SSM: Now Utah. How long for all?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Ibn_Warraq

I can’t imagine any evidence that Hasidic Jewish populations are growing remotely fast enough to cause NY and NJ to reverse gay equality in either state.

They don’t have to grow - as brazil84 points out, they just have to explode.

[zhoen]

I was gobsmacked when I heard UTAH, where I live, was the next state allowing SSM. Didn’t even hear that it was a possibility until it happened. But I suspect some of it is the hard line of the law, which was ruled unconstitutional, some of it is backlash from the LDS church’s support of Prop 8 in CA, some of it is a strange, lingering, libertarian resentment over anti-polygamy legislation.

Some people’s heads are exploding in Utah county.

[John_Mace]

@zhoen

I was gobsmacked when I heard UTAH, where I live, was the next state allowing SSM. Didn’t even hear that it was a possibility until it happened. But I suspect some of it is the hard line of the law, which was ruled unconstitutional, some of it is backlash from the LDS church’s support of Prop 8 in CA, some of it is a strange, lingering, libertarian resentment over anti-polygamy legislation.

It’s none of those things. It’s one judge’s ruling. And we’ll see whether that ruling stands.

[EverwonderWhy]

Okay, I am finding it somehwhat amusing/interesting how Judge Shelby uses Justice Scalia’s dissents in Windsor and Lawrence in support of his ruling, which can be found in his 53 page opinion here.

From the bottom of page 13:

In his dissenting opinion, the Honorable Antonin Scalia recognized that this result was the logical outcome of the Court’s ruling in Windsor:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion . . . is that DOMA is motivated by “bare. . . desire to harm” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

133 S. Ct. at 2709 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

The court agrees with Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Windsor and finds that the important federalism concerns at issue here are nevertheless insufficient to save a state-law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law.

And at the top of page 31:

The court therefore agrees with the portion of Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Lawrence in which Justice Scalia stated that the Court’s reasoning logically extends to protect an individual’s right to marry a person of the same sex:

Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, . . . what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “the liberty protected by the Constitution”?

Id. at 604-05 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citations omitted).

From the bottom of page 48:

And, as Justice Scalia has noted in dissent, “‘preserving the traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.”Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 601 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Utah’s Amendment 3 does look like a particularly bad law, as not only did it exclude same-sex couples from marriage, but went further in outright banning civil unions. I am not familiar with other state SSM bans to discern if that is typical or not.

From page 41:

First, the avowed purpose and practical effect of Amendment 3 is to deny the responsibilities and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, which is another way of saying that the law imposes inequality. Indeed, Amendment 3 went beyond denying gay and lesbian individuals the right to marry and held that no domestic union could be given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as marriage. This wording suggests that the imposition of inequality was not merely the law’s effect, but its goal.

Judge Shelby has set a hearing on the state’s request for a stay for 9 a.m. on Monday. So, we shall see.

[DigitalC]

@Kobal2

**SSM: Now Utah. How long for all?

**Methinks Alabama’s gonna make y’all wait a while.

Would’ve said the exact same thing about Utah until this happened.

[Monty]

@DigitalC

Would’ve said the exact same thing about Utah until this happened.

Well, apparently Utah intends to make y’all wait a while since they’re considering an appeal, aren’t they?

[Bryan_Ekers]

All it takes is a well-placed sane person. Surely Alabama has one.

[YogSothoth]

@Ibn_Warraq

What “exploding ultra-religious populations” in New York and New Jersey"?

I suspect he chose those states simply because they are known liberal enclaves and he is hoping for the ironic clashing of liberals being harmed by a law they support, you know, cause liberals something something Dark Side.

@Capt_Kirk

“A House divided against itself cannot stand”

Capt

“A George divided against itself cannot stand”

[Marley23]

@Ibn_Warraq

What “exploding ultra-religious populations” in New York and New Jersey"?

@YogSosoth

I suspect he chose those states simply because they are known liberal enclaves and he is hoping for the ironic clashing of liberals being harmed by a law they support, you know, cause liberals something something Dark Side.

I assume he’s talking about Orthodox Jews and saying they’ll outbreed liberals who have few or no children. I doubt it’s going to come to pass.

[ataraxy22]

It’s often folly to take current trends and project them a long ways into the future, but if, for example, Kiryas Joel’s population were to continue the growth rate it has had since its founding a few decades ago, it would match the population of NYC by about 2100.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@ataraxy22

It’s often folly to take current trends and project them a long ways into the future, but if, for example, Kiryas Joel’s population were to continue the growth rate it has had since its founding a few decades ago, it would match the population of NYC by about 2100.

Yes, but according to a study conducted in 1979, by 2063 the entire population of New York City will be destroyed by killer bees.

[BrightNShiny]

Are the killer bees liberal?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Bryan_Ekers

They don’t have to grow - as brazil84 points out, they just have to explode.

Good point.

Hmm…, he’s predicting exploding Jews…

Is Brazil a fan of Hamas or certain Dutch soccer teams?

[Monty]

@Marley23

I assume he’s talking about Orthodox Jews and saying they’ll outbreed liberals who have few or no children. I doubt it’s going to come to pass.

“Came to pass”? Nah, that’s not the Jewish. It’s we LDS.

[BrainGlutton]

Of course, the real test case for SSM in Utah comes when a man wants to marry two husbands.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bryan_Ekers

All it takes is a well-placed sane person. Surely Alabama has one.

A back-country farmer named Hollis
Used snakes and opossums for solace
The offspring had scales
And prehensile tails
And voted for Governor Wallace!

– Isaac Asimov

[BrainGlutton]

@BrightNShiny

Are the killer bees liberal?

Monarcho-Communist. Same thing, really.

[BrightNShiny]

@EverwonderWhy

Utah’s Amendment 3 does look like a particularly bad law, as not only did it exclude same-sex couples from marriage, but went further in outright banning civil unions. I am not familiar with other state SSM bans to discern if that is typical or not.

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.

As to the ruling, I’m a bit surprised that the ruling uses rational basis instead of heightened scrutiny as its standard. I have no idea how the 10th Circuit would rule on appeal. If it gets to the SC, I guess it’ll come down to what Kennedy thinks.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Of course, the real test case for SSM in Utah comes when a man wants to marry two husbands.

New reality show: Brother Husbands. Now playing on the new Esquire Network.

[Lord_Feldon]

@EverwonderWhy

Utah’s Amendment 3 does look like a particularly bad law, as not only did it exclude same-sex couples from marriage, but went further in outright banning civil unions. I am not familiar with other state SSM bans to discern if that is typical or not.

In states that amended their constitutions, that was the more common type of amendment.