Utah Legalises Same-Sex Marriage One Day After NM.

And that is why they will lose. They have no actual reasonable argument.

 

Yup. But that keep at it. It's the desperation. So sad. They are driven by a fear and dread yet don't even understand what they are afraid of.

 

This is really interesting !!

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court turned away appeals Monday from five states seeking to prohibit same-sex marriages, paving the way for an immediate expansion of gay and lesbian unions.

The justices on Monday did not comment in rejecting appeals from Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. No other state cases were currently pending with the high court, but the justices stopped short of resolving for now the question of same-sex marriage nationwide.

The court's order immediately ends delays on marriage in those states. Couples in six other states — Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming — should be able to get married in short order. Those states would be bound by the same appellate rulings that were put on hold pending the Supreme Court's review. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/1...n_5938854.html

 

Game over as per SCOTUS and the 10th circuit!!

 

Get over it Kans Ass

 

Well I had put this thread on the back burner after the 10th Circuit Appeals Court upheld the lower federal court rulings tossing out bans on same sex marriage from Utah and Oklahoma.

Subsequently, SCOTUS turned away appeals from those states which effectively apply to all states in that circuit. The four other states in that circuit are Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and Kansas of which, only Kansas did not have same sex marriage before these events and they are going kicking and screaming.

Following a federal judges order to abide by the 10th circuit court ruling, Kansas filed a request with SCOTUS for a stay pending an appeal, despite the fact that SCOTUS already turned away the appeals from Oklahoma and Utah. What makes them think that this will fly? They claim to have a unique argument having to do with states rights:

Well here it is, approaching 5PM on 11.12.14 and nothing further.

 

SCOTUS denied Kansas' stay request, marriages can start in Kansas.


http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/setting-up-another-same-sex-marriage-case/#more-221416

 

Thank you. Another indication from CSCOTUS as to where this is going when they take a marriage case. Two decenters? Hummm? Who could they be? But only two!!

 

The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause is not hard to understand if heterosexual couples get tons of benefits for being married, same sex couples have the same rights afforded them assuming they meet the same laws in the state to be married (age of consent and blood ties are still in effect). See that is what a court is supposed to do enforce the Constitutions of their state AND Federal government whichever is higher and the 14th Amendment is part of the US Constitution therefore the highest law of the land over all others below it.

Intent doesn't matter in the interpretation its black and white English.

Don't like it all Utah has to do is eliminate marriage as a government granted institution in the State deferring to private contractual arrangements and annul all marriage made before then, if there is no state supported marriage then all parties become equal OR you can amend the 14th Amendment Clause with another amendment good luck either of those happen.

 

Scalia and Thomas were the dissenters who went on record. It is not known if anybody else voted to uphold the stay, though Roberts and Alito would be the obvious choices.

 

Oh Christ! Get a load of this:

 

They're all looing their grip, if they ever had a grip on reality!

 

Another desperate attempt by Republicans to lawlessly circumvent the court rulings and the constitution on same sex marriage. This is the most ridiculous one yet. Anyone who wants to marry must get the approval of a clergy person?!! How can that be remotely constitutional?

And what will it accomplish aside from setting up a system that discriminates against people who do not want religion inserted into their marriage. At the same time, it will not really stop most gay folks from marrying as many clergy are quite willing to accommodate them although they may have to go outside of their religion or denomination to do so. However, those proposing this are probably to stupid to know any of this

It appears that there are some people who a seeking to drag the court battles out for another decade or more, after SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is a right as is heterosexual marriage.

Note: Oklahoma is in the tenth Circuit Court of Appeals which also includes Utah , Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico. That court has ruled against the states on same sex marriage bans, and SCOTUS has turned away appeals from the states, effectively legalizing same sex marriage in the entire circuit,

 

I followed the link, that was about the craziest reaction ever. What neurons in that guy's brain collide to make him believe such a move would ever pass constitutional muster?

I have an idea, why don't we pass a bill saying that persons can only be married by and licenses issued through a six headed-serpent?

That's my personal belief on marriage so why can't I make it a law?

 

I got a large charge over how this was presented in Alabama, where a federal judge recently (last week) tossed out the same-sex marriage ban. What was comical was that in one column was a brief description of the judge - who it turns out is a strict Constitutional constructionist, solid Republican, recommended for the post by Sen. Sessions of Alabama and nominated by George Bush in 2002. She has a long record as a tough judge.

And in the adjoining column was a rant by the Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, saying the sanctity of marriage in Alabama is being undermined by the radical far left-wing Obama Democrats! Of course the judge has nothing to do with the left, or with Democrats, or with Obama. One wonders whether Republicans consider such details relevant. But the page layout in the newspaper made it obvious that the Chairman was completely unacquainted with ANY of the facts.