10th circuit has denied both stay requests made by Utah. They will now appeal to the SCOTUS, Sonya Sotomayor is the justice assigned to the 10th circuit.
10th circuit has denied both stay requests made by Utah. They will now appeal to the SCOTUS, Sonya Sotomayor is the justice assigned to the 10th circuit.
Does anyone think her decision will be non-political?Originally Posted by Diehard Ute
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Is the text of that available anywhere for us to read?
Not that I'm aware of. They announced the ruling about 1730 hours
I was cheerfully snarking a bit toward those who seem to think Judge Shelby acted in a totally objective, non-ideological manner in his handling of this case.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
totally objective, non-ideological manner=When I agree with the decision
Partisan hack= When I disagree with the decision
Way to spout off with no idea what you are talking about. Nobody thinks any judge is totally objective, but that is a lot different that saying it is a political decision.
Yep. Pretty much true. I at least admit my bias. I don't think Shelby's a partisan hack, though. He's just a federal district court judge. Regardless of their political leanings I have low expectations of them generally (based on experience!) and especially in big cases like this. And all I said was that it's silly to assume he acted in a "totally objective, non-ideological manner."
Well, I have some idea of what I am talking about, but I'll admit that with everything that's been going on personally since last Friday I haven't studied the Utah constitutional provision at issue, nor do I know the applicable rules for seeking a stay. I practice mainly in state court. I'll just say this. To me it is eyebrow-raising (at a minimum) when a judge denies a stay on technical grounds, especially when he/she has granted injunctive relief that he/she knows is allowing irreversible changes in the status quo to proceed. (Technically, irreparable harm, in the language of equitable relief, which you know.) It just makes me wonder what is really going on with that judge. I've stood in front of too many of them who've been honest with me and said, "I may get reversed on this, but that's how I see the case. I'll grant you a stay if you want." Color me skeptical, that's all.
Understood. See my comments above. I'll add that I am a little jaded about procedural maneuvering in marriage equality cases. In California Prop 8 was effectively removed from the State Constitution because the state's Attorney General refused to defend it, probably in violation of her own duty as the state's lawyer. I have watched people who were happy with that outcome shrug their shoulders at her behavior, but there's little doubt that if positions were reversed they'd be outraged to say the least.
Last edited by LA Ute; 12-25-2013 at 09:26 AM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Anyone attended an SSM wedding reception yet? A coworker of mine has one on January 11th. I'm excited for them, but am a little unsure if I should bring a gift or not, seeing how they have lived together for 15 years or more. The invitation didn't say anything about it, and it seems a little tacky to ask.
Would you bring a gift to a hetero couple that had lived together for 15 years?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
"Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum
"And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla
I haven't run into that situation before, so I can't say.
I would in both situations.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I would take something as a gift.
http://fox13now.com/2014/01/04/same-...r-an-uprising/
This all sounds very Bull Connor-esque.
It is embarassing to hear/read about talk like this.
I wonder if they're going to bring fire hoses and German shepherds to stop their rights from being violated by these gay and lesbian people marrying.
It's even more embarrassing if you live here.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
I find myself feeling very grateful that I don't any longer.
In thinking more about this situation I find myself asking what is the likelihood of ever having a political answer to this question in favor of gay martiage.
In states like Washington, Maine, and a few others the question was put to a vote via referendum and passed by The People. In Vermont it was passed as a bill by the legislature and signed by the Governor. In Mass, Utah, and numerous others it was allowed by a court ruling (though the ruling in Mass was later upheld by the legislature).
Will the more conservative states like Utah ever truly vote to uphold same sex marriage? I cannot envision a situation were conservative state like Utah will have a majority vote to support gay marriage.
The meantime actual emotional and financial damages are suffered by people who are in stable, committed relationships and who desire marriage to a long-term partner.
As far as I can tell the most that opponents to gay marriage have at risk is their own personal feelings.
In short, a judgement that is seen as overtly political may be the only recourse in states where a natural political solution is overwhelmingly unlikely to ever occur.
In my neck of the woods (conservative, small-town Utah), people have mostly just shrugged. The religious folks generally disagree with the idea of gay marriage but there's enough of a Libertarian Independent streak for there to be a general feeling to let people live their lives freely.
I think we're a generation away from this being a ho-hum topic (maybe 2 generations in Utah, which lags behind much of the country on social issues and general fashion trends).
I would suggest that the young people I teach are pretty tolerant, but I wonder if they're just too bored & lazy to give it much thought. Either way, the idea of gay marriage doesn't move their needles much (unless he's super-attractive, I guess).
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
This whole episode is simply ridiculous. Many of those who oppose gay marriage would have opposed de-segregation.
Yep, exactly.
Personally I couldn't care less. This is my first post in this thread and I suspect it will probably be the last too.
What does surprise me is that this thread is one of the most popular in this particular forum... which makes me think that this issue is more important to many here, than it is in the "community" at large... And this place was created as basically a Ute football forum. I realize that it is much more than that, but the Utah by 5 demographic is eclectic and unique. Some here are probably far more interested in this matter than most in Utah.
The Supreme Court did issue a stay today so the story is not over. I don't expect a different outcome but the issue should not be decided district court by district court.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Gerilyn Ruzeagar and the Feeble Forum need to answer: "what happened between you and a Butterfinger"?
NSFW
http://www.comedycentral.com/video-c...the-crew-pt--2
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57...state.html.csp It may survive it's current appeals, but even if upheld this time, Amendment 3 is going to be short-lived.
I think the quote from the person from Orem is going to be the talking point.
LaNae is obviously religious and believes marriage is between a man and woman and God. She goes on to say that "If the gay community is wanting their relationship to be legally recognized, they can do that without having a marriage license."
And that's the issue, LaNae, under Utah law their relationship can't be legally recognized, and Gary Herbert has made it quite clear he's willing to do anything to keep it that way.
Now my question is, do people such as LaNae not understand that heterosexual couples in Utah are afforded rights that others are not?
Utah, and other states, attach rights and benefits to marriage which is the main issue in the first place. Perhaps people such as LaNae are ignorant to the fact that marriage is the only way to be recognized and receive said benefits.
(In an unrelated note I think the tax system changing based on your marital status is crap in the first place)
I understand many have this moral attachment to the word marriage...perhaps that's blinding their view of the real world issues that come with that word.
I've been saying all along that a big part of the problem stems from people being unable to separate ecclesiastic marriage from secular/civil marriage. To be fair, Amendment 3 also forbade the recognition of civil unions, which to me, demonstrates that it was a fundamentally mean-spirited and bigoted act. The people who crafted it not only wanted to deny gay marriage, but also prevent any means for LGBT partners to receive anything resembling the legal rights/benefits associated with a spousal relationship. Many in the poll support civil unions but not gay marriage, but Amendment 3 denies even that, and I think a lot if not most Utahns don't realize that.
I agree 100%
And maybe that's a question such a poll should ask. If people know that there is no provision in Utah for anyone but heterosexuals to receive the benefits attached to marriage.
I think many in Utah don't understand that issue, because in their world it isn't an issue at all.
I don't want to argue but hasn't that distinction been around a long time? Married people are treated differently for tax purposes, as you've noted, and have been for decades. Back during the Vietnam-era military draft, being married increased the likelihood of getting a deferment. Has that distinction always been a unconstitutional , and we are just now discovering that fact?
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I think it's things such as hospital visitation, health insurance etc that have forced the issue
But personally I have always found the idea that being married somehow changed how much you should pay in taxes etc to be silly
Well I guess there is one area of government that doesn't care if you're married or not. Domestic Violence laws.
One big issue many people are not conscious of is that only a spouse can adopt a child. So the existing children of gay relationships are entitled to no support from the non-bio parent if he/she splits with bio parent. Similarly, non-bio parent has a few if any rights respecting the raising of the children or visitation with them.
“The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
― Carl Sagan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote