Federal judge rules Utah same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

[Dravin]

As far as I know (always that disclaimer), there has never been a marriage that consisted of one man and many women or of one woman and many men. Those are separate marriages. For example, when one of Brigham Young's wives divorced him, that did not dissolve all his marriages.

For the record I'm not particularly interested in debating if a one man multiple woman paradigm has ever existed across all of human history (I don't know my history well enough to get tangled in that argument). I suspected your thinking was considering polygyny to be a series/parallel paradigm but I wanted to make sure.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Dravin

[Still_Small_Voice]

After reading through this thread does anyone feel like singing:

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,

The mulberry bush, The mulberry bush . . .

I also feel like we are riding on a Merry-Go-Round.

[Escher462]

It is not unconstitutional. This has been explained to you repeatedly. It is becoming difficult to conclude other than that your persistent misrepresentations are willful.

I have cited the Supreme Court cases regarding racial discrimination as unconstitutional. It's called facts, evidence to back up my points. You....what PROOF have you submitted to back up your claim???

Here some more Supreme Court Cases

Jones v. Mayer Co. (1968)

Batson v. Kentucky (1986)

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Griggs v. Duke Power Co

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green

Connecticut v. Teal

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins

Logic test: If racial discrimination by govt and/or business it is Constitutional, but illegal according to you, then where is the Supreme Court cases challenging these laws? ANY law can be challenged and overturned by Judicial Branch. There are plenty of racist business owners that I'm sure would LOVE to overturn the civil rights act. Why haven't they sued? Why hasn't that lawsuit made it to the Supreme Court? Why didn't the Supreme Court throw out the entire Civil Rights act this past year?

[jerome1232]

You do understand that a law does not have to be rooted in the constitution correct? Claiming that racial discrimination isn't unconstitutional is fine, we can still have laws be made to forbid it despite the fact that's it's perfectly constitutional for an individual or business to discriminate.

Constitution - contract to limit goverment.

Laws - goverment regulations placed on the people.

A law does not have to be based on the constitution while still not violating it. Get it? The civil rights act is federal legislation, not an amendment to the federal constitution.

edit: I don't believe anyone is saying that the civil rights act is unconstitutional, we are saying that someone running afoul of the civil rights act isn't running afoul of the constitution (particularly since it doesn't apply to individuals or businesses, it applies to the federal government).

Edited January 10, 2014 by jerome1232
cleared up confusing language

[carlimac]

I'm so lost! Think I'll go back to my novel.

[Just_A_Guy]

I have cited the Supreme Court cases regarding racial discrimination as unconstitutional.

And I have shown that the cases you tied all dealt with discrimination by government entities, not private-sector businesses.

It's called facts, evidence to back up my points. You....what PROOF have you submitted to back up your claim???

Did you actually read the cases you provided? In Shelley v. Kraemer, which you cited, we read: "[T]he action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful."

Goodness, if you can't be bothered to read the cases you cite, you could have at least looked at the "State Actor Doctrine" section in Wikipedia's article on the Fourteenth Amendment.

Here some more Supreme Court Cases

Jones v. Mayer Co. (1968)

Said statute could bar private-sector discrimination. Did not say private-sector discrimination is unconstitutional.

Batson v. Kentucky (1986)

Dealt with discriminatory behavior by a prosecutor (i.e.state actor).

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

Rendered race-based real estate covenant provisions legally unenforceable on constitutional grounds. It did not say that sellers constitutionally MUST not discriminate; it just said that courts wouldn't force future sellers to discriminate due to a condition imposed by a previous owner. Clarified (see above) that 14th Amendment governs only state, not private, actors.

Griggs v. Duke Power

Decided on Civil Rights Act, not constitutional grounds.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green

Also.

Connecticut v. Teal

Also; and the employer was a state agency.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins

Decided on Civil Rights Act, not constitutional grounds.

Logic test: If racial discrimination by govt and/or business it is Constitutional, but illegal according to you, then where is the Supreme Court cases challenging these laws?

As Jerome says, there is a difference between a behavior being constitutional, versus being constitutionally protected. Private-party race/sex discrimination is in the former category, but not the latter; which is why civil rights legislation has been largely upheld. The police power of the state (and, subject to the Commerce Clause, the federal government) enables it to pass legislation prohibiting otherwise "constitutional" behavior, so long as the behavior is not constitutionally protected; regardless of the wisdom or efficacy of said legislation.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Swiper]

The Federal Government will recognize all SSM performed in Utah even if the state itself has put recognition on hold.

Federal Government Will Recognize Utah Same-Sex Marriages, Eric Holder Announces

[Finrock]

The Constitution grants us no rights. Natural rights are from God and God only. This principle, that God grants us rights and not governments, is THE principle upon which our form of government was founded upon. It is this principle that God Himself planted in to the hearts and minds of our forefathers. This principle has allowed us to maintain liberty for as long as we have. When the people, for whatever reason, forget, ignore, or reject this principle they have erroded the foundation that allows us to be and stay free.

We cannot maintain liberty in exclusion of this principle.

God, His laws, and His ways constitute reality and sanity. ANY deviation, either to the right or to the left, from God's ways constitutes delusion and madness to some degree or another.

Babylon (and all those who adhere to her principles) believes it can stand alone without God and enjoy freedom and joy. This is a foolish and an utterly false notion and it will ultimately lead to heartache and misery for individuals and nations. True freedom and true joy for the individual and for the nation is maintained only upon eternal truths.

-Finrock

[The Folk Prophet]

Feelings are not a choice; acting on them is.

Respectfully, I can't agree with this (the first part, to be clear). Feelings are not a choice is contradictory to some pretty basic LDS doctrine.

Moreover, what are we, 5-year-olds? "I can't help it. I'm just MAAAADDDD!!!!" :)

We can, absolutely, choose how to feel. Denial of this is undermines the concept of being able to become like the Savior.

It's fairly popular to equate animalistic, childish passions with self-worth and to equate our feelings to our value -- that we must accept who we are, we cannot change who we are, we have no control over who we are and what we "FEEL!!!!!!"

Trendy, political correct points of view do not truth make.

It would be more appropriate to say: Sometimes feelings are not a choice, but they can be controlled and altered, and many times we do, indeed, choose how to feel. Acting on feelings is always a choice.

[Guest]

I have cited the Supreme Court cases regarding racial discrimination as unconstitutional. It's called facts, evidence to back up my points. You....what PROOF have you submitted to back up your claim???

A law degree does not count?

<Just thought I'd mention, in case you didn't know, JAG is a lawyer... and yes, just because he's a lawyer doesn't mean he's a constitutional expert or an expert at law for that matter, but there's nothing that JAG has ever posted in lds.net that leads me to believe he doesn't know his Constitution>.

[apexviper]

It is astonishing to me that this is a "cause" that so many have rallied around and find it particularly despicable when g/l are compared to the civil rights movement.

One day same sex marriage will be the the law of the land and generations of kids will have grown up confused and taught to disdain the bigotry of a faith that calls their love sin..already happening really.

For those who support SS marriage and are endowed members of the church, I wonder how that squares with "building up the kingdom of God", when you cast your lot with a law designed to destroy the family.?

I couldn't agree more.

[raven2]

It is astonishing to me that this is a "cause" that so many have rallied around and find it particularly despicable when g/l are compared to the civil rights movement.

One day same sex marriage will be the the law of the land and generations of kids will have grown up confused and taught to disdain the bigotry of a faith that calls their love sin..already happening really.

For those who support SS marriage and are endowed members of the church, I wonder how that squares with "building up the kingdom of God", when you cast your lot with a law designed to destroy the family.?

I think it would be difficult to 'square away' in you mind and heart several temple recommend interview questions. Especially this one - "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

Edited January 22, 2014 by raven2