It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge Strikes Down Idaho Same-Sex Marriage Ban - Yahoo! News

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   


BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Amber Beierle and Rachael Robertson say they'll be the first in line if Idaho starts issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Friday.

They've tried before — the couple was denied a license just six months ago in Boise — but now they have the federal court on their side. U.S. District Magistrate Judge Candy Dale ruled in their favor and in favor of three other Idaho couples.

"The first person I called when I got the news was my mom, and she said 'I'm so proud of you Amby,'" Beierle said, holding back tears. "I don't think people understand what that means to native Idahoans who love this state and want to stay in this state but who want to be heard. It feels amazing."

In addition to Idaho, federal or state judges in Oklahoma, Virginia, Michigan, Texas, Utah and Arkansas have recently found those state bans to be unconstitutional. Judges have also ordered Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

Dale said the state must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples starting at 9 a.m. Friday. Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter already has said he intends to appeal the case, meaning an appellate court could still put the weddings on hold.


Judge Strikes Down Idaho Same-Sex Marriage Ban - Yahoo! News

Let's take a look at some of what this article is saying so that I can explain the situation here, or at least attempt to.


Latta and Ehlers married in 2008 in California, and the Watsens married in 2011 in New York. Both couples have children and say Idaho wrongly treats Ehlers as a legal stranger to her grandchildren and requires Lori Watsen to obtain a new power of attorney every six months so she can have legal authority to consent to medical treatment for her son. Altmayer and Sheila Roberston were also denied a marriage license in Idaho last year.

"We won," Latta said, holding the hand of her wife, Ehlers. "After arguing in court (last week) there was nothing clearer in my brain, we had a valid legal argument."

Earlier this week, the governor notified the federal magistrate judge that if he loses the case, he may try to appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, instead of going first through the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.


See, Idaho doesn't just ban same-sex marriage, it goes out of its way to hurt homosexuals. This is just one example out of many, some of which probably hurt them under the table.

If you look at the response of Butch Otter, this is the typical response from Idaho officials - he is trying to circumvent the legal system and take short-cuts to getting his way, and won't admit he is wrong when he is, it is a very short-sighted nature that I have never seen in any other state.


edit on 14pmWed, 14 May 2014 17:38:18 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 14 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Idaho is the state that sits next to Washington, it is a state where the good-old-boy system really ignores the law of the land, in many different ways, in the police force, in the corporate prison system, in the judge's quarters, in the education system - I have seen much of it first-hand, and it is terrifying.

While Washington State legalized both same-sex marriage and recreational greens, Idaho actually modified its constitution to ban the state from ever legalizing the sale of marijuana. That is how much Idaho hates any kind of liberal agenda based on helping others, including their own population.

In 2006, Idaho modified its constitution to make it illegal for the state to ever allow same-sex marriages. This is what was overturned in court. So in essence, Idaho shot itself in the foot.

We can see how this comes into play in a minute, when I describe how the state officials are attempting to ignore the judge's ruling. To begin with, while the cultural situation in Idaho is complicated, governor Butch Otter's attempt to get a stay on the ruling was shut down.

Judge Denies Otter's Request

This is the original article announcing his attempt. From the article:


Both Perry and Deputy Attorney General Scott Zanzig argued that Idaho’s voter-approved ban should stand because the state believes it’s better for children, and its voters should have the right to decide that. Several of the same-sex couples who sued are raising children, and said the ban harms them and their families.

Perry, in his new filing, wrote, “The traditional definition of marriage exists to promote Idaho’s child-centric marriage culture, rather than to oppress homosexuals.”


As you can see here, there are logical fallacies left and right in the conservative way of thinking - the law explicitly does hurt same-sex couples, and I don't see how it does anything to "protect" same-sex marriages or children myself. I think that is mysticism put forth by uneducated "policy makers" in the state.

Otter wants immediate stay if Idaho loses same-sex marriage case

I think it is kind of hilarious that Idaho is being forced to recognize gay marriage, because I'm rather certain it won't even if it is ordered to by the court. In fact, there are already some county clerk offices that aren't going along with the ruling, and some don't know about it.
edit on 14pmWed, 14 May 2014 17:44:53 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 14pmWed, 14 May 2014 17:46:48 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Good on the Judge seeing what is right and wrong.
Give it 10 years no one will care If gay folk are wed or not...equality wins again



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

There's no getting around the logic — everyone should be afforded the same liberties. It's fundamental to a truly free society.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Counties that might defy the judge's ruling:

Butte County - Will not issue licenses unless there is a directive from the state. She knows what the judge did.
Boundary County - Defying the orders
Gem County - Yes. But rumors of protests.
Kootenai County Yes, if the state says it's OK. They know about the ruling.

Source: A friend of mine actually called all of the county clerk's offices in the state and asked them.
edit on 14pmWed, 14 May 2014 18:21:34 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Yet another example of one person thinking that they know how people should behave, rather than the majority of voters in the state, who just had their voice overruled. Anyone who sees this as a victory for anything other than the government mandating beliefs needs to think through how they'd feel if the opposite had happened -- a judge banning gay marriage in a state that had modified their constitution to allow it.

Legislating judges should be impeached. They're supposed to interpret the law, not create it.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

US Constitution
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

(For the humpteeth time.)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

All you have to do if you want to get married to a straight person is marry a straight person -

you don't have to deny homosexuals the right to marry. It seems to me like people who wish to push their views on others are the ones who support banning certain marriages.
edit on 14pmWed, 14 May 2014 19:24:19 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake


you don't have to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

I'm not denying anyone anything. I don't live in Idaho.

This judge denied the people of Idaho the right to govern themselves.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: darkbake


you don't have to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

I'm not denying anyone anything. I don't live in Idaho.

This judge denied the people of Idaho the right to govern themselves.
They can still govern themselves, but they can't discriminate against two consensual taxpaying adults performing an activity that harms no one (that is already done by heterosexuals) while doing so. Besides, civil rights being determined by mob rule is a stupid idea, but I understand why the anti-equality crowd does it, since they don't have any actual arguments otherwise.
edit on 14-5-2014 by technical difficulties because: added more stuff



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
But why was Same sex marriage banned to begin with? was it Religious Reasons? because you can't make Laws based on Religious reasons, unless you want to "Force" Religion onto people.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: darkbake


you don't have to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

I'm not denying anyone anything. I don't live in Idaho.

This judge denied the people of Idaho the right to govern themselves.


I see what you are saying, but the people in Idaho denied homosexuals the right to govern themselves in the same way as heterosexuals govern themselves. The government in Idaho was in violation of the constitution, which means that they were trampling on others' rights.

In the end, more people have rights, not less. And Idaho has to follow the constitution if it wants to be part of the U.S. A state cannot take away others' rights in violation of the constitution and expect it to be considered constitutional.
edit on 14pmWed, 14 May 2014 21:17:26 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: darkbake


you don't have to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

I'm not denying anyone anything. I don't live in Idaho.

This judge denied the people of Idaho the right to govern themselves.


The disconnect and confusion here is that the masses should not have the right to vote on the rights of others when those rights have absolutely no bearing on their own existence.

The people of the state have no right to vote on the freedoms afforded to others any more than they have the right to vote on how many people are allowed to dye their hair blond or have breast implants. This is the part that many don't seem to understand.

When it's something impacting the lives of those individuals, then yes, it should face a public vote. But, as we all know, allowing two men or two women to marry has absolutely no impact at all on the lives of anyone else.

Regardless of all the yay and nay debates, same sex marriage is coming whether people want to accept it or not. The public is increasingly on the side of equality and individual rights and freedoms, and no matter how many times Republicans try to prevent social evolution the only thing they are actually achieving is the certainty that millions of young American's will never be voting for them again.
edit on 15-5-2014 by Rocker2013 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

There shouldn't be gay marriage. Civil unions work just fine.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Freenrgy2

Nope they are not....
Equality is the issue and civil unions do not give the same rights as marriage.

www.freedomtomarry.org...

Why do you think it is wrong? what harm does it to you?.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

It's an agenda by the homosexual movement. At first "equality" meant recognizing gays, then non-discrimination in the workplace, then hate crimes, then it meant civil unions, now it means marriage. What's next?

It seems the only thing that meant anything to the gay movement was that they had equal protection and rights under the law. Civil unions gives them that. And I have no problem with civil unions as this MAN'S way of acknowledging equality for gays.

However, the gay community couldn't stop there, could they? They had to push for equality under what most people believe is something condoned by God. By pushing for "marriage", gays are essentially trying to usurp what has been widely believed by Christians for thousands of years; that marriage is between a man and woman.

My brother is gay, so don't give me any homophobic crap. Even he agrees with me.

If gays get "marriage" in every state, I guarantee you they will still not be satisfied and will move on with the next phase of their agenda.

If civil unions were recognized in every state, and were acknowledged between borders there wouldn't be an issue.
edit on 15-5-2014 by Freenrgy2 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Freenrgy2

I don't get what you mean. Gays in the U.S. have all of the rights except for marriage and some adoption hinderences, but these are falling quickly. So once they gain marriage equality that pretty much does it for the gay agenda (except maybe for job discrimination). They've kind of run the table, which is what lots of groups had to do. Once humanity gets the gay, green, polygamy and prostitutity things out of the way or at least started up and going down the track, then the serious animal rights and environmental movement objectives can be next, and so the que moves on.....


edit on 15-5-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Freenrgy2

Most people do not believe it is wrong...If you do for religious reasons show me the passages in the bible that tells you "God hates fags".
Agenda? like what? turn the whole world gay? hahaha you can not turn people gay same as you can not turn people straight.
Again show me where it says that it is wrong...



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: darkbake


you don't have to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

I'm not denying anyone anything. I don't live in Idaho.

This judge denied the people of Idaho the right to govern themselves.


As much as I do agree with you, on this point I'd have to disagree.

This type of legislation constantly brings to focus the issue of same-sex marriage.

If it were just allowed, not made an issue of, then it wouldn't be a news-breaking deal.

Marriage is a singular function between two people. A couple who are married should not define their own marriage by other peoples definition of their own marriage.

I'm a strong defender of individual rights as well as state rights.

But that should be applied to ALL individuals, and as for state rights, (like Common Core, Taxes, Obamacare, segregation) sometimes the majority is just plain wrong.

I think that the more we accept same-sex weddings, the less we'll hear from this very vocal minority on any given subject and we can return our focus on issues that actually have an impact on all of us.

With kindest regards, as always,

beez



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Agreed It will be a none issue in a few years.
It is happening and people better get used to it.
It is like when we gave equality to women or people of different race...we look back and think that it was madness that we didn't already give them the same rights and it will be the same with gay folk.
edit on 15-5-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join