Topic: U.S. judge strikes down Utah's gay marriage ban

[Highwind Dragoon]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-usa-gaymarriage-utah-idUSBRE9BJ1D020131220?feedType=RSS

It becomes the 17th state to legalize same-sex marriage. (DC council
voted to legalize on December 18, 2009)

[Ratty]

This is good news, another blow for equality under the law. Here's hoping the decision is upheld in higher courts.

[X]

Good for the judge.    Hopefully sometime soon we'll finally slog our way out of the dark ages.

[Gunlord]

Anyone wanna marry me? Prunyuu~:-*

[GuyStarwind]

Can someone help understand all this? So, the state voted not to have these laws and then a U.S. judge came in and changed it or wants is it he's wanting to change it?

[Highwind Dragoon]

The judge said that the law violates the 14th amendment, and therefore is unconstitutional.

[Ratty]

Can someone help understand all this? So, the state voted not to have these laws and then a U.S. judge came in and changed it or wants is it he's wanting to change it?

The elected branch overstepped it's power and the judicial branch came in and corrected this. The rights of minority citizens should never be "up for a vote" in this country. That is antithetical to the belief set out in our founding documents that we are all born equal and deserve equal rights and treatment under the law. No state government has the right to single out a group(s) to be second class citizens.

[GuyStarwind]

Thanks for clearing things up.

[Intersection]

The elected branch overstepped it's power and the judicial branch came in and corrected this. The rights of minority citizens should never be "up for a vote" in this country.

My actual political beliefs aside, I don't believe that the legislative branch had overstepped its power here. It had passed a law that citizens in Utah had voted for -- and that is entirely within its power.
As for voting for minority rights, well, that's essentially how our democracy works.

That is antithetical to the belief set out in our founding documents that we are all born equal and deserve equal rights and treatment under the law. No state government has the right to single out a group(s) to be second class citizens.

I don't quite agree. Here are my own two cents on the issue (because I don't pretend to know law better than a district judge, but I usually get a kick out of logical analyses like this one):

Let's consider the Utah case alone.

Article I, Section 29.   [Marriage.]

            (1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.

            (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

Now, it so happens that marriage had been defined as the legal union between two persons of opposite sex. So if we are strictly to follow that definition, then we naturally come to the conclusion that gay couples cannot marry, because marriage isn't even applicable to gay couples. Denying gay couples marriage is not discriminating against them because the term "marriage" doesn't legally mean anything when considering couples that aren't composed of a man and a woman. Suppose we've got two groups: group A and group B. We're defining a union between an element a from group A and an element b from group B, then calling it illogical because elements a from group A and a' from group A can't be united. But that argument is ridiculous because the union between a and a' has no logical meaning.
Using the fourteenth amendment as a premise to find gay marriage bans unconstitutional comes down to the same logic as finding disability benefits laws unconstitutional because everyone does not have access to those benefits. Disability benefits simply aren't defined for people who aren't disabled.

How, then, should we treat the issue? Well, we could add a provision for gay couples, defining a different version of marriage for persons of identical sex (that's called a civil union, and a few states already have it). We could try to enlarge our definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, and that would introduce the need for further policy-making.

[Ratty]

My actual political beliefs aside, I don't believe that the legislative branch had overstepped its power here. It had passed a law that citizens in Utah had voted for -- and that is entirely within its power.
As for voting for minority rights, well, that's essentially how our democracy works.

How so? I don't really see any evidence of that in your argument.

Now, it so happens that marriage had been defined as the legal union between two persons of opposite sex.

It doesn't "so happen" in most cases, gay marriage has been used as a wedge issue specifically to discriminate against gays while appealing to the religious right. You should have seen all the "One Man + One Woman" signs I drove by during the election season 2004. Which was around the time many if not most of these illegal "amendments" to state constitutions were passed. Of course the ironic thing there being that after they and their party used discrimination against gays as a political tactic, one of Dick Cheney's daughters is now gay married, and George W. Bush has served as a witness to at least one gay marriage since then.

So if we are strictly to follow that definition, then we naturally come to the conclusion that gay couples cannot marry, because marriage isn't even applicable to gay couples.

The same way that marriage was not "applicable" to interracial couples back when it was illegal in many states. Something being voted in does not mean it doesn't conflict with the fundamental rights of the citizens set out in the constitution. And that's when the courts need to come in to balance it out when the elected branch does a hack job. It took a 1967 supreme court decision to overturn that bit of bigoted discrimination completely by the way. And some states didn't amend their state constitutions for a long time anyway. Like Alabama in the freaking year 2000.

Denying gay couples marriage is not discriminating against them because the term "marriage" doesn't legally mean anything when considering couples that aren't composed of a man and a woman.

Again, this same logic can and probably was used against interracial marriages.

Suppose we've got two groups: group A and group B. We're defining a union between an element a from group A and an element b from group B, then calling it illogical because elements a from group A and a' from group A can't be united. But that argument is ridiculous because the union between a and a' has no logical meaning.

Only because one group has arbitrarily defined the same kind of relationship between a different group of people "illogical". Which, by the way, doesn't actually make it so.

Using the fourteenth amendment as a premise to find gay marriage bans unconstitutional comes down to the same logic as finding disability benefits laws unconstitutional because everyone does not have access to those benefits. Disability benefits simply aren't defined for people who aren't disabled.

No, it's not. Because the definition of marriage has been fluid for thousands of years, the definition of being physically disabled has not. The current definition of marriage in the west as primarily a union between two people who choose each other out of love (rather than as an arrangement between two families to secure an alliance or barter for goods, the more common historical definition) is just as compatible with LGBT couples now as it was with interracial couples in 1967. Their right to marry is covered by the 14th amendment.
As for "civil unions" etc. We learned with Jim Crow that "separate but equal" does not work. It always leads to preferential treatment of one group and lack of representation and accommodation for another.

[X]

Marriage is a spiritual unity, not a bodily one. Although organized religion would argue otherwise. And when it come to religion you can't throw in the term 'logic' because there's nothing logical about religious organizations to begin with. They will always find some way of bending the rules of faith or play their favorites at the cost of others rights and freedoms though they preach otherwise. The American Constitution was specifically written by the Founding Fathers to cater to the people and keep the church authority separate from the state. If a gay couple wants to marry then let them. It's their right under the constitutional law which cannot be denied by any state, even by the church. Bottom line, golden rule.

[KaZudra]

Honestly, I don't see any harm in Gay marriage, I hope the Gays can have long, meaningful marriages unlike most of the straight ones so that marriage can have some true meaning in a world where marriage is taken lightly.

[Abnormal Freak]

If a gay couple wants to marry then let them. It's their right under the constitutional law which cannot be denied by any state, even by the church.

This last part confounds me. Are you saying that the government should have the ability to force a church to wed two homosexuals even if it goes against a particular church's doctrine? If that's not what you're saying, please say so.

[Highwind Dragoon]

I believe under current law churches are not allow to deny marriage to interracial couples.  (As far as I know)

Only church that I know of that would perform same-sex marriages is the Unitarian church.

[Abnormal Freak]

There's biblical foundation (Old Testament and New) for Christian churches not marrying homosexuals. There wasn't any for interracial couples. (Someone will probably chime in and mention God's commands for Israel not to intermarry, or being unequally yoked, as evidence that there is.)

Separation of church and state exists to protect the church from tyranny. Forcing a pastor to wed homosexuals lest he be sued, fined, or jailed would definitely be an oppressive action. Let the ECLA churches wed homosexuals if they desire; no church or pastor should be required by law to do so against their doctrine.

I hope nobody here is really leaning toward, "Yes, the government should have that power." Criminy.