Posted on 09/16/2014 2:33:44 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Eighty legislators from Utah have submitted an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in which the legislators warn the Court that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to the legalization of incestuous and polygamous marriages. The brief comes following the request for a writ of certiorari from both Utah's Attorney General, Sean Reyes, and the plaintiffs in Kitchen v. Herbert, the case that found both both a district court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of marriage equality in Utah. As Joe.My.God points out, "the brief is signed by 22 of the 29 members of the state Senate and by 58 of the 75 members of the state House":
The Tenth Circuit did not adequately consider the consequences of its decision for Utah’s prohibitions of polygamous and incestuous marriages. If the choice of marriage partners is an unlimited fundamental right, Kitchen, 755, F.3d at 1215, and if that marriage choice cannot be denied even when a majority believes that choice to be “immoral,” 755 F.3d at 1217 (quoting Lawrence v. Texas, 593 U.S. 558, 571 (2003)), then the fundamental rights analysis applied by the Tenth Circuit will apply with even greater force to consenting adults desiring polygamous marriage or marriage between at least some close relatives. The prohibition of those marriages has always been grounded in morality. Without a moral justification, courts will be obliged to remove existing marriage prohibitions as the U.S. District Court did last month in Utah. See Brown v. Herbert, 2014 WL 4249865 (D.Utah Aug. 27, 2014. Accordingly, this Court should grant certiorari and reverse the Tenth Circuit’s judgment below.
(DOCUMENT-AT-LINK)
Up next: Marriage to the Farm Animal of your choice
Wouldn’t wanna deny luv, now wouldja?
Seriously, though, this’ll get here before Barack is out of office. Wanna bet me?
AND???
Who are we to judge? Least off all the fudgepackers don’t get the final say.
Props to these lawmakers, but they assume our corrupt liberal court doesn’t like that idea
You heard it here first: It’ll be legal in more than one state before next year is up.
Nope. Wouldn’t take that bet...legitimizing group sex is definitely one of their goals!
The left will not be satisfied until they have destroyed the country. And then they will look at the mess they made and try to blame it on conservatives because we won’t join them.
NZ just had two STRAIGHT MEN marry each other to win tickets to a Rugby match. The Sodomites are screaming mad about it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3203259/posts
Half of SCOTUS has no problem with the legalization of incestuous and polygamous marriages.
Given the logic in “gay” “marriage”, what’s to say one shouldn’t be allowed to “marry” anything...and as many as one wants? These homos and homo lovers are insufferable. Please...back into the closet.
What I see going on here is institutionally indoctrinated judges wrongly basing the constitutionality of a state's marriage policy on PC interpretations of the 14th Amendment's (14A) Equal Protections Clause (EPC).
First, are equal protections coded into Utah's laws?
Next, many states have incorporated language from the Constitution into their own constitutions. The problem with doing so is that wrong, PC interpretations of the federal Constitution then follow into interpretations of state laws.
Regarding state marriage equality laws which use language from the Constitution's EPC, please consider the following. Since pro-gay activist judges are now using the federal EPC as a wild card to force the nation to comply with arbitrary rights, marriage rights in this example, that the states have actually never amended the Constitution to expressly protect, such interpretations are then blindly applied to similar language in state constitutions.
The problem is that the federal EPC was never intended to be used for such a purpose. This is evidenced by the excerpts below, one of the excerpts a clarification of 14A by John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A where the EPC appears. Bingham had indicated that 14A applies to the states only those rights which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect.
The other excerpt is a clarification of 14A by the Supreme Court which reflects what Bingham had said.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
So since the states have never amended the Constitution to make gay marriage a protected right, the states are actually free to make laws which discriminate against gay agenda issues like gay marriage, imo, as long as such laws do not unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
The problem is that, as evidenced by this Utah issue, the states have the 10th Amendment-protected power to misinterpret constitutionally enumerated rights - to an extent - and then to unthinkingly apply such misinterpretations to their own laws, especially when state laws contain language borrowed from the Constitution. But it remains that state laws cannot unreasonably abridge enumerated protections.
What a mess! :^(
They were prohibiting “cohabitation” in addition to polygamy. That’s actually what was struck down.
Over just the past five years it seems the momentum has gained to at least decriminalize polygamy. For me this makes sense because if three gay men can live together then why not one man and two women? The big upside to legalizing poly is that the heads of liberal (lesbian) feminists will EXPLODE at the thought of a man with multiple women!
Seriously, once gay marriage was made legal then the lid was off Pandora’s Box. All sorts of things are now possible.
Well, I guess that’s the real way to prosecute polygamy, especially when there is no attempt at legal recognition for the plural spouses.
So you believe that Utah was correct to make cohabitation illegal when no other states do so?
Well, probably not. It did it for acceptance as a state, or to prove that they didn’t have polygamy. I understand the importance and reality and I wish that other states did something similar. I say this because all the approval of children with unwed parents has become a downfall, not as a matter of some territory seeking to become a state.
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.