Utah: Same Sex Marriage On Hold…For Now
[guest post by Dana]
As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court order released today, Utah officials – at least for now – are not compelled to officially recognize nearly 1,300 same-sex marriages performed earlier this year.
From SCOTUS blog:
In a two-sentence order, without noted dissent, the Justices put on hold a federal judge’s ruling in May requiring the state to validate those marriages.
This marked the second time the Justices have stepped in to put on hold a federal court ruling in favor of same-sex marriages in Utah. The delay ordered Friday will be in effect until the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the state’s claim that those marriages did not have full legal status when performed. The state’s lawyers have called them “interim marriages.”
While a minor victory for opponents of SSM, proponents believe they will ultimately be victorious:
“We are deeply disappointed by the decision to grant a stay pending appeal, but despite this setback, we are confident that when the appellate process is completed we will prevail and these lawfully married same-sex couples will once again be given the same legal protections as ever (sic) other legally married Utah couple,” said Joshua Block, a staff attorney with the ACLU, which is representing couples who sued the state for immediate recognition of their marriages.
–Dana
I would hope that when this gets to the Supreme Court, the ruling is as follows:
“The US Constitution is silent on the issue of same sex marriage. Rules regarding marriage are properly a question for the legislature or the people in each state. State constitutions may not be used to put the decision out of reach of the legislature, but may be used to put the issue out of the reach of judges.”
But I doubt they will.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/18/2014 @ 3:34 pmThese cases should, if our public mind was healthy, discredit judicial review as a social practice and discredit the elite bar by revealing them as nothing but bundles of humbug. Trouble is, the public mind is utterly addled.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 7/18/2014 @ 4:54 pmTraditional values have not been routed in this country, but they are undergoing a strategic withdrawal.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 7/18/2014 @ 5:07 pmhow is stopping gay people from getting married a “victory” exactly minor or otherwise?
it’s just prejudice and it’s wrong
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/18/2014 @ 6:24 pmThere was a news report about a year or so ago regarding a DA in a town in Utah going after a polygamous family. The reporter asked one of the townspeople what she thought of the case, and the woman sort of smirked that since same-sex marriages were increasingly being recognized, what was the big deal about a guy married to several women?
The attitude or demeanor of people like that is hardly surprising and the human nature behind it is what’s most interesting. Or similar to the mindset that has manifested among many Americans following the late 1990s and greater desensitization today about the idea of a young intern sexually servicing a president in the White House.
The shock value has been lowered and the next controversy down the pike must be far more extreme or ridiculous to make people raise an eyebrow.
The wonders of Western civilization in the 21st century.
Mark (1667b9) — 7/18/2014 @ 6:31 pmBecause, as we all know, a bunch of heterosexuals long, long ago, in a galaxy, not far, far away, invented the concept of marriage as between a man and a woman to oppress homosexuals.
Michael Ejercito (becea5) — 7/18/2014 @ 7:40 pmjust cause their great great great great whatevers invented a concept doesn’t mean they own it
now gay people can get married too and it’s a good thing for america
back when these people were inventing their marriage concept there was no such thing as light beer even but now beer can mean any number of very different-tasting tasty beverages
and what’s more american than beer?
nothing that’s what
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/18/2014 @ 7:50 pmAnd I would hope the Supreme Court would say: The reason for that is marriage is a religious institution , and as so is not to be interpreted by government as government cannot establish nor prohibit religious freedom. Also, the state should not be involved in the rules of marriage since such would involve the state in the establishment of religion.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 7/18/2014 @ 8:04 pmso, happyfeet, would you support a military coup if that’s what it took to get SSM legal?
If not, then realize that the process matters to a lot of people. Many of these federal court decisions have been collusive defaults, where the state defendants don’t defend and federal standing rules prevent others from participating.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/18/2014 @ 8:05 pmi would not support a military coup at this time
let’s just wait and see how the process works out
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/18/2014 @ 8:08 pmSo, Hoagie, you want them to make rules; just rules you like. How does the state saying two guys can get married in the First Church of Little Gay Jesus harm you? Which right of yours has been infringed? Your right to tell them what to do?
Legally, it is simply a matter of civil law: “to which groups do we extend this contract right to?” Why are we doing it? Does it help or harm society (arguments both sides, I’m sure). This is what legislatures are for.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 7/18/2014 @ 8:11 pmI think President Obama needs to pick up his pen and phone and issue another Red Line.
Those make me Lol.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/18/2014 @ 8:25 pmMy recollection is that 20 years ago a Dodge Stealth cost over $40K.
WTF was with that? A Corvette without the tradition.
Why bother, you are marked as a loser, just a minimally affluent, particularly tasteless pretender.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 7/18/2014 @ 8:28 pmFirst Church of Little Gay Jesus… Heh. Thanks, I needed a laugh.
Dana (4dbf62) — 7/18/2014 @ 8:29 pmSigh.
Why didn’t the very first judge say, the very first time this idiocy was raised: “Don’t be silly. The word and the concept of “marriage” have, from the dawn of civilization, meant one woman united with one man. The precedent stands. Case dismissed.”
PLEASE NOTE: My argument is based on the degradation of our language as used in law. If some activist judge can change the definition of “marriage” from what it has meant for centuries, the definition of “God-given rights” is also up for change. So is “due process”. Also “testimony”, “fair trial”, “jury of peers”, “vote”, “justice”, and “elect”. Plus a few thousand more. It would have been far, far, FAR better to have come up with a new term (say, “civil union”) which would confer the supposed “benefits of marriage” to a “non-traditional couple” (and ==> SPECIFICALLY a “couple”; when the inevitable “sincerely committed threesomes” demand to have THEIR nuptials legally recognized, they’ll have to present a new argument and get a new term to describe their, uh, lifestyle arrangements).
A_Nonny_Mouse (f32645) — 7/18/2014 @ 11:27 pmchange is the only constant Mr. Mouse
it’s a thing
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/18/2014 @ 11:40 pmIf a mo can’t marry a man can he still marry 25 women like mitt romneys grand father?
vota (7cf4a8) — 7/19/2014 @ 12:10 amno
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/19/2014 @ 1:39 am7- happyfeet, Cutting the chord is more American than beer.
mg (31009b) — 7/19/2014 @ 2:52 amJust putting everything on hold pending SCOTUS finding marriage just ain’t marriage no more.
cedarhill (d4cecf) — 7/19/2014 @ 4:19 amSlow down, pilgrim, you’re riding too fast.
There was actually nothing wrong with the Dodge Stealth. But then, I’m the kind of guy who will show up at the local drag strip in a ’72 Pinto with a 2.3 turbo.
Gawd I love those. Remember back in the ’80’s when Mustang GTs came in two flavors, turbo fours and V8s?
No that a V8 Pinto is to be despised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbLxl_3hu2g#t=13
I digress. Anyhoo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_GTO
Dodge may have put their badge on a lot of crappy cars but this ain’t one of them.
On the other hand I support your effort to badmouth these cars, thus driving their resale values down.
I’m not in the market for a Dodge Stealth (although if the price was right…) but if you could start telling people what a
Steve57 (e07d88) — 7/19/2014 @ 5:15 amPOS the Buick Regal Grand National was I’d appreciate it.
A_Nonny_Mouse (f32645) — 7/18/2014 @ 11:27 pm
Agreed. Actually, this is actually the first reason I am against the change as a simple matter of logic.
I have read where the Dems in Congress are eager to redefine “freedom of speech” by making more laws about being able to regulate money spent on campaigns, because, hey, money is money, not speech, and there is nothing about not regulating money.
Steve57 (e07d88) — 7/19/2014 @ 5:15 am
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 7/19/2014 @ 6:02 amThe first car I drove was a 71 Pinto. Whether it had 4 cylinders or chipmunks on a treadmill under the hood was the question at the time.
But it did have “rack and pinion steering” and I enjoyed taking corners like a sports car…
until my dad said the mechanic told him something called “tie bars” were worn and in danger of breaking…
I did see a Ford Cobra up close and personal at a local historic car drive-in in a little town in NW Ohio a summer or two ago.
21. Well, you are correct in implying my comment is just sour grapes, as I cannot afford even the turbo pinto.
But a guy across the road drives his AC Cobra every dry, warm night after work while we’re out pounding the asphalt.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 7/19/2014 @ 6:08 am23. Actually he’s driving after our dinner, I just imagine its after his work. Never a beautiful woman beside him, that part is sad.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 7/19/2014 @ 6:13 amso, happyfeet, would you support a military coup if that’s what it took to get SSM legal?
One blawger/history buff I correspond with has offered that the current situation in the United States bears distressing similarity to that in Spain in the years just prior to 1936. Our political institutions (or at least the federal government) are sorely dysfunctional, much of what is done and not done has the character of the workings of an elite cartel against the preferences of ordinary people, particular institutions of government are hamstrung, and portside political culture is such that it is no longer compatible with a political order in which deliberation and competition are characteristic. I.E., we’ve reached an impasse where democratic institutions do not function and cannot reliably function and the core interests of one section of the populace (us)no longer have the immunity necessary and proper to a working political society. The Spanish Republicans made use of majorities of the moment in legislative bodies, the equivalents in our time make use of the machinations of professional guilds and the appellate judiciary. The choice for the republic is an intensification of decadence and some sort of extra-legal resolution of political conflict. Gottfried Dietze used the term ‘diffidatio’ to describe this in lieu of ‘revolution’, regarding the former as a tonic and the latter as destructive. The baron’s revolt in 1215, the English civil wars in the 1640s and 1688-89 and the American Revolution he regarded as being of the former type, the French revolution of the latter.
One way of interpreting the troubles of our time is that it consists of the legal profession abusing other social sectors and extracting rents from them. Repairing the political society is going to require that the legal profession be dealt with quite severely.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 7/19/2014 @ 6:26 amgg,
I didn’t mean to imply anything.
I’m just grateful you’re reminded me there’s a ton of Ford Thunderbird turbo coupes out there for the taking.
Steve57 (e07d88) — 7/19/2014 @ 7:54 amOne blawger/history buff I correspond with has offered that the current situation in the United States bears distressing similarity to that in Spain in the years just prior to 1936.
I like this forum because it raises questions that I want to mull over, and which make me want to do a bit of homework.
The political labels below, when placed against the US in 2014, are somewhat ironic or flipped on their head. But the clash of ideologies illustrates why far too many people in any society are prone — time and time again — to making very poor choices.
In general, it seems that with rare exceptions, just about any community or nation that’s in a noticeable self-destruct mode often can be traced to the dynamics of nonsensical liberalism run amok, or Spain in the 1930s, Venezuela in the 2000s, etc.
Mark (1667b9) — 7/19/2014 @ 10:00 amOut of the box the Pinto was no great shakes but it did have a few things going for it. You mentioned the steering. The Pinto-based Mustang II rack and pinion was for years, and as far as I know still is, a popular upgrade for hot rods.
Anywhere you can bolt in a 2.3 Pinto engine, you an fit a 2.3 turbo engine. Pintos, Mustang IIs, Rangers, what have you.
The thought makes me smile.
Steve57 (e07d88) — 7/19/2014 @ 4:12 pm动身前一天，恒年夜俱乐部推出了最新海报：“锋铓所向”。海报中的赤色箭头直指全州，寄意等待球队乘胜追击，再胜敌手。从今朝该组的ఱ
bet365?? (95718a) — 7/19/2014 @ 6:51 pm26. I’d flop for a Thunderbird turbo coupe.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 7/19/2014 @ 7:00 pmA few months ago a utah court voided the bigomy law that was inacted so utah could become a state.
vota (df134d) — 7/19/2014 @ 7:01 pmThe definition of marriage is the union of a man and woman. If words don’t mean what they mean then we are living in 1984. Do you love Big Brother happyfeet?
njrob (31365e) — 7/20/2014 @ 11:16 amJust like the left is trying to say the “right to hear arms” doesn’t actually mean you have a right to own guns or that “freedom of speech” doesn’t mean political speech they are trying to destroy the meaning of marriage.
If you control the language, you control the outcome.
njrob (31365e) — 7/20/2014 @ 11:19 amthat ship has sailed Mr. rob
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/20/2014 @ 11:34 amSo don’t fight. Truth doesn’t matter. Submit. You’ll be happier as a subject rather than a citizen. Gotcha.
njrob (31365e) — 7/20/2014 @ 11:43 amAnd the response from happyfeet:
No darling it hasn’t. Unless we let it. Words have meaning and if we allow the left to bastardize the English language to the point where words have only “relevance” then we deserve the people, government and outcome we get. Just as if we let the left determine law we will become lawless. And by that I mean, the law will be whatever the left decides at whatever moment they want for whatever reason they decide. Stand up! It ain’t right.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 7/20/2014 @ 12:05 pmI’m with njrob, screw the bastards. I confront leftists almost every day by calling them out on their contorted language. When on says “migrant” I ask what they mean and I keep digging till they throw up their hands and fall back to their last resort. Yep, once they call me “bigot” or “racist” I know I’ve won the battle.
Hoagie (4dfb34) — 7/20/2014 @ 12:10 pmwell it’s not far down to paradise
at least it’s not for me
happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/20/2014 @ 6:10 pm