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

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.
 
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.
 
jpx7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So what do you say about the 10th amendment?

How is this ruling not a clear violation of it?
 
Why is it if someone is against *** marriage they're automatically assumed to be a bigot and racist? Don't people have the right to not like *** marriage like they have a right to no eat something, watch something or talk to someone they don't like? Why can't the Left just accept that fact and let it be?

I have no problems if someone is ***. They can get married or whatever. But I do have a problem with the GLADD And LGBT jumping down someone's throat if they don't think *** people should be married.
 
When one wishes to institutionally discriminate against one group or person-- that is textbook definition of bigotry/racism.

Or in Persecuted Christian Speak a "violation of 1st Ammendment rights" ??

A little more time with a dictionary and the real constitution and a little less with RedState would serve a number of posters well. This holiday season.

Please tell me Christian contingency Jesus opinions on homosexual marriage.

Then I get to tell you Jesus opinions on unconditional love and care of the poor not only poor in wealth but the poverty of the spirit.
 
Krgrecw said:
Why is it if someone is against *** marriage they're automatically assumed to be a bigot and racist? Don't people have the right to not like *** marriage like they have a right to no eat something, watch something or talk to someone they don't like? Why can't the Left just accept that fact and let it be?

I have no problems if someone is ***. They can get married or whatever. But I do have a problem with the GLADD And LGBT jumping down someone's throat if they don't think *** people should be married.
Click to expand...

I think you can belief system be opposed to *** marriage and not really be a super bigot, But if you actively campaign or fight against a civl right, there really isn't a more set in stone way.
 
Krgrecw said:
Why is it if someone is against *** marriage they're automatically assumed to be a bigot and racist? Don't people have the right to not like *** marriage like they have a right to no eat something, watch something or talk to someone they don't like? Why can't the Left just accept that fact and let it be?

I have no problems if someone is ***. They can get married or whatever. But I do have a problem with the GLADD And LGBT jumping down someone's throat if they don't think *** people should be married.
Click to expand...

I think you can belief system be opposed to *** marriage and not really be a super bigot, But if you actively campaign or fight against a civl right, there really isn't a more set in stone way.
 
sturg33 said:
So what do you say about the 10th amendment?

How is this ruling not a clear violation of it?
Click to expand...

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.
 
AerchAngel said:
This administration doesn't give a damn about the constitution. You should know that by now.
Click to expand...

Not that I love the current executive administration—or even disagree with you regarding President Obama et al's dispensing with considerations of Constitutionality much too often—but this was a judicial decision, so I'm not really sure how "this administration" bears all that much responsibility. Judge Shelby might have been appointed by Obama, but both of Utah's conservative Senators were putatively big fans of his appointment, and I doubt Obama anticipated this decision when he selected Shelby.
 
Krgrecw said:
Why is it if someone is against *** marriage they're automatically assumed to be a bigot and racist? Don't people have the right to not like *** marriage like they have a right to no eat something, watch something or talk to someone they don't like? Why can't the Left just accept that fact and let it be?

I have no problems if someone is ***. They can get married or whatever. But I do have a problem with the GLADD And LGBT jumping down someone's throat if they don't think *** people should be married.
Click to expand...

This bothers me as well. Go ahead Liberals and talk about blacks/slavery, interracial marriage and segregation, it's your customary copout.

But I will not force my views down your throat if you don't agree with them. Just a 'meh' to me. I won't have press conferences decrying it, then trying to tarnish a person image. Each and everyone of you are a bigot/racists in one shape or form, it is human nature. If someone hurts someone feelings because they don't approve or accept them, wahh is all I say. If someone calls me the "N" word, I just shrug it off because I am better than that, I know it and that what all matters.
 
jpx7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry... which amendment speaks about marriage in the Constitution?

If there isn't one, the 10th amendment supersedes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top