Judge Tosses Out Utah's Anti-Gay Marriage Bill

[Tuckerfan]

One by one, the dominoes continue to fall.

A federal judge has struck down Utah's same-sex marriage ban, saying it is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby issued a 53-page ruling Friday saying Utah's law passed by voters in 2004 violates gay and lesbian couples' rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

I'm sure that's going to cause an "interesting" reaction in the state.

Meanwhile, New Mexico becomes the latest state to legalize gay marriage.

The New Mexico supreme court legalised same-sex marriage in the state on Thursday, declaring in a ruling that it is unconstitutional to deny a marriage licence to gay and lesbian couples.

New Mexico joins 16 states and the District of Columbia in allowing gay marriage.

Eight of the state's 33 counties started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in August, when a county clerk in southern New Mexico independently decided to allow the unions. County officials asked the high court to clarify the law and establish a uniform state policy on gay marriage.

[hajario]

The State (Utah) is going to appeal the decision to the next level. Meanwhile, some clerks are giving out licenses to same sex couples. The anti-SSM folks have asked for an emergency stay to prevent that.

[Radical Edward]

How exactly is this an emergency?

[Dragonlady]

Because the gays could be getting married...RIGHT NOW!

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

How exactly is this an emergency?

It could lead to rampant buttsecks, doncha know! They can't have the buttsecks without the marriage license, so they've got to stop them from getting married or the whole state will be hit with natural disasters for allowing such sinful things to go on within their borders. You know, like how San Francisco and Nevada are always getting struck by hurricanes and such, since there's so much sinful stuff happening in those places!

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Tuckerfan

It could lead to rampant buttsecks, doncha know! They can't have the buttsecks without the marriage license, so they've got to stop them from getting married or the whole state will be hit with natural disasters for allowing such sinful things to go on within their borders. You know, like how San Francisco and Nevada are always getting struck by hurricanes and such, since there's so much sinful stuff happening in those places!

The punishment for Buttsecks is earthquakes. The punishment for douchey Christianity is Hurricanes.

[Portia]

I blubbered my eyes out w/ joy in my living room as the tv station NOT owned by the LDS church ran live coverage (or should I say LOVE coverage) of the mayor of SLC, Ralph Becker, performing one ceremony after another. Then there was a Baptist minister doing them as well; I believe he only meant to marry one couple (the lesbian couple who brought the suit) but stuck around and kept on a'hitchin'. There was one couple whose 'you may now kiss the bride' turned into a short makeout session at about 4:30 on a school afternoon. You go ladies!!

KSL, the church-owned NBC affiliate had coverage outside the capitol that made it sound like all the gays and judges had taken the state constitution out and shot it in front of its mother and some puppies.

[Anacanapuna]

I understand the governor is frantically trying to get the gay-marryin' stopped long enough to figure out how to lead Utah back to the 1890s where it belongs.

I wonder -- d'ya think he'd work this hard if a judge struck down the anti-polygamy law?

[Simple Dog]

Originally Posted by Anacanapuna

I wonder -- d'ya think he'd work this hard if a judge struck down the anti-polygamy law?

I think so. For most Americans, polygamy is some alien curiosity, something weird people do in weird places. But in Utah it's an embarrassment and, for a lot of people, extreme heresy. Until a few days ago, Utah had the strictest anti-polygamy laws in the country.

[Paul in Qatar]

It is generally wrong for the courts to force states to change law. I am sure the legal reasoning is sound. The problem is it allows anti-SSM people to become martyrs.

It is just like Roe V Wade. Rather than taking a few years to change people's minds, the court is forcing things a bit too fast. People who are on the wrong side of such a decision "take to the hills," so to speak because the legal system did not give them a fair hearing.

I am in favor of allowing people to marry those they love. But, a court acting in this manner hurts the political process.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

It is generally wrong for the courts to force states to change law. I am sure the legal reasoning is sound. The problem is it allows anti-SSM people to become martyrs.

It is just like Roe V Wade. Rather than taking a few years to change people's minds, the court is forcing things a bit too fast. People who are on the wrong side of such a decision "take to the hills," so to speak because the legal system did not give them a fair hearing.

I am in favor of allowing people to marry those they love. But, a court acting in this manner hurts the political process.

Yeah, no. If the courts waited around for people to accept this kind of thing, it'd never happen. The Civil Rights movement succeeded because of various court rulings like Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. State of Virginia, not because the people of the South suddenly woke up one morning and thought, "Hey, let's start treating those people better!" Nope. It took court rulings, Federal Law changes, and the barrel of a gun to get people to change.

[Paul in Qatar]

Yeah, no doubt about it, Civil Rights would not have happened without some serious pushing. This is the historical example that destroys the Libertarian worldview on this sort of thing.

Still, I would rather convince people than dictate to them.

[Tuckerfan]

In other news, gay marriage is now legal in every state where Mitt Romney owns a house!

[Paul in Qatar]

Really? I thought California was still pending.

[Tuckerfan]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

Really? I thought California was still pending.

Its legal.

[Paul in Qatar]

Shows you how out-of-touch I am.

[JackieLikesVariety]

I blubbered my eyes out w/ joy in my living room as the tv station NOT owned by the LDS church ran live coverage (or should I say LOVE coverage) of the mayor of SLC, Ralph Becker, performing one ceremony after another.

am I the only one who can hear the theme from The Love Boat swelling up as they read?

[Paul in Qatar]

The mayor did that? Cool.

[Portia]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

The mayor did that? Cool.

He's a very cool mayor!
Washington County (St. George, Utah) opened their doors early so couples wouldn't have to wait in the cold for the Clerk's office to open. There's a swell of folks at the SLC County Courthouse and Weber County as well. They're going to get as many marriages in after 8am as possible. These are just the publicized counties, others like Cache have indicated they will issue licenses to all the couples who ask for them until they're told not to.

Hearing begins at 9am.

[Portia]

Morgan and Tooele Counties, too!

[Simple Dog]

The judge denied this request for a stay.

A federal judge in Ohio just ruled against Ohio's marriage amendment, but not, it appears, in a way that will immediately result in marriages happening like in Utah. He also cited Antonin Scalia's logic.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Simple Dog

The judge denied this request for a stay.

Now it will go back to the Appeals Court. They didn't actually rule on the stay because they had to wait for the Federal Judge to rule first.

[Tuckerfan]

Four counties in Utah are refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. The title of the article says seven, but in the body it mentions that three of them have now decided to issue licenses starting tomorrow.

[hakuna matata]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/u...inglePage=true

I believe the Appeals Court turned down the emergency stay--that is how I read this article anyways.

[Chacoguy]

Grand County (Moab) started issuing licenses this morning.

[Portia]

Originally Posted by hakuna matata

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/u...inglePage=true

I believe the Appeals Court turned down the emergency stay--that is how I read this article anyways.

That's correct; for the 5th time Gov. Herbert has a gay marriage bummer.
Did you'ns see the news photos of Boy Scouts bringing pizza to the people in line at the SLC courthouse yesterday? They knew they'd been in line for most of the day. How kind is that?!

[Anacanapuna]

Originally Posted by Portia

Did you'ns see the news photos of Boy Scouts bringing pizza to the people in line at the SLC courthouse yesterday? They knew they'd been in line for most of the day. How kind ironic is that?!

FTFY

[Simple Dog]

The Attorney General is telling all counties that they should be issuing licenses, and Utah County may be sued by a couple who tried to get married.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Simple Dog

The Attorney General is telling all counties that they should be issuing licenses, and Utah County may be sued by a couple who tried to get married.

To be fair, the Utah County guy said that he was waiting for the Appeals Court to decide on the stay. They're obviously closed for the holiday today so we'll see what he does tomorrow.

[Portia]

Originally Posted by hajario

To be fair, the Utah County guy said that he was waiting for the Appeals Court to decide on the stay. They're obviously closed for the holiday today so we'll see what he does tomorrow.

Still no call to slam the door in the couple's faces; that'd make me less than reasonable.

[Chacoguy]

The tag is pretty funny.

[Dirty Old Uncle Roger]

Originally Posted by Paul in Qatar

Yeah, no doubt about it, Civil Rights would not have happened without some serious pushing. This is the historical example that destroys the Libertarian worldview on this sort of thing.

Still, I would rather convince people than dictate to them.

So would I. Unless they are presently shitting on people.

Also,

"Can't you wait just one more generation for equal rights?"

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Dirty Old Uncle Roger

"Can't you wait just one more generation for equal rights?"

I think history bears out that nothing worth having was ever gained instantly. Time is often needed for truly positive change to be integrated into society.

Push it too fast, and the opponents make bigger and louder squawk noises and generally froth and foam at the mouth. This draws some ridiculous attention, makes the issue heated, and pushes off any meaningful change while the crazies lob their missiles.

[SmartAleq]

Sometimes when the opponents froth and freak out and foam at the mouth it just shows the rest of the country how ludicrous the actual position they're taking really is and then public shaming and mocking make them shut the fuck up and comply with the law.

Kudos to those who are marrying people right left and center--the more they marry, the harder it's gonna be to shove that there genie back in the bottle. Happened in California, when all those legally married gay couples just kept on having their lives and not calling down the apocalypse all over the state and causing all who are not completely insane to admit it's pretty fucking stupid to deny marriage licenses to any citizen who wants them.

[Dirty Old Uncle Roger]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

I think history bears out that nothing worth having was ever gained instantly. Time is often needed for truly positive change to be integrated into society.

Push it too fast, and the opponents make bigger and louder squawk noises and generally froth and foam at the mouth. This draws some ridiculous attention, makes the issue heated, and pushes off any meaningful change while the crazies lob their missiles.

I think history bears out that MLK was asked that very question while he was in the Birmingham jail. His response was something along the lines of finding it very unreasonable to wait a generation for something that's already his, and which is unlawfully being withheld from him.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Dirty Old Uncle Roger

I think history bears out that MLK was asked that very question while he was in the Birmingham jail. His response was something along the lines of finding it very unreasonable to wait a generation for something that's already his, and which is unlawfully being withheld from him.

Yeah but that guy got shot...by one of his squawking opponents.

Point is, it will take time, a lot of time, by any measure. Be it 100 years, 200 years, or 50 years before it's a non-issue. When was DADT "officially unofficially" instituted in the military? Use that as a starting point for the timeline. We're at the, I dunno, 50 year point? 75 year point? I have no brains of that particular issue's inception. We're well and truly beyond 1 generation here. This is the next slavery-type civil rights issue. That was what, 400 years of slavery followed by some 100 years of quasi-citizenship until Jim Crow was abolished, followed by another 40 or 50 years of bogus racial prejudice, and here we are today - only the truly repugnant chimps are still actual racists. So 550 years give or take. (timeline specifically restricted to black slavery in america obviously)

We're moving towards an end goal, and I trust our society will be there before the turn of the next century, but I don't expect to see it before the end of my lifetime. Unless....you're only referring to America. Probably gonna come faster here. The law banning being gay in Uganda? Not likely to have unreasonable bias and hatred disappear there any time soon.

[Dirty Old Uncle Roger]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

Yeah but that guy got shot...by one of his squawking opponents.

Point is, it will take time, a lot of time, by any measure. Be it 100 years, 200 years, or 50 years before it's a non-issue. When was DADT "officially unofficially" instituted in the military? Use that as a starting point for the timeline. We're at the, I dunno, 50 year point? 75 year point?

Bill Clinton. So not quite 50 years.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Dirty Old Uncle Roger

Bill Clinton. So not quite 50 years.

I didn't know that was a recent thing...for some reason I had it stuck in my head that it came from the 60's...

[Dirty Old Uncle Roger]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

I didn't know that was a recent thing...for some reason I had it stuck in my head that it came from the 60's...

Beginning of the country - Clinton ---> homosexuality is a crime under the UCMJ, to be treated like any other crime.

Clinton - Obama ---> Homosexuality means a discharge from service if it comes to light, but nobody is expected to pursue rumors or hints of homosexuality on the part of a servicemember.

Today ---> Homosexuality is not a concern for military discipline of any kind.

[pickle berry]

Originally Posted by Dirty Old Uncle Roger

"Can't you wait just one more generation for equal rights?"

No fucking kidding. Damn kids these days want everything now now now. Bunch of brats.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Dirty Old Uncle Roger

Beginning of the country - Clinton ---> homosexuality is a crime under the UCMJ, to be treated like any other crime.

Clinton - Obama ---> Homosexuality means a discharge from service if it comes to light, but nobody is expected to pursue rumors or hints of homosexuality on the part of a servicemember.

Today ---> Homosexuality is not a concern for military discipline of any kind.

So, lemme get this straight. Up until DADT, it was straight up ILLEGAL to simply BE gay in the military. Clinton passes DADT, and essentially decriminalizes it, but doesn't remove all consequences. A step forward for gays, without making the squawkers go nuts. And this is the law people were freaking out about, screaming that it must be "repealed", because it's so awful?

Nope...it was a stepping stone towards their own fucking goal. Build on that shit, don't tear it down. Anyway, Obama apparently made it a non-issue now.

Kinda sounds like it has been progressing at the pace I expected. Clinton laid the base, Obama built on it, so eventually the rest of gov't will follow. 50 years ain't too far off, and is looking likely. Probably before turn of the next century, but doubtful before I die.

[Dirty Old Uncle Roger]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

So, lemme get this straight. Up until DADT, it was straight up ILLEGAL to simply BE gay in the military. Clinton passes DADT, and essentially decriminalizes it, but doesn't remove all consequences. A step forward for gays, without making the squawkers go nuts. And this is the law people were freaking out about, screaming that it must be "repealed", because it's so awful?

Well, repealing DADT would basically remove the last legal impediment to being Gay in the military.

Nope...it was a stepping stone towards their own fucking goal. Build on that shit, don't tear it down. Anyway, Obama apparently made it a non-issue now.

Kinda sounds like it has been progressing at the pace I expected. Clinton laid the base, Obama built on it, so eventually the rest of gov't will follow. 50 years ain't too far off, and is looking likely. Probably before turn of the next century, but doubtful before I die.

I'd say within the next decade. A few more states just legalized Gay marriage.

It's all over but the crying of right wing nuts, now.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Dirty Old Uncle Roger

Well, repealing DADT would basically remove the last legal impediment to being Gay in the military.

I'd say within the next decade. A few more states just legalized Gay marriage.

It's all over but the crying of right wing nuts, now.

Legal in the US? That will happen in five or six years, IMO.

Brickabracka was talking about the rest of the world.

[Dirty Old Uncle Roger]

Originally Posted by hajario

Legal in the US? That will happen in five or six years, IMO.

Brickabracka was talking about the rest of the world.

Ah. It's not that I am not concerned with the rest of the world, it's just that the rest of the world is someone else's problem. I have no say in how other nations do business. I do have a stake in how my country does business, though.

[BrickaBracka]

There should be two legal actions at once - firstly, allow same sex marriage. Secondly, all hetero marriages are now legally bound for at least the average length of all homosexual marriages.

Ya know, to preserve the sanctity of it. The hetero marriages gotta be better somehow, more "sacred", right? So make them buggers stick together.

Too many people ditching out on their commitments. Obvious exceptions for domestic violence, yadda yadda

[Dirty Old Uncle Roger]

Originally Posted by BrickaBracka

There should be two legal actions at once - firstly, allow same sex marriage. Secondly, all hetero marriages are now legally bound for at least the average length of all homosexual marriages.

Ya know, to preserve the sanctity of it. The hetero marriages gotta be better somehow, more "sacred", right? So make them buggers stick together.

Too many people ditching out on their commitments. Obvious exceptions for domestic violence, yadda yadda

No, I don't think I want the government having ANY say in my personal relationships.

Fuck "sanctity", and fuck people who think they have some moral imperative to make relationship decisions for other consenting adults.

[Anacanapuna]

Originally Posted by Dirty Old Uncle Roger

Fuck "sanctity", and fuck people who think they have some moral imperative to make relationship decisions for other consenting adults.

You make Baby Jesus cry!

[Dirty Old Uncle Roger]

Originally Posted by Anacanapuna

You make Baby Jesus cry!

I am a vile and reprehensible person, I know.

[Paul in Qatar]

This will now go to the Supremes in a clean and clear yes-no on gay marriage. They have been trying to duck this.

In the same way, the two conflicting decisions on the NSA's gathering of metadata sets up the sort of case the Supreme Court would rather avoid.

[Anacanapuna]

Originally Posted by Dirty Old Uncle Roger

I am a vile and reprehensible person, I know.

Well, you're in good company here.