Supreme Court Puts Utah Same-sex Marr...

Supreme Court Puts Utah Same-sex Marriage on Hold

There are 298 comments on the News Max story from Jan 6, 2014, titled Supreme Court Puts Utah Same-sex Marriage on Hold. In it, News Max reports that:

Shelly Eyre holds the marriage license issued to her and her partner Cheryl Haws at the Utah County Clerk's office in Provo on Dec. 26. The Supreme Court on Monday put same-sex marriages on hold in Utah, at least while a federal appeals court more fully considers the issue.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News Max.

First Prev
of 15
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#298 Jan 13, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Except of course for the simple fact that you're wrong as usual.
It's right there in the text of the Constitution, MULTIPLE TIMES:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged...."
But I do enjoy watching you freak out over it.
Liberal Democratic Representative . Jesse Jackson Jr.(yeah, the felon) also introduced a bill to put an explicit affirmative "right t vote" in the U.S. Constitution. Why don't you write and ask him ?

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#299 Jan 13, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberal Democratic Representative . Jesse Jackson Jr.(yeah, the felon) also introduced a bill to put an explicit affirmative "right t vote" in the U.S. Constitution. Why don't you write and ask him ?
http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm...
No need, it's right there in the text of the Constitution multiple times:

"The right of citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged...."

Yep, pretty clear to anyone with a even a basic understanding of the constitution. Which explains why you and Jesse don't get it.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#302 Jan 13, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No need, it's right there in the text of the Constitution multiple times:
"The right of citizen of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged...."
Yep, pretty clear to anyone with a even a basic understanding of the constitution. Which explains why you and Jesse don't get it.
Why don't you just ask the ACLU or an attorney or other competent legal authority ?

Are Representative Pocan, and former Representative Jackson, and Justice Scalia, and all the others all wrong on this ? That's what you're saying ???

"The 2000 presidential election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." The U.S. is one of only 11 other democracies in the world with no affirmative right to vote enshrined in its constitution."

http://www.fairvote.org/right-to-vote-amendme...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#303 Jan 14, 2014
Brokeback Mtn wrote:
<quoted text>
Citizen Felons can vote? Another lie?
Just like any other right, the right to vote can be restricted.

That doesn't negate the simple fact the right still exists.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#304 Jan 14, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you just ask the ACLU or an attorney or other competent legal authority ?
Are Representative Pocan, and former Representative Jackson, and Justice Scalia, and all the others all wrong on this ? That's what you're saying ???
"The 2000 presidential election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." The U.S. is one of only 11 other democracies in the world with no affirmative right to vote enshrined in its constitution."
http://www.fairvote.org/right-to-vote-amendme...
No need to ask anyone. It's right there in plain English multiple times in the text of the Constitution:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged...."

Once again you parse the SCOTUS ruling to twist its meaning into something it's not.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#305 Jan 14, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to ask anyone. It's right there in plain English multiple times in the text of the Constitution:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged...."
Once again you parse the SCOTUS ruling to twist its meaning into something it's not.
WRONG i I can see that you are afraid of the TRUTH.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#306 Jan 14, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG i I can see that you are afraid of the TRUTH.
Nope, it's right there in plain English MULTIPLE times:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the Unites States or any State...."

If there is no right to vote, why would they start every amendment with that affirmative declarative statement?

The SCOTUS specifically said the right to vote is a fundamental right.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#307 Jan 14, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll have to read the historical literature. It certainly included any and all firearms, sabres, swords, bayonets, and even cannons, as in many cases, officers and enlisted men had to supply their OWN weapons.
And even today it is not illegal to own an operable cannon or otehr artillery. In fact they're often used at ski resorts for avalanche control.
If you do NOT like what the Second Amendment says, because "times have changed" or "weapons are different, or any other reason, then I suggest hat you work to CHANGE IT. Why don't you do that if you don't like it ? After all, we've changed other parts of the U.S. Constitution that we didn't like after awhile, didn't we ?
Some people say that the Second Amendment shouldn't apply to weapons such as automatic weapons, and high-tech weapons because "the Founders could never have envisioned them." If that is going to be your argument then would you also say that the First Amendment's protections of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of The Press should NOT apply to magazines, and tv, and the radio, and the internet, and the world wide web, because " the Founders could never have envisioned them." ?
Maybe your pretzel logic works on some, but not me. Trying to conflate "arms" with "magazines and TV" is worthy of Sarah Palin.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#308 Jan 14, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you just ask the ACLU or an attorney or other competent legal authority ?
Are Representative Pocan, and former Representative Jackson, and Justice Scalia, and all the others all wrong on this ? That's what you're saying ???
"The 2000 presidential election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." The U.S. is one of only 11 other democracies in the world with no affirmative right to vote enshrined in its constitution."
http://www.fairvote.org/right-to-vote-amendme...
Who are the "electors for the President?" hint: it's NOT the general public... it's the electoral college.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#309 Jan 14, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, it's right there in plain English MULTIPLE times:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the Unites States or any State...."
If there is no right to vote, why would they start every amendment with that affirmative declarative statement?
The SCOTUS specifically said the right to vote is a fundamental right.
They said the OPPOSITE !

BUSH v. GORE (2000): "The Bush v. Gore majority directly addressed the right to vote. Writing about appointing electors, the majority states:“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,” citing McPherson v. Blacker which states that a state’s ability to decide how to appoint electors is plenary. Indeed, many states did not hold elections to determine electors in our nation’s early decades, and Colorado did not hold a presidential election as recently as 1876."

http://www.fairvote.org/the-constitutional-ri...

YOU ARE WRONG ! ADMIT IT !

There is NO U.S. Constitutional "right to vote !" GIVE IT UP !

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#310 Jan 14, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
They said the OPPOSITE !
BUSH v. GORE (2000): "The Bush v. Gore majority directly addressed the right to vote. Writing about appointing electors, the majority states:“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States,” citing McPherson v. Blacker which states that a state’s ability to decide how to appoint electors is plenary. Indeed, many states did not hold elections to determine electors in our nation’s early decades, and Colorado did not hold a presidential election as recently as 1876."
http://www.fairvote.org/the-constitutional-ri...
YOU ARE WRONG ! ADMIT IT !
There is NO U.S. Constitutional "right to vote !" GIVE IT UP !
"until and unless"

Oh, you edited out the most important part of the quote as usual.

Yep, the right to vote is in plain English (that's probably what tripped you up) multiple times in the Constitution:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote SHALL NOT BE DENIED OR ABRIDGED by the United States or the States...."

Yep, that says it all.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#311 Jan 14, 2014
And now Oklahoma...

I bet there's some pissed off Dominionists in Oklahoma tonight.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#312 Jan 14, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
And now Oklahoma...
I bet there's some pissed off Dominionists in Oklahoma tonight.
SCOTUS is going to have to address this issue a lot sooner than they, and probably anybody else, thought. And once they get 2 or more federal appeals courts issuing opposite rulings on the matter, they are going to have to face it.

SCOTUS ruled long ago that marriage is a right protected under the U.S. Constitution. I cannot see them saying: "Yes marriage is a fundamental right, but we're going to care out an exception for gay and lesbian Americans." especially since our opponents have NEVER been able to demonstrate that there is any harm to anyone whatsoever in letting gay and lesbian Americans marry whom they choose.

I think it's going to be a LOT sooner than 10 years, and perhaps even withing 5 years. Look how far we've come already in such a short amount of time recently.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#313 Jan 14, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS is going to have to address this issue a lot sooner than they, and probably anybody else, thought. And once they get 2 or more federal appeals courts issuing opposite rulings on the matter, they are going to have to face it.
SCOTUS ruled long ago that marriage is a right protected under the U.S. Constitution. I cannot see them saying: "Yes marriage is a fundamental right, but we're going to care out an exception for gay and lesbian Americans." especially since our opponents have NEVER been able to demonstrate that there is any harm to anyone whatsoever in letting gay and lesbian Americans marry whom they choose.
I think it's going to be a LOT sooner than 10 years, and perhaps even withing 5 years. Look how far we've come already in such a short amount of time recently.
Actually the SCOTUS doesn't HAVE to address anything. You'd know that if you understood the constitution. They can simply allow the appeals court rulings to stand. I agree they are LIKELY to address the issue eventually, but they certainly don't HAVE to. We can get marriage equality nationwide without the SCOTUS.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#314 Jan 14, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the SCOTUS doesn't HAVE to address anything. You'd know that if you understood the constitution. They can simply allow the appeals court rulings to stand. I agree they are LIKELY to address the issue eventually, but they certainly don't HAVE to. We can get marriage equality nationwide without the SCOTUS.
I meant "have to" as a practical matter, not as a legal matter or constitutional matter.
But when you have 2 or more federal appeals courts issuing opposite rulings whether we have a U.S. Constitutional RIGHT to marry, as practical matter they will have to address it because it will be intolerable for gay and lesbian couples when they travel thru the states to suddenly become legally "unmarried" depending upon where they are. And a situation like this, which is what we have today, brings all sorts of complications to children's issues, insurance issues, hospitalization issues, etc., as we all know.

Moreover it finally just comes down to common sense, and decency, for ALL Americans. SCOTUS will rule on this sooner rather than later.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#315 Jan 14, 2014
2015-16

Nuff said.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#317 Jan 15, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I meant "have to" as a practical matter, not as a legal matter or constitutional matter.
But when you have 2 or more federal appeals courts issuing opposite rulings whether we have a U.S. Constitutional RIGHT to marry, as practical matter they will have to address it because it will be intolerable for gay and lesbian couples when they travel thru the states to suddenly become legally "unmarried" depending upon where they are. And a situation like this, which is what we have today, brings all sorts of complications to children's issues, insurance issues, hospitalization issues, etc., as we all know.
Moreover it finally just comes down to common sense, and decency, for ALL Americans. SCOTUS will rule on this sooner rather than later.
The reasoning in the District Court Ruling is clear and precise and ... well ... lean.

The SCotUS will not grant Cert.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#318 Jan 15, 2014
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The reasoning in the District Court Ruling is clear and precise and ... well ... lean.
The SCotUS will not grant Cert.
I agree.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 15
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Pulse nightclub massacre is Florida's top story... 22 min gary 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 28 min lides 44,022
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 31 min lides 23,883
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 36 min Demon Finder 201
News The Case for Decriminalizing Gay Sex in Public ... 48 min Southern Charm 2
News Homosexuality against natural law (Sep '09) 1 hr Southern Charm 1,433
News Gay man legally donates blood after a year with... 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 4
More from around the web