On November 30, 2011, President Obama nominated Robert J. Shelby to be District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Utah.[4] He received a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 28, 2012 and his nomination was reported to the floor on April 26, 2012, by voice vote.[5]
So when will he come out of the CLOSET?
Having a fake "marriage" does not convey dignity or create a family.
Avatar no longer posted to protest one of A&E's parent companies
Our state has a homo-marriage ban and it was upheld by our state Supremes.
This judge is the fruit from a poison tree.
So...what other kind of "marriage bans" do they have in Utah?
Note how they cite the Constituion while they trash it....and violate foundational states rights. Yippee! Ride that swirl to the left folks....right down the pipes we go!
They have equal protection, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex just like everyone else can.
The idea that sexual deviants do not have equal protection because they can’t marry someone of their same sex is a joke.
If anyone has a complaint about unequal justice, its now the elderly widow who can not “marry” (in name only for tax and health benefits) their sibling or adult child.
Why is the love of a man for another man’s anus respected in law and tax policy but a (non sexual)love between a mother and adult single child (or other relative) gets them no benefits and does not allow shared health insurance?
Yet another judge misapplies the logic of race to an issue of sexuality. It’s intellectually dishonest to the hilt yet the left gets away with it time and time again right in front of our faces.
Why have elections anymore? Why bother? Judges are our rulers now.
We just need to kneel to the political royals and stop wasting out time.
I bet this judge couldn’t find the Tenth Amendment if it were stuck to the end of his nose.
It is going to be very hard for any judge not to strike down these laws with the precedents the Supreme Court established in June. It was only by the thinnest pretense that those decisions didn’t nationalize gay marriage, and they left lower court judges few options — which we saw in New Jersey and now in Utah. My guess is the Supremes wanted to give a few more liberal states the chance to adopt gay marriage by legislative action or ballot question so as to make the judicial effort appear less of a revolution and more of a suppression of some holdouts.
Ignore the judge.
let’s see him enforce his ruling.
Polygamy is next and Utah may lead the pack since that was a barrier to their statehood.
Once more the will of the people is thwarted by the whim of a partisan judge