Someone Needs To Find Smiley and Check His Pulse

[crashhelmet]

Federal judge strikes down Utah ban on same-sex marriage

“Applying the law as it is required to do, the court holds that Utah’s prohibition on samesex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law. The State’s current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason. Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional,”

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby

Meet Utah's First Gay Married Couple

We all knew this would happen eventually. I just never expected it to happen this quickly. Utah is the first State to have its law ruled unconstitutional since California's Prop 8 was overturned.

[HYHYBT]

I'm amazed there wasn't a stay. That doesn't bode well for appeal attempts, not that they'd win anyway.

[Greenday]

New Jersey has already went the legal route to legalize it so there is a precedent set for it. We just ruled that since NJ has to follow federal constitutional laws and the SCOTUS has said it's not okay to discriminate against gay marriage, neither can NJ. A NJ judge made the ruling, Chris Christie appealed to the NJ Supreme Court who said "LOL gtfo". C^2 didn't fight that and that was that. The world continued on as normal.

[lordlundar]

When the state representatives actually acknowledge the ruling instead of essentially saying "No, WE decide whether it's constitutional", then I'll have some faith.

[LewisLegion]

I can sort of imagine what Smiley must be feeling. I only lived in Utah for two years when I was very young, but I was raised LDS even though I haven't been active in the church for years, and refuse to go back. When I saw this yesterday I about fell out of my chair, and had to ask my girlfriend if I was actually awake.

I would have bet on Utah being among the last five states to be dragged kicking and screaming into this! Here's hoping any appeal is either dropped or laughed out of court by the judge.

Amazing!

[Anthony K. S.]

the court holds that Utah’s prohibition on samesex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection

"Equal" being the key word.

I suppose that the people who support the ban on gay marriage are once again making the insane argument that gay people already have equality in marriage rights, because (1) gay people have the same right to marry anybody of the opposite sex, just like straight people do, and (2) straight people aren't allowed to marry anybody of the same sex, either.

Consider the mental gymnastics required to seriously believe that this constitutes "equality" in anything other than the most disingenuously superficial sense.

On one Internet message board, I saw a guy say, apparently dead seriously, "Neither straight nor gay people may marry anybody of the same sex. Tell me, how exactly is that unequal? It's high time that gays and lesbians acknowledge that they're not looking for equal rights, but special rights."

A person responded, "You want to know what the inequality is? Straight people are allowed to marry people they're attracted to, and gay people aren't. There's your inequality."

Interestingly enough, the first commentor had no real response to that.

When the state representatives actually acknowledge the ruling instead of essentially saying "No, WE decide whether it's constitutional", then I'll have some faith.

Indeed. It is amazing, sometimes, the extent to which people will believe that it's up to them to decide what is legally permissible.

I still remember that school district in Maryland that lifted their ban on school computers' access to gay and lesbian websites, after their attorney informed them that the ban was in violation of Maryland state law.

That set off a firestorm of complaints from some parents, and even a state legislator, calling for the school board to allow the community's parents to vote on whether the ban should stay in place.

They insisted that the parents, and not the school board, should be the ones to decide ... What, exactly? To decide whether or not the school district will comply with state law?

I don't think it works that way.

Ugh. People.

[Andara Bledin]

the court holds that Utah’s prohibition on samesex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection

This is what I've been saying for a while, now. It's already been settled by the 14th Amendment, and once that's been declared properly (such as here), it's pretty much a slam dunk.

There is nothing about a marriage contract (because, really, that's what a marriage is) that requires the participants to be specific genders. The more rulings we have like this, as opposed to states just stating outright that it's legal, the faster this track will get until it's set precedent that the 14th covers marriage equality just like it covers all other equality.

[ben_who]

Maine had a hell of a time with this issue because no matter what road was used to approve gay marriage, the opposition claimed that that road wasn't valid.

Legislation legalizes gay marriage? Get a People's Veto to overturn it. People vote for gay marriage? Claim it should have gone through the courts. Courts uphold the vote? Insist that it's the responsibility of the legislature.

Gay marriage wound up a part of our public policy debate every few years for about a decade, and every time someone said yes, someone else loudly said "no" and demanded a stay until the issue was settled, the votes were recounted, the I's dotted and the T's crossed. By the time it was approved, once and for all, it was practically a consensus opinion rather than a majority one, and the opposition put up a feeble protest before slinking into obscurity.

[HYHYBT]

Maine had a hell of a time with this issue because no matter what road was used to approve gay marriage, the opposition claimed that that road wasn't valid.

Yeah, they pull that stunt everywhere. Along with its sibling, where no matter what level is under discussion, they claim it's just one step too far and they'd have gone along with the one below. ("Marriage? That's too much! Civil unions should be enough!" And so on.)

[wolfie]

Gay marriage wound up a part of our public policy debate every few years for about a decade, and every time someone said yes, someone else loudly said "no" and demanded a stay until the issue was settled.

Of course, to the "Forward to the Middle Ages" crowd, "settled" means that THEIR viewpoint prevails.