U.S. Supreme Court halts gay marriage in Utah

[Texashiker]

Seems like a temporary halt to gay marriage.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/06/u-s-supreme-court-halts-gay-marriage-in-utah/

Gay marriage is on hold in Utah after the U.S. Supreme Court halted same-sex nuptials until the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals provides a full ruling on the matter.

The high court issued an order on Monday that blocks same-sex marriage licenses from being granted until the appeals court officially reviews the issue in the coming weeks

This move comes following an emergency appeal by the state after U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby ruled in favor of gay nuptials on Dec. 20, the AP noted. Shelby found that a law passed in 2004 by voters in the state violates the rights of same-sex couples.

Democracy, a form of government where the many can take away the rights of the few.

Why do we have states if the separate states can not pass laws that reflect the will of the people?

Do not like the laws of that state, leave. Nothing is forcing gay couples to stay in Utah. If you do not like the laws on gay marriage, move to new york or california.

 

[brycejones]

Cool another "pro-discrimination I support" thread by TH.

 

[Brainonska511]

Why do we have states if the separate states can not pass laws that reflect the will of the people?

Laws can be passed, but they must abide by the US Constitution and the individual State's constitution. Why should the majority be able to trample on the constitutional rights of a minority?

 

[Texashiker]

Cool another "pro-discrimination I support" thread by TH.

True marriage equality can not single out certain groups.

I will support gay marriage when all groups are treated equally. Until then, gay marriage is just another entitled minority. Laws should protect the people as a whole rather that certain segments.

Why should the majority be able to trample on the constitutional rights of a minority?

What good is a democracy, or even a republic, if it does not reflect the will of the people?

 

[K1052]

What good is a democracy, or even a republic, if it does not reflect the will of the people?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marriage-states.aspx

 

[Texashiker]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163730/back-law-legalize-gay-marriage-states.aspx

So why dont we abolish the states and make the nation one large entity?

 

[Brainonska511]

What good is a democracy, or even a republic, if it does not reflect the will of the people?

Laws, based on the will of the people, can be passed and enforced only if they jive with the existing framework agreed upon by society (eg: the various constitutions).

What you seem to want is a mobocracy, where a simple majority can trample the rights of a minority.

 

[fskimospy]

So why dont we abolish the states and make the nation one large entity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

 

[K1052]

So why dont we abolish the states and make the nation one large entity?

State law is always subordinate to the US constitution and federal law (where applicable).

You're shifting the target anyway since your claim that the will of the people has not been reflected is demonstrably incorrect. It has and you just don't like it so now you're going to hide behind "state's rights" as a fallback position.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Why do we have states if the separate states can not pass laws that reflect the will of the people?

Do not like the laws of that state, leave. Nothing is forcing gay couples to stay in Utah. If you do not like the laws on gay marriage, move to new york or california.

States aren't sovereign nations; they're all still subject to Federal law. So while states may enact different taxation methods to raise funds (ie sales tax vs income tax), they couldn't enact laws that are overruled by Federal law (such as slavery, to use the extreme example). The gay marriage debate is going to be settled at the Supreme Court level before too long; too many states passing laws and having them overturned by Federal courts to go on too much longer without a ruling. And if the Supreme Court deems gay marriage bans unConstitutional, that becomes Federal law, so no states can pass those laws anymore.

True marriage equality can not single out certain groups.

I will support gay marriage when all groups are treated equally. Until then, gay marriage is just another entitled minority. Laws should protect the people as a whole rather that certain segments.

If you actually held this view, you'd be opposed to heterosexual marriage in its current form as it also discriminates against every other group that might conceivably want to wed. Something tells me you don't, so you're either a fantastic hypocrite or you're lying about your justification for keeping gay marriage illegal because saying "I just don't like gay people" is no longer socially acceptable.

 

[DominionSeraph]

What good is a democracy, or even a republic, if it does not reflect the will of the people?

Ahhh, conservatards. If you are a national power, it's, "We are the moral majority! We can do as we wish!" If another holds that power but you have states as strongholds, it's, "States' rights! How dare they think they can tell us what to do?" If the majority of the state goes against you, it's, "Government should be local! How dare the state think it has any say?" And at any time if anyone tries to tell you what to do, it's, "MUH RIGHTS! Nobody has any say over me!"

'Round and around you go.

And that is no basis for government, which is why we don't use it. It breaks down on infighting because, as soon as you have individuals who disagree, you have individuals who disagree on what level is "objectively" legitimate.

 

[nehalem256]

If you actually held this view, you'd be opposed to heterosexual marriage in its current form as it also discriminates against every other group that might conceivably want to wed. Something tells me you don't, so you're either a fantastic hypocrite or you're lying about your justification for keeping gay marriage illegal because saying "I just don't like gay people" is no longer socially acceptable.

And unless you support marriage equality for every conceivable minority group you are lying about your justification for supporting same-sex marriage.

You are cool with discrimination... just so long as it is not against groups you happen to like.

 

[Lithium381]

Laws, based on the will of the people, can be passed and enforced only if they jive with the existing framework agreed upon by society (eg: the various constitutions).

What you seem to want is a mobocracy, where a simple majority can trample the rights of a minority.

just get the State out of marriage completely and then nobodies rights will be trampled. . . it should be none of their business anyway.

 

[Texashiker]

If you actually held this view, you'd be opposed to heterosexual marriage in its current form as it also discriminates against every other group that might conceivably want to wed.

What about the children that come out of heterosexual relationships? Would you like to see single parents or families raising children?

Gays can not have children naturally. They have to have help in forming a family. Its not like 2 gay guys can hook up and 9 months later one is squeezing out a baby.

Something tells me you don't, so you're either a fantastic hypocrite or you're lying about your justification for keeping gay marriage illegal because saying "I just don't like gay people" is no longer socially acceptable.

Tell me something, would you approve of freeing mixed race children from slavery, but keeping pure blacks as slaves?

Or how about freeing blacks, but keeping asians as slaves? Would that be ok with you?

What about freeing blacks from the congo, but keeping west coast blacks as slaves?

Freedom and equality can not be selective.

 

[Brainonska511]

just get the State out of marriage completely and then nobodies rights will be trampled. . . it should be none of their business anyway.

And how do you handle all the various rights afforded by marriage?
Eg: transfer of property, hospital visitation rights, etc...

The line of 'getting the government out of marriage' has always struck me as a very scorched earth policy.

 

[waggy]

meh. this is insane. if 2 grown adults want to get married how is that effecting anyone here? oh because a book written 2000 years ago said it was bad? or it might "destroy" marriage!?

2 guys or gals getting married has nothing to do with me. let them get married they deserve to have the same problems and life heh.

 

[Texashiker]

meh. this is insane. if 2 grown adults want to get married how is that effecting anyone here?

A crying baby on a plane flight does not affect me.

Someone talking on their phone during a movie does not affect me.

Cursing on tv shows does not affect me.

Just because something does not affect me does not mean I have to like it.

 

[waggy]

A crying baby on a plane flight does not affect me.

Someone talking on their phone during a movie does not affect me.

Cursing on tv shows does not affect me.

Just because something does not affect me does not mean I have to like it.

you don't have to like it. nobody is forcing you to get married.

but it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

 

[nehalem256]

meh. this is insane. if 2 grown adults want to get married how is that effecting anyone here? oh because a book written 2000 years ago said it was bad? or it might "destroy" marriage!?

2 guys or gals getting married has nothing to do with me. let them get married they deserve to have the same problems and life heh.

meh. This is insane. If a grown adult wants to get married to is toaster how is that effecting anyone here? Oh because it makes liberal views on marriage look bad? or it might "destroy" marrage!?

And how do you handle all the various rights afforded by marriage?
Eg: transfer of property, hospital visitation rights, etc...

The line of 'getting the government out of marriage' has always struck me as a very scorched earth policy.

People transfer property to people they are not married to everyday.

Redefining a millennial old institution so gay people can visit their sex buddies in the hospital seems a bit absurd. Especially since it doesn't even solve the real issue. What if an unmarried straight guy wants to have his best friend of 40 years visit him in the hospital? Shouldn't he have as much right to that as a gay man has to his sexual partner of 2 years?

 

[Greenman]

meh. this is insane. if 2 grown adults want to get married how is that effecting anyone here? oh because a book written 2000 years ago said it was bad? or it might "destroy" marriage!?

2 guys or gals getting married has nothing to do with me. let them get married they deserve to have the same problems and life heh.

The point appears to be that gay marriage isn't broad enough. If the definition is going to be changed it should include all the permutations of "marriage". I would assume that to include polygamy, line marriage, same sex polygamy and others I can't think of right now. Perhaps the logic is that rights aren't protected until the group being discriminated against reaches a particular number.

 

[Vic]

Seems like a temporary halt to gay marriage.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/06/u-s-supreme-court-halts-gay-marriage-in-utah/



Democracy, a form of government where the many can take away the rights of the few.

Why do we have states if the separate states can not pass laws that reflect the will of the people?

Do not like the laws of that state, leave. Nothing is forcing gay couples to stay in Utah. If you do not like the laws on gay marriage, move to new york or california.

How does same sex marriage take away anyone's rights?

 

[Texashiker]

you don't have to like it. nobody is forcing you to get married.

but it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

Just because it has nothing to do with me does not mean I have to like it or even approve of it.

How does same sex marriage take away anyone's rights?

It is about granting a certain group special rights while ignoring other groups.

Would it be ok with you to grant white women the right to vote, but ignore black women and asian women? So what is black women can not vote, it does not affect me.

 

[ThinClient]

True marriage equality can not single out certain groups.

I will support gay marriage when all groups are treated equally. Until then, gay marriage is just another entitled minority. Laws should protect the people as a whole rather that certain segments.




What good is a democracy, or even a republic, if it does not reflect the will of the people?

This is such a stupid statement.

You can't just POOF have equality over night. It starts with one, then another, then another. Gay marriage NEEDS to be legal, not remain illegal until everything else is legal.

How the fuck can you be so retarded as to come to this kind of conclusion and still be able to function as an adult?

 

[Brainonska511]

It is about granting a certain group special rights while ignoring other groups.

How is it granting a certain group special rights and ignoring other groups? Please be specific as to what special rights other, 'traditionally married' people do not have, and what groups are being ignored.

 

[ThinClient]

Just because it has nothing to do with me does not mean I have to like it or even approve of it.

But it's none of your business and you're choosing to step in the way to block something that affects other people but not you. You're unnecessarily condemning something that you have no business condemning or blocking.

Surely you're not THIS stupid, are you?

It is about granting a certain group special rights while ignoring other groups.

Special rights? You mean NORMAL rights? Why can't two gay people get married? Marriage is only for heterosexuals, right? Because religion, right? Because you're a fucking bigot, right?