Same Sex Marriage Ban Overturned In Utah

[stromboli]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/utah-gay-marriage_n_5529845.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%20Voices

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Wednesday that Utah cannot ban same-sex marriages.

"We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state's marital laws," the ruling said.

The court ruled 2-1, with Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. dissenting.

A stay is in place, so same-sex couples are still prevented from marrying in Utah.

Below, more from the AP:

DENVER (AP) â€" A federal appeals court for the first time says a state cannot prevent gay people from getting married.

A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver found that Utah's ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution. The judges upheld a lower court ruling that struck down the ban in December.


They immediately put their ruling on holding so it could be appealed.

The case has been closely watched because it represents the first ruling on gay marriage at the appellate level since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in June 2013.

The ruling likely will be appealed to the Supreme Court.

The panel has not yet ruled on a similar ban in Oklahoma.

Love me some 14th amendment right now. I'll be out on the deck with a Sam Adams Ale and my hearing aids listening for the sound of butthurt Mormons weeping in the distance. 

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Twas struck down in Indiana as well... Soon to come to Ohio as well even though the guvnerr says it ain't happening.

[PickelledEggs]

BUT.... BUT.... Now we're all going to be forced to marry someone with the same kind of genitals!!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

Aweeee yeeeah. Another couple of wins for equality.

[SGOS]

I wonder how many court cases and appeals there will be before this thing is done?  How many times do the courts have to rule on an issue before it's decided?  I guess each case must have a special nuance about it that makes it worthy of another look.  But if I were opposed to gay marriage, I don't know if I would want to endure the kind of slow death to my values that is happening.  Will there suddenly be one case that presents a slightly differently worded spin on the issue that reverses rights of gays to marry?  I suppose that's what they're hoping.  Will God step in and perform a miracle that will reverse the trend?

I keep hearing that this transition is taking place rapidly compared to other mostly unspecified movements, but it still seems like a slow freight train to me.  It's taken 40 years since I first heard about gay rights.

[stromboli]

I wonder how many court cases and appeals there will be before this thing is done?  How many times do the courts have to rule on an issue before it's decided?  I guess each case must have a special nuance about it that makes it worthy of another look.  But if I were opposed to gay marriage, I don't know if I would want to endure the kind of slow death to my values that is happening.  Will there suddenly be one case that presents a slightly differently worded spin on the issue that reverses rights of gays to marry?  I suppose that's what they're hoping.  Will God step in and perform a miracle that will reverse the trend?

I keep hearing that this transition is taking place rapidly compared to other mostly unspecified movements, but it still seems like a slow freight train to me.  It's taken 40 years since I first heard about gay rights.

Slow freight train is a good analogy. It will speed up eventually, but since every state has a Christian majority, the government of the state is answering to that group by "defending" family values. I think anyone with a brain figured it was coming after Prop 8 failed and DOMA was overturned. The SCOTUS that overturned DOMA is one of the most conservative we have ever had.

Utah had a major change at the state's AG position about the same time as the first ruling was overturned. The new guy is Hispanic, and from his press conferences it was pretty clear he wasn't really behind the legal effort to fight the change. But he had to make the effort for the sake of his job.

[SGOS]

Maybe I wasn't paying close attention, but I don't recall the marriage issue really coming front and center until Bush campaigned on a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.  That amendment seemed like it came out of nowhere, at a time when traditional marriage didn't even seem to be "under threat".  Perhaps the religious right was paying closer attention than I was, and correctly predicted the transition.

But it would really be funny if the proposed amendment was responsible for this thing coming to a head, and getting the gay marriage ball rolling, along with the death of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

The Georgia lawsuit was filed a while ago, so look for that to be coming to a head as well. I don't know what I'll do when it gets overturned here. No plans for marriage yet, so I guess I'll just eat at Chick-Fil-A...fully decked out in rainbow gear.

[Hydra009]

Maybe I wasn't paying close attention, but I don't recall the marriage issue really coming front and center until Bush campaigned on a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.  That amendment seemed like it came out of nowhere, at a time when traditional marriage didn't even seem to be "under threat".  Perhaps the religious right was paying closer attention than I was, and correctly predicted the transition.

That was in response to a major push for gay marriage in some states.  And it was convenient because it was something of a wedge issue for democrats and the majorities of most states were against gay marriage.  So they went whole hog on it.  But since then, the majority has flipped sides but the Republicans they're more or less beholden to the social conservative fruitcakes and so are sticking to their guns, much to the dismay of the more moderate Republicans.

[EnvireMental]

there is a scene in the movie ''milk.''

(not sure exactly the words)

homophobic: -you homosexsuals can't marry. how can you make childeren.?

harwey milk: God knows that we are trying

:D:D

[SGOS]

That was in response to a major push for gay marriage in some states.  And it was convenient because it was something of a wedge issue for democrats and the majorities of most states were against gay marriage.  So they went whole hog on it.  But since then, the majority has flipped sides but the Republicans they're more or less beholden to the social conservative fruitcakes and so are sticking to their guns, much to the dismay of the more moderate Republicans.

I find the dynamics of the transition to be unusually interesting.  I probably spend more time marveling at the change than I do actually applauding it.

I wonder if that swing was caused by voters who hadn't given it much thought until it became a national issue?  It would seem that besides those who viewed banning gay marriage as a discrimination, there was a large group that went to bed at night incensed by the thought of unidentified gay people lurking in their midst 24 hours a day. 

Then there was the swing group, who up until that time, hadn't given it any thought.  They may have polled to questions like "Do you believe marriage is between a man and a woman," as a 'yes' because it was a tradition, and none had thought about it outside the context of their personal life experience.  That swing group was probably never so threatened that they were losing sleep over gay people, so they were in a position to learn more about it and take time to think it through, which I believe might be a rather unique situation in national politics.  Also, there had been a body of research about homosexuality in the mid 20th century that contradicted the traditional misconception of homosexuality as a perversion.

At any rate, the issue was not a great wedge issue that could be counted on by Republicans to endure well into the future.

[StupidWiz]

Aw yeah.

[stromboli]

I find the dynamics of the transition to be unusually interesting.  I probably spend more time marveling at the change than I do actually applauding it.

I wonder if that swing was caused by voters who hadn't given it much thought until it became a national issue?  It would seem that besides those who viewed banning gay marriage as a discrimination, there was a large group that went to bed at night incensed by the thought of unidentified gay people lurking in their midst 24 hours a day. 

Then there was the swing group, who up until that time, hadn't given it any thought.  They may have polled to questions like "Do you believe marriage is between a man and a woman," as a 'yes' because it was a tradition, and none had thought about it outside the context of their personal life experience.  That swing group was probably never so threatened that they were losing sleep over gay people, so they were in a position to learn more about it and take time to think it through, which I believe might be a rather unique situation in national politics.  Also, there had been a body of research about homosexuality in the mid 20th century that contradicted the traditional misconception of homosexuality as a perversion.

At any rate, the issue was not a great wedge issue that could be counted on by Republicans to endure well into the future.

Again, good comment. DOMA was the supposed linchpin that would be the justification for stopping gay marriage. Bush in 2004 proposed a constitutional amendment that would have supported DOMA, but congress felt DOMA would pass scrutiny with SCOTUS, so he dropped it. Obama as a constitutional lawyer refused to defend DOMA. He was right in not doing so. But the big win was overturning Prop 8. The decision written by judge Vaughn Walker, which was extraordinarily detailed and ran to over 200 pages, not only ruled out Prop 8 but destroyed any potential defense of it. That is what happens when you give an antigay legal decision to a gay judge. 

[The Skeletal Atheist]

RE: Republican Platform and Gay Marriage
In general I agree with what I have read: That while anti-gay marriage and other such social positions may win Republicans local elections, it will hurt them when it comes to the race for POTUS. The difference, I think, is between the voter demographic in the race for Senate and House positions and the race for POTUS. When I voted in the primaries there were much fewer young people present than when I voted for president. The vote in general may be more dominated by the older generation, but this is especially true of the Senate and House races. 

When it comes to the race for POTUS the vote more closely reflects a cross section of the populace, so I feel that if Republicans try to campaign using the same social platform that won them Senate and House seats they will find themselves losing. My guess is that when the Presidential race does come up they're going to try to stay mostly silent on social issues while talking up the economy. It would be prudent, then, to call them out early on in the race for POTUS for their abhorrent social positions. Younger people also need to be encouraged to vote more in the midterms, but I don't really know how that could be done. I do my part by encouraging my friends to vote.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

BREAKING NEWS:
Bigot tears for everyone!
Barbwire Butthurt!

Freeper Frustration!

You are free to find more, I need a break from la-la land.

[stromboli]

"Batantly overthrew the will of the people?"   

"Consrvatives are the only ones left to defend the constitution" 

Somebody needs to point out to the meatbrains that it was the constitution that decided the outcome of the decision.

We need to send every gay person in America down to the bible belt to have sex just so we can wipe it the fuck out with gaynadoes.