A federal judge Friday struck down Utah’s voter-approved constitutional amendment — which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman — finding that it violates rights to due process and equal protection as set forth in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Within hours, Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill confirmed that, in light of the ruling, he saw no reason to prohibit Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and as many as 120 gay couples descended on the Salt Lake County Clerk’s Office to obtain licenses, with many staying to marry on the spot.
The Utah Attorney General’s Office said it would seek an “emergency stay pending the filing of an appeal.” The office filed a notice of appeal in U.S. District Court late Friday.
Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=28099570#f2mbRWbSeOQbBKsO.99
Earlier in the week, a federal judge overturned Utah’s co-habitation laws designed to criminalize polygamy. This from the Salt Lake Tribune:
Judge Clark Waddoups’ 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy. It is the latest development in a lawsuit filed by the family of Kody Brown, who became famous while starring in cable TV channel TLC’s reality series “Sister Wives.” The show entered a fourth season at the end of the summer.
It was definitely a tough week for traditional marriage. Comments?
Um, how was it a “tough week for traditional marriage”? The ruling on polygamy did not include a provision that any heterosexually married man who does not take a second wife will see his first marriage dissolved. (In fact, the ruling didn’t even legally recognize polygamous marriages — it just decriminalized them.) The ruling on same-sex marriage did not dissolve heterosexual marriages. Utah citizens who want to enter into monogamous heterosexual marriages still have that right, completely unchanged.
Its a tough week for traditional marriage because only one man and one woman can be called marriage. Now the courts are going to force religious people to recognize them as marriages, even when they aren’t. In other words, by redefining marriage you automatically dissolved heterosexual marriage by fiat. Marriage is no longer marriage. but a joke. No fault divorces are included in this travesty.
Another thing I don’t think you realize, probably because you don’t communicate with conservatives. Many religious heterosexauls, because they think its becoming a joke, are considering not getting a marriage licence and only getting married by Church authorities. Since the State is no longer legitimizing what a true marriage is, then they are going to de-legitimize the State authority on marriage. Now this hasn’t caught on beyond theory, but it will probably soon be taken as actual actions.
I’ve discussed this with my spouse for a few years now. I think that the recent cases that legalize same-sex marriage are creating a case for legalizing polygamy. If the state can no longer define marriage in terms of gender, why then can the state define marriage in terms of numbers? Most of the arguments that I have seen applied to legalizing same-sex marriage can be used to define multiple-spouse marriage. The only concern that I am seeing at the moment that might slow the process is that of ‘who is the father’ if there are more than one male in the polygamous family. (Assuming I still have my definitions correct that polygamy means multiple spouse regardless of gender vs. polygany which means multiple wife.)
In France, many couples never get married by the state. It’s cheaper, keeps big brother out of their life, and is easier to separate if things go wonky. I see a lot more of these coming down the road as well.
As for religion, If I remember correctly, Muslim families can legally have up to 4 wives in France as well. With the current push for marriage equality, I am surprised there hasn’t been more of a push for a similar separation of church and state in regards to marriage in the U.S.A.
Ok, one final thought. I find it interesting that the Federal government got involved in marriage back in late 1800s, which pushed for the outlawing of polygamy. At the time, I imagine the arguments included “the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage, let alone defining what a religion’s beliefs.” Now we have a neat little conundrum going, can the government define marriage? According to these recent court documents, no, it can’t.
Same sex marriage is just a fad and is really a valid question of acceptance. It seems that people are born with certain predilections regarding sex. Your church leaders acknowledge this. Nevertheless, the percentage of the population who are gay is very small and the percentage of gay persons who want to marry is even smaller. So, what is the harm to your marriage if two gay people get married? Are you afraid that they will recruit you or your son/daughter?
Do you really believe what you rant about? Or are you just trying to foment controversy with your outlandish theories and falacious appeals to emotion and fear? Are you simply trying to drive the debate by being out there? We all know fear and emotion works as evidenced by fox news and the republican party (always on the highest terror threat level during Bush II) We also know you can frame a debate or cause debate by appearing to be extreme. So which is it? Are you a believer or a fake?
Anything goes these days.
Who’s to keep 3 guys and a goat from all marrying each other if they really “love” each other?
We will surely reap that which we are sowing.
Jettboy, the main reason why we have marriage licenses in the U.S. was so the government could track polygamous marriages of Mormons in the late 1800s. So, Mormons performed marriages without licenses. Getting rid of the whole license process would get us back to the way things were before the 1850s.