Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
The fact that the judge cited Scalia's tantrum in the Windsor dissent as part of this justification for overturning the Utah ban is just delicious, delicious, delicious...
"The Constitution’s protection of the individual rights of gay and lesbian citizens is equally dispositive whether this protection requires a court to respect a state law, as in
Windsor, or strike down a state law, as the Plaintiffs ask the court to do here. In his dissenting opinion, the Honorable Antonin Scalia recognized that this result was the logical outcome of the Court’s ruling in Windsor
SCALIA 'In my opinion, however, the view that this
Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I havesaid, the real rationale of today’s opinion . . . is that DOMA is motivated by “bare. . . desire to harm” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.133 S. Ct. at 2709 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)'
THE COURT AGREES WITH JUSTICE SCALIA'S INTERPRETATION OF WINDSOR and finds that the important federalism concerns at issue hereare nevertheless insufficient to save a state-law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law"
I'm also amazed that the judge felt so strongly about his ruling that he chose not to stay it. That is a pretty big deal. Way to go Judge.
Holy shit! You cannot take this smile off my face!
Did you think he meant country matters?
Found this gem, too:
The Sodom and Gomorrah crowd is losing. Like Harold Camping, there are only so many times you can predict the end of the world before even your most devout followers stop listening.
It would be nice, of course, if the Supreme Court would step in and put the question (of whether committed gay couples have the right to live with the privileges and recognition of marriage) out of its misery for once and for all. But we might have to wait until there are only 3 or 4 states still banning it before the Court steps in to put a cherry on the top of this Equality Sundae.
Did you know that some women find vaginal intercourse extremely painful? Now that you know, no doubt you'll want to make it your business to spend every waking hour trying to stop vaginal intercourse for everyone else on the planet.
This by far the best site related to marriage equality:
I really thought that Utah would be one of the last states to have marriage equality (unless of course the Supreme Court did a "Loving V Virginia" and made it so across the land all at once).
I thought that Utah would be right before Mississippi and Alabama (where it is still technically illegal to buy sex toys such as vibrators and dildos).
The judge who ruled this way is an Obama appointee who was confirmed by the US Senate.
Make sure you vote in EVERY election!
Watching Gayle Ruzicka's head explode on KSL as she sputtered about gay marriage was priceless.
Here's my guess: the 10th Circuit will punt. They will deny the emergency request (as will Sotomayor, the SCOTUS justice for the 10th Circuit) and will direct the State of Utah to pursue its request for a stay through the normal channels, beginning with the district judge who will take his sweet time ruling on the motion. Unless they draw an ideologue at the 10th Circuit, nobody there is going to stick their neck out to grant an emergency stay only to be smacked down by Sotomayor.
PS @20: did the doctor find your head with that proctoscope?
kind of like your avatar.
(Also, women enjoy anal sex as well. DOUBLEMYSTERY.)