Amendment 3 ruled unconstitutional by 10th Appeals Court

[samizdat]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... rules.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Christ can't come soon enough

[gkearney]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... rules.html

Christ can't come soon enough

This is what you get for giving the government any say in the matter of marriage. The very thing the founders of the United States worried about, government intruding into the sacraments of faith, has come to pass. Marriage is the only example that I can think of where a sacrament of faith has a component of government license mixed up in it. Once that was permitted to happen then these kinds of results were logical outcome.

[uglypitbull]

This is what you get for giving the government any say in the matter of marriage. The very thing the founders of the United States worried about, government intruding into the sacraments of faith, has come to pass. Marriage is the only example that I can think of where a sacrament of faith has a component of government license mixed up in it. Once that was permitted to happen then these kinds of results were logical outcome.

Amen! :ymapplause:

[Pison]

It means the sodomites are able to get married! And another nail has been nailed in the coffin containing our society...

[Pison]

[quote="samizdat"]http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... rules.html

Christ can't come soon enough[/quot


AMEN!

[BroJones]

That's Amendment 3 of the Utah constitution ruled unconstitutional... I thought you meant 3rd Amendment of the US Constitution!
Not that Amendments 1-10, the "Bill of Rights," are being upheld very well at this time anyway (sadly)...

[Benjamin_LK]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... rules.html

Christ can't come soon enough

This is what you get for giving the government any say in the matter of marriage. The very thing the founders of the United States worried about, government intruding into the sacraments of faith, has come to pass. Marriage is the only example that I can think of where a sacrament of faith has a component of government license mixed up in it. Once that was permitted to happen then these kinds of results were logical outcome.

But allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment here. How about if the government, lead by elected politicians, needed to prosecute and eliminate polygamists, who don't marry by means of a so-called marriage license whatsoever, therefore, prosecute people for not having marriage licenses, at least those Mormon Polygamists, anyways.

[Hyrcanus]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... rules.html

Christ can't come soon enough

This is what you get for giving the government any say in the matter of marriage. The very thing the founders of the United States worried about, government intruding into the sacraments of faith, has come to pass. Marriage is the only example that I can think of where a sacrament of faith has a component of government license mixed up in it. Once that was permitted to happen then these kinds of results were logical outcome.

QFT.

Too often we've tried to use the government as a bludgeon against people we disagree with and then are shocked when they turn the bludgeon on us when they get control.

[braingrunt]

let me just point out that an amendment to a constitution can't be unconstitutional, since by definition: IT IS THE CONSTITUTION.

[Hyrcanus]

let me just point out that an amendment to a constitution can't be unconstitutional, since by definition: IT IS THE CONSTITUTION.

In this case it was Utah's state constitutional amendment that was ruled a violation of the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the final law of the land, it overrides state laws that are in conflict via Article 6.

[jdawg1012]

let me just point out that an amendment to a constitution can't be unconstitutional, since by definition: IT IS THE CONSTITUTION.

You are absolutely incorrect, because you are arguing colloquialism, and not the truth.

I'll rephrase it for you to better understand:

State laws, including amendments to STATE constitutions can in fact be found UNCONSTITUTIONAL (like Utah's Amendment 3, which by the way, even Shurtleff noted to the legislature, at the tie, that it might be found unconstitutional), under the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, which is the supreme law of the land.

All the hand wringing in the world won't change the fact that this devil of a bill was meant to oppress a minority. Regardless of whether or not anyone finds same-sex sexual relations sinful or icky, the government is BOUND to protect the rights of its citizens, gay or straight, to engage in contracts with one another. Don't like it? Unattach all the legal benefits of legally recognized marriage. Then there won't be a problem with equal protection under the law. Until then, people can cry loud and long, but God's divine gift of agency is simply being preserved by the Constitution He inspired. Hallelujah!

[jdawg1012]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... rules.html

Christ can't come soon enough

This is what you get for giving the government any say in the matter of marriage. The very thing the founders of the United States worried about, government intruding into the sacraments of faith, has come to pass. Marriage is the only example that I can think of where a sacrament of faith has a component of government license mixed up in it. Once that was permitted to happen then these kinds of results were logical outcome.

QFT.

Too often we've tried to use the government as a bludgeon against people we disagree with and then are shocked when they turn the bludgeon on us when they get control.

Exactly. The pendulum ALWAYS swings the other way. This man-made law (violating agency) was always evil, and the Utah Legislature was warned it could be found unconstitutional, by Shurtleff. The 37% minority of the populace (Amendment 3 was voted in by only 37% of registered voters, Utahns voting apathy would take hours to address) decided to lay it on the rest of the populace. More than half the populace (52%), in Utah is now for same-sex marriage being legally recognized, and over 70% polled IN UTAH are for civil unions. Amendment 3 was always bad law. They gambled (even when warned) and lost. Boo hoo.

[braingrunt]

All the hand wringing in the world won't change the fact that this devil of a bill was meant to oppress a minority. Regardless of whether or not anyone finds same-sex sexual relations sinful or icky, the government is BOUND to protect the rights of its citizens, gay or straight, to engage in contracts with one another. Don't like it? Unattach all the legal benefits of legally recognized marriage. Then there won't be a problem with equal protection under the law. Until then, people can cry loud and long, but God's divine gift of agency is simply being preserved by the Constitution He inspired. Hallelujah!

OK, I see the point that they CLAIM the state constitution violates the federal one.

However, your statement that a law defining marriage between a man and a woman is oppressive to a minority, is ridiculous in my opinion. As you point out, marriage is a contract, and any contract can have terms and conditions. For example, the marriage contract has explicit terms and conditions with respect to the age of the two parties, their nearness of relation, and so on. If you don't meet the criteria you can't be married. This is not discrimination in the classic sense, as anyone who meets the conditions can enter the contract.

It should be briefly noted that "gay" people were NEVER, to my limited knowledge, discriminated against when it comes to the marriage contract. They could always enter it if they wanted to put aside their... whatever... and find a willing member of the opposite gender to enter the contract with. All they had to do was meet the same terms and conditions as EVERYONE ELSE. Then they were allowed. This is zero discrimination.

Marriage, having it's roots in religion, was an institution meant to unify man and woman. That is the prime definition of the marriage contract. Really, anyone who would argue that marriage, as enshrined by our forefathers in culture, religion, and law, did not have the male-female term and condition--is insane. The condition is strewn throughout law, as evidenced by the RE-WRITING of laws which becomes necessary in places such as Massachusets where gay marriage is allowed. Hence they are changing the contract. Period. Only the audacity of Satan has made us try emphatically restate what is evident through history and current law: one of the terms and conditions of the marriage contract is opposite gender.

Whenever someone tries to enter a contract without meeting the terms and conditions, everyone else who has entered the contract has a right to take notice and complain, to reaffirm and defend the conditions of the contract. This is doubly true when things as momentous as adoption law, the lives of innocent children, are to be further harmed by the redefinition.

Government helped define and give benefits to the marriage contract-BECAUSE it found that the contract with its implicit and explicit terms and conditions was BENEFICIAL to society. As to whether government should have done this is certainly debatable, but that's not the point. The point is that same gender unions do not have the same benefits as traditional marriage. This is already being proved in various places around the world. If they want to bend the definition in ways that don't provide the same benefits TO society, then they should not expect the same benefits FROM society.

Gay people are free to contract all they want but they don't have a right to mess with the terms and conditions of an established contract.

[Hyrcanus]

Government helped define and give benefits to the marriage contract-BECAUSE it found that the contract with its implicit and explicit terms and conditions was BENEFICIAL to society. As to whether government should have done this is certainly debatable, but that's not the point. The point is that same gender unions do not have the same benefits as traditional marriage. This is already being proved in various places around the world. If they want to bend the definition in ways that don't provide the same benefits TO society, then they should not expect the same benefits FROM society.

Gay people are free to contract all they want but they don't have a right to mess with the terms and conditions of an established contract.

This is precisely the point. When proponents of traditional marriage were in the majority, they used their power to give themselves extra benefits and legal protections using the force inherent in government action. Now the majority has shifted and the new majority is looking at the advantages provided to the previous groups and demanding them. This is entirely predictable.

We handed government the authority to regulate marriage contracts because at the time it benefited us. Now we are frustrated that government is using the authority we handed it to benefit someone else? To use a religious analogy, we ate of the fruit of government handouts and now we're suffering the consequences.

[gkearney]

Government helped define and give benefits to the marriage contract-BECAUSE it found that the contract with its implicit and explicit terms and conditions was BENEFICIAL to society. As to whether government should have done this is certainly debatable, but that's not the point. The point is that same gender unions do not have the same benefits as traditional marriage. This is already being proved in various places around the world. If they want to bend the definition in ways that don't provide the same benefits TO society, then they should not expect the same benefits FROM society.

Gay people are free to contract all they want but they don't have a right to mess with the terms and conditions of an established contract.

This is precisely the point. When proponents of traditional marriage were in the majority, they used their power to give themselves extra benefits and legal protections using the force inherent in government action. Now the majority has shifted and the new majority is looking at the advantages provided to the previous groups and demanding them. This is entirely predictable.

We handed government the authority to regulate marriage contracts because at the time it benefited us. Now we are frustrated that government is using the authority we handed it to benefit someone else? To use a religious analogy, we ate of the fruit of government handouts and now we're suffering the consequences.

That right we feed at the public troth, all those tax and social benefits, but when others came and said they wanted to feed at the troth as well we object. We have no one to blame but ourselves for this situation. The founders of the U.S. tried to warn us of the dangers of intermingling matters of faith with those of state. We failed to head the warning and now must pay the price. It is worth noting that most state and local governments did not issue marriage licenses in the US until after the civil war, it was done to facilitate veterans benefits to survivors, widows and orphans.

[uglypitbull]

The founders of the U.S. tried to warn us of the dangers of intermingling matters of faith with those of state. We failed to head the warning and now must pay the price.

More importantly, we had this same warning from Jesus Christ.

D&C 98:6,7

Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

This section was given to Joseph in 1833 .... and at that time there were 12 amendments to the Constitution.

How many are there now? 27! Which one is being used in these arguments? the 14th .... prophecy fulfilled IMO #-o

[braingrunt]

I can see your points but that doesn't mean we have to/should roll over and say, "you're right, this is a human rights issue, you should be allowed to marry." Rather the ideal thing might be to try to deny them based on the reasonably understood terms and conditions of the contract, while trying to destroy government involvement in marriage at the same time.

[braingrunt]

Ask yourself this though: should there be any adoption laws? If so should they reference marriage law in any way? How do we reasonably get rid of marriage law while still protecting adoptive children.

[gkearney]

Ask yourself this though: should there be any adoption laws? If so should they reference marriage law in any way? How do we reasonably get rid of marriage law while still protecting adoptive children.

Well given that today children are adopted by both single and unmarried persons I do not see how this could be an unsolvable issue. We would deal with in within the confines of civil contract law. Marriage, from a purely legal standpoint is nothing more than a kind of contract, a contract that the state has historically limited to couples of the opposite sex in a monogamous arrangement.

[gkearney]

The founders of the U.S. tried to warn us of the dangers of intermingling matters of faith with those of state. We failed to head the warning and now must pay the price.

More importantly, we had this same warning from Jesus Christ.

D&C 98:6,7

Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

This section was given to Joseph in 1833 .... and at that time there were 12 amendments to the Constitution.

How many are there now? 27! Which one is being used in these arguments? the 14th .... prophecy fulfilled IMO #-o

Generally the arguments being made in this matter can be broken down into several areas:

1. The 14th Amendment, passed following the civil war which grants citizenship at the national, rather than the local, level and asserts "equal protection" of all such citizens. This prevents government from entitling one groups of citizens rights or privileges while not extending them to all. Given the events of the civil war and the ending of slavery one can understand why this amendment was brought into place.

2. The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Contracts entered into in one state are enforceable in all states. This is what makes the US one nation and not 50 little nations. It was forgetting this clause that tripped up the church in Prop 8 in California in my opinion. It did not matter which state enacted same sex marriage because under the full faith and credit clause actions by Vermont or any other state counts the same as California. So while we threw ourselves at Prop 8 those promoting same sex marriage simple went into the other states.

3. Stare decisis - a legal term meaning the matter is decided, essentially the doctrine of precedent. Most often cited is the case is Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), where the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. In doing so the court created the president used by United States District Court for the District of Utah and others which have repeatedly cited Loving in their decisions such as in Kitchen v. Herbert, which held unconstitutional Utah's ban on same-sex marriage.

Had marriage not been permitted to intermingle with law in the way it has we would not be having this issue. True civil contracts would have to be accessible to all, which is as it should be.