December 20, 2013

"A federal judge in Utah Friday struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage..."

"[Robert J.] Shelby’s ruling is the first federal decision to address whether a state may ban same-sex marriages or refuse to recognize legal same-sex marriages since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision this summer that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act."

45 comments:

rhhardin said...

Judges seem to have a large vote on the matter.

n.n said...

The state religion shall not be denied. Oh, well. Surely people did not think that the "free" stuff redistributed by Democrats was offered in good faith. All cults demand tithing, and sacrifices (e.g. human), by their members. Now, go along to get along, and to get your "free" stuff. Sex, money, and ego rule the Left. They always have, wherever it is practiced.

Renee said...

Sounds different in Massachusetts, that despite siding 4-3 for gay marriage in 2003, the state's highest court gave us the freedom to define marriage as a man and a woman if we choose to. It was all about a state's choice for a matter of public policy. Whether to have a child centered view or an adult centered view.

rcocean said...

Judicial Fascism on the March. You WILL obey our personal Judicial opinions on Gay Marriage.

Its in the Constitution.

Tee-hee.

n.n said...

Renee:

Utah was specifically chosen because of its majority Mormon population. The Left selects a minority which they believe lacks sufficient popular support and then proceed to either marginalize or eviscerate these people. They further believe, and with cause, that they can break these people's will, and set a precedent for anyone who continues to resist their effort to remake society in their image. We are witnessing history recycled, regurgitated, and repeated.

sunsong said...

What a wonderful, wonderful happening here in Utah! The mayor of SLC is marrying folks as fast as he can and promises to stay into the night - in case of a very likely appeal.

The anti-gay forces here are fit to be tied - lol

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

For those who don't much like gay marriages, just be patient. The gay divorces are going to be hilarious.

Julius Reincarnate said...

Good for Utah! Good for the judge! The decision seems pretty iffy with regard to precedent, but it's nice to see a step taken in the direction of getting the government out of the social and moral business. There are plenty of strong, powerful, well-established institutions that address social and moral issues; government involvement is both superfluous and unnecessarily coercive.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Lots of judges speaking their minds these days. Peoples and legislatures...not so much.

Deirdre Mundy said...

But this DOESN'T get the government out of the social and moral business. It's still declaring some relationships 'worthy of a government subsidy' and others 'unworthy of a government subsidy.'

It's just changing the excluded/included rules around.

And it still doesn't get to the root of WHY some relationships are more deserving of special recognition than others.

(Perhaps the answer, getting back to the original purpose of the marriage laws, should be something like giving benefits to any household that includes minor children, and withholding benefits from any household without them? A lot of th laws were originally about protecting widows and orphans, but with the rise of single parenthood on one hand, and rising life expectancies on the other, maybe our laws our outdated.)

Renee said...

Ten years ago marriage was a state issue and states, whether it be Massachusetts or Utah could decide.... no longer the case.

garage mahal said...

If you guessed Utah would get same sex marriage before Wisconsin in your pool, you win big.

Renee said...

I know marriage means there is a state interest in the relationship. Marriage laws encourages that both a man and woman should raise any children that came from a sexual relationship would parent under one roof, allowing social/financial resources to benefit the children.

Meanwhile the wide spead occurance of fatherless homes have had such a sad impact, that schools have 'man days' to teach boys how to behave as men.

Adults wants over children's needs. I don't know why our government t does create public policy to help lessen the inequality. Let's cut the fatherless rate in half. So if there care 50% of homes that are father less, let's make it 25%.

Not all relationships end due to abuse.... some can be turned around.

Illuninati said...

Julius Reincarnate said...
"Good for Utah! Good for the judge! The decision seems pretty iffy with regard to precedent, but it's nice to see a step taken in the direction of getting the government out of the social and moral business."

My take is that the government is more involved in the social and moral business than ever before.

I believe homosexuals have had the right to marry for years. A female friend lost her husband to another male about 20 years ago. After he left her he married the other man. I believe they took turns wearing a wedding dress. So yes, gay marriage has been legal for many years. The difference now is that now the government has chosen to insert itself in their private arrangements.

Eric said...

If you guessed Utah would get same sex marriage before Wisconsin in your pool, you win big.

It's kind of a crap shoot when judges are the only ones who get to vote.

Renee said...

And as more children are being raised by parents not in a relationship, the more the government is involved in custody and child support issues. And as families fracture the need for more social services to deal with fatherless issues.

MaxedOutMama said...

SC isn't going to get to dodge this one - conflicting rulings will present with this once more.

sunsong said...

For me this feels like a gift from the Goddess. Today, like a bolt out of the blue - and New Mexico yesterday - the exact same time that this ugly, hurtful message is being spewed out from the duck man. Wow! It's a personal resolution for me. I am grateful.

PB Reader said...

That law was a condition for their entry into the Union. Can we boot them and ask for all that money back?

Titus said...

chickie is picturing all the gay mormen anus.

Illuninati said...

sunsong said...
"For me this feels like a gift from the Goddess. Today, like a bolt out of the blue - and New Mexico yesterday - the exact same time that this ugly, hurtful message is being spewed out from the duck man."

I find this statement interesting. It includes a mention of a Goddess who apparently favors government involvement in gay marriage, judges ruling in favor of government involvement in gay marriage (caused by the goddess perhaps?), and a private citizen who voiced his own personal views based on his reading of the Bible that practicing homosexuality along with a number of other things are sins.

One could almost conclude that the New Mexico Supreme court has just legislated for the sunsong's Goddess and against the Duck man's God.



Titus said...

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/good-grief-and-great-tits/Content?oid=18503580

And suck on this chick, you fucking freaky gay obsessed anus fucking contemplating weirdo.

And share it with your...wife

eddie willers said...

Is sunsong Betamax3000 in drag?

Either great a satirist or a mind numbing, walking cliche worthy of a "Tea With Goldie" skit.

sunsong said...

One could almost conclude that the New Mexico Supreme court has just legislated for the sunsong's Goddess and against the Duck man's God.

That's beautiful. When I say it feels like a gift from the Goddess I mean that this ruling in Utah especially, but also New Mexico - one yesterday, one today - two days that I have been posting. I rarely post here. And the posting has been about ugly and hurtful comments from a guy who makes millions humorously acting like a red neck. The coincidence feels synchronistic to me. And I choose to look at it that way. I wouldn't say that it means that the Goddess favors all the things that you interpret it to mean - but I do believe that She favors everyone and loves gays equally to straights and red necks. The duck guy can already marry - so he is out nothing. But gays have gained from this, which, for me, is wonderful and really unexpected.

Illuninati said...

Sunsong said:
" And the posting has been about ugly and hurtful comments from a guy who makes millions humorously acting like a red neck."

Have you ever watched the show Duck Dynasty? Those guys are really funny. They don't come across as hateful at all.

"but I do believe that She favors everyone and loves gays equally to straights and red necks"

It's hard to know about public figures, but if the Robinsons are at all like they are portrayed in their program, I imagine that they would agree with your statement that God loves gays just as much as he loves red necks - even faux rednecks.

I used to have a gay friend whom I considered my best friend. Once he asked me about my opinion on promiscuity. I told him I thought it was wrong. He didn't like that answer but he knew I didn't love him any less because I held that opinion. He moved to Brazil and disappeared. I have been told that the reason we never hear from him is that he died of AIDS. I miss my friend.

Tom said...

It's a pretty simple concept: Freedom means freedom for everyone. This is a civil rights issue that conservatives would be wise to support, even I'd they believe the particular behavior is a sin.

Michael K said...

"Lots of judges speaking their minds these days. Peoples and legislatures...not so much."

It helps when the gay judge throws out the initiative passed by 60% of voters, then retires and marries his gay lover.

No conflict there.

sunsong said...

I used to have a gay friend whom I considered my best friend. Once he asked me about my opinion on promiscuity. I told him I thought it was wrong. He didn't like that answer but he knew I didn't love him any less because I held that opinion. He moved to Brazil and disappeared. I have been told that the reason we never hear from him is that he died of AIDS. I miss my friend.

I'm sorry. I had a gay friend who disappeared many years ago and I hold the same assumptions. He was so fun and kind, high strung.

It's interesting that you see the duck folks in that way. I have never watched the show and probably never will. I do have a friend who watches and enjoys the humor. He is uncomfortable with what is happening :-) He fully supports gay rights and also likes this Robertson character.

I think our duck man could have said his piece in a much much more loving and thoughtful way - if it really is love that he believes in. I am a Christian and we believe in the concept of sin and so try to live according to what I believe God wants Anything like that. I believe there comes a point of decision when we have to decide if it is love or condemnation that we believe in. Is it love or punishment and retribution that we believe in? It seems to me that one of them will need to fall away in eternity - they won't coexist. My guess is that those who get a hit out of condemnation are projecting. I believe that God's Love or the Goddess' Love is way beyond what we can yet comprehend or imagine or conceive. So much more than we can yet understand. I do not see the duck man's message as representing anything close to the Divine. In fact, I just don't see it as helpful to anyone or anything.

He is free, of course, to like that philosophy :-) And there are plenty who agree with him. But he is, in his way, also representing A&E when he speaks officially as the duck man.

Inga said...

Illuninati, so you think Sunsong is one of those pagans you refer to?

Quayle said...

"What a wonderful, wonderful happening here in Utah!"

Doesn't matter. Mormons have known for over 100 years - since the time of Joseph Smith - that their future lies in and around Jackson County Missouri.

Salt Lake will be left behind in an instant, when the time comes.

I mean, it isn't as if the Mormons went to the Basin of the Great Salt Lake because it had a favorable climate and fertile soil.

We went there to get as far away as possible from the supposed Constitution loving Christians in the other United States, who had a nasty habit of jailing and killing our leaders and trampling on our civil right to religion.

Now the federal courts are on their come-back tour - back in Utah dictating from the bench their current flip-flog view of marriage, but this time the majority doesn't rule as it did last time.

So I say, Sunsong and my homosexual friends, enjoy your brief moment of triumph over whatever tiny oppression you all think you have faced.

Just realize that in realm of oppression by the majority, the gays in America are pikers.

When the majority using the congress and the courts has jailed your leaders, your spouses, annulled your marriages, taken your property, stripped your right to vote, and disenfranchised your religious or other free association organizations, all because of your definition of marriage, then - and only then - will you have earned the right to scoff at Mormons.

sunsong said...

I was raised Mormon Quayle. I don't need your permission to scoff. But I'm only scoffing at the odious Gayle Ruzika (I'm spelling her name wrong) My LDS sister is pleased with the decision. Mormons are not a monolith - they run the gamut, the whole continuum :-)

But yes, this is a triumph for goodness and for liberty for all, which thinking Mormons are also for :-)

mccullough said...

Well now it's definitely time to get rid of polygamy bans in Utah.

Quayle said...

"But yes, this is a triumph for goodness and for liberty for all, which thinking Mormons are also for :-)"

I'll grant you that we can debate the issue of free will and when a society can or should embed a moral law or expectation into a civil law.

But surely a society must have laws; and surely those laws embed morality of some sort.

So who should decide what morality gets put in law?

But as a Mormon you can hardly rationally rejoice - and surely you don't rejoice - at judicial tyranny.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

The libertine Left rules in both the private and public sectors. I wonder what leverage they possess that they are capable of imposing their will with impunity. They even escape a simple review of their selective support for individual and corporate rights. I guess once you get away with murder, the expectation for consistency is a moot concern.

eric said...

" but I do believe that She favors everyone and loves gays equally to straights and red necks."

Does this goddess of yours also favor man/dog unions?

What about brother/sister unions?

"But yes, this is a triumph for goodness and for liberty for all"

Unless you define liberty as meaning a choice not to take photo's at a gay ceremony where one pretends to be a husband and the other pretends to be a wife. Or if you define liberty as choosing not to bake a cake for two people who pretend to be doing something kinda sorta like a marriage.

Yeah, but otherwise, sure, it's certainly liberty. And up is down.

sunsong said...

So who should decide what morality gets put in law?

Quayle,
For you, you - as much as possible. You set your own moral code and your character is the frequency with which you adhere to it. For society, less is more, imo. Freedom, with responsibility, is a priority to me. Honoring free will, what gives the most freedom, with responsibility? After that, WWLD? What would Love do? Let Love win. That, with wisdom and a powerful clarity about doing no harm (not harming each other) would be some of the guidance I would prefer.

I am not Mormon now. I am sorry if I gave you that impression. I was raised Mormon. My sister still is Mormon, and I have great admiration for her. But I left when I was 15. I don't believe it.

Illuninati said...

Inga said...
"Illuninati, so you think Sunsong is one of those pagans you refer to?"

Inga, you are very perceptive. Sunsong talks about love which is the major attribute of the God whom I worship. Sunsong has not stated what he/she believes beyond that so I can't honestly say. Sunsong did make an interesting comment which might provide insight.

" I believe there comes a point of decision when we have to decide if it is love or condemnation that we believe in. Is it love or punishment and retribution that we believe in? It seems to me that one of them will need to fall away in eternity - they won't coexist"

In my world view, love and condemnation are not mutually exclusive. Let me give an example: Mao tortured and killed millions of people. He did it to people who were of no threat to him, he did it deliberately and with malice. Because of my love for humanity, I condemn Mao in the strongest terms possible. The only good being who can love a monster like Mao is a supreme God who has the power to restore what he has destroyed. Anyone else who tolerates or praises that evil shows that they themselves share the same spirit - meaning they are pagan in the worst sense of the word.

Sunsong recognizes that the judgs are choosing her goddess and are rejecting Duck commander's god. That is exactly why I reject government intrusion into the issue. Our constitution specifically forbids government from establishing religion, and yet that is what these judges have done.

iowan2 said...

Much like the Democrat change of Senate Rules, The leftist Judges overruling the power of people to write the laws that they want to live under, will now become the law of the land. Remember that Social ideology is split 50/50. So conservatives will swing back into control in the future. Private Schools are conservative. Public schools are failing. Where are the new generation of leaders and policy sharpers coming from?

Any way, Judges are no longer constrained by the constitution.

Dont forget that even constitutional law expert Barack Obama understood the constitution left the question of marriage to the States.Conservative judges will no longer feel constrained by the constitution, or stare Decisis

Joe said...

Was Brown v. Board of Education judicial tyranny?

And how are judges supposed to react to legislative tyranny?

A judge expands our freedom as a people and that's tyranny or fascism? The word doesn't mean what you think it means.

iowan2 said...

@joe
Change the legislation. Like states are doing as we speak.
And Brown v Board is concerning this countries treatment of blacks as slaves then thru Democrat invented Jim Crow laws tried to keep blacks a second class citizens.

Even then remember that the Black minority with no power or respect in fact changed laws thru the legislative process.
Cite another case.
Maybe Tinker? Yes activist, also ignored today with impunity as kids with NRA t shirts get sent home to change clothes.

But my point is, as much as you agree with the decision is flies in the face of centuries of constituional law that found marriage was a state POWER As defined by the 10th amendment
So when Conservative judges ignore law and contitution in their rulings all is good because....shutup!

Cruising Troll said...

Federal Judge to voters:

"All your votes belong to us now."

dwall2 said...

gays, gays, gays, gezzz. All this kerfuffle is not about two little ladies that have lived together for years getting hitched. It is about polys of all kinds, they are on the way and will laugh at gays as too limiting. Multiples are not my thing but change the tax benefits and let everyone hump, just not get paid by society.

rozina islam vabna said...

This is such an interesting blog. You are very knowledgeable about this subject. Please check out my site.
Utah attorney

rozina islam vabna said...

This is such an interesting blog. You are very knowledgeable about this subject. Please check out my site.
Utah attorney