shifts.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.