Lawyers ask Supreme Court to allow sa...

Lawyers ask Supreme Court to allow same-sex unions

There are 26 comments on the MDJonline.com story from Jan 3, 2014, titled Lawyers ask Supreme Court to allow same-sex unions. In it, MDJonline.com reports that:

Lawyers for same-sex couples in Utah filed court papers Friday with the U.S. Supreme Court explaining why gay marriage should be allowed to continue in the state.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at MDJonline.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Rainbow Kid with the News

Alpharetta, GA

#1 Jan 3, 2014
The headline fails to note this is our side's response to the Supreme Court inquiry on the UTAH marriage case. Our lawyers beat the noon deadline by several hours
.
Here is a 3 page report that expands on this news story (be sure to read past the break on each page):
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57347395-78...
Rainbow Kid with the News

Alpharetta, GA

#2 Jan 3, 2014
Here is our 61 page response (PDF) as submitted to Justice Sotomeyer
http://pub.bna.com/lw/13A687Response.pdf
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#3 Jan 3, 2014
States regulate marriage. I don't think you see that taken away from the states.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4 Jan 3, 2014
Wondering wrote:
States regulate marriage. I don't think you see that taken away from the states.
The same thing happened in the Loving case, as you well know. NO American should have their ability to travel anywhere in the US restricted, simply to preserve their legal marriage. THAT is why all these state bans will eventually fail.

No state has the right to harm the legally married citizens of other states in that way - this is why it becomes a federal issue.
david traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

#5 Jan 3, 2014
Wondering wrote:
States regulate marriage. I don't think you see that taken away from the states.
Too bad states' regulations fail to make married people stay married for very long .. That's what really harms the children they so carelessly procreate and then criminally neglect .

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#6 Jan 3, 2014
Wondering wrote:
States regulate marriage. I don't think you see that taken away from the states.
Right. Because Loving v Virginia never happened.
KKKafeteria KKKristains

Philadelphia, PA

#7 Jan 3, 2014
Wondering wrote:
States regulate marriage. I don't think you see that taken away from the states.
Back to that mental malfunction again.
KKKafeteria KKKristains

Philadelphia, PA

#8 Jan 3, 2014
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. Because Loving v Virginia never happened.
DOMA is what moved marriage equality specifically into the federal realm. Same sex marriage was actually only a state issue until then.

Federal court cases might have emerged without DOMA (they surely would have) but DOMA made it all a federal matter.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#9 Jan 3, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The same thing happened in the Loving case, as you well know. NO American should have their ability to travel anywhere in the US restricted, simply to preserve their legal marriage. THAT is why all these state bans will eventually fail.
No state has the right to harm the legally married citizens of other states in that way - this is why it becomes a federal issue.
"excluding the children of same-sex couples from those benefits causes severe harm to those children, without providing any benefit to the children of opposite-sex parents."

The law is unconstitutional.

Hopefully 2014 will be the year when more people on the right finally "get it".

The law is unconstitutional.

I hope Justice Sonia Sotomayor decides that the State has failed to show any compelling interest for issuing a stay. And I hope she eventually denies an appeal.

The law is unconstitutional.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#10 Jan 3, 2014
Wondering wrote:
States regulate marriage. I don't think you see that taken away from the states.
Hey bonehead study some history over how Utah became a State!

It was part of a deal with Congress that Utah would eliminate polygamy.

Now fast forward to the 90's when folks like you threatened a U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning SSM. You knew it would take years to pass so you kept that front asnd center in the news while you came up with your end run around the U.S. Constitution (and many SCOTUS rulings), the Federal DOMA.

Then SCOTUS said in the Windsor decision that if a law denies marriage to gays and lesbians it is violating the U.S. Constitution ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

You blew it and now want to turn back time and say marriage isn't a Federal issue after YOU MADE IT ONE!

Spin the wheel all you want; you'll always land on LOSER!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#11 Jan 3, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Hey bonehead study some history over how Utah became a State!
It was part of a deal with Congress that Utah would eliminate polygamy.
Now fast forward to the 90's when folks like you threatened a U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning SSM. You knew it would take years to pass so you kept that front asnd center in the news while you came up with your end run around the U.S. Constitution (and many SCOTUS rulings), the Federal DOMA.
Then SCOTUS said in the Windsor decision that if a law denies marriage to gays and lesbians it is violating the U.S. Constitution ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
You blew it and now want to turn back time and say marriage isn't a Federal issue after YOU MADE IT ONE!
Spin the wheel all you want; you'll always land on LOSER!
Nice angle.
Fumblementalist Dogma

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Jan 3, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>The law is unconstitutional. Hopefully 2014 will be the year when more people on the right finally "get it". The law is unconstitutional.
Right, and it's important to keep in mind that the mix of trolls and mullahs and teenagers who habituate these glbt forums online represent among the most retrograde examples of homophobes.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#13 Jan 4, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Hey bonehead study some history over how Utah became a State!
It was part of a deal with Congress that Utah would eliminate polygamy.
Now fast forward to the 90's when folks like you threatened a U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning SSM. You knew it would take years to pass so you kept that front asnd center in the news while you came up with your end run around the U.S. Constitution (and many SCOTUS rulings), the Federal DOMA.
Then SCOTUS said in the Windsor decision that if a law denies marriage to gays and lesbians it is violating the U.S. Constitution ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
You blew it and now want to turn back time and say marriage isn't a Federal issue after YOU MADE IT ONE!
Spin the wheel all you want; you'll always land on LOSER!
Quite right. When Baker was decided, SCOTUS ducked, leaving the definition of marriage to the states. It would have been controlling in the Utah case if homophobes had not taken the following actions:
1) passing the federal DOMA, which took the decision away from states.
2) Colorado's Amendment 2, which resulted in the Romer precedent that minorities have the right to petition government.
3). Arrest of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under anti-sodomy statutes, which resulted in the decision extending rights of privacy and personal choice to same-sex couples.
4) passing California Prop 8, through which the public came to understand the inability of anti gays to support their claims. Although SCOTUS did not rule on the merits and the 9'th Circuit decision was vacated, Judge Walker's decision stands. And Judge Walker's decision has the force of a circuit court decision, having been argued and confirmed by the appellate court. Indeed, Judge Walker's decision may have greater force since SCOTUS vacated the circuit courts more limited ruling.
5) Appealing Judge Walker's decision to the 9'th circuit and to SCOTUS. had the proponents of Prop 8 accepted Judge walker's ruling, as the state did, it would have little value as precedent.
6) forming the "Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group" for the purpose of appealing Windsor and other DOMA cases. Of course, the action by the bipartisan group was undertaken by only Republicans. Without their action, however, we would not have the precedent that Judge Shelby relied upon heavily.

If cops hadn't insisted on harassing gays with arrest, Hardwick would still control all so sodomy cases. If the state hadn't fought for their right to continue harassing, we wouldn't have the definitive and sweeping decision from SCOTUS.

If homophobes hadn't been so eager to deny all rights to gays, we wouldn't have had Colorado Amendment 2. If the state hadn't fought for the right to discriminate, we wouldn't have the clear ruling that discrimination against gays is unconstitutional. If Californians had not passed Prop 8, we would not have Judge Walker's decision. If agitators outside the government had not attempted to intervene, Judge Walker's decision would not be so well-known and influential. If Congress had not passed DOMA, we would not have the clear precedent that failing to recognize marriages of similarly situated couples amounts to impermissible discrimination.. If not for BLAG, SCOTUS would not have had the opportunity to rule.

Sometimes--no, usually--our enemies are our best weapons.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#14 Jan 4, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
The same thing happened in the Loving case, as you well know.
False. The Loving case involved the marriage of one man to one woman.
Since men were allowed to marry women at that time there was no reason to deny this marriage. The law did not apply equally to all citizens. In any state, whether gay marriage is banned or not, the laws apply equally to all residents.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Jan 4, 2014
Wondering wrote:
States regulate marriage. I don't think you see that taken away from the states.
So states can still ban inter-racial couples from marrying?

Good to know.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Jan 4, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
False. The Loving case involved the marriage of one man to one woman.
Since men were allowed to marry women at that time there was no reason to deny this marriage. The law did not apply equally to all citizens. In any state, whether gay marriage is banned or not, the laws apply equally to all residents.
The law in Virginia DID apply equally to all citizens. Any citizen was allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex and same race.

It applied equally to all citizens.

Right?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#17 Jan 4, 2014
So if a majority of citizens vote to ban Mormons, that must be constitutional as well?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Jan 4, 2014
We should have a decision on the stay request by Monday.

I'm thinking they are going to deny a stay at this point, and will likely deny the coming appeal after the 10th circuit rules in a couple of months.
Quest

Boston, VA

#19 Jan 4, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
False. The Loving case involved the marriage of one man to one woman.
Since men were allowed to marry women at that time there was no reason to deny this marriage. The law did not apply equally to all citizens. In any state, whether gay marriage is banned or not, the laws apply equally to all residents.
Gender is irrelevant in this case, since a multitude of states and the federal government recognize same-sex marriages in the same way they recognize man/woman marriage. It's the same argument, even if you don't want to recognize it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Jan 4, 2014
The real question is will this decision be limited to just Utah, or will the 10th circuit apply it to all the other remaining states in that circuit (CO, KS, OK, WY) as well?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 5 min Francisco Salvato... 27,196
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 6 min dollarsbill 17,196
The silent majority 16 min Hudson 32
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 1 hr Wondering 561
News Anthony Rapp, Wilson Cruz On Star Trek's First ... 1 hr Wondering 72
News The Internet is mad at Chelsea Handler for "ant... 1 hr Wondering 17
News Gay rights debate reaches Lancaster Mennonites 1 hr dollarsbill 19
News 83% of Russian people consider gay sex a repreh... 9 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 9
News Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 10 hr Gov Corbutt of th... 678
More from around the web