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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Puts Gay Marriage On Hold In Utah
foxnews.com ^ | January 6, 2014 | Fox News

Posted on 01/06/2014 7:55:17 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg

The Supreme Court has put gay marriage on hold in Utah. The high court on Monday granted the state a stay in their same-sex marriage challenge. The decision comes after a federal judge last month ruled in favor of gay marriage.

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: alreadyposted; culture; family; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; lavendermafia; marriage; scotus; ssm; ussc; utah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
Court halts same-sex "marriage" until appeals court can hear case.
1 posted on 01/06/2014 7:55:17 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

Rats, I was hoping HBO would do a sequel of ‘Big Love’ with ‘brother wives’.


2 posted on 01/06/2014 7:57:09 AM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

I am very surprised.


3 posted on 01/06/2014 8:02:07 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

This could be a case which ultimately goes to the Supreme Court, and have that Court decide there is indeed a constitutional right to homosexual marriage.

Remember, last year’s cases on marriage did not result in a ruling that there is a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. In fact, while last year’s case overturned the federal defense of marriage act, a key part of the ruling was that the states, not the federal government, are the governmental entities which will define marriage.

I know that the liberals, in their headlong rush to embrace homosexual marriage, don’t always understand these legal distinctions. But, legally speaking, as of today, states have the right to define marriage.

Of course, we know the liberals want to see 50 state homosexual marriage, and they may get it by Supreme Court ruling at some point. I’m just thinking about the legal reasoning which would be needed for the courts to come to that conclusion. As of today, there is nothing in federal law which deals with this whole area of sexual identity/sexual orientation. Thus, the LGBT peoples, in spite of liberal thought, are not a protected class under federal civil rights laws.

So, the courts have to be creative and make up the law as they go along, if they are going to conclude that the state of Utah has no right to define marriage, when last year’s case indicated that the states, not the federal government, have the power to define marriage.


4 posted on 01/06/2014 8:03:20 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Very surprising, was it Sotomayor alone or the whole court?

Freegards


5 posted on 01/06/2014 8:06:48 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Kennedy’s last year revealed him to be an ideologue and not a Supreme Court Justice who is faithful to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.


6 posted on 01/06/2014 8:09:10 AM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

They’ve got to “gay” the state up to make they have a right o commit sodomy and molest your children withoutthreatof jail time first.


7 posted on 01/06/2014 8:09:19 AM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

“The terse order, from the full court, issued a stay “pending final disposition” of an appeal to the federal appeals court in Denver. It offered no reasoning.”

from the NY times


8 posted on 01/06/2014 8:09:38 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

It was Sotomayor! Very surprising!


9 posted on 01/06/2014 8:10:50 AM PST by Kit cat (OBummer must go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kit cat

I guess she turned it over to the whole court, from what I am seeing.

Freegards


10 posted on 01/06/2014 8:14:00 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
I’m just thinking about the legal reasoning which would be needed for the courts to come to that conclusion.

My worry is that a group of people who once came up with legal reasoning to make the Roe v Wade decision, and is now populated by a Chief Justice who can find legal reasoning to make Obamacare "Constitutional", may get this case.

11 posted on 01/06/2014 8:15:26 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Some people meet their heroes. I raised mine. Go Army.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

Would be nice if they did the same in regard to NY’s SAFE act.


12 posted on 01/06/2014 8:15:28 AM PST by NY.SS-Bar9 (Those that vote for a living outnumber those that work for one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

Yes! Victory. Now the AG needs to rescind all those phony licenses that were handed out.


13 posted on 01/06/2014 8:16:42 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kit cat

She also granted that stay to the Little Sisters of the Poor.


14 posted on 01/06/2014 8:18:01 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

I am surprised!


15 posted on 01/06/2014 8:18:44 AM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

What about all the counterfeit “marriage licenses” issued? (They are counterfeit, because the form, which just lists “bride” and “groom” as the applicants, had to be altered.)


16 posted on 01/06/2014 8:22:45 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Kennedy’s last year revealed him to be an ideologue and not a Supreme Court Justice who is faithful to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

I think Kennedy got something up his arse and decided he liked it.

17 posted on 01/06/2014 8:23:46 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

AG should rescind those licenses, but, that would be a separate legal process from the legal process of allowing homosexual marriage in the first place. My guess is that they won’t do that, because it would be seen at politically incorrect to do so.

Sad to say, we make laws and social policies based on political correctness nowadays.


18 posted on 01/06/2014 8:23:52 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

“The state’s stay application was filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who referred it to the whole court, according to the order issued Monday. Sotomayor is assigned to the 10th Circuit Court, which rejected Utah’s request for a stay three times (Salt Lake Tribune).” So far the “wise Latina” is using her head, and I wonder if Zero thinks he got himself a Souter. This is going to go to the SCOTUS sure as sunup. I’m hoping the same regard for federalism that killed DOMA upholds a state’s right to forbid same-sex “marriage”; I just worry that Kennedy might go the PC route and use a full faith and credit argument, and invoke Loving v. Virginia. Lord, I hope not.


19 posted on 01/06/2014 8:25:49 AM PST by steelhead_trout (MYOB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: steelhead_trout

“I just worry that Kennedy might go the PC route and use a full faith and credit argument, and invoke Loving v. Virginia. Lord, I hope not.”

If that happens then it’s the end of the marriage amendments. But it might not go that far for some states, the ones that only passed their amendments in the low-mid 50% ranges 6+ years ago might not choose to appeal like CA with prop. 8. More would though, like Utah.

Freegards


20 posted on 01/06/2014 8:30:24 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

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