Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Court puts Utah marriage equality on hold for now (363 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hard not to be snarky when it (5+ / 0-)

    this stay comes from the supposed "left" side of the Court. Differing to bigots is never a winning idea. I see no reason for the stay other then enabling bigotry in the United States to continue. I hope those 900 couples that have thus far married are able to remain married. Not exactly sure how a state wide ban on same sex marriage is not unconstitutional under even the most brief or shallow reading of the constitution.  

    “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” George Orwell

    by Tool on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:11:36 AM PST

    •  Follow the link to SCOTUS blog (19+ / 0-)

      She referred this to the whole court. This decision came from the whole of SCOTUS thru her.

      There are many cases already working towards the high court, it will ultimately be decided there IMO.

      And daddy won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County Down by the Green River where Paradise lay. Well, I'm sorry my son, but you're too late in asking Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away. John Prine

      by high uintas on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:19:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sotomayor isn't "deferring to bigots." She is (14+ / 0-)

      staying the ruling of the federal judge until the 10th Circuit can make its ruling.
         Since there is a substantial chance that the 10th Circuit will not, in fact, rule against the Utah appeal, the stay avoids the future problem of thousands of marriages being found null and void later.
         The Supreme Court may never rule on this case. It may well be finally decided in the 10th Circuit.
          The legal system is very slow. Winning at the first level of the federal judiciary is often just the beginning of the process.

    •  Bigots? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Was Obama a bigot pre-2012, when he opposed gay marriage? How about the Democratic primary in 2008, when the main candidates opposed SSM as well - was that the "battle of the bigots"?

      •  Let me clarify: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, bananapouch1
        But now Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has issued a stay, which will halt further same-sex marriages in Utah for the time being:
        Yes the stay was issued from the court as a whole but that was unclear from the language posted on the front page. Considering individual judges can at times issue stays on rulings I misinterpreted that language in the text.

        Let's be clear about something. States are made up of people and the "State of Utah" is a collection of individuals that are able to make choices. The State Attorney is a bigot republican who is pursuing this due to his own belief system and so yes - we are deferring to bigots because they are in places of power.

        To answer your direct question I did consider Obama's position on marriage equality "unenlightened and bigoted" but am pleased he has "evolved" now due to the forceful advocacy of LGBT activists. They have succeeded in state after state without executive help and the bully pulpit. Anyone at this point against marriage equality is a bigot and will be on the wrong side of history as far as I am concerned. There is no shades of grey in this. There is no debate on this question. If you oppose marriage equality - then yes. You are acting bigoted.  

        “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” George Orwell

        by Tool on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:08:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Issuing a legal stay is not siding with bigots. (5+ / 0-)

          As I understand this, and I am not a lawyer, issuing a legal stay has strong precedent when the legal matter under discussion has a chance of making large changes to legal and social matters. Legalizing same sex marriage in Utah is a large change, wouldn't you say? Issuing a stay does not indicate how a justice will rule, not does it mean a justice is a bigot.  Your comment was un-called-for.

          •  Yes it does. One of the most important things (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            in determining if a stay will be granted is who is more likely to prevail on the merits of the case.  Since the stay was issued that means the supreme court thinks it is more likely that the ban will be upheld once it reaches that level.

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:47:10 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Equality is not up for debate. (0+ / 0-)

            Legalizing same sex marriage in Utah is not a large change as it affects a minority of the population and does no harm to any person, place, or thing. It is a matter of changing the law to issue marriage licenses. To individuals and LGBT couples it can mean the world but to society as a whole it is a small matter. The world has not ended since MA legalized marriage equality in 2004 and it will continue to spin when all 50 states have legalized it. We just have to drag them kicking and screaming like we did in the civil rights era of the 50s/60s.

            Now let's change the language a little  "Legalizing same race marriage in Utah is a large change, wouldn't you say?" My comment was not un-called-for as history has clear that bigots oft hide behind the letter of the law under the guise of justice.

            “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” George Orwell

            by Tool on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:01:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why don't you wait to see how the justices vote, (0+ / 0-)

              and what they write in their reports?  Unlike Scalia and Thomas, nothing I have read from or about Justice Sotomayor leads me to think she will vote against equal marriage.

              As far as same race marriage, I think that was a big deal and a big change, given that people could be and were imprisoned or killed for it before the Loving vs. Virginia decision, and it was legal afterwards.  Calling something a large change doesn't give you a clue how someone feels about an issue, for or against.  I still think your cry of bigotry (in this case) is wrong.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site