Utah legalizes gay marriage, December 20, 2013

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Thanks. Recognizing the marriages in a state which doesn't perform them seems almost required now, as such a large percentage of the U.S. population lives in gay marriage states. When they begin marrying in Illinois the people in Louisville and Lexington can just drive over the river and get married, then come back to Kentucky for the reception and party, so the economy of both states will be stronger for this action. But this is all mute anyway, as the courts are slowly but surely making sure that all states open up their marriage bureaus to gays, and Kentucky would do itself a service to just do the same now.

Good find.

cascade
No nation has ever survived a homosexual uprising in the history of mankind. The USA will collapse just like the others in history.
We are no better than them.

Many things can cause the destruction of a nation, but homosexuality is at the top of that list.

Well, maybe some other things are at the top of the list, but OK. Welcome to ATS, and I hope you enjoy it here. Not a bad place to socialize and expound your thoughts and ideas. Good to meet you, and nice username.

reply to post by cascade

Now I am confused by your posting and maybe you can answer them back up with facts. After all we should all use facts to determine the truth of the matter; such is the nature in the USA legal system and not just based on pure emotions.

Now you state that Homosexuality is against nature and god, yet fail to take into account the following points, perhaps you can clarify such for us all:

As you mentioned God, can you please tell us which God are you referring to? After all if the founding fathers did not like each other all because of the religion they followed, then which one is the correct belief that we should look at and consider?

But then again, as this is clearly a legal issue, most if not all courts in the United States of America, do not use religion as a valid excuse as to deny rights to anyone. If that were the case, and there have been in the past, where religion was used as a valid means to allow for discrimination and even slavery. Do we now go with what the majority of the country would look in horror at, and that would be laws based off and defined by a religious nature? If that is so, then why is the very concept or even mention of Sharia in the legal aspects is often fought against if not outright rejected in the USA? There are plenty of countries where religious doctrine is still the basis of laws, from some countries in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East and to Asia. And the punishments for violating those religious laws, all because the are recorded down in some book, are very harsh. Would we go back in time, where we deny rights to groups because it is against what would be considered God’s law?

I am also confused as to where in any holy text, and being an avid reader, is homosexuality mentioned specifically in any text? No text, to my knowledge states, homosexuality directly. It is vague and alludes to.

Now according to most statistics, as documented and seen, it seems that when gay couples move into a neighborhood, the property values of the area tend to go up. They tend to take very good care of the property, tend to ensure that they are good neighbors, and tend to do things to make the place look very nice. In fact, it is seen that in areas where they move in, people tend to want to move to, as it is clean and the houses look very nice, tasteful, a place where you would want to raise a family. Is that such a bad thing? Source (www.huffingtonpost.com...) And (www.smartplanet.com...) And this: (www.sfgate.com...)
If anything the experts, the economist are all stating that by allowing for same sex marriage, you are opening up a new market that would require services and those that are already there could very well see a boost in sales that means more jobs, more taxes and better town and a better economy.

Now you mention a homosexual uprising, and that no nation has ever survived such. But funny, the Macedonian Empire lasted a good 700 years before falling to another Empire. And then there was the Roman Empire that lasted over 1000 years, and both allowed for homosexuality. The Spartans were considered the most feared warriors around, and they were all homosexuals or bisexuals. So is that how the USA going to go?


Or could the decline of the USA be something else that is a bit more obvious, like the federal government and the numerous laws that restrict?

It's interesting how people say "gay people aren't natural", and even though it sounds stupid since homosexuality is found in nature, they still use this argument. The worse part is, after you showed that homosexuality is natural, they switch on you from debating the "naturalness" of homosexuality to the "morality" of it, by saying "well some animals also eat their own children".

If you are trying to make a "moral" argument against homosexuality, why complain about the naturalness of it, since whether or not something is natural is irrelevant to whether it is moral or not?

Natural things that are harmful:

poison ivy, cannibalism, murder, thievery, etc.

Unnatural things that are beneficial:

eye-glasses, wheel-chairs, internet (which is used to gather information), etc.

Now, if you are saying that homosexuality is evil because it doesn't produce children, then that would also mean masturbation is evil and so is sex unless they are doing it just to get pregnant.

If you are against homosexuality, at least be consistent with your arguments otherwise you aren't using logic.

The Virginia case has also been decided in favor of gay marriage, a decision which removes - pending further court action, as this ruling was stayed upon its publication by the judge - the ban on gay marriages from the Virginia constitution.

Here is a thread on the Virginia decision, which now goes up to the 4th Circuit Court:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

which gives as a source this story from the Washington Post: Source

This was the case in which Virginia's new attorney general, in consultation with the new governor, refused to defend the state's constitutional ban, and I'd assume this would be their stance as the case moves to the 4th Circuit.

Oregon's attorney general says the state will not defend against the gay marriage lawsuit, with a quite definitive view:

news.yahoo.com...

Ellen Rosenblum joins fellow Democrat attorneys general in at least five other states who have pledged not to defend state bans on gay marriage.

"State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation," Rosenblum said in the documents filed in federal court on Thursday. "Rather, they will take the position ... that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review."

"...under any standard of review."

A hearing was held today before a federal judge in a Michigan attempt to overturn a ban on gay marriages which was passed by the voters.

www.freep.com...

The fate of Michigan’s gay-marriage ban is officially in the hands of a federal judge, who this morning heard opening statements in a case that will decide what marriage means in Michigan, and whether voters have a right to exclude gays and lesbians from forming that union and raising a family.

Voters in Michigan have already voted against gay-marriage – a point that state attorney Kristin Heyse hammered away in her opening statements.

And now a Texas federal judge has thrown out the Texas ban on gay marriage. Like the others, this ruling is stayed and will now likely move to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals:

www.nbcphiladelphia.com...

Judge Orlando Garcia issued the preliminary injunction after two gay couples challenged a state constitutional amendment and a longstanding law. He said the couples are likely to win their case and the ban should be lifted, but said he would give the state time to appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals before do so.

"Without a rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose, state-imposed inequality can find no refuge in our United States Constitution," Garcia wrote. "These Texas laws deny plaintiffs access to the institution of marriage and its numerous rights, privileges, and responsibilities for the sole reason that Plaintiffs wish to be married to a person of the same sex."

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case yesterday (I don't know if it's spilling into today), and here's a report about how the state has gutted its own case, and is now relying on only one argument: that straight people make better parents than a gay couple.

Although this appellate court may not rule for a few months yet, It seems it's all over but the fat lady singing, and I see her scoffing down some donuts as she prepares to take the stage.

www.slate.com...

Disgraced “academic” Mark Regnerus slid yet further into ignominy on Wednesday after defenders of Utah’s doomed gay marriage ban expunged all references to his debunked study in their brief. The state, which is currently defending the invalidated ban before the Tenth Circuit, had cited Regnerus in two footnotes in a previously filed brief, and structured much of its argument around the conclusions of Regnerus’ work, which asserts that gay couples make inferior parents. Now the state is asking the Tenth Circuit to pretend those footnotes don’t exist, a last-minute revision made “in response to recent press reports and analysis of the study by Professor Mark Regnerus.”

Euphemistic excuses aside, everyone knows that Utah dropped the Regnerus study in direct response to a Michigan federal judge’s complete and total dismissal of Regnerus’ work, after he denounced it as “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration."

The three-judge panel may be divided, according to this article:

abcnews.go.com...

The swing vote in the case appeared to be Judge Jerome A. Holmes, who had pointed questions for both sides. He compared Utah's same-sex marriage ban to Virginia's ban on interracial marriages, which the Supreme Court struck down in 1967.

That law "made that mixed-race couple essentially an 'other' for the purposes of marriage," Holmes said. "Why is that any different from this situation?"

But in addressing the plaintiffs' attorneys, Holmes said gay marriage is a new and novel concept, and courts should defer to the democratic process unless there are pressing reasons to intervene.

"What Utah has done is validated what has been historical practice forever," he told Tomsic.

Isn't it unconstitutional to force one religious belief against another?

People are supposed to have the freedom to practice their own religious beliefs as long as they aren't going against the constitutional laws (taking away the freedom of speech or religion of others for example)

If gay marriage is against your religious beliefs then by the constitution you have the right to practice your religious beliefs and stay away from gay marriages or whatever goes against your religious beliefs as long as you aren't forcing it on others (by stopping people with different religious beliefs to get married).

If you are a gay couple and your religious beliefs is that it's ok for gays to get married, then you should have the right to practice your religious beliefs and get married as long as you aren't forcing it on others (by forcing a person who doesn't agree with it to marry you).

I'm not sure how being gay was ever illegal in America, and I'm not sure how the constitution is not being used to protect some priests who feel that it is against their religious beliefs to marry gays, and I'm not sure how the constitution is not being used to protect gay people who want to get married (by a priest willing to marry them).

Whether you believe God is for or against gay marriage, it is your personal religious belief. One religious belief is not supposed to be suppressing another (that is the point of freedom of religion).

reply to post by arpgme


Maybe a misunderstanding. The Utah cases and the other cases crawling their way through the federal court system are about the legal right to marry in civil ceremonies, and are not discussing any infringement on the rights of churches, temples, etc., to deny weddings to gay couples. The first amendment division on church and state holds up here, and while some religions will allow gay marriages to be performed in their buildings and by their standard bearers, many others will not, and the state cannot force them to do so.

reply to post by Aleister


I understand the situation. I was speaking in general on the subject of 'gay marriage vs no gay marriage' . It can be applied to this situation too. Allowing gays civil marriage which is not forcing a church to marry them against their will, should be legal (since it doesn't violate the constitution in any way and allows for their pursuit of happiness).

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the decision to allow gays in Utah to marry, but has stayed the ruling to see if there will be an appeal.

www.latimes.com...

In a decision coming from Utah, a federal appeals court on Wednesday for the first time backed gay marriage..

The Denver-based U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court decision that struck down the state's bans on same-sex marriage.

The ruling, which was stayed, sets the stage for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which touched off the current round of legal fighting on the issue when it struck down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act last year.