Federal appeals court strikes down Utah’s gay-marriage ban

posted at 6:01 pm on June 25, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Gabe Malor, an Indiana district court judge also struck down that state’s gay-marriage ban today, but the Utah ruling’s more important because it comes from an appellate court. In fact, this is the first ruling on SSM from any federal court of appeals since SCOTUS’s Windsor ruling last year. In that case, the Court held that if a state legalized gay marriage then the part of DOMA that denied federal benefits to gay spouses married under that state’s laws was unconstitutional. You could, if you like, read that as a federalism decision: The Court was simply saying that states get to set the rules for marriage, not the feds, and when a state decides that gay couples can marry, the feds can’t constitutionally override that decision.

Scalia, though, called BS on that reasoning in his dissent. The way lower courts will interpret the Supreme Court’s decision, he insisted, is that it’s unconstitutional for any government, federal or state, to deny gays the right to marry. Federalism has nothing do with it. After all, the Court’s reasoning was grounded in language about equal protection and due process. Those rights stem from the Constitution itself, not from some state legislature deciding to bestow them. That was the question that the appellate court in Utah faced today: Is there any argument by which the states should be allowed to deny gays the right to marry even though the feds are constitutionally bound to recognize those unions if a state does?

Answer: Nope. Here’s the 10th Circuit, confirming Scalia’s worst suspicions about the true takeaway from Windsor:

w1w2

This is about dignity, equality, and (substantive) due process, not federalism. If the Fifth Amendment won’t let the federal government trump those rights as they apply to gay marriage, why on earth would the Fourteenth Amendment let a state do it?

Gabe flags this bit from later in the opinion too:

w3

If federalism and the Bill of Rights conflict (even though they’re both designed, ideally, to preserve liberty), the Bill of Rights trumps. Scalia knew that, and so, of course, did Kennedy. But rather than write a clean, straightforward opinion for the Court in Windsor and rule that gay-marriage bans violate equal protection, he decided to take an indirect route by suggesting that state legislatures might play a role in this too. He realized that lower courts would use his opinion to strike down gay-marriage bans, though, and he also realized that by the time this issue makes its way back to SCOTUS, there’ll now be enough lower-court precedents siding with him that he can point to them in his next ruling as persuasive. Essentially, he created the unstoppable judicial momentum for legalizing SSM and soon he’ll use that momentum to justify taking the final step, a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down state gay-marriage bans. After today, he’s right on track.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

Let the pro-creation begin in a lawful fashion!

Bmore on June 25, 2014 at 6:03 PM

More invented “rights” to take real rights away from the rest of us.

Count to 10 on June 25, 2014 at 6:05 PM

But rather than write a clean, straightforward opinion for the Court in Windsor and rule that gay-marriage bans violate equal protection, he decided to take an indirect route by suggesting that state legislatures might play a role in this too. He realized that lower courts would use his opinion to strike down gay-marriage bans, though, and he also realized that by the time this issue makes its way back to SCOTUS, there’ll now be enough lower-court precedents siding with him that he can point to them in his next ruling as persuasive. Essentially, he created the unstoppable judicial momentum for legalizing SSM and soon he’ll use that momentum to justify taking the final step, a landmark Supreme Court ruling striking down state gay-marriage bans.

Yup. SCOTUS has revealed itself time and again to be a political body that schemes to achieve its members’ desired political outcomes, and not one that simply applies the law.

Stoic Patriot on June 25, 2014 at 6:07 PM

Accelerating the slide down the slippery slope that Justice Scalia correctly predicted….

…once SSM is done, it’s on to the next ‘right’….

Athos on June 25, 2014 at 6:07 PM

gay-marriage bans

By the way, there are no “gay-marriage bans” to strike down. There are only judges creating new privileges for the powerful as a social attack on the people that object.

Count to 10 on June 25, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Oh, goodie, another Ghey thread. When was the last one? Twelve minutes ago?

Maddie on June 25, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on June 25, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Oh, goodie, another Ghey thread. When was the last one? Twelve minutes ago?

Maddie on June 25, 2014 at 6:08 PM

The post after yours at 6:09pm. It says it is thick.

/Outta this thread

Key West Reader on June 25, 2014 at 6:11 PM

Our courts are also filled with corrupt cowards. No surprise.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:13 PM

What’s this federalism you speak of? It’s long been dead.

chuckfinlay on June 25, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on June 25, 2014 at 6:09 PM

*Except for anyone who disagrees with lefties on this or any issue.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:13 PM

And down the slippery slope we go…..

tommy71 on June 25, 2014 at 6:14 PM

So, lets see.

In order for Utah to become a state it had to give up state sanctioned polygamy. And now the feds are forcing gay marriage on Utah because of a lack of “equality”, and “due process”.

Makes total sense.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:15 PM

It’s quite upsetting. Really.

Exactly what recourse do any of us have against the gaystapo? Laws, constitutional amendments, nothing will stop them.

This isn’t an academic discussion. Susan Rice is on record as saying the government needs to push religions to recognize gay “rights.” Just yesterday a gay rights supporter here at HotAir argued, quite seriously, that preaching religious doctrines that “pressure” people on gay issues is “Psychological torture” and should be punished via jail time.

These gays are going to do their damnedest to use governmental force to “change” your opinion, or you will be punished. Already they are making it a crime to be Christian and own a business. And they are slavering over removing all 1st Amendment rights for the rest of us.

Just look at the persecution of the Mormons in the 1800′s to see what is coming, and probably within 5 years. I originally thought 10-15, but as fast as the gaystapo are moving, it’s quickly coming. Loss of voting rights; loss of speech; jail time; removal of immunities–all of that happened to the LDS church. It’s going to happen again, and this time to more than just the LDS church.

Who was the Catholic Bishop who said that he would die in bed, his successor in prison, and that successor be martyred? I think the timeline is faster than that.

Vanceone on June 25, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Bullying works.

CurtZHP on June 25, 2014 at 6:17 PM

By the way, there are no “gay-marriage bans” to strike down. There are only judges creating new privileges for the powerful as a social attack on the people that object.

Count to 10 on June 25, 2014 at 6:08 PM

You are of course correct. And in every single gay marriage thread Allahpundit writes someone – usually multiple people – bring this up but Allahpundit never corrects himself.

Gay marriage is not banned anywhere. It’s simply not necessarily recognized and given benefits.

Polygamy is actually banned. Gay marriage is not.

But it’s harder to make the case that people are being denied “dignity” and “equality” and that a states marriage laws amount to codified hatred if you pretend that gay relationships are banned.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on June 25, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Yeah, just like Obamacare.

darwin on June 25, 2014 at 6:18 PM

On the bright side, Utah should, shortly, have an exit ticket out of the Union. When they were made a state, it was forbidden, in perpetuity, that polygamy ever be allowed. That provision is part of the state constitution, the state enabling act, and is unamendable.

Ergo, if some judge forces polygamy (But I think it could stretch to gay marriage too–who on earth believes that the politicians and judges who flatly forbid polygamy would have accepted same sex marriage?) then Utah is now in violation of its enabling act and must leave the Union.

Vanceone on June 25, 2014 at 6:20 PM

So, lets see.

In order for Utah to become a state it had to give up state sanctioned polygamy. And now the feds are forcing gay marriage on Utah because of a lack of “equality”, and “due process”.

Makes total sense.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:15 PM

The funny thing is polygamy (and its derivatives) will be SCOTUS-protected by the end of this decade.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:20 PM

“substantive due process” and “equality before the law” are magical terms that justices can use to justify whatever they want now.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Vanceone on June 25, 2014 at 6:20 PM

The Rats can live with that.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:21 PM

The funny thing is polygamy (and its derivatives) will be SCOTUS-protected by the end of this decade.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Sure, if they have any legal consistency that’s true.

But that’s a big if.

Gay couples not getting inheritance preference is robbing them of dignity and equality but criminalized polygamy will still be seen as ok.

But I’ll let alchemist19 chime in on this one to explain to you how an originality reading of the Constitution demands gay marriage but not polygamy.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:23 PM

The real question is how long will it be before states start demanding that churches perform gay marriages in order to maintain the ability to perform state recognized marriages.

Or freedom as mythicknight would call it.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:24 PM

I feel like defecating in the hallway.

sewer urchin on June 25, 2014 at 6:24 PM

This is a good move towards hetero-normalizing the gays. The more heterosexual we can make them, the more they are in age appropriate, long term, monogamous, heterosexual-like relationships, the better off we all are.

Heterosexuals will still have marriage and the procreative meaning it’s always conveyed. Gays will be getting gay married, and we will all benefit from the fewer diseases being spread and the reduction of the other selfish burdens we suffer from their selfish lifestyle.

The quicker we hetero-normalize the gays the better.

p0s3r on June 25, 2014 at 6:25 PM

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Would that be the Constitution as Authored by Alchemist19, because it sure isn’t the Constitution as Authored by the Founding Fathers.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Steve: So can I, since I’m in Utah. If we can get out of this forced immorality, the quicker the better.

Seriously, the next legal step is soooo easy. Once the Supremes mandate SSM, the “equal protection” argument applies just as much to a church wedding. After all, Kennedy concluded that churches have no theological reasoning, just animus. So why shouldn’t a gay couple be married by a Catholic Priest? They are just bigots, right, refusing to offer to gays what they offer to heterosexuals…..

Under Windsor and the courts reasoning above, how can any church avoid being forced to do whatever the gays want? It’s “Equal Protection” and “avoiding the humiliation of thousands of children.” Think those thousands of children will be just fine when the Priest won’t bless their union? Ergo, the state will force the priest to do so… on pain of jail time.

Vanceone on June 25, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Brutus, one of the Anti-Federalists, argued that the addition of a federal judicial branch would undermine state legislatures.

AlFromBayShore on June 25, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Would that be the Constitution as Authored by Alchemist19, because it sure isn’t the Constitution as Authored by the Founding Fathers.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:26 PM

It’s the originalist understanding of the Constitution – after some reading of tea leaves and interpretation of penumbras and emanations.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:28 PM

The real question is how long will it be before states start demanding that churches perform gay marriages in order to maintain the ability to perform state recognized marriages.

Or freedom as mythicknight would call it.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:24 PM

That will be part of the SCOTUS mandate of 50-state legal gay “marriage” at the end of June 2015.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:29 PM

It’s the originalist understanding of the Constitution – after some reading of tea leaves and interpretation of penumbras and emanations.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:28 PM

As I figured, it’s the Constitution as Authored by Alchemist19.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Gay couples not getting inheritance preference is robbing them of dignity and equality but criminalized polygamy will still be seen as ok.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:23 PM

On what basis?

ddrintn on June 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM

The funny thing is polygamy (and its derivatives) will be SCOTUS-protected by the end of this decade.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Yes it will. Once you start down the marriage is a protected right for everyone slope, you cant stop.

Johnnyreb on June 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM

This is a good move towards hetero-normalizing the gays. The more heterosexual we can make them, the more they are in age appropriate, long term, monogamous, heterosexual-like relationships, the better off we all are.

Heterosexuals will still have marriage and the procreative meaning it’s always conveyed. Gays will be getting gay married, and we will all benefit from the fewer diseases being spread and the reduction of the other selfish burdens we suffer from their selfish lifestyle.

The quicker we hetero-normalize the gays the better.

p0s3r on June 25, 2014 at 6:25 PM

What you’re describing is a function of social interactions and society. Such things cannot be done via legislation.

And it’s highly theoretical.

What isn’t theoretical is the gaystapo shutting down adoption agencies, floral shops, bakers, relationship counselors, etc. We aren’t moving towards a more tolerant society.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:32 PM

That will be part of the SCOTUS mandate of 50-state legal gay “marriage” at the end of June 2015.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:29 PM

It’s a tax!

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on June 25, 2014 at 6:09 PM

And pro-creation in a lawful fashion. You forgot that part.

Bmore on June 25, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Of the federal courts are all a bunch of Obama appointees, so what do you expect.

Of course our 2012 presidential candidate wasn’t much better on gay marriage than Obama. Worse actually. The truth is that just a few days after Romney locked up the nomination in 2012 is when Obama decided to make his gay marriage proclamation. While if Perry or Huckabee or some other person had been our candidate, Obama wouldn’t have changed his position on gay marriage because Perry would have made Obama pay dearly for that in terms of losing the election. Obama knew Romney was going to be a squish about it and do or say absolutely nothing in response to Obama’s gay proclamation. And that, combined with Romney’s turning a complete cold shoulder to the ChickFilA protests, demoralized conservatives and really Romney himself thus is responsible for setting in motion the current seeming wide acceptance of gay marriage. We had a winning issue, Romney made it a losing issue for us. Thanks for nothing.

anotherJoe on June 25, 2014 at 6:35 PM

The funny thing is polygamy (and its derivatives) will be SCOTUS-protected by the end of this decade.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:20 PM

Yes it will. Once you start down the marriage is a protected right for everyone slope, you cant stop.

Johnnyreb on June 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Yeah, it’s stretching marriage to include anything and everything. There’s no legitimate grounds for objecting to any type of marriage, which means that marriage as an “institution” is fini. Mission accomplished.

ddrintn on June 25, 2014 at 6:35 PM

The funny thing is polygamy (and its derivatives) will be SCOTUS-protected by the end of this decade.
Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:20 PM

No it won’t. This isn’t about freedom or rational thought or even rights.

It’s about thought control – once the churches are destroyed and socialist utopia is made manifest homosexuality will be condemned again because birth rates will have collapsed.

People are ceding their right to moral thought to the polit-bureau.

Dark and frightening days for the republic.

Skywise on June 25, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on June 25, 2014 at 6:09 PMx

Such a simpleton…so is this true for the cousins and those who wish to marry several people? Freedom right? If so you freaks could have at least been honest about it from the start.

CW on June 25, 2014 at 6:36 PM

On what basis?

ddrintn on June 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM

Because polygamists are icky and dangerous.

You’re going to see all the reasons brought up that were discarded in arguing against gay marriage re-used against polygamy but this time courts will find that hatred isn’t driving it but common sense.

These decisions are rife with judges picking and choosing the things they consider relevant to come to the conclusion they want with plenty of room to apply different reasoning to similar situations (e.g., hey here’s a study that says gay parents are just as good as straight parents and so that’s proof of what I like, hey here’s a study that says polygamists are icky and dangerous and so that’s proof of just what I wanted).

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:37 PM

Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on June 25, 2014 at 6:09 PM

My bet: You don’t support Hobby Lobby in their case.

CW on June 25, 2014 at 6:37 PM

The Associated Press @AP · 53m

States can’t ban gay marriage, federal appeals court says; ruling on hold pending Utah’s appeal: http://apne.ws/1ldBd2A
==============================================

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/court-utah-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional

canopfor on June 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

p0s, I don’t think gays see ‘marriage’ quite the way you think.

DemetriusPhalerum on June 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

I didn’t see the right to a wedding cake by whomever they choose, the right to fundamentalist Christian photography or a right to a Catholic wedding mentioned in this ruling. Were those in this, or will we have to wait for those?

ROCnPhilly on June 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

This is about dignity, equality,

Then that can be voted in by the people, not ruled by one leftwing judge.

What about the dignity to marry your brothers, or your 10 yo sister?

faraway on June 25, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Yes it will. Once you start down the marriage is a protected right for everyone slope, you cant stop.

Johnnyreb on June 25, 2014 at 6:30 PM

In theory now you also cannot condemn incestuous relationships and must in fact recognize them and grant them full benefits because just like gay couples they can adopt, have surrogate children and in the case of 2 gay siblings of the same sex getting married they cannot have natural children so…they cannot be denied state marriage.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:39 PM

By the way, there are no “gay-marriage bans” to strike down. There are only judges creating new privileges for the powerful as a social attack on the people that object.

Count to 10 on June 25, 2014 at 6:08 PM

You are of course correct. And in every single gay marriage thread Allahpundit writes someone – usually multiple people – bring this up but Allahpundit never corrects himself.

Gay marriage is not banned anywhere. It’s simply not necessarily recognized and given benefits.

Polygamy is actually banned. Gay marriage is not.

But it’s harder to make the case that people are being denied “dignity” and “equality” and that a states marriage laws amount to codified hatred if you pretend that gay relationships are banned.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:17 PM

Spot on. This war was lost when gay radicals and the media were allowed to redefine state ‘one man, one woman’ marriage laws/amendments as gay marriage bans. Society swallowed that whole, and bans were associated with hate. I’ll bet you could poll any 100 random people, and over 90 would be certain that all state marriage laws/amendments had language specifically banning gays from marrying.

Marcola on June 25, 2014 at 6:39 PM

I want my dignity and equality too – so lets strike down the tax code and the redistributive state.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:39 PM

Let freedom ring.

mythicknight on June 25, 2014 at 6:09 PM

mythicknight: You Rang!!


Anita Ward – Ring My Bell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URAqnM1PP5E

canopfor on June 25, 2014 at 6:40 PM

but the Utah ruling’s more important because it comes from an appellate court.

As the wise, empathetic Latina said, “Policy is made at the appellate level.”

I don’t see why there is any need for anything outside of the judiciary. Judges know all and can dictate anything to anyone, so who needs the rest of the government?

Yes … yes … we need our third-world, retarded tyrant to run things on a daily basis (by his mentally deficient and America-hating whim) … but the Congress is just a total, useless waste, evidently.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 25, 2014 at 6:40 PM

hurray for utah! hurray for america!

brushingmyhair on June 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Whee! This thread again!

The intellectually hollow arguments of the last holdouts of the opposition get exposed for the illogical, inconsistent, anti-Constitutional nonsense that they are, the people who champion the aforementioned illogical, inconsistent, anti-Constitutional nonsense make dire predictions of doom and gloom and fire and brimstone and whatever else that never comes to be and we proceed to the next case when the whole issues turns out to be not a big deal. Wash, rinse, repeat. Not much left to do except this.

Hey, since we’re having this thread again I remember about a month ago when we had this thread after the Pennsylvania ruling there were people on here – who will no doubt be along shortly if they’re not here already – saying that that particular case and the statements various officials made at the time meant incest and polygamy were about to start in Pittsburgh. Can anyone check the scorecard and see how many incestuous or polygamous marriages have taken place in Pittsburgh in the month or so between those predictions and now? I’d be curious to see if the doomsayers were finally right about anything they’ve been so confidently prognosticating about would follow a same-sex marriage ruling.

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Yeah, it’s stretching marriage to include anything and everything. There’s no legitimate grounds for objecting to any type of marriage, which means that marriage as an “institution” is fini. Mission accomplished.

ddrintn on June 25, 2014 at 6:35 PM

Let’s face it, marriage as an institution in the United States has been finished for the better part of 20 years now. Nearly as many kids are born out of wedlock now as kids born to married parents. The number of single parent minority households is over 70%, so yeah marriage has been dead for quite some time in the US.

Johnnyreb on June 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM


https://twitter.com/9NEWS

Colorado civil unions bill
30m
Colorado’s Boulder County Clerk to begin issuing same sex marriage licenses after court rules ban unconstitutional – @9NEWS
Read more on 9news.com
======================

9NEWS Denver @9NEWS · 45s

Follow: @BrandonRittiman and @SteveStaeger who are working on developments, reaction to @BoCoClerk issuing same sex marriage licenses today.

Replied to 0 times

Retweeted by 9NEWS Denver
Brandon Rittiman @BrandonRittiman · 5m

NOW: @COAttnyGeneral says the same-sex marriage licenses being issued by Boulder’s clerk are invalid. #COpolitics #9NEWS

Replied to 0 times

9NEWS Denver @9NEWS · 3m

RT @BrandonRittiman: NOW: @COAttnyGeneral says the same-sex marriage licenses being issued by Boulder’s clerk are invalid #COpolitics #9NEWS

canopfor on June 25, 2014 at 6:42 PM

What if all of a particular state’s records of gay marriages were destroyed in a hard drive crash – would that be acceptable?

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Vanceone on June 25, 2014 at 6:26 PM

Don’t confuse leaving the Union with independence. The Rats won’t let that happen because they need your and the rest of Utah’s tax money and land.

Under that scenario, if Utah is lucky, it, like the Confederacy, be readmitted after certain conditions (such as ratifying gay “marriage” and poly “marriage” in its constitution) are met.

If Utah is only moderately unlucky, it would be governed as a territory, with at least some local rule, but no say on federal matters.

If Utah is very unlucky, it would be lorded over by the federales like the District of Columbia used to be, with absolutely no local control.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:44 PM

Whee! This thread again!

The intellectually hollow arguments of the last holdouts of the opposition get exposed for the illogical, inconsistent, anti-Constitutional nonsense that they are, the people who champion the aforementioned illogical, inconsistent, anti-Constitutional nonsense make dire predictions of doom and gloom and fire and brimstone and whatever else that never comes to be and we proceed to the next case when the whole issues turns out to be not a big deal. Wash, rinse, repeat. Not much left to do except this.

Hey, since we’re having this thread again I remember about a month ago when we had this thread after the Pennsylvania ruling there were people on here – who will no doubt be along shortly if they’re not here already – saying that that particular case and the statements various officials made at the time meant incest and polygamy were about to start in Pittsburgh. Can anyone check the scorecard and see how many incestuous or polygamous marriages have taken place in Pittsburgh in the month or so between those predictions and now? I’d be curious to see if the doomsayers were finally right about anything they’ve been so confidently prognosticating about would follow a same-sex marriage ruling.

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM

You are very dishonest.

The fact that you invoke the Constitution and these rulings and then pretend that these same rulings don’t also defacto demand polygamy and incest shows how shallow you are.

No, the courts will not decriminalize incest or polygamy and that just shows how shallow their thinking is too. Everyone knows that every single gay marriage argument can be made for polygamy and incest. Except you and these judges who are perfectly willing to twist the Constitution into whatever meaning you want to imbue it with at the moment.

I have yet to see your originalist interpretation of the Constitution which demands gay marriage. Good luck with that. You’ll only do what you’ve always done – prove that judges just make things up as they go along to come to the conclusions they want.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM

The effect is to destroy the family as an institution, since family will now mean exactly what the government decides it means at any point, no more, and no less.

That’s not just an expression, either. Trying to make the family either more or less than the government definition will be actionable, if not yet criminal. Any statement that a legally-recognized “partnership” between two men is not actually a marriage will be considered a violation of anti-discrimination laws, and a de facto admission of guilt.

I said that the effect is to destroy the family as an institution. It’s becoming more and more clear that is also the goal.

Totalitarianism is coming, and it is coming from the left, and cloaked in the guise of “the new generation,” “civil rights,” and “the evolving standards of decency.”

And as we see here, the chief agents will be the ones who were charged with protecting the rights in the Constitution.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM

No it won’t. This isn’t about freedom or rational thought or even rights.

It’s about thought control – once the churches are destroyed and socialist utopia is made manifest homosexuality will be condemned again because birth rates will have collapsed.

People are ceding their right to moral thought to the polit-bureau.

Dark and frightening days for the republic.

Skywise on June 25, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Who said poly”marriage” isn’t about thought control?

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM

The real question is how long will it be before states start demanding that churches perform gay marriages in order to maintain the ability to perform state recognized marriages.
Or freedom as mythicknight would call it.
gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:24 PM

That will be part of the SCOTUS mandate of 50-state legal gay “marriage” at the end of June 2015.
Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:29 PM

Will that also include the loss of tax exemption for donations and property for churches that ‘hate’ in word or ‘discriminate’ in deed?

Marcola on June 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM

The liberal coalition is splintering. Gays account for a very small percentage of the democrat coalition. Gay marriage along with the Democrats choosing unions over school choice will cause more and more blacks/hispanics to leave the Democrat plantation.

Also liberal enviro-Nazis continue to be at war with the unions.

Now if only the GOP had better outreach….to these communities.

Raquel Pinkbullet on June 25, 2014 at 6:47 PM

OOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So,…………..late Friday Night,..more Same Sex Spouse Benefits
Operation commenced:

Mark Knoller @markknoller · Jun 20

WH also calling for legislation to “fix” laws that prohibit legally married same-sex couples from getting certain federal benefits.

Replied to 0 times

Mark Knoller @markknoller · Jun 20

WH seeking to expand federal benefits to same-sex couples. Labor Dept today seeks to extend Family & Medical Leave Act to same-sex spouses.
———————————————————————-

The Associated Press @AP · 51m

Obama quietly extending administration’s advocacy to transgender community, reports @scoopscout: http://apne.ws/1pxmchW
=======================================================

Without fanfare, Obama advances transgender rights
By LISA LEFF
— Jun. 21, 2014 6:23 PM EDT
****************************

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Barack Obama, who established his bona fides as a gay and lesbian rights champion when he endorsed same-sex marriage, has steadily extended his administration’s advocacy to the smallest and least accepted band of the LGBT rainbow: transgender Americans.

With little of the fanfare or criticism that marked his evolution into the leader Newsweek nicknamed “the first gay president,” Obama became the first chief executive to say “transgender” in a speech, to name transgender political appointees and to prohibit job bias against transgender government workers. Also in his first term, he signed hate crime legislation that became the first federal civil rights protections for transgender people in U.S. history.

Since then, the administration has quietly applied the power of the executive branch to make it easier for transgender people to update their passports, obtain health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, get treatment at Veteran’s Administration facilities and seek access to public school restrooms and sports programs — just a few of the transgender-specific policy shifts of Obama’s presidency.

“He has been the best president for transgender rights, and nobody else is in second place,” Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said of Obama, who is the only president to invite transgender children to participate in the annual Easter egg roll at the White House.

Religious conservative groups quick to criticize the president for his gay rights advocacy have been much slower to respond to the administration’s actions. The leader of the Traditional Values Coalition says there is little recourse because the changes come through executive orders and federal agencies rather than Congress.

The latest wins came this month, when the Office of Personnel Management announced that government-contracted health insurers could start covering the cost of gender reassignment surgeries for federal employees, retirees and their survivors, ending a 40-year prohibition. Two weeks earlier, a decades-old rule preventing Medicare from financing such procedures was overturned within the Department of Health and Human Services.
(More…)
==========

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/without-fanfare-obama-advances-transgender-rights

canopfor on June 21, 2014 at 9:00 PM

canopfor on June 25, 2014 at 6:47 PM

Under that scenario, if Utah is lucky, it, like the Confederacy, be readmitted after certain conditions (such as ratifying gay “marriage” and poly “marriage” in its constitution) are met.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:44 PM

As opposed to the first time Utah was admitted, with the proviso that they adhere to the normal definition of marriage between one man and ONE woman :)

This would all be comical, if it were happening in some other nation …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 25, 2014 at 6:47 PM

This is a good move towards hetero-normalizing the gays. The more heterosexual we can make them, the more they are in age appropriate, long term, monogamous, heterosexual-like relationships, the better off we all are.

Heterosexuals will still have marriage and the procreative meaning it’s always conveyed. Gays will be getting gay married, and we will all benefit from the fewer diseases being spread and the reduction of the other selfish burdens we suffer from their selfish lifestyle.

The quicker we hetero-normalize the gays the better.

p0s3r on June 25, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Are you seriously suggesting that people who will stick their bare genitals through a hole in a restroom door to have an unseen stranger do the dirty will suddenly become “normalized” because they can now pick out a silver pattern with their ghey-ancé?

Gheys suffer from a psychosexual abnormality. Period.

You aren’t going to fix that by encouraging them to imitate one aspect of sexual normality. The ones who are capable of lifelong pair bonding already do so, “marriage equality” or no. No net benefit to society in legalizing ghey relationships, but instead a significant battering ram to your kid’s future.

By the way, don’t look back when you leave the city.

Dolce Far Niente on June 25, 2014 at 6:48 PM

****************** Counter-Strike *******************************!!

Colorado same-sex marriage
2m

Colorado Attorney General Office says same-sex marriage licenses being issued by Boulder’s clerk are invalid – @BrandonRittiman
see original on twitter.com
===========================

https://twitter.com/BrandonRittiman

Brandon Rittiman @BrandonRittiman · 4m

Yes, but AG’s office says these licenses are invalid. @TobaZaritsky @9NEWS @CRDenver
View conversation

Replied to 0 times

Brandon Rittiman @BrandonRittiman · 5m

Because 10th circuit imposed a stay, the ruling against same-sex marriage ban doesn’t apply to Utah, much less CO, says COAttnyGeneral.
View conversation

Replied to 0 times

Brandon Rittiman @BrandonRittiman · 13m

NOW: @COAttnyGeneral says the same-sex marriage licenses being issued by Boulder’s clerk are invalid. #COpolitics #9NEWS

canopfor on June 25, 2014 at 6:49 PM

The latest wins came this month, when the Office of Personnel Management announced that government-contracted health insurers could start covering the cost of gender reassignment surgeries for federal employees, retirees and their survivors, ending a 40-year prohibition. Two weeks earlier, a decades-old rule preventing Medicare from financing such procedures was overturned within the Department of Health and Human Services.
(More…)
==========

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/without-fanfare-obama-advances-transgender-rights

canopfor on June 21, 2014 at 9:00 PM

canopfor on June 25, 2014 at 6:47 PM

Freaks getting surgeries at tax payer expense to further their perversion.

Raquel Pinkbullet on June 25, 2014 at 6:50 PM

You are very dishonest.

The fact that you invoke the Constitution and these rulings and then pretend that these same rulings don’t also defacto demand polygamy and incest shows how shallow you are.

No, the courts will not decriminalize incest or polygamy and that just shows how shallow their thinking is too. Everyone knows that every single gay marriage argument can be made for polygamy and incest. Except you and these judges who are perfectly willing to twist the Constitution into whatever meaning you want to imbue it with at the moment.

I have yet to see your originalist interpretation of the Constitution which demands gay marriage. Good luck with that. You’ll only do what you’ve always done – prove that judges just make things up as they go along to come to the conclusions they want.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM

First off it’s incorrect to use the word “Everyone” because you’re speaking for yourself and some other likeminded people but not “everyone.” While it’s theoretically possible to assert those arguments but that doesn’t mean it makes any sense to do so. I would think that given your familiarity with making nonsensical arguments that you would understand that.

The Constitution doesn’t demand same-sex marriage; it does demand due process and equal protection under the law. There’s a difference, even if it has the consequence of leading to the same outcome given our current laws governing marriage.

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 6:51 PM

The real question is how long will it be before states start demanding that churches perform gay marriages in order to maintain the ability to perform state recognized marriages.

It will never happen. The constitution places religious institutions in a special category to protect their rights.

You may feel your religious liberty infringed, but that is only because religion has played an outsized role as the federal gov’t has expanded. Gov’t has implicitly endorsed religion for quite some time by funding things such as christian charities. If the charity is going to discriminate it will be given a warning to stop and if it won’t then the federal gov’t must stop funding it. It’s that simple. It’s not infringement of the religion, its really just going back to neutrality.

(e.g., hey here’s a study that says gay parents are just as good as straight parents and so that’s proof of what I like

It’s really more of a scientific conclusion. It’s not a debatable point anymore… Instead of listening to hearsay, why don’t you do some research on the topic. Throwing out statements like that are offensive.

mjr212 on June 25, 2014 at 6:52 PM

Will that also include the loss of tax exemption for donations and property for churches that ‘hate’ in word or ‘discriminate’ in deed?

Marcola on June 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM

With all apologies to Jefferson Airplane…

Go ask Lois…
I think she’ll know.
When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead,
And the white knight is talking backwards,
And the red queen’s off with her head,
Remember what the door mouse said,
“Feed your head.

Steve Eggleston on June 25, 2014 at 6:52 PM

dag gwelf alchemist just pwned you hard.

brushingmyhair on June 25, 2014 at 6:54 PM

First off it’s incorrect to use the word “Everyone” because you’re speaking for yourself and some other likeminded people but not “everyone.” While it’s theoretically possible to assert those arguments but that doesn’t mean it makes any sense to do so. I would think that given your familiarity with making nonsensical arguments that you would understand that.

The Constitution doesn’t demand same-sex marriage; it does demand due process and equal protection under the law. There’s a difference, even if it has the consequence of leading to the same outcome given our current laws governing marriage.

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 6:51 PM

We do this everytime and I don’t have the masochist streak in me to do it again tonight.

But you know full well that in every other thread on this topic when I and others have put the same gay marriage arguments before you arguing for incest and polygamy you have been completely unable to make the case they they don’t arise to the same violation of “equal protection” and “due process”. You can’t do it. You’ve tried many times and have failed utterly each time.

And again, you claim some originalist reading of the Constitution that demands gay marriage yet every originalist on the bench and academia (even those that support gay marriage like Richard Epstein) will say the equal protection and due process clauses don’t apply ot gay marriage. We both know that 15 years ago these rulings would not have gone down this way and that there hasn’t been some revolution in originalist thinking in that time period that demands gay marriage.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:56 PM

dag gwelf alchemist just pwned you hard.

brushingmyhair on June 25, 2014 at 6:54 PM

You siding with him should be an indication to him that he’s on the wrong track here.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:57 PM

This is a good move towards hetero-normalizing the gays. The more heterosexual we can make them, the more they are in age appropriate, long term, monogamous, heterosexual-like relationships, the better off we all are.

Heterosexuals will still have marriage and the procreative meaning it’s always conveyed. Gays will be getting gay married, and we will all benefit from the fewer diseases being spread and the reduction of the other selfish burdens we suffer from their selfish lifestyle.

The quicker we hetero-normalize the gays the better.

p0s3r on June 25, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Not possible. Did you see those perverse pics from their parades?

Raquel Pinkbullet on June 25, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Will that also include the loss of tax exemption for donations and property for churches that ‘hate’ in word or ‘discriminate’ in deed?

Marcola on June 25, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Can you list for me every church which was either compelled by force of a court order or by the threat of a loss of tax-exempt status to either perform an interracial marriage which was contrary to their beliefs after the Loving decision in 1967, or any church so affected in any of the 19 states where same-sex marriage is currently legal in this country?

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 6:58 PM

It will never happen. The constitution places religious institutions in a special category to protect their rights.

You may feel your religious liberty infringed, but that is only because religion has played an outsized role as the federal gov’t has expanded. Gov’t has implicitly endorsed religion for quite some time by funding things such as christian charities. If the charity is going to discriminate it will be given a warning to stop and if it won’t then the federal gov’t must stop funding it. It’s that simple. It’s not infringement of the religion, its really just going back to neutrality.

Uh, the states have already shut down adoption agencies that didn’t want to hand over kids to gay couples.

The states can easily tell churches they are free to perform gay marriages but the state is under no obligation to legally recognize them and that if they want the state to legally recognize them they have to perform gay marriages too. The states – and the feds – to this sort of thing all of the time.

gwelf on June 25, 2014 at 6:58 PM

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM

You on this thread? Big surprise there. /

Really you are so unable to discuss anything other than this. What a bore . For someone who claims to be straight you have a weird fetish.

CW on June 25, 2014 at 7:01 PM

1967
alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 6:58 PM

You’re hilarious. Wake the phuck up you enabler.

CW on June 25, 2014 at 7:02 PM

dag gwelf alchemist just pwned you hard.

brushingmyhair on June 25, 2014 at 6:54 PM

He’s used to it by now, and truthfully I think he kind of likes it. Perhaps he’s one of those masochists.

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 7:03 PM

You on this thread? Big surprise there. /

Really you are so unable to discuss anything other than this. What a bore . For someone who claims to be straight you have a weird fetish.

CW on June 25, 2014 at 7:01 PM

I think this is the third thread I commented on here today. I do have a fetish with the Constitution and not setting the Democrats up with a winning issue but that’s about it.

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 7:04 PM

The Gaystapo is just getting started. They’re on a roll and smell Christian blood. They simply don’t understand that a man lying down/going down on another man is unnatural and imo, immoral. Forcing the rest of us to accept and ‘celebrate’ their depravity is, itself, depraved.

vnvet on June 25, 2014 at 7:04 PM

If I wrote what I’m thinking I’d get banned. Again.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 25, 2014 at 7:05 PM

h, the states have already shut down adoption agencies that didn’t want to hand over kids to gay couples.

Exactly. Because an adoption agency is not a church…. The adoption agencies affiliated with churches are charities not religious institutions. By serving more than their congregations, aka the public, they must comply with public law and are no longer protected by religious exemptions.

mjr212 on June 25, 2014 at 7:05 PM

You’re hilarious. Wake the phuck up you enabler.

CW on June 25, 2014 at 7:02 PM

I cited Loving because it was an example of the Supreme Court striking down a state marriage prohibition despite the fact the prohibition was supported by some churches. It’s entirely appropriate to cite when looking at the legal history of churches who might have been forced to perform religious marriage ceremonies contrary to their teachings. It’s not my fault if you don’t understand that.

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 7:07 PM

It will never happen. The constitution places religious institutions in a special category to protect their rights.

Sorry – the courts have already ruled that government trumps churches. If push comes to shove (and it will) the churches will be forced to concede to “equality”

Skywise on June 25, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Let’s face it, marriage as an institution in the United States has been finished for the better part of 20 years now. Nearly as many kids are born out of wedlock now as kids born to married parents. The number of single parent minority households is over 70%, so yeah marriage has been dead for quite some time in the US.

Johnnyreb on June 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Your comment is as much about the putrefaction of the black culture in America as the institution of marriage.

slickwillie2001 on June 25, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Not possible. Did you see those perverse pics from their parades?

Raquel Pinkbullet on June 25, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Do you think what you see at a parade somewhere is the way all homosexuals behave?

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Alchemist: Read Reynolds v United States. In particular, read how they concluded that “Polygamy has always been odious.” and the death penalty proscribed for it. They easily, and in your view correctly, concluded that polygamy is something that can be banned by Congress and the states.

The 14th Amendment was in force at the time of the argument. It’s not mentioned at all.

Homosexuality is also a crime that was universal–universally! held to be a crime. If the Supreme Court, which recognized polygamy as a feature of “Asiatic and Eastern” societies, nevertheless could conclude that criminal penalties were allowed– how on this Earth can you possibly conclude that homosexual weddings is permitted by the Constitution and the 14th amendment when the very act of homosexuality was a crime with severe penalties?

You are using the Humpty Dumpty method: “Words mean what I say they mean!” in order to claim that the 14th Amendment authorizes homosexual marriage whilst simultaneously forbidding polygamy.

Vanceone on June 25, 2014 at 7:10 PM

The destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah was just coincidence.

UnstChem on June 25, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Sorry – the courts have already ruled that government trumps churches. If push comes to shove (and it will) the churches will be forced to concede to “equality”

Skywise on June 25, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Can you cite any examples of this happening because of a gay marriage ruling in any of the 19 states where it is currently legal?

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 7:12 PM

http://www.breakingnews.com/

Colorado same-sex marriage
6m
Boulder County, Colo., issued marriage licenses to 2 same-sex couples before the clerks’ office closed for the day, @alex_burness reports – @dailycamera
see original on twitter.com
============================

Colorado same-sex marriage
11m
Couple, 1 of the 9 plaintiffs in Colorado to challenge to same-sex marriage ban, gets marriage license in Boulder – @kenterdahl
see original on twitter.com

canopfor on June 25, 2014 at 7:14 PM

Let freedom ring.
mythicknight on June 25, 2014 at 6:09 PM

Same sex couples have always had the freedom to mistakenly call their union “marriage”.

anuts on June 25, 2014 at 7:15 PM

Nobody has the right to marry anyone.

TX-96 on June 25, 2014 at 7:16 PM

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 6:41 PM

You could be a good constitutionalist conservative, but you keep tripping over this issue.

22044 on June 25, 2014 at 7:16 PM

************** RINO PURGE ALERT ***********************!!

US same-sex marriage
2m
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, indicates for 1st time her support for same-sex marriage – @bdnpolitics
Read more on bangordailynews.com

http://bangordailynews.com/2014/06/25/politics/elections/susan-collins-i-support-same-sex-marriage/

canopfor on June 25, 2014 at 7:17 PM

Let’s see if alkie boy presents any evidence that “gay marriage” is distince from “poly marriages”. 2,500 threads and counting that he hasn’t done so.

22044 on June 25, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Alchemist: Read Reynolds v United States. In particular, read how they concluded that “Polygamy has always been odious.” and the death penalty proscribed for it. They easily, and in your view correctly, concluded that polygamy is something that can be banned by Congress and the states.

The 14th Amendment was in force at the time of the argument. It’s not mentioned at all.

Homosexuality is also a crime that was universal–universally! held to be a crime. If the Supreme Court, which recognized polygamy as a feature of “Asiatic and Eastern” societies, nevertheless could conclude that criminal penalties were allowed– how on this Earth can you possibly conclude that homosexual weddings is permitted by the Constitution and the 14th amendment when the very act of homosexuality was a crime with severe penalties?

You are using the Humpty Dumpty method: “Words mean what I say they mean!” in order to claim that the 14th Amendment authorizes homosexual marriage whilst simultaneously forbidding polygamy.

Vanceone on June 25, 2014 at 7:10 PM

I believe we’ve discussed Reynolds before.

Reynolds was only five years after the Slaughterhouse cases when the view of the Fourteenth Amendment which the Court held is at odds with pretty much every current legal scholar across the political spectrum, and much more to the point, I don’t believe the specter of the Fourteenth Amendment was an issue in that case. When arguing before the Court Reynolds tried to shield himself using the First Amendment saying that the First’s protection of freedom of religion meant the government couldn’t punish him for something which was part of his personal religious beliefs. Do you think a person’s religious beliefs grant them license to break the law?

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 7:20 PM

Not possible. Did you see those perverse pics from their parades?

Raquel Pinkbullet on June 25, 2014 at 6:57 PM

Do you think what you see at a parade somewhere is the way all homosexuals behave?

alchemist19 on June 25, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Just the ones that vote.

Iblis on June 25, 2014 at 7:29 PM

alchemist, you dodge the issue. You are seriously arguing that the same people who enacted the 14th Amendment; who pushed for all the sanctions on the LDS church; who never, ever complained about the crime of homosexuality (remember, until the 1980s homosexual acts were criminal in most states)–those same people intended for the 14th Amendment to legalize Marriages for acts that were criminal?

No one ever tried the 14th amendment for polygamy, because it’s an insane idea: that “equal protection” means that marriage is a free for all, regardless of gender or number. Do you honestly think that two women together is sacred, holy, and supposed to be exalted by the state, yet if they add a male, suddenly they are looking at hard time?

And you just admitted that “Current” legal scholarship doesn’t hold with what they originally intended. I.E. you and your ilk have rewritten the 14th amendment into something it never was meant for. Just like the Commerce Clause and the “emanations and penumbras” of legalized abortion.

Why do you social leftists have to invent, lie, distort, twist, and otherwise mutilate and maul the Constitution to dig out “mandates” for your perversions?

Vanceone on June 25, 2014 at 7:30 PM

And as for the merits of the 1st Amendment allowing a man’s beliefs to trump the law…. it depends. If Obama declares tomorrow that the law states that you swear fealty to him and pray to him; or be put to death: You’d better darn believe that I’m going to use the 1st Amendment and disobey that law.

Vanceone on June 25, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5