I really don't know. I haven't read the opinion. Keep in mind, I think same-sex marriage in inevitable. I'm just puzzled that you and AJ seem to think that a trial court ruling means game, set and match to the plaintiffs in this case.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
I don't think it means that, but I do think it will survive appeal. (And for at least one couple they have won, they were married at the Salt Lake County Clerks office this afternoon)
I wish our elected representatives were wise enough to not waste limited resources trying to appeal this because I don't think Utah will win the appeal.
I'm not sure why you think I think that. I simply stated that it's coming, a point with which you agree.
Anyway, I don't even know why the clerks are issuing marriage licenses. (Having not read the opinion) doesn't this decision just overturn the Utah constitutional amendment? I presume there would still have to be a law enacted to allow same-sex marriages before the clerks could issue them, no?
I don't know. I try to stay as far away from the workings of Utah politics and law as I can. I heard on the radio that the state is seeking a stay from the 10th circuit, which is typical in cases like this
"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
No, from what I understand, the way the legal wrangling has gone, Utah chose to go down the path of banning such marriages rather than legalizing others. (That's why Sim Gill was consulted prior to the issuance of the first license)
This could very easily go all the way to the Supreme Court. It raises the issue the Court avoided in the Prop 8 case--whether there is a federal constitutional right to gay marriage that trumps state law. That is the big question in all of the gay marriage litigation. The ruling strikes down state constitutional amendment approved by a large % of voters. I would be surprised if the S. Ct. avoids it, unless the 10th Cir. reverses.
We were wondering today what other district court judge in Utah would have ruled the way Shelby did. Not many. So much depends on the random assignment of the case at the beginning.
Last edited by concerned; 12-20-2013 at 09:00 PM.
I have just recorded an interview with Michael Ferguson and Seth Anderson who are the first gay couple to have their marriage solemnized in the state of Utah. I'll put a link up as soon as the editing is complete. Everyone should hear their story in their own words. This is amazing history unfolding.
“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
I think for Utah the cat is completely out of the bag as a practical matter. Hundreds of people were married tonight and apparently the clerks offices will open tomorrow to issue more licenses. No matter what happens in Denver, the fact is that gay married couples are now going into circulation in Utah. People will very soon see that it has no effect on them whatsoever. That bell cannot be un-rung. And from the reports I am getting, and you'll hear this in the interview, the clerks office was very much in support, the people waiting in line for passports and other things stopped and partook in the moment, and no one seemed anything other than happy. I think the people of Utah will rise to the occasion and that the vast majority of them will move on and feel relieved that this is no longer a defining issue (and least in a public or active sense) for their state or their church. Everyone won today.
“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
I know how strongly you feel about this. As you know, philosophically I strongly dislike the idea of changes like this being imposed by judicial fiat. Sadly, I'm not emperor, so things have an annoying way of not going as I would like.
"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
Herbert is stuck. He will likely choose the short term win/long term loss strategy, and will put tremendous effort and funds into fighting this.
If he chooses to be a martyr on this particular hill he will sacrifice the state treasury with him.
Maybe they can take it out of his proposed $37,000 pay raise
Good idea, but bad precedent.
But, isn't that why the courts are there? A last refuge against the willful intractability of the other two branches to enforce/uphold the Constitution?I know how strongly you feel about this. As you know, philosophically I strongly dislike the idea of changes like this being imposed by judicial fiat. Sadly, I'm not emperor, so things have an annoying way of not going as I would like.
"This culture doesn't sell modesty. It sells "I am more modest than you" modesty." -- Two Utes
Do you think that's what the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade?
"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
http://mormonexpositor.com/59-breaki...anel-analysis/
“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
That was fast.
Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk 2
“It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”
Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Greg knows these guys and just took a shot in the dark that they could talk to us and they did. It was sort of impromptu, but they were really great. The headed off to speak to Al Jazeera right after us.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
“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
Very nicely done UD. You scooped several powerful international news media outlets (al Jazeera, BBC, etc.).
This is a relief and is a momentous day for Utah. And I agree with Mitch Mayne, this could be a blessing in disguise for the LDS church as it gives them a way out of the corner into which they have painted themselves.
I also love your Christmas intro song, very nicely done my friend!
What a wonderful thing! I'm so happy for many of my friends growing up who had tumultuous childhoods because of their sexual orientation and were ostracized and criticized and condemned because they were who they were. This is a wonderful thing!
I hope the church doesn't embarrass itself officially or through the actions of its zealous members over this. Or maybe I do because it will be fun to watch unfold. As far as this event is concerned, that is the only problem I need to work out in my mind. The decision is clearly a wonderful spiritual/emotional/physical/equitable/justiciablevictory for freedom and liberty!
(I love people trying to argue that the 14th amendment was only meant for the issue of
Slavery and shouldn't extend to any other issue, including gay marriage. Not sure I've heard anything so idiotic in a very long time!)
I made the mistake of reading the Deseret News editorial which called the ruling "Judicial Tyranny" and then reading the comments to it.
No matter which side of this particular debate you stand on, I think we can all agree that the vast majority of Americans have little knowledge of how their government works. It's sad.
(My favorite was the commenter who wants Shelby removed from the bench as he is not following the "Proclamation On Families")
Comments to DesNews articles are deadly.
"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'm new to the forum, so forgive me if this has been brought up before. I haven't read the entire thread.
Since equality is the basis for the claim, that means that it is acceptable for a (singular) parent to marry a (singular) child so as to avoid paying the estate tax?
Wow! I'll have to listen to this. I just realized that I know Michael Ferguson. I used to be in his ward! What a small, strange world we live in.
Comments are what you read to lose your faith in humanity.
One should have to get a license, in common sense, before being allowed on the Internet.
Crap, I don't have a chance.
Yep, the Washington Post comments are pretty bad, no matter the subject.
Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk 2
“It only ends once. Anything that happens before that is just progress.”
Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
It seems to me that by refusing to issue a stay Judge Shelby has moved from a "calling balls and strikes" judge to a true activist judge -- meaning, he's pushing for a particular result and trying to make his ruling difficult to challenge as a practical matter.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57...y-sex.html.csp
Last edited by LA Ute; 12-23-2013 at 01:07 PM.
"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 agree with LAU that a stay seems to be in order here.
But I'm really confused by a lot of this. What a Utah circus.
1. Why were any marriage licenses issued after the ruling? Isn't the holding of the case that the Utah Constitutional amendment is unconstitutional? The result of that holding is that the legislature is no longer prohibited from providing for same-sex marriage, but it does not seem to require same-sex marriage, right? Essentially, Utah would be a state that only allows "traditional" marriage, but could change that via legislation.
2. Once we get passed issue 1, why were some counties issuing marriage licenses (SLC) and some weren't (Utah)? I mean, beyond the obvious politics of the two counties. Who is in control of the county clerks' offices?
3. Once Shelby denied the stay, how can Utah county continue to deny licenses (assuming that point 1 is overcome)? Waiting for the 10th circuit is not the proper response once a stay has been denied. The county offices all seem like sleeper cells-no centralized control.
As to 1, Shelby ruled that marriage is (i) a fundamental right, whether heterosexual or not, so no legislation is needed authorizing same sex licenses, and (2) issuing heterosexual licenses but not same-sex licenses would violate equal protection, so the state cannot continue to issue licenses for one but not the other.
He specifically addressed the license issue in his ruling.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote