Judge John E. Jones III was nominated by George W. Bush, upon recommendation of
Sen. Rick Santorum.Just to nip the "maverick liberal judge"
accusations in the bud.
With liberty and justice for all.Someday soon.
Since last year, I am still waiting for a court ruling in favor of same-sex
marriage ban, and apparently SSM opponents could not get that from courts in NJ,
NM, OH, UT, OK, KY, VA, TX, TN, MI, IN, AR, ID, OR, PA, not to mention they
already failed in the courts of MA, CT, CA and IA in the past.
Dear Anti-s: Before you get started---we've already heard these
assertions:1. No woman can be a husband and no man can be a wife.2. Why can't I marry my (sister, dog, brother, car, etc)?3. The Bible says, (Insert your scriptural reference here).4. A
heterosexual couple provides the best environment for a child.5.
Comments about biology, procreation, etc.6. References to
"thousands of years", "end times", "activist judges",
"God's Kingdom" "redefining marriage".This
stuff isn't relevant. And you've made your points already.
This ruling is the most significant one so far, because it employs
"heightened scrutiny" instead of the "rational basis" review
that is more deferential to the State. That will make it very difficult for any
of these Gay Marriage bans to survive.From the ruling:“Indeed, it is unsurprising that Defendants muster no argument engaging
the strictures of heightened scrutiny, as we, too, are unable to fathom an
ingenuous defense saving the Marriage Laws from being invalidated under this
more searching standard.”
The United States is a country far from perfect. However, IMHO because we as a
nation have the capacity to reflect and self examine our laws, mores, and who we
are we become better. These rulings by the courts are a sample of that and an
example to the rest of the world.Congratulations Pennsylvania!!!!
What sense is there voting if something is going to be overturned. Marriage is
not mans to change and those judges who were all wrong every one of them will
have to answer to a higher judge.
We can be as dumb as we want. there's no law ageist it. But I there should
be for public officials.
Laura Bilington, Thanks you so much for your comment. It could not have been
said better. It won't change those people, but it will change the
direction of the arguments which it already has here in Utah.Thank -
@higv:What is the sense of having a Constitution if we're going
to ignore it when we want to get our way. The vote is about the
power of the mob. The Constitution is about the law, and protecting the right of
minorities against the will go the majority.
And we live by the rule of the judges. The crusade against the traditional god
fearing Christen family is in full swing. One day the God in heaven will look
down upon the earth and say enough is enough, or he will start it very
gradually, and the liberals will call it "Global Warming", Climate
Change", Climate disturbance etc.!!! Like frogs in the gradually warming pot
of water, feels good at first, sometime it will be too late to jump out and then
you'll understand the judgements!
...and (Satan) had a great chain in his hand, and it veiled the whole face of
the earth with darkness; and he looked up and laughed, and his angels
The religionists arguments are so predictable... and so irrelevant and
impotent.Congratulations, Pennsylvania and the City of Brotherly
@stormwalker what about the tyranny of the minority, don't get there way
at the ballot box so find something in the constitution that is not there to
overturn what people what. People are protected with the law and in cases of
employment and obtaining things regardless of what they do in there bedroom.
Why are they making it public. Marriage is a right that comes from our creator
and not ours to change.
I ask you Amerikans can it get any better?
@higv wrote: "People are protected with the law and in cases of employment
and obtaining things regardless of what they do in there bedroom. Why are they
making it public."A list of states where a person can be fired
for being gay:AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasFloridaGeorgiaIdahoIndianaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMichiganMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaPennsylvaniaSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVirginiaWest VirginiaWyoming(Full
disclosure: In many of these states there are individual counties and cities
that do have protections against LGBT discrimination.)
@higv: "Marriage is a right that comes from our creator and not ours to
change."Years ago my partner collapsed. Rushed to the ER. The
diagnosis doesn't matter here, but he was expected to live less than two
months. For three days his family was great. Then, without explanation his
sister excluded me from all care decisions, tried to ban me from visiting. I was
advised to come only when family was not there. I had no legal recourse.Many years ago I was married. My wife had a chronic medical issue. We we
went through a long, friendly divorce. We were living apart but still legally
married for almost 6 months, with no legal separation, when she went in the
hospital. Someone had to make medical decisions. I could have very easily
overridden the family and excluded them because we had a marriage license. You might believe that marriage comes from God. But there are about 1200
rules, laws, regulations, benefits, and protections that come from the state and
federal government. That is what same-sex marriage is all about.
@Utes Fans...Isn't your entire post lyrics from a heavy metal song? Most
definitely sounds like it is. May I ask what it has to do with equality for all?
@Stormwalker 11:30 a.m. May 21, 2014You're lucky you got to
visit your partner at all. I provided pro bono legal representation for PWAs in
the 1980s and 1990s. I know a number of occasions when, after I had prepared
documents providing that my client's partner was the ONLY person authorized
to make medical decisions for him and the documents had been properly executed,
notarized and recorded, my client's family instruted the medical providers
to disregard my client's directive and to allow the family members to make
all the decisions (including banning my client's partner from visiting and
being present at passing). The medical providers complied with the
family's instructions, denying my client the right to make his own
end-of-life decisions and have his wishes followed. You, at least, had some
opportunity to visit with your loved one. Compared to what I saw then, you were
lucky to have that opportunity.
This just in: Pennsylvania's governor will *not* appeal the ruling!
Pennsylvania is now a permanent member of the marriage equality club.
@ Laura Bilington and UteFan60:Those points may be irrelevant to
you, but not to objective observers. It was noticeable that you offered no
relevant retort to any of those anti-SSM points. None whatsoever. It's funny in a sad sort of way how liberal activists refuse to listen to
anyone except those who completely agree with them. It's that old
"tolerate us" but don't expect any in return philosophy... because
anyone who doesn't agree with us is just a bigot. And so the
downward spiral continues...
@ConcinnityGov. Corbett has decided he won't appeal the ruling,
he finally gets it, hopefully you will get it someday.
@Concinnity wrote: "Those points may be irrelevant to you, but not to
objective observers."Are there any objective arguments that
don't depend on appeals to religion, appeals to tradition, or debunked
@ Stormwalker:What good does voting in a democracy do? Democracy and
"the will of the people" actually stood for something important in our
country during it's first two centuries. But now that
previously important concept has been made entirely irrelevant. Small minority
groups can always prevail over the will of the majority with the siding of just
a single activist judge in their pocket. Others eventually jump on the bandwagon
when it becomes viewed as the politically correct "flavor of the month"
concept. Other than just voting for people, whatever else the
majority of voters in a democratic society wants now means absolutely nothing. A
single person with the siding of an single judge now can rule the roost and make
the overall will of the people subservient to them. And don't
ever let the Constitution get it the way. It can always be interpreted
differently by some judge somewhere. And if not, then just claim the
Constitution was meant to be a "living document" that should change with
the times. I've heard that liberal progressive argument more than once...
whenever it's convenient to their current cause.
Dear Pro'sBefore you get started - we've already heard these
assertions:1. Love is love no matter who it is.2. Government
shouldn't legislate morality3. It doesn't affect homosexual
marriage4. Discrimination hurts families.5. Anyone who discriminates
is a bigot.6. Homosexuals are families, too.This stuff
isn't relevant. And you've made your points already. When
you make a point that something isn't relevant, remember that you are
claiming that what people believe isn't irrelevant, something you are
claiming that we "pro's" are doing. Everyone, when pressed, is
backed up against their own beliefs and judgments. Don't disregard them
simply because you don't believe them.
In my previous post, I meant "something you are claiming that we
"anti's" are doing." I apologize for the typos.
@ A Scientist:The liberal-progressive arguments are so
predictable... and so irrelevant and impotent. Our condolences to
Pennsylvania as the latest state to be dictated to... against the common sense
will of it's people by another activist judge to step forward. Sad. Very
@dwidenhouse, you have some stuff correct and some not so:"Love
is love no matter who it is." A truism. More specifically, don't
denigrate someone's choice of a life partner if they are, in your
book--eligible to be one--except for being the same sex. That means of legal
age, not married, not already related."Government shouldn't
legislate morality". Someone's idea of "morality"--or
someone's church's idea of morality--shouldn't be the business of
government. There are sound reasons to forbid assault, lying, and theft which
have no connection with the commandments that Christians believe were given to
Moses. There are no sound reasons to legislate against homosexuality or
homosexual sex. There's also a SCOTUS decision forbidding such
legislation."It doesn't affect homosexual marriage".
What doesn't? "Discrimination hurts families." No
argument there. Discrimination against Mormon families or gay families
(including gay Mormon families) all hurt families."Anyone who
discriminates is a bigot." Anyone who discriminates because their church
told them that gays were an abomination is a bigot. "Homosexuals are families, too." That's like saying that
heterosexuals are families. Some are. Some are single. And your point is..?
@higv, you stated "Why are they making it public. Marriage is a right that
comes from our creator and not ours to change."I am assuming you
have "made it public" that you are heterosexual, right? If
marriage "is a right that comes from our creator", then why does the
state charge you a license fee to marry? You are not charged fees for life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Brio, skip your condolences. Even if the lawsuit against the PA marriage ban
had never been filed, the anti-SSM law was doomed. A March Quinnipiac University
poll of Pennsylvania voters, 57% of respondents said they supported a law
allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 37% opposed it. I'm betting that
even Utah voters wouldn't pass an anti-SSM law if it were on the ballot
@Laura BilingtonAmendment 3, in Utah, only passed without about 37%
of registered voters' support. Support for same-sex marriage is at over 50%
in Utah, today. People supporting civil unions is at over 70% in Utah, today. Of
undecided people in Utah, in the last 8 months, 7 have decided they support
same-sex marriage legalization for each 1 that went against same sex-marriage. 7
to 1. Amendment 3 could never pass in Utah today. Thankfully, this is coming to
a swift close. Good riddance. To the Utah State Government: stop spending my
money to hurt people of whom you don't approve. Fortunately the upcoming
generation (the one we keep getting told are the most valiant) support the right
to agency, and same-sex marriage at a rate of nearly 85%. Hooray for agency!
@ Laura BilingtonI appreciate you responding to my post. However, my
purpose was not to ridicule your beliefs. I was merely showing that if you put
down someone's belief, you are doing the same thing that you claim we
"anti's" are doing. By counting the "anti's" beliefs
as irrelevant you step into our "supposed" realm of claiming that
someone's partner, or life choice, or personality traits are irrelevant.
Mutual respect is needed in these discussions. I accept that you, and many
others, believe what you believe. I believe differently. Now, rather than
shouting that the other side is wrong, perhaps both sides (and I mean BOTH)
should have a more civil conversation and try to understand one another rather
than bash each other. I know that people on both sides have been insensitive,
crude, and hurtful. Additionally, both sides have been hurt, demeaned, and
degraded. Now is not the time to continue such traditions. Now is the time for
civility. Unfortunately, by writing this I will unleash upon myself a slew of
comments regarding our incivility by banning same-sex marriage. However, we must
continue to try for civility . . . please.
@dwidenhouseI welcome a civil conversation. I'm a believing Mormon
who is also gay. Churches can and should be allowed to define sin and set rules
for their rites and membership.The problem I have with the arguments
against gay civil marriage is that they don't make any sense. The only way
they would make sense is if I believed that gay people are not really gay, but
actually are just confused straight people. Then it makes sense to keep them
hidden and try to incentivize them to live straight. To me that is as strange
as arguing that we are all right handed but some have unnatural left handed
tendencies.I believe gay people are real. They are not straight and there
is no rational, secular reason for us to make gay people hide who they are or
try to act straight just like we wouldn't stigmatize left handed people or
force them to fumble their whole life with their right hand. If your position is
based on a belief that you understand gay people better than they understand
themselves, then be prepared to have that belief questioned.
@dwidenhouse 7:34 p.m. May 21, 2014How would you feel about an
arrangement where ALL couples, gay and straight, could register a civil unior or
partnership (one active union/partnership per person at any time, and meeting
certain age and consanguity conditions). That would be the legal relationship
which would create the rights and responsibilities currently applicable to civil
marriage. Then, if the couple so chose, they could go to their religious
authorities or anyone else willing to perform a marriage ceremony for them, and
have that ceremony performed and witnessed (this latter ceremony would have no
legal force or effect). It seems to me that this type of arrangement would
resolve the concerns that some people have about the use of the term marriage
for a relationship they find distasteful. What say you?
@higv: "Marriage is a right that comes from our creator and not ours to
change."Please cite the biblical passage that says the
government shall license marriages and that provides tax benefits for married
couples. You're making the common error of conflating religious marriage
(not affected by these court decisions) with civil marriage, which is a separate
thing and the subject of those decisions.@Brio: "Our condolences
to Pennsylvania as the latest state to be dictated to... against the common
sense will of it's [sic] people by another activist judge..." Definition of an "activist judge" seems to be "any judge who rules
differently than you'd like him to do". This particular judge was
appointed by Bush with the endorsement of Santorum. In any case, he's doing
what judges are supposed to do: reviewing the law for conformity with
constitutional requirements without partisan bias or consideration of his