The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Utah's Marriage Fight Continues

A

Alnitak

JockBoy87
Joined
Aug 24, 2013
Posts
8,136
Reaction score
69
Points
48
Location
Maryland
The dust has settled a week after Judge Shelby struck down Utah's Amendment 3. During that time, the UT Attorney General's office failed to secure a stay on the ruling four times - three of them at the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Now the newly minted AG Sean Reyes is seeking private counsel for the state, which in his estimation will cost Utah's coffers a cool $2 million, and he is likely to get it according to state Republican leaders in the legislature.

Utah will likely pay millions to fight against gay marriage

Anyone have BLAG deja vu?

The state's representation has been in turmoil for separate reasons, so that may explain why its bungled response to Judge Shelby has been so ... well, bungled. It appears that Reyes wants to take no chances because he only has ONE more shot at getting a stay. His next step is to ask the US Supreme Court.

Fortunately for marriage advocates, Justice Sotomayor is the go to justice for the 10th Circuit. While it is likely that she will refer the stay to the entire court, it is doubtful it will grant a stay. For starters, the state just does not have convincing arguments. In order to get a stay, the state has to show some reason why it is likely to prevail. It is evidence enough that the 10th Circuit, which has a reputation for conservatism, did not put a stop to Shelby's ruling. Second, the Supreme Court is pro-gay, narrowly, but nevertheless likely to favor the respondents. Finally, over 1000 couples have wed by now, and who knows how many more will before the state submits its motion to Sotomayor?

In any case, Kitchen v. Herbert has now been bumped to the front of the line of all ongoing marriage lawsuits. Only the Nevada case at the 9th Circuit is a little bit further ahead, but for complicated reasons it has not proceeded as quickly as we would like. A few months from now the two cases will probably be neck and neck.

Because the 10th Circuit has ordered "expedited consideration" of this appeal, it's possible that this case will be THE ONE that goes to the US Supreme Court as early as October next year.

More on this to come. So stay tuned...
 
Good, let the Mormons use all their money on Utah politics now so they can stop interfering in California elections.
 
Alnitak said:
For starters, the state just does not have convincing arguments.
Click to expand...

That would be an understatement.

Utah has advanced two arguments against gay marriage: that it would reduce procreation in Utah and that it would reduce the quality of straight marriages there.

When they appeared before his district court, Judge Shelby asked Utah's lawyers to explain how gay marriage would accomplish these things. Incredibly, they had no answer. Their response was "the effects of gay marriage cannot be known," an answer which actually contradicts their fundamental assertion of harm. It is also absurd, given the experience of 17 other states and 16 other countries.

It is not surprising that neither Judge Shelby nor the 10th Circuit Court were persuaded by Utah's confusion. That is why Utah is paying for "outside help" in structuring a convincing argument for the Supreme Court.

The state has been unable to figure out how gay marriage is harming it, so it is hiring a law firm to explain it to them. And all of these guys are lawyers.
 
The marriage for procreation purposes doesn't hold up. The state would have to deny marriage licenses for post menopausal women, infertile couples and any straight couple who can't have children. Also if they believe gay marriage will reduce the quality of marriage there, Utah already has a higher than average divorce rate. Their quality of marriages aren't with the national norm.

http://hardnewscafe.usu.edu/?p=9419

The Mormon religion strong emphasis on marriage by encouraging couples to marry early, breed often and deny marriage rights to same sex couples, the Mormon religion is actually hurting marriage, not helping it. Their beliefs have the opposite outcome of what they want.

Instead of spending millions preventing marriage, how about using all that money building schools, paying teachers higher salaries, improve roads and other infrastructure to enhance the quality of life. Be constructive, not destructive.
 
I think the case may be wrapped up LONG before October, if it's indeed expedited by the 10th and the Supreme Court swiftly refuses the appeal.
 
CowboyBob said:
The marriage for procreation purposes doesn't hold up.
Click to expand...

The argument seems to assume one or both of two things:

a) If gay marriage isn't legal, gay people have kids more than they do if they can marry same gender
b) That gay marriage existing would somehow decrease the rate at which heterosexual couples would reduce children

And of course, either is pretty ridiculous.

I suppose another one I just thought of would be

c) gay marriage existing would convert some unknown percentage of straight people (who would have kids otehrwise) to gay, lol.
 
CowboyBob said:
The Mormon religion strong emphasis on marriage by encouraging couples to marry early, breed often and deny marriage rights to same sex couples, the Mormon religion is actually hurting marriage, not helping it. Their beliefs have the opposite outcome of what they want.
Click to expand...

Cultures that stress traditional gender roles for women and childbirth typically are not gay friendly, and that cuts across religion and nationality. It is true all across the eastern hemisphere regardless of religion, even in Buddhist, atheist, and communist countries. However, that is going to change very soon as we are expecting gay union laws to pass in Vietnam, Thailand, and Taiwan in 2014.
 
Short bio of Judge Shelby

Utah Judge Unexpected as a Hero to Gay People

He was widely vetted and praised by Tea Party Republicans before this decision.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a seven-term Utah Republican, recommended him for a federal judgeship, calling him an experienced lawyer “with an unwavering commitment to the law.” Senator Mike Lee, a Tea Party Republican, said that Mr. Shelby was “pre-eminently qualified” and predicted he would be an outstanding judge.
Click to expand...

Not bad looking either..

SUB-UTAH-popup.jpg
 
CowboyBob said:
The marriage for procreation purposes doesn't hold up. The state would have to deny marriage licenses for post menopausal women, infertile couples and any straight couple who can't have children.
Click to expand...

As I recall, that question came up during arguments before Judge Shelby. Somebody asked the state's lawyers if they intended to introduce a fertility test for women of 50 yrs of age or older, before granting them a marriage license.

The state responded that it was not necessary for these women to be fertile to marry, because they could assist in procreation by participating in the upbringing of their grandchildren, nieces, etc. Again, the state's response seemed to contradict its own argument (so it isn't possible for gays to participate in bringing up other people's children?).

It seems that Utah was not ready to argue this case before the courts. Their presentation has been disastrous. That's why they're calling in the Philadelphia lawyers.
 
T-Rexx said:
As I recall, that question came up during arguments before Judge Shelby. Somebody asked the state's lawyers if they intended to introduce a fertility test for women of 50 yrs of age or older, before granting them a marriage license.

The state responded that it was not necessary for these women to be fertile to marry, because they could assist in procreation by participating in the upbringing of their grandchildren, nieces, etc. Again, the state's response seemed to contradict its own argument (so it isn't possible for gays to participate in bringing up other people's children?).

It seems that Utah was not ready to argue this case before the courts. Their presentation has been disastrous. That's why they're calling in the Philadelphia lawyers.
Click to expand...

We have a persuasive case system, so actually restricting the fundamental right to marry around procreation or even establishing a caste of marriages based on procreation is quite dangerous. A married woman whose husband seeks an annulment or woman with no children who wants the protections of common law marriage stands to lose a lot of legal rights if such reasoning is allowed to stand, not to mention the fundamental right to marry itself.

Good article by the way...

A lot of people are concerned that the court does not want to be "rushed" into a decision. It's true no one thought any of the cases filed this year would go quite so quickly as Utah's has, though Sevcik v. Sandoval has been in the works almost two years now. On the other hand I couldn't have said it better...

... it is impossible to look at the Windsor ruling and not think that the writing is on the wall ...
Click to expand...
 
T-Rexx said:
As I recall, that question came up during arguments before Judge Shelby. Somebody asked the state's lawyers if they intended to introduce a fertility test for women of 50 yrs of age or older, before granting them a marriage license.

The state responded that it was not necessary for these women to be fertile to marry, because they could assist in procreation by participating in the upbringing of their grandchildren, nieces, etc. Again, the state's response seemed to contradict its own argument (so it isn't possible for gays to participate in bringing up other people's children?).

It seems that Utah was not ready to argue this case before the courts. Their presentation has been disastrous. That's why they're calling in the Philadelphia lawyers.
Click to expand...

I've been raising my nephew for the past 10 years and am his legal guardian. He is now 17. I've assisted in procreation according to Utah?
 
CowboyBob said:
I've been raising my nephew for the past 10 years and am his legal guardian. He is now 17. I've assisted in procreation according to Utah?
Click to expand...

Not the act itself obviously, but the welfare of a new generation yes absolutely.
 
T-Rexx said:
The state responded that it was not necessary for these women to be fertile to marry, because they could assist in procreation by participating in the upbringing of their grandchildren, nieces, etc.
Click to expand...

What kills me is, this is a strictly religious definition of marriage. It doesn't belong in the courtroom. And the interpretation of the Bible as saying that the only purpose of marriage is with the aim of procreation is but merely one interpretation to begin with. No church that I know of bars barren people or elderly people from getting married.

It's pretty galling to get in front of a judge in a U.S. court and try to rewrite a legal statute based off a completely unconstitutional reasoning.
 
xbuzzerx said:
The argument seems to assume one or both of two things:

a) If gay marriage isn't legal, gay people have kids more than they do if they can marry same gender
b) That gay marriage existing would somehow decrease the rate at which heterosexual couples would reduce children

And of course, either is pretty ridiculous.

I suppose another one I just thought of would be

c) gay marriage existing would convert some unknown percentage of straight people (who would have kids otehrwise) to gay, lol.
Click to expand...

If they're serious about reproduction, why hasn't some smart-ass introduced a bill that would require homosexuals to have children -- maybe by requiring two gays to marry two lesbians in a double-date sort of relationship.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top