Skip to comments.Judge: Utah must honor same-sex marriages performed during 17-day window
Posted on 05/19/2014 9:51:02 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
A federal judge ruled Monday that Utah must recognize and imbue all same-sex marriages performed in the state with the same rights and privileges afforded to married opposite-sex couples.
Chief among those rights, the judge noted, are the right to property, inheritance, legal protection and "the custody and care of children" an issue at the center of a state challenge to three state court judges decisions to grant adoptions to married gay couples.
U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball became the first federal judge ever to order a state to acknowledge and honor all gay and lesbian marriages performed after the states ban on same-sex unions was overturned.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
The state has to tell the Federal judge he is wrong. And the state has to issue a statement saying no marriages performed during that time will be honored!! Deal with it.
At the very least, this judge needs to be ignored...
That is the second time I have seen that today.
What does that mean, “ignore him”?
Silly and absurd. Judicial decisions that violate Darwinian law are not wise.
This federal over reach has gone too far.
Now we have 3 lesbians marrying and having a child with a Mans sperm.
This is Satan’s ground, no good can come of it.
Chief among those rights, the judge noted, are the right to property, inheritance, legal protection and “the custody and care of children” an issue at the center
This is lame. A will can provide these Rights to anyone even Heterosexuals shacking up.
The War against religion train is leading to the gas chambers.
It is a war on the Church.
just don’t do it.
screw fedgov. funsa.
So I am losing track of the perverts track record - does this make state #19 or was UT previously in the count of 18 states that now honor sodomy?
As mentioned in related threads, please consider the following.
Regardless of PC, pro-gay interpretations of the 14th Amendment’s equal protections clause, the states have never amended the Constituiton to expressly protect so-called gay rights. In fact, the Constitution’s silence about both gay “rights” and marriage means that the states are free to make laws which discriminate against gay agenda issues, as long as such laws don’t unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
The reason that activist judges are getting away with promoting gay “rights” from the bench is the following imo. Sadly, parents have not been making sure that their children are being taught the Constitution, particularly 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus enumerated rights, non-enumerated rights in the case of gay issues. Neither are children being taught the difference between legislative and judicial powers. So although low-information citizens know that something is wrong when judges decide gay rights cases in favor of the gay agenda, they don’t know enough about the Constitution and basic government powers to argue their convictions.
Where activist federal judges are concerned, citizens need to do the following. Citizens need to work with their federal lawmakers to make punitive laws which require judges to promptly, clearly and publicly state specific constitutional clauses to justify their decisions. And if the Constitution is silent about a particular issue, making the issue state power issue, then judges need to indicate that also.
Now is the time for governors with backbones to stand up. Are there any?
Just what are we supposed to do about these unelected federal tyrants that continue to push perversion against the will of the people of the several states?
We cannot vote them out, and they do not give a rat’s tail about our objections to their activism.
Are we supposed to just stand around and take it while they destroy every last vestige of decency so to give the sodomite reprobates all they need to totally destroy whatever is left of marriage?
Where do we draw the line and what do we do to stop these politically corrupt and morally bankrupt black robed monsters?
What could the judge do if Utah refused to follow his order and instead honored the wishes of it’s citizens?
How about this...he made a ruling, now let him enforce it.
States need to just say no
Enforce what? The people are legally married and have a license, who is going to not honor it?
“What could the judge do if Utah refused to follow his order and instead honored the wishes of its citizens?”
I imagine that question would be kicked straight to the SCOTUS and the Roberts Court would order the Justice Department to enforce the current orders.
Obama would the sent in troops.
Obama would sent in troops.
It’s been done before.
Then let it be so, force the dictators to revel themselves for all the world to see.
Is the Church fighting back?
They managed a pretty good fight in California until it was overturned by the judiciary.
Or what? Or the judge will soil their britches? Invalid unions are not honored. THAT is the law.
“among those rights, the judge noted, are the right to property, inheritance, legal protection and “the custody and care of children””
This is what it is about. Control and getting stuff.
Most importantly; the state and county that issued their marriage license to begin with...
One of the great misconceptions I deal with as an attorney is the thought you can “will” custody of your children to anyone. The best you can do is nominate someone, which will be given whatever weight a judge decides to accord it when the matter is heard by a court, which it will be.
So no, a will would not provide those rights — for anyone, straight or gay.
A ‘Rat, one of Klinton’s gifts.
And what if UTAH refuses to honor these “marriages”?
“Gay marriage” is an attempted coup d’etat against God, against nature, and against We the People of the United States. I assure you that neither God nor nature will be overthrown. The only question is whether the American people will allow themselves to be overthrown by lawless judges and their supine enablers in the other two branches. The verdict is still out.
What ever happened to checks and balances anyhow?
Frankly, the country can’t be saved until we start to elect folks who understand our form of government to our legislatures and as executives, who will tell the judges to go to hell when they get out of line.
"we consider it (homosexuality) to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development."
What would that look like in real life, for a married couple, and is that really meaningful in this discussion?
We need a better national plan to fight gay marriage, than just saying, “let’s ignore it”.
Is this really what you think is the answer to gay marriage, to post “just ignore it”?
It is going to take some far more serious politics than we have seen yet, to stop this.
Conservative obey the law, even if they don't agree with it. Liberals ignore laws they don't like. I say it's time to act like Liberals and ignore the laws you don't like. Let them try to enforce them.
First off, I once i was legally married, I don’t recall much that had anything to do with the state I was originally married in, or the County, most of it was federal.
Just saying “ignore it” doesn’t mean anything, it won’t happen anyway, why waste time pretending it is the political answer?
It’s not about ignoring gay marriage, it’s about ignoring rulings from judges that have no legitimate bearing on what is quite obviously a state’s rights issue. The states and counties should tell the judge to enforce his ruling and see how quickly he scurries back into the corner.
Seriously, what is the judge going to do?
First no one is doing it, and no one will, so why waste time on this.
People come up with all kinds of silly responses in regards to gay marriage, no one seems able to come up with a real united effort to defeat it.
“Seriously, what is the judge going to do?”
He can’t do all that much, but the Feds have used troops to enforce court orders.
yes, the feds have done such to enforce court orders in cases like Brown V Board I suppose, but when the bulk of the population agrees there is too much federal overreach and they are enforcing an order that doesn’t have the majority populace behind it (yet), I think that would be a pretty bad bone to pick with the states, especially certain ones.
It has been legally defeated and voted on in many states - there were many real efforts there. Most states that put it to a vote banned accepting homosexual marriage as being on par with traditional opposite sex marriages. The fact that judges make rulings such as this points to the fact that we have a problem with the judiciary. People should be impeaching judges that make such rulings - the fact that they’re not points to a growing problem with the people as well.