Utah Gay Marriages Drama Takes New Tu...

Utah Gay Marriages Drama Takes New Turn - Feds Will Recognize Them

There are 25 comments on the JD Journal story from Jan 13, 2014, titled Utah Gay Marriages Drama Takes New Turn - Feds Will Recognize Them. In it, JD Journal reports that:

Despite a federal judge striking down Utah's gay marriage ban, and the state government appealing the order asking for a stay, and despite the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the temporary blocking of the federal judge's order made by the appeals court - the Department of Justice has announced that it is going to recognize gay marriages conducted in ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at JD Journal.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#1 Jan 13, 2014
UTAH's obtuse mormon theocracy is six months behind on current events
.
The US Supreme Court aced this issue LAST YEAR
.
Gays are Full American Citizens
.
What is it about Full American Citizenship that mormonizers cannot understand?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#2 Jan 13, 2014
The stay didn't invalidate the existing marriages, so the Feds SHOULD recognize them. The marriages were legally performed, after all.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#3 Jan 13, 2014
And the Utah Gov & AG just assured the 10th circuit will uphold the district court ruling by demonstrating the very animus the SCOTUS used as justification to overturn DOMA.

Way to go Utah!!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#4 Jan 13, 2014
I could be wrong, here, but can't gay couples ALREADY be parents in Utah? The marriage ban isn't about preventing parenthood - it's about preventing gay couples from being MARRIED parents.

Do they have any proof that shows married gay couples are worse parents then non-married parents? Wouldn't THAT be the only valid argument against preventing marriage?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#5 Jan 13, 2014
Since the marriage bans aren't about preventing or promoting parenting or procreation, they must see how silly this argument is.

The fact this this is ALL they have is heartwarming.

TomInElPaso

“Impeach the reality show actor”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#7 Jan 13, 2014
Quest wrote:
I could be wrong, here, but can't gay couples ALREADY be parents in Utah? The marriage ban isn't about preventing parenthood - it's about preventing gay couples from being MARRIED parents.
Do they have any proof that shows married gay couples are worse parents then non-married parents? Wouldn't THAT be the only valid argument against preventing marriage?
They used the much criticized and debunked Regenerus study in their defense.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8 Jan 13, 2014
Rainbow Kid wrote:
UTAH's obtuse mormon theocracy is six months behind on current events
.
The US Supreme Court aced this issue LAST YEAR
.
Gays are Full American Citizens
.
What is it about Full American Citizenship that mormonizers cannot understand?
Yep. The fourteenth amendment stands. The good news is that a very high percentage of Americans now understand the significance of our Constitution. It will hard for SCOTUS to make any rulings which go against it.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#9 Jan 13, 2014
Suspicious, I skimmed the article. Was I mistaking a vague antigay tone?

At any rate, this constant pretense that these people DON'T EXIST and their marriages DON'T EXIST looked mean-spirited and hateful until the last year or two; now it looks not only those things, but profoundly stupid as well. These people do exist and their relationships exist and nnnnnothing will change that. The federal government is being wise enough not to act like a bunch of stupid assholes about that; *shrug* they are acknowledging the marriages that occurred. Simple.
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#10 Jan 13, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
They used the much criticized and debunked Regenerus study in their defense.
Garbage in, garbage out.
I have a feeling they are going to pay very, very dearly for that. I hope my feeling is right.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11 Jan 13, 2014
Quest wrote:
The stay didn't invalidate the existing marriages, so the Feds SHOULD recognize them. The marriages were legally performed, after all.
Utah and I disagree. The judge was wrong and the state constitution bans it therefore the gay marriages were illegal.
These activist judges should be forbidden from legislating from the bench. It should cost them their jobs.
Jesus Latter Day Taint

Philadelphia, PA

#12 Jan 13, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Utah and I disagree. The judge was wrong and the state constitution bans it therefore the gay marriages were illegal.
These activist judges should be forbidden from legislating from the bench. It should cost them their jobs.
The judge isn't wrong until a higher court says he's wrong, you sexually ill, mongoloidal pos.

You live in a fictional Fox News, 6,000 year old universe of make believe where the judiciary is not a co equal branch of government, and you will go extinct, if not soon enough.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Jan 13, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
They used the much criticized and debunked Regenerus study in their defense.
Garbage in, garbage out.
I can hardly wait to read the SCotUS Finding regarding it's admissibility.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#14 Jan 13, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Utah and I disagree. The judge was wrong and the state constitution bans it therefore the gay marriages were illegal.
These activist judges should be forbidden from legislating from the bench. It should cost them their jobs.
I really wish you'd make an effort to understand legal precedents.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 1943
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

Constitution of the United States
Article. 3.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each."
- Chief Justice John Marshall; Marbury v Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Oh and if I remember the Federalist Papers (just in case you want to start whining about original intent)
, "The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
- Alexander Hamilton; Federalist No. 78

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#15 Jan 13, 2014
hi hi wrote:
Suspicious, I skimmed the article. Was I mistaking a vague antigay tone?
At any rate, this constant pretense that these people DON'T EXIST and their marriages DON'T EXIST looked mean-spirited and hateful until the last year or two; now it looks not only those things, but profoundly stupid as well. These people do exist and their relationships exist and nnnnnothing will change that. The federal government is being wise enough not to act like a bunch of stupid assholes about that; *shrug* they are acknowledging the marriages that occurred. Simple.
To me it wasn't so much anti-gay but anti-Obama Administration.

IMO the author doesn't understand basic law. The Federal govt. must recognise marriages of Same Sex Couples because of the Windsor decision. Since same sex couples were legally married in Utah, AG Holder is abiding by the Supreme Court ruling which clearly said these marriages are now legal on the Federal Level.

In fact it's as if they are trying to set up another run at the Prop 8 ruling which only applies in CA not the Federal level.

It's beginning to seem like we're watching old roadrunner cartoons.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#16 Jan 13, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I really wish you'd make an effort to understand legal precedents.
I do, you don't.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#17 Jan 13, 2014
Jesus Latter Day Taint wrote:
<quoted text>
The judge isn't wrong until a higher court says he's wrong, you sexually ill, mongoloidal pos.
They will have to change the constitution to make him right, you sexually ill, mongoloidal pos.
Jesus Latter Day Taint

Philadelphia, PA

#18 Jan 13, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They will have to change the constitution to make him right, you sexually ill, mongoloidal pos.
Hey mongoloid, the simple fact is that that judge's finding has not been over ruled. Those marriages from before the stay have not been undone by any ruling.

Your addled, frightened, sexually sick notions about constitutional law have nothing to do with that fact.

I suppose it is possible the bigots on the US Supreme Court could decide something was incorrect about that judge's equal protection finding, but that has not happened yet.

Those are called "facts," Cletus, like the earth being more than 10000 years old is a fact. Naturally you fundie trash don't traffic in fact. We know that.
Jesus Latter Day Taint

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Jan 13, 2014
"I suppose it is possible the bigots on the US Supreme Court could muster a majority to decide something was incorrect about that judge's equal protection finding...."
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#20 Jan 13, 2014
Jesus Latter Day Taint wrote:
Those marriages from before the stay have not been undone by any ruling.
This should be easy enough for even you to understand. You can't have gay marriage in a state that bans gay marriage. Those marriages don't exist.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#21 Jan 13, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Utah and I disagree. The judge was wrong and the state constitution bans it therefore the gay marriages were illegal.
These activist judges should be forbidden from legislating from the bench. It should cost them their jobs.
You opinion means nothing. Your disagreement means nothing.

You need to show, using the constitution, why your claim about activist judges holds water. The judge's ruling is based upon the constitution and legal arguments.

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
News Roy Moore accuser says she was not paid to tell... 17 min Get a life 41
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 2 hr Aquarius-WY 14,008
Why? 6 hr Jose 2
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 7 hr opportunity knocks 26,564
News Aboriginal drag queen bringing gay pride to reg... 7 hr Francisco 28
News Ten Commandments judge faces runoff in Alabama ... 7 hr Red Crosse 209
News Getting used to gay unions 8 hr Frankie Rizzo 26
Roy Moore.....Just Another Hypocrite 10 hr Francisco 113
News This Thanksgiving, I'm thankful for being born gay 11 hr youll shoot your ... 76
More from around the web