# SSM: Now Utah. How long for all? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 21, 2013, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915 "2013-12-21T19:41:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2013, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/61 "2013-12-23T05:46:50Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Monarcho-Communist. Same thing, really. Plus they hate white Anglo-Saxon protestant values. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2013, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/62 "2013-12-23T07:07:49Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > In states that amended their constitutions, that was the more common type of amendment. Indeed. No one wanted those sneaky gays to get around the anti-SSM marriage laws by setting up some sort of parallel system called “civil unions”. My God, the very thought of it!! ---
**Author:** ![Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de053/32.png) [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steely_Dan_Fan)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2013, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/63 "2013-12-23T07:59:18Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > But given the politics of Scotus then (and politics always affects decisions) and now (or soon) why should full faith and credit not apply? Because that’s not what it means, for the same reason that states aren’t required to recognize each others’ gun laws (or drivers’ licenses, though in this case they very much do so anyway). All FFC means is that each state has to recognize other states’ decisions as being valid and binding within those other states. So if for some reason a case in Illinois hinges on whether or not someone had a valid Indiana CCW permit, it’s not for the Illinois court to decide whether or not that CCW permit was valid in Indiana. That doesn’t mean they have to recognize the privileges it confers by Indiana law, in Illinois–but they do have to recognize that yes, it is in fact a valid Indiana CCW permit. Fortunately, it doesn’t matter here. Banning SSM is a wholesale violation of equal protection and religious liberty. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2013, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/64 "2013-12-23T09:05:14Z")
> [@ataraxy22](#): > > It’s often folly to take current trends and project them a long ways into the future, I agree with this, but a similar argument applies to the spread of legalization of same sex marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/65 "2013-12-23T19:36:27Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Indeed. No one wanted those sneaky gays to get around the anti-SSM marriage laws by setting up some sort of parallel system called “civil unions”. My God, the very thought of it!! There wasn’t even a token effort at a facade of lip-service to separate-but-equal. That takes determination. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/66 "2013-12-24T03:09:37Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > I’m not doubting your assertion; however, I’ve seen just the assertion made time after time. Is there any documentation that proves the federal government made that requirement of the territory? That’s going to take extensive research. One has to (1) google "1890 Manifesto (note that capitalization is not required for google results and (2) click on the wiki article. > [@](#): > > The Manifesto was issued in response to the anti-polygamy policies of the federal government of the United States, and most especially the Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887. This law disincorporated the LDS Church and authorized the federal government to seize all of the church’s assets. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the provisions of the Edmunds–Tucker Act in Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States in May 1890.[2] > > In April 1889, Woodruff, then president of the church, began privately refusing the permission that was required to contract new plural marriages.[3] In October 1889, Woodruff publicly admitted that he was no longer approving new polygamous marriages, and in answer to a reporter’s question of what the LDS Church’s attitude was toward the law against polygamy, Woodruff stated, “we mean to obey it. We have no thought of evading it or ignoring it.”[4] Because it had been Mormon practice for over 25 years to either evade or ignore anti-polygamy laws, Woodruff’s statement was a signal that a change in church policy was developing.[5] > > In February 1890, the Supreme Court had already ruled in Davis v. Beason[6] that a law in Idaho Territory which disenfranchised individuals who practiced or believed in plural marriage was constitutional.[7] That decision left the Mormons no further legal recourse to their current marriage practices and made it unlikely that without change Utah Territory would be granted statehood. Ironically, it took longer to explain to you how to use google that it actually took to do the research. > [@Monty](#): > > And even after Utah was admitted as a State, the Senate were real pricks about seating the State representation. Good point, except that the Mormons were continuing to illegally perform polygamous marriages in the US after the 1890 Manifesto, that a number of the Twelve Apostles took polygamous wives and the Mormons where required to swear an oath of vengeance against the government of the United States. [Google is your friend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Smoot_hearings#Controversy). > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > There wasn’t even a token effort at a facade of lip-service to separate-but-equal. That takes determination. I love when institutionalized bigotry, as is the case of the Mormon church and gays, gets smacked down. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/67 "2013-12-24T03:52:31Z")
> [@Steely\_Dan\_Fan](#): > > Because that’s not what it means, for the same reason that states aren’t required to recognize each others’ gun laws (or drivers’ licenses, though in this case they very much do so anyway). > > All FFC means is that each state has to recognize other states’ decisions as being valid and binding within those other states. So if for some reason a case in Illinois hinges on whether or not someone had a valid Indiana CCW permit, it’s not for the Illinois court to decide whether or not that CCW permit was valid in Indiana. That doesn’t mean they have to recognize the privileges it confers by Indiana law, in Illinois–but they do have to recognize that yes, it is in fact a valid Indiana CCW permit. > > Fortunately, it doesn’t matter here. Banning SSM is a wholesale violation of equal protection and religious liberty. That is not my understanding of the law. The part of the constitution concerned states: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. As marriage is a public Act, record and judicial proceeding, surely it must be covered by the simple wording. Now this has been supposedly overturned by the DOMA, but can an Act overturn the Constitution- no. If SCOTUS was apolitical it would find that in the same manner in which the states accept each other’s driving licences, and court judgements, they should accept SSM; as this is a hot potato issue, it is likely to avoid doing what is obvious and rational. As times change and most states have SSM and as times change and some more liberal justices are appointed, then Fair Faith and Credit might well be applied to SSM. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/68 "2013-12-24T06:46:34Z")
The [ruling](http://ja.scribd.com/doc/192787555/Utah-Same-Sex-Marriage-Ruling) is interesting, although I’m only partway through. A summary on [ThinkProgressive.Org](http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/12/21/3098351/utah-marriage-equality/#) > [@](#): > > Claim: Same-Sex Couples Are Not Qualified To Marry Because They Cannot Procreate > > Conservatives have long arbitrarily asserted that a limitation to man-woman unions is inherent in the very definition of “marriage,” suggesting that “same-sex marriage” is thus an oxymoron. Utah state officials offered their own variation of this claim, arguing that same-sex couples were not “qualified” to marry because they can not naturally reproduce with each other. Shelby observed that there are plenty of opposite-sex couples who cannot have children or choose not to, while at the same time there are over 3,000 same-sex couples already raising children in Utah. > > . . . > > Claim: Same-Sex Marriage Is A “New Right” > > Riffing on the claim that “marriage” only means — and has only ever meant — a man and a woman, Utah also argued that same-sex marriage is a “new right,” not the same “fundamental right” to marry that courts have previously affirmed. Comparing this case to Loving v. Virginia, which addressed the question of interracial marriage, Shelby noted that the right to marry includes the right to choose who to marry. Same-sex couples, he concluded, are seeking “the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond.” Given that straight people are as unlikely to exercise the right to marry someone of the same-sex as gay people are to marry someone of the opposite-sex, both are “therefore simply manifestations of one right — the right to marry — applied to people with different sexual identities.” > > . . . > > Claim: Tradition And History Have Always Recognized Marriage As Between One Man And One Woman > > Shelby was quick to brush off the suggestion that historic understandings of marriage had any relevance in this decision. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned laws criminalizing same-sex sexual relations (“sodomy laws”), he noted that the equal protection clauses in the Constitution did not specify which identities were protected and which were not: > > ``` > "Here, it is not the Constitution that has changed, but the knowledge of what it means to be gay or lesbian. The court cannot ignore the fact that the Plaintiffs are able to develop a committed, intimate relationship with a person of the same sex but not with a person of the opposite sex. The court, and the State, must adapt to this changed understanding." > > ``` > > . . . . > > Claim: Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage Does Not Discriminate On The Basis Of Sex > > In addition to arguing that the marriage amendment discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, the plaintiffs also made the case that it discriminates on the basis of sex, because it prohibits a man from marrying another man but not from marrying a woman. The state replied that it does not discriminate as such because both sexes are equally prohibited from marrying the same-sex. Judge Shelby was not convinced by this claim, because the exact same argument failed when used in Loving to defend a ban on interracial marriage: > > ``` > "In Loving, Virginia argued that its anti-miscegenation laws did not discriminate based on race because the prohibition against mixed-race marriage applied equally to both white and black citizens. The Court found that “the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race.” Applying the same logic, the court finds that the fact of equal application to both men and women does not immunize Utah’s Amendment 3 from the heightened burden of justification that the Fourteenth Amendment requires of state laws drawn according to sex." > > ``` As well as several other claims. As a decidedly non-professional, I can’t comment on exactly how well the argument holds up, but the progressive in me was cheering the reasoning. I do presume that this was the best case that the anti-SSM people could manage, and it got shot down pretty badly. I’ve never understood how allowing gay marriage could hurt heterosexual marriage. We seem to be doing that well enough on our own, as I (twice married) point out to my extremely conservative brother-in-law (third marriage for him, second for my sister) when compared to my gay sister (first long-term, live-together relationship for her (25 years! now) to her once divorced partner). I believe that opponents are relying on the unstated view that historically homosexuality was a seen as sin or icky, but that doesn’t fly constitutionally. As Judge Shelby repeatedly points out, we know a lot more about homosexuality than was known before. It will be interesting to see how the appeals go. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/69 "2013-12-24T12:14:45Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > That is not my understanding of the law. The part of the constitution concerned states: > > “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. > > As marriage is a public Act, record and judicial proceeding, surely it must be covered by the simple wording. > > Now this has been supposedly overturned by the DOMA, but can an Act overturn the Constitution- no. The thing is, the Constitution says right after that: “And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.” which has been, in the case of DOMA, read so as to say that Congress has the right to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/70 "2013-12-24T12:28:42Z")
Heck, regarding the ability to reproduce, doesn’t Utah still have that law for some hetero couples where they can’t marry unless they can show they _can’t_ reproduce? Fuck those clowns. ETA: Arizona, Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have similar laws. They’re all about cousin marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2013, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/71 "2013-12-24T13:36:17Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > That is not my understanding of the law. The part of the constitution concerned states: > > “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” Article IV, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. > > As marriage is a public Act, record and judicial proceeding, surely it must be covered by the simple wording. > > Now this has been supposedly overturned by the DOMA, but can an Act overturn the Constitution- no. > > If SCOTUS was apolitical it would find that in the same manner in which the states accept each other’s driving licences, and court judgements, they should accept SSM; as this is a hot potato issue, it is likely to avoid doing what is obvious and rational. As times change and most states have SSM and as times change and some more liberal justices are appointed, then Fair Faith and Credit might well be applied to SSM. Well, there’s two problems. First, it’s not at all clear that marriage is a “public Act, Record, [or] judicial Proceeding.” It’s not a public Act (i.e., law) and it’s not a judicial proceeding. So the question is whether or not it is a public record. I don’t know of any case that defines it, but I don’t think it means “public record” in the sense that we use it for something like FOIA. There’s a theory that the “record” reference means that an out-of-state public record is admissible in a court proceeding on the same terms as an in-state record. But that doesn’t really matter, because courts have read a “public policy” exception into the FFC for things other than judgments (this was litigated in the context of out-of-state divorces, which are judicial proceedings). A state does not have to respect another state’s laws that offend its public policy, which is generally the theory used by states to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The second problem is that the Constitution itself, in the very next sentence, gives Congress the ability to “prescribe . . . the effect” of the sister state acts, records, and judgments. So that it seems like Congress probably does have the power to provide that states don’t have to recognize each other’s marriages (I don’t know what happens if Congress provides that they do have to recognize it and its runs into the “public policy” exception. That would be an interesting issue). So, it’s definitely not a “surely it must be covered” and I’d even go so far as to say that an apolitical court would not conclude as you do. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2014, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/72 "2014-01-01T09:07:35Z")
Well, TB, your pissy “answer” trotted out stuff I already knew and, guess what, didn’t answer my actual question. ---
**Author:** ![Accidental\_Martyr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ce7236/32.png) [@Accidental\_Martyr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Accidental_Martyr)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2014, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/73 "2014-01-02T05:12:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > All it takes is a well-placed sane person. Surely Alabama has _one_. Well, I’m from Alabama but I wouldn’t really call myself “well-placed”. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/74 "2014-01-03T18:09:15Z")
If you’re looking for the date on which same sex marriage will become legal in all U.S. states, I would pick June 24, 2015, give or take a week or so. The U.S. Supreme Court sits in terms that begin on the first Monday in October, and almost always end (except for emergency measures and the like) around the last week in June. The most controversial decisions usually don’t get finalized until the end of the term. For instance, the _Windsor_ and _Hollingsworth_ decisions on same sex marriage were issued on June 26, 2013, the last day of the October 2012 term. Because none of the post-_Windsor_ cases have been decided, or even argued, at the Circuit Court level, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will accept a same sex marriage case to be argued in the current (October 2013) term. On the other hand, there will probably several Circuit Court decisions issued in time for the Supreme Court to take up the matter to be argued in the October 2014 term, and if different Circuits come to different conclusions, the Supreme Court will almost certainly have to take up the issue. If the case is argued in the October 2014 term, chances are that the decision will be issued in the last week of June, 2015. Assuming that Justice Scalia is correct that Justice Kennedy’s _Windsor_ decision presages that same sex marriage will be found to be a constitutional right, the date that same sex marriage will become legal across the U.S. would most likely be within a week or so of June 24, 2015. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/75 "2014-01-06T16:22:45Z")
And now the SCOTUS has put a stay on the lower court’s decision. What a mess, since many weddings have already been performed. Well, here we go again! ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/76 "2014-01-06T16:35:22Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Federal judge, wasn’t he? Utah’s demographics, traditions, leanings, etc. have nothing to do with that. Perhaps it shouldn’t, but it does. Federal judges often come from the are where there district or circuit is, and the U.S. Senators from that area have alot of influence on who is nominated. So federal courts tend to follow local political cultures. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/77 "2014-01-06T16:38:30Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > Well, there’s two problems. First, it’s not at all clear that marriage is a “public Act, Record, [or] judicial Proceeding.” It’s not a public Act (i.e., law) and it’s not a judicial proceeding. But states must recognize the HETEROSEXUAL marriages of other states, don’t they? If so, this is settled. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/78 "2014-01-06T16:46:40Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Banning civil unions is common enough. Virginia’s amendment could be read to ban even private contractual arrangements that attempt to simulate marriage-like relationship, but in 2006, the AG issued an opinion stating that it allows private contractual arrangements. Not quite. The AG’s ruling (by then-AG and now-outgoing-Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican with a pretty religious-right background) said that contract rights existing before the amendment passed weren’t affected. In other words, according to McDonnell, the anti-gay heteros could have their cake and eat it too. The amendment only applied to gays and not unmarried straight couples using similar contractual means. So the AG was basically affirming that the amendment was meant specifically to target gay marriage, while letting heterosexual fornicators living in sin (to use the term a right-winger might favor) continue to enjoy the protection of the law without marrying. [http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions%20and%20Legal%20Resources/Opinions/2006opns/06-003Newmanetal.pdf](http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions%20and%20Legal%20Resources/Opinions/2006opns/06-003Newmanetal.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/79 "2014-01-06T16:53:12Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > But states must recognize the HETEROSEXUAL marriages of other states, don’t they? If so, this is settled. No, they don’t have to. They choose to. As far as I know, states recognize all marriages that were valid in the forming state except that some do not recognize cousin marriage and some (most?) do not recognize same-sex marriage. But that’s a matter of state law, not FFC. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915/80 "2014-01-06T17:09:13Z")
> [@Falchion](#): > > No, they don’t have to. They choose to. As far as I know, states recognize all marriages that were valid in the forming state except that some do not recognize cousin marriage and some (most?) do not recognize same-sex marriage. But that’s a matter of state law, not FFC. Hmmm. Interesting, thanks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ssm-now-utah-how-long-for-all/676915.md?page=5)