Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gay couples wed in Utah after judge overturns ban
Boston.com ^ | 12/21/13 | BRADY McCOMBS

Posted on 12/21/2013 6:26:00 AM PST by SoFloFreeper

A federal judge struck down Utah’s same-sex marriage ban Friday in a decision that marks a drastic shift toward gay marriage in a conservative state where the Mormon church has long been against it.

The decision set off an immediate frenzy as the clerk in the state’s most populous county began issuing marriage licenses to dozens of gay couples while state officials took steps to appeal the ruling and halt the process.

Cheers erupted as the mayor of Salt Lake City led one of the state’s first gay wedding ceremonies in an office building about three miles from the headquarters of the Mormon church.

Deputy Salt Lake County Clerk Dahnelle Burton-Lee said the district attorney authorized her office to begin issuing licenses to same-sex couples but she couldn’t immediately say how many had been issued.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: federalism; homosexualagenda; lds; mormon; mormonism; perversion
The tenth amendment is toilet paper to the federal judge who issued this perversion.

Notice how statists work....get a favorable ruling then IMMEDIATELY implement it before an appeal stops the action.

When a ruling doesn't favor the statists, they ignore it...

1 posted on 12/21/2013 6:26:00 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

And Pajama Boy will be the maid of honor at every wedding of the fudgies.


2 posted on 12/21/2013 6:27:15 AM PST by shankbear (The tree of Liberty appears to be perishing because there are few patriots willing to refresh it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
The decision set off an immediate frenzy . . .

No surprise there.

3 posted on 12/21/2013 6:30:01 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

1 judge = laws passed by representative elected by the people.


4 posted on 12/21/2013 6:30:14 AM PST by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
"The decision set off an immediate frenzy ... "

Blood in the water !
Blood in the water !


Animals always act like animals.
They cam't help it, it's instinctive

Before anyone goes criticizin' me, let me ask ...
Have any of you named your daughter Jezabel?
Why not?
Oh .... there are some things you just don't do?

5 posted on 12/21/2013 6:35:48 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana

that’s how they think / work


6 posted on 12/21/2013 6:36:19 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true .. I have no proof .. but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

What we’re learning from this week is that this ‘couple’ is no more ‘married’ than I’m the ghost of Christmas past.

The ‘culture wars’ are far from lost. The totalitarians control the apparatus of state but they don’t control the hearts and minds of real, decent Americans.


7 posted on 12/21/2013 6:37:48 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
The courts so deeply stacked with communist judges that no one will be safe from laws being implemented, or overturned in this case, that favor their agenda.

They purposely want to break down the family unit by allowing perversion like this to become law of the land. These ruling goes hand-in-hand with two expressed goals as listed in the 45 Declared Goals of Communist Takeover of America:

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

8 posted on 12/21/2013 6:38:24 AM PST by ducttape45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

We need a Constitutional Amendment declaring homosexuality and pedophilia Federal Crimes.


9 posted on 12/21/2013 6:42:34 AM PST by ZULU (Impeach that Bastard Barrack Hussein Obama the Doctor Mengele of Medical Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

We are ruled by judicial fiat.


10 posted on 12/21/2013 6:44:06 AM PST by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Federal judges are a danger to America. The entire courts system needs to be overhauled drastically.

Federal judges will next approve bestiality as an acceptable practice as well as issuing rulings that will allow old queens to engage in sex with youngsters. If the youngsters or their parents object they will be jailed.


11 posted on 12/21/2013 6:48:24 AM PST by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

This was obviously going to happen, and that the judge in the case happened to be an Obama appointee is an accident.

His hands were entirely tied by the reasoning of the June Supreme Court decisions, which, as I argued here (and many people argued elsewhere) were intended and written to guarantee nationwide gay marriage in a low-drama way.

Those decisions hold unambiguously that anti-gay bias in any form is unconstitutional and create essentially unreachable evidenciary burdens to show that gay marriage hurts anyone or that a measure restricting gay marriage wasn’t motivated by anti-gay bias. In light of that, there is essentially no way that a lower court judge can reach a different conclusion from the one than this judge reached. He may have been an Obama appointee but that was the luck of the draw; we will start to see Bush Jr. and Sr. judges reaching exactly the same conclusions.

It took Chris Christie about two days to recognize he couldn’t winnably appeal the decision that legalized gay marriage in New Jersey. The unpopularity of gay marriage in Utah probably presents the Governor of Utah with a different political calculus, and he’ll throw an appeal at the wall, but my guess is that those papers are going to be transparently unserious. It’s 50/50 at best that the Tenth Circuit will stay the decision, and highly unlikely that the decision will be reversed on the merits.

Opponents of gay marriage have only one actual channel to pursue and that is a constitutional amendment.


12 posted on 12/21/2013 6:53:34 AM PST by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
1 judge = laws passed by representative elected by the people.

1 judge > laws passed by representative elected by the people.

13 posted on 12/21/2013 6:54:15 AM PST by grobdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
I don't understand how one judge can over rule a Utah State Constitutional Amendment? The Ban on homo marriage was passed by both state houses, sign by the governor and voted on by the entire state, but one liberal judge can over rule all? This is sheer madness.
14 posted on 12/21/2013 6:55:00 AM PST by 2001convSVT (Going Galt as fast as I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

I don’t care what any federal judge says ... just keep them away from me!


15 posted on 12/21/2013 7:07:19 AM PST by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

There is a huge hole in our legal system when a Judge with an Agenda can overturn a law that a majority of the citizens wanted and passed by calling it unconstitutional. There should be a control that when that decision is made, a review by the Supreme Court before the law is overturned. It should not be immediately overturned on the say so of one twisted man.


16 posted on 12/21/2013 7:10:31 AM PST by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maxwellsmart_agent

Well FRiend, it should be very clear now that you and I no longer live in a Constitutional Republic. The We The People as sovereigns has ended, aborted by the progressives screaming for tolerance, until they are in control and then you will be silenced for any opposition to their rule.


17 posted on 12/21/2013 7:14:08 AM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: only1percent
Those decisions hold unambiguously that anti-gay bias in any form is unconstitutional and create essentially unreachable evidenciary burdens to show that gay marriage hurts anyone or that a measure restricting gay marriage wasn’t motivated by anti-gay bias.

Did they arrive at this through the 14th amendment somehow? If so, how could they not see that homosexuality and race are fundamentally different? It's the difference in something you do versus something you are, at least from society's perspective. Isn't society allowed to pass laws that take behavior into account?

18 posted on 12/21/2013 7:24:02 AM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Yay for judicial tyranny and the tyranny of the minority!

Thank you, GayKK ;/


19 posted on 12/21/2013 8:08:59 AM PST by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

judges over turning voters should be a big no no ,now the voters should over turn this judge


20 posted on 12/21/2013 8:09:43 AM PST by molson209 (Hillary Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper; All
Yes the Utah State Constitution Amendment said:

Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

The Judge struck down a amendment to a state constitution. Will this stand?

21 posted on 12/21/2013 8:57:04 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick

In 1965 in Griswold the Supreme Court first created a doctrine from the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that sexual identity, expression and self-determination were Constitutionally protected, holding in that case that Connecticut couldn’t limit unmarried women’s access to birth control. While one of its first progeny (Loving in 1967, striking down anti-miscegenation laws) made race a co-issue, it was quite clear that the doctrine did not depend any full equation of race with sexuality, or turn in any particular way on identity or immutable characteristics, versus conduct, at all. Roe in 1973 famously extended the doctrine to abortion — pure conduct.

In 1986, the Supreme Court rejected the doctrine as applicable to homosexuality in Bowers v Hardwick, but 1996’s Romer v Evans began to move the other way, and 2003’s Lawrence completed the reversal of course, finding a Constitutional entitlement to homosexual conduct and identity. The 2013 marriage cases unified the Loving and Lawrence streams of thinking.

So it will be exactly 50 years after Grisold when in June 2015 the Supreme Court will either uphold yesterday’s Utah decision or one just like it, or require all states to recognize a gay marriage legal where it was solemnized (two avenues which have the precise same result).


22 posted on 12/21/2013 10:09:36 AM PST by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sr4402

Not in my world does it stand.

Tenth Amendment.


23 posted on 12/21/2013 3:36:09 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: molson209

federal judge. lifetime appointment unless removed by the federal legislature (congress).


24 posted on 12/21/2013 3:36:54 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

They can now learn the happiness of divorce.


25 posted on 12/21/2013 8:07:17 PM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson