Fed Judge strikes down Utah's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

[The Chosen One]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57...court.html.csp

Uhhhhh ohhhhhhhhhhh

[sturg33]

So much for that pesky ol 10th amendment

[zitothebrave]

I guess I should chime in, stupid ruling by the judge. If there was a federal law about marriage then fine. But as it is it's too activist and I fully expect it to be overturned at some point in appeals.

[jpx7]

Well, I guess I should chime in: as someone who agrees there is "no rational reason" to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples (if the government is going to be in the business of regulating "marriage," per se, anyways), I have to say I approve of this.

[sturg33]

Well, I guess I should chime in: as someone who agrees there is "no rational reason" to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples (if the government is going to be in the business of regulating "marriage," per se, anyways), I have to say I approve of this.

So what do you say about the 10th amendment?

How is this ruling not a clear violation of it?

[AerchAngel]

So what do you say about the 10th amendment?

How is this ruling not a clear violation of it?

This administration doesn't give a damn about the constitution. You should know that by now.

[jpx7]

So what do you say about the 10th amendment?

How is this ruling not a clear violation of it?

I haven't read the judge's full opinion, but obviously Shelby felt the issues in rectifying Utah's ban with the equal protection components of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments—as seen in his (to me somewhat humorous) citations of Scalia's dissenting opinions in Lawrence v Texas and US v Windsor—outweighed any concerns related to the Tenth Amendment. In that context, perhaps Shelby even felt that these other Amendment accorded the federal government the authority to intervene, thus rendering the Tenth Amendment moot in this case—though I certainly don't profess to be one of the great Constitutional analysts of our time.