Utah legalizes gay marriage, December 20, 2013

Here's the Wikipedia page to the Utah case itself, Kitchen v. Herbert:

en.wikipedia.org...

In 2004, Utah Constitutional Amendment 3 sought to define marriage as a union exclusively between a man and woman. It passed by referendum in the November 2 election and became part of the Utah State Constitution.

On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to heterosexual unions, by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

On March 25, 2013, three same-sex couples, including one already married in Iowa, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Utah seeking to declare Utah's prohibition on the recognition of same-sex marriages unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution. The court heard arguments on December 4.

The only people making a big deal out of this are religious ones.

Everyone else don't care who marries who or who sleeps with who.

Utah!

I must say I am surprised, but in a pleasant way.

Meanwhile in what I thought was more socially liberal territory, that of the Australian Capital Territory, the High Court have overturned a ruling legalising gay marriage.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Our newly elected (and already very unpopular) Liberal government are very conservative, and will fight tooth and nail to stop gay people from having the same rights as heterosexual couples, despite the Prime Minister (mad monk Abbott) having a lesbian sister in a committed relationship, and intending to marry.

www.news.com.au... 32

danielsil18
The only people making a big deal out of this are religious ones.

Everyone else don't care who marries who or who sleeps with who.

I'm religious and bisexual and I don't have a problem with gay people getting married. All religious people don't have a problem with gay people getting married. It's really sad that something like this has to be voted on instead of just being granted nationwide. Gay people deserve the same rights as straight people.

reply to post by Rocketgirl


I didn't mean that all religious ones are complaining, but of all the ones complaining most if not all are religious.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Ahh but you are laboring under the impression that the constitution has anything at all to do with gay marriage or even marriage at all. If anything I would imagine that the constitution would guarantee that the government could not step in and declare laws about who marries who. State laws superceid federal laws anyway. What the court did in Utah is a huge slap in the face to the decent people that voted out gay marriage. Very glad I am in Tennessee where morals still prevail.

reply to post by Christian Voice

You really don't think there are going to be gay weddings in Tennessee within a year? This is on the fast track for a nationwide ruling from the Supreme Court, probably this session. At least as I'm reading it out. Does anyone see it differently? I don't mean having an opinion if they are legal or not, I mean actually think it won't become legal across the U.S. on a Supreme Court ruling within a year? That seems like a clear one.

reply to post by Aleister


I honestly believe it will not come to pass in Tennessee. There are still entirely too many God fearing Christians that will not stand for it here.

reply to post by Aleister

Ah, but here is the rub, they have already allowed same sex couples to wed after the ruling went through and did not put a moratorium until after all of the court battles took effect. Hence it puts such in a legal quandary.

Though I believe that the argument on the side of those wanting to remove the same sex marriage ban, would use the California Prop 8 decision, along with the Doma decision, along with the Colorado Admendment 2 decision, to justify their position, along with other court cases where marriage was an issue.

While the majority of the voting citizens did vote for such, those for the admendment will still have to use legal cases and the decisions to justify why it should stand.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Gay marriage is becoming a self-evident legal right in the United States. Over 1/3 of the states allow it now, massive population centers like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, accept it, and the courts are using the language of the U.S. constitution and accumulating legal precedents to lay a solid foundation for the right. Gay acceptance in the U.S. has come a long way since Ellen DeGeneres leaned over that airport microphone in her situation comedy show in 1997 and broke a cultural envelope by saying "I'm gay". With the growth of cultural maturity in the 16 years since, and with the reality of widespread marriage rights within it, the union as a whole is very close to formalizing the new but now established legal right.

reply to post by Aleister


So an activist judge rewrites law, after the people voted and where within the confines of the state constitution and people applaud this.


What a crazy world this is turning into.

reply to post by Christian Voice

Christian Voice
Ahh but you are laboring under the impression that the constitution has anything at all to do with gay marriage or even marriage at all.

Marriage is a legal institution. States make marriage laws. The Constitution specifically protects equal treatment under the LAW. So, the Constitution most definitely has something to do with legal marriage.

If anything I would imagine that the constitution would guarantee that the government could not step in and declare laws about who marries who.

But that's exactly what states are doing when they have a ban against gay people marrying. They're offering marriage licenses to some people and excluding others. They're saying who can and cannot get married. The Constitution protects us against that.

State laws superceid federal laws anyway.

Oh, really? This shows your level of education on the matter. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

Very glad I am in Tennessee where morals still prevail.

Your time is coming. Where will you go when Tennessee is forced to obey the equal protection clause of the US Constitution? Do you know what the Equal Protection Clause is?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


In 2004, a lot of controversy began to swirl around the topic of marriage as homosexual marriage entered the news once again. In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ordered that the state must make accommodations for gay unions, bringing the issue into the public eye. Vermont created civil unions as a result. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court went a step further, and ruled that the state must accommodate not just an institution equal to marriage, as civil union was designed to be, but that gay marriage itself must be offered in the state. Subsequently, mayors in New York and California began to offer gay marriage in their towns and cities, citing civil rights concerns. Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point. More information is available on the Marriage Topic Page
www.usconstitution.net...

The constitution has nothing to do with marriage
and I was referring to state laws trumping the federal government when no laws exist.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The equal protection clause is about race only which one cannot change. It has nothing about homosexuality or marriage both of which are choices.

reply to post by Christian Voice

Your post shows how fast this right has moved. From 1999 when a single U.S. state instituted a way-stop called "civil unions", to 2004 when gay marriage took a role, and now, probably in 2014, the act will be legalized in the entire country. Thanks for the history. The "full faith and credit" clause covers civil contracts from the several states which must be accepted in all states, and now that over 1/3 of the U.S. states allow gay marriage, there is little argument to lean on for denying the activation of that clause regarding this issue. Similar to the old no-interracial marriage laws, time just passed them by.

Christian Voice
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

The equal protection clause is about race only which one cannot change. It has nothing about homosexuality or marriage both of which are choices.

Homosexuality is not a choice. That may be where your thought process is lacking a key step - gay men like men the same as straight men like women. The body reacts. Gay men do not want women sexually, their body does not react with the chemical and hormonal flood that occurs when opposite sex couples see or associate with an attractive person. So, yeah, once you get past that one maybe you can actually celebrate this lifestyle and accept the happiness and equal rights of someone who can't marry how you would like them to marry.

reply to post by Christian Voice


I know marriage isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, but it doesn't need to be. Because equal treatment under the law is. Marriage is a legal contract with the state.

Christian Voice
The equal protection clause is about race only which one cannot change. It has nothing about homosexuality or marriage both of which are choices.

Race was the primary motivation, but certainly not the only one. The clause has been used to protect the legal rights concerning gender, disability and sexual orientation.

Additionally, the judiciary has read this clause as requiring not just legal equality with white people, but also legal equality among white people, controversially extending the clause even beyond the equality among white people that existed in any state when the clause was written.

Source

reply to post by Aleister

it is a choice plain and simple because of course if it was not a choice then theres your excuse. Being a choice gives the person responsibility for their actions.
Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a heavy judgment administered by God Himself upon those who commit it - and support it. This judgment is simple in that those who practice it are given over to their passions - which means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins.

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error," (Rom. 1:26-27).

As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. They will not seek forgiveness. They will die in their sins and face God's holy condemnation. But, that isn't all. In addition to the judgment of being given over to their sin, those involved in it also promote it and condemn others who don't approve of their behavior.

"...and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them," (Rom. 1:32).

So, in their hearty approval of homosexuality they encourage others to be trapped in their sinfulness. This means they will reject Christ's redemptive work on the cross. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, they will have no salvation. Without salvation, there is only damnation in eternal hell. We don't want this for anyone.

reply to post by Christian Voice


The words you are quoting were written by men of religious power who held the pen, and who would stone their own mothers for being a witch or something. This was a time of ignorance, dark nights, and of scary things in the sky. A long ago time. And besides, the gay marriage ruling in Utah is a secular law, and not a religious law - just ask the Mormons living there who helped to fund the takedown of the California law before it was put back up again by a few Supreme Court justices meandering by.

reply to post by Aleister


Yet you hold true words written by other men. Irony in it's fullest.