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?

[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.

[Dragonlady]

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

[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.

[Dirty Old Uncle Roger]

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.

We are not, as a society, required to wait until every knuckle-dragger is on board.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by Dirty Old Uncle Roger

We are not, as a society, required to wait until every knuckle-dragger is on board.

...and that's a good thing, because otherwise we'd still be waiting for Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights.

[Francisco D]

Originally Posted by Harry

...and that's a good thing, because otherwise we'd still be waiting for Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights.

Women's Suffrage was passed via Constitutional Amendment. It required a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate, along with ratification by 3/5 of the States. Seems pretty small "d" democratic, to me.

On SSM, in Arkansas, the people, following their own constitutional procedures, enacted a state amendment by a vote of 75-25. One circuit judge in one county shouldn't have the power to overturn a constitutional amendment.

And the State Supremes stopped him, at least temporarily. That is a good thing.

I support SSM, but not the way activists are going about it trying to achieve it.

[Francisco D]

Originally Posted by Harry

...and that's a good thing, because otherwise we'd still be waiting for Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights.

Women's Suffrage was passed via Constitutional Amendment. It required a 2/3 vote in both the House and Senate, along with ratification by 3/5 of the States. Seems pretty small "d" democratic, to me.

On SSM, in Arkansas, the people, following their own constitutional procedures, enacted a state amendment by a vote of 75-25. One circuit judge in one county shouldn't have the power to overturn a constitutional amendment.

And the State Supremes stopped him, at least temporarily. That is a good thing.

I support SSM, but not the way activists are going about it trying to achieve it.

[hajario]

Originally Posted by Francisco D

On SSM, in Arkansas, the people, following their own constitutional procedures, enacted a state amendment by a vote of 75-25. One circuit judge in one county shouldn't have the power to overturn a constitutional amendment.

And the State Supremes stopped him, at least temporarily. That is a good thing.

I support SSM, but not the way activists are going about it trying to achieve it.

The good people of Arkansas can't legally enact a State amendment that violates the US Constitution even if it's by a 100-0 vote. We have the judiciary to stop such things.

Despite what you claim, one circuit judge in one county does not have the power to overturn a State constitutional amendment. There are higher courts for these things to be decided. As anyone can see, he didn't decide anything. It's been appealed.

I am strongly, vehemently pro-SSM. I think that it's fine that the State Supremes issued a stay until it's resolved. That's part of the process too.

It took the Congressional Civil Rights Act and Brown v Board of Education to overturn a series of unjust and unConstitutional laws. I don't give a fuck how those pig fuckers voted in the 1950s and we shouldn't have had to wait for god knows how long for them to change their minds.

[Simple Dog]

Originally Posted by Harry

...and that's a good thing, because otherwise we'd still be waiting for Women's Suffrage and Civil Rights.

Women's suffrage pretty much did have to wait for all the knuckle-draggers to come on board. Civil rights advancements from before about the 1940s generally aren't because of the courts. (Civil rights setbacks might be, though.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Anacanapuna]

Originally Posted by Dirty Old Uncle Roger

I am a vile and reprehensible person, I know.

Well, you're in good company here.

[BrickaBracka]

Originally Posted by Dirty Old Uncle Roger

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.

Whoosh. That's my opinion too, however it was a tongue in cheek bit of sarcasm to basically say - Marriage isn't "sacred" any more than the office of a senator or representative is, and people should stop clamoring that gays marrying would somehow remove the phantom "sanctity".

But for giggles, making hetero marriages stay together at least as long as the average gay marriage would be fun, I think, given the way the news media reacts and spins things.

[Tuckerfan]

This is going to turn out well, I'm sure.

A Utah man is vowing to go without any food until the state stops allowing same sex marriages. He claims if Utah wants to protect traditional marriage, it has an option it’s not using, and he's fasting until it does it.

When same sex marriage became legal in Utah, people immediately reacted. Couples stormed county clerk buildings. State attorneys tried to stop it, and Trestin Meacham started fasting.

"I'm very disappointed," said Trestin Meacham, fasting to stop Utah same sex marriages.

For the past 12 days Meacham hasn't eaten anything. He's surviving solely on water and an occasional vitamin.