Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  How is it not at issue? If those marriages are (0+ / 0-)

    retroactively invalidated then many of those 900 couples will be facing fraud charges.  Sounds like an ex post facto issue to me.

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

    by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:27 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  No they won't. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darmok, craigkg

      Unless they made false representations wholly unrelated to the fact that they are same-sex couples, there won't be any fraud at all.  They got married pursuant to a duly-issued judgment of a federal district court.

      I have no idea where you see a fraud in all this.

      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

      by FogCityJohn on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:51:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because they claimed to be legally married (0+ / 0-)

        when they weren't.  In other words, because their marriage never actually happened in the first place that means their statement that they were married was a lie.

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

        by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:59:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um . . . (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Darmok, craigkg

          No, they were very much legally married, even if it later turns out that an appellate court overturns Judge Shelby's decision.  These couples married pursuant to a perfectly lawful federal court order.  So please, stop with this nonsense about "fraud" and "lies."

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:17:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, if Shelby's decision is overturned then (0+ / 0-)

            it is as if they were never married in the first place because the marriage was not legal.  Remember, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

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

            by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:20:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  FCJ is a lawyer... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Darmok, FogCityJohn

              ...and knows what he is talking about. There is no fraud. Those couples were married when the state was under a valid court order. The fact the court's order was later stayed does not affect the legality of the marriages. It was valid at the time and the marriage duly solemnized in accordance with the law at the time. In fact, trying to undo the marriage after the fact would likely raise even hairier constitutional implications for Utah under the federal Privileges or Immunities Clause of the the 14th Amendment in the very narrow application the clause has left. For all intents and purposes, those 900 couples, like the ones in California prior to Prop 8 passage, are married.

              "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

              by craigkg on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:35:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Where would the fraud be? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FogCityJohn, craigkg

      The couples currently married were legally married so there can't be any claim later that they've defrauded anyone with respect to those marriages.

      If the marriages are later invalidated, those couples are simply no longer married.  While there may be stuff to sort out thereafter, it's kind of silly to even suggest that anyone could accuse them of fraud.

      And it's certainly no basis to claim that the ex post facto clause prohibits invalidation of those marriages.

      •  No, if the marriage is invalidated then it means (0+ / 0-)

        they were never married in the first place.  Thus since they claimed to be married but never actually were (because the marriage was retroactively undone) that is fraud.

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

        by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:00:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now you're just being silly, or simply obtuse (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FogCityJohn, craigkg

          As simply as I can state it, fraud requires misrepresenting a fact (or concealing a fact) in order to obtain some advantage from someone.  The fact that the marriages could be invalidated at some point in the future does not mean that the couples are currently misrepresenting or concealing some fact related to their marriage.  They're duly married by the State of Utah.

          I feel pretty comfortable going out on a limb to predict that no one, even the most batsh*t insane right-winger is ever going to claim that any one of these couples engaged in fraud in the event that the marriages are later invalidated.

          And none of that explains how or why the ex post facto clause would be relevant to invalidating the marriages.

          •  You don't get it, if the marriages are invalidated (0+ / 0-)

            then they were never legal to begin with and thus never happened in the first place.  So while at this very second they are not misrepresenting their married status if the ban is upheld then they will have been (will had been?) misrepresenting their status to obtain those benefits because their marriage will never have happened.  Ignorance is no excuse, after all.

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

            by Throw The Bums Out on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:17:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Utah would have to sue to invalidate them (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FogCityJohn

          The issue before the appellate court is the right to marry, not the constitutionality of the marriages that took place while the court order was in affect. Those couples married pursuant to a valid court order. Indeed the order order is STLL valid AT THIS MOMENT as it has not been overturned by any higher court. A stay has been put into affect preventing the order for being carried out any further. Even if the order is overturned, it does not change the constitutionality of the marriages already solemnized while the order was in affect. That would be a separate issue that Utah would litigate at its peril.

          "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

          by craigkg on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:40:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site