Being over thirty, single and living in a blue state, I figure most of my relatives assume I'm gay.

Our Governor here in Maryland, Martin O'Malley, appears to making a bid for the 2016 Presidency. He helped legalize same-sex marriage here so it will be interesting to see how this plays out on the national stage if somehow the Republicans are dumb enough to nominate someone who opposes it, given the swell in popular support for this issue.

The Tenth Circuit panel just affirmed striking down Utah's law. Looks like a 2-1 margin.

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-4178.pdf

Next up, Utah can go straight to SCOTUS if it wants, or petition the Tenth Circuit for en banc review. If they do the former, it would almost certainly be on the docket for the Long Conference next September. If it's the latter, it might be a close call as to whether SCOTUS will get around to hearing it for the 2014-15 term or the 2015-16 term.

What would be the status of same-sex marriage then? Legal (hopefully)?

I seriously doubt that Kennedy wants to be on the wrong side of history.

Uh, Boulder...you don't seem to realize that the Tenth Circuit immediately stayed their decision. You're going to be giving people a false sense of hope.

http://www.bouldercounty.org/apps/newsr ... &zoneid=32

Boulder County Clerk to Begin Issuing Same Sex Marriage Licenses
Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Boulder County, Colo. – In response to the historic ruling in the 10th Circuit Court today, Boulder County Clerk and Recorder Hillary Hall will begin issuing same sex marriage licenses immediately, beginning today, June 25, 2014 in our Boulder office at 1750 33rd Street, and in our Lafayette and Longmont offices starting Friday, June 27, 2014.

Because 10th Circuit decisions are binding in the State of Colorado, the precedent established by Kitchen v. Herbert is applicable to the same-sex marriage ban contained in the Colorado Constitution. The Tenth Circuit found that “those who wish to marry a person of the same sex are entitled to exercise the same fundamental right as is recognized for persons who wish to marry a person of the opposite sex.”

Clerk Hall intends to uphold the fundamental right to marriage now recognized by 10th Circuit by issuing marriage licenses to any person who wishes to marry. “Couples across Colorado have been waiting a long time to have their right to marry the person they love recognized,” stated Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall. “I want to act immediately to let them carry out that wish.”

Marriage licenses will be issued at the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder’s office in Boulder today until 4:30 p.m. and will resume tomorrow at 8 a.m.

Sorry, what I meant was if the decision doesn't come down until next year, would same-sex marriage be legal in Utah until then?

Ah, sorry.

The Tenth Circuit immediately stayed their ruling until SCOTUS has its final disposition, so no SSM there until then. That's why I was mocking Boulder for completely misunderstanding what the Tenth Circuit did. SCOTUS made it clear when the district judge in Utah ruled that such rulings should be stayed, but some judges have not been paying attention to that (I think the district judge in Indiana didn't immediately stay the opinion there).

When you get married, isn't it always going to be the same sex?

It's sad that we are even talking about this and that this is still an issue. It just should not matter. When someone brings up the bible I always bring up how it says you shouldn't wear a shirt that mixes fabrics....which it also says in the bible. What someone likes of doesn't like if it isn't hurt others is not important. As a happily divorced guy if two dude or two girls want to try and make a marriage work by all means good luck. Love is love. Hell, I bet the divorce rate would be lower for same sex couples.




That is sexy I don't care what team you are on haha.

not really

a hairy naked guy posing on a bear, where do I sign up?

Utah decided to skip the en banc step at the Tenth Circuit, which certainly speeds things up. Expect the Court to either grant or deny cert at the Long Conference in the very end of September. If it grants cert, oral argument will probably be set before 2014 is out in early 2015, and a decision on or before June 2015. If it denies cert, SSM becomes legal in all of the states in the Tenth Circuit: Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Kansas, and Oklahoma.

EDIT: I forgot that the Court already has about 40 cases queued up for the 2014-15 term. That probably pushes oral argument to around February or March of 2015.

I'm going to step on that stone & play a little devil's advocate.
Those that are against gay marriage say it will lead to legal polygamy, pedophilia, beastiality and people getting married to inanimate items like trees & cars. Obviously the latter three are ridiculous arguments. But if we change the definition of marriage from one man/one woman what's the difference in changing it further to multiple spouses? Should polygamy be legal too?

Sure.

Remember that when it comes to the government, we're talking about civil marriage, which at it roots doesn't (or at least shouldn't) have to do with romantic or sexual relationships. Crimes against pedophilia or beastiality have to do with concerns about the sexual nature of those acts, and not so much any legal unions involved. Indeed, there's not much of a debate involved in such unions: animals and inanimate objects can be owned, while children can be assigned a guardian that is usually (but not always) the parents.

Polygamy is the only example you listed where I think serious questions could arise, and it will be important as to how the Supreme Court rules if they do strike down SSM bans nationwide. If they limit their reasoning solely to the Equal Protection Clause (where all citizens are afforded equal rights to the laws of the land), then SSM bans can be struck down without implicating bans against polygamy. Under this argument, all citizens will be allowed to marry exactly one other citizen, regardless of sex or sexuality, but all citizens will equally be disallowed to marry more than one citizen. However, if the Court additionally finds that there is a fundamental right to marriage under the Due Process Clause ("...not be deprived of life, liberty, or property..."), it's going to be more difficult to argue that multiple civil marriages can be banned. Some lower courts have expanded to the DPC, and some have not.

This is why I still have a bit of a soft spot for the notion that government shouldn't be encouraging a catch-all package of dozens of rights that we call civil marriage, and that it would be more prudent for people to come to contractual agreements as they best see fit in forming a household. Even in that scenario, disallowing such contractual agreements due to one's sex or sexuality is pretty frankly wrong and contrary to the Constitution.

I'll conclude by adding one other possible wrinkle as to why anti-SSM bans may be more consitutionally problematic than other bans that you list, and that has to do whether the LGBT community is a suspect classification that deserves heightened protection under the EPC. That is, because LGBT people have suffered a higher level of historical discrimination than some other minorities, laws that were aimed to disadvantage them (and make no mistake, that was the intent of the anti-SSM laws) must be scrutinized harder under the Constitution. This is another very important thing to watch for in any SCOTUS opinion. In his past jurisprudence, Kennedy has generally waffled on whether or not that is the case, and has typically crafted opinions to dodge that question while still striking down the laws in question. Some have argued that the proper way to strike down the anti-SSM laws is to instead rule that the bans discriminate not on the basis of sexuality, but of sex (which has a much longer and less controversial history of heightened scrutiny at the Supreme Court, no matter what Scalia says). For example, under the current law, a homosexual man and homosexual woman could be civilly married to each other, even though they show no sexual affection to each other. In contrast, two straight men or two straight women could not obtain the same--not because of their sexuality, but because of their sex.

It's almost as if we should treat these as separate decisions and judge each one on its merit and real world application.

Let's start.

Should a man be allowed to marry a man, or a woman a woman? Well, society has evolved to be accepting of homosexual relationships, and allowing this doesn't change marriage so drastically that it goes beyond a consenting relationship between two loving adults, so sure.

Should a person be allowed to marry multiple people? Maybe, but this is a much bigger deviation, in that we're now taking marriage beyond the union of two people. I haven't done much research into it, but aren't the religious claims of polygamy pretty dubious? Even in Utah isn't it relatively new and just a defacto way for a man to keep a concubine? I'm gonna vote no on this one.

Should we allow an adult to marry a young child? No, you sick fuck.

Should we allow a person to marry an animal? Are you fucking retarded? Can an animal sign a contract?

Should we allow a person to marry an object? Same as above, asshole.

I'm tired of "slippery slope" arguments. Just because you're afraid of a bad decision being made in the future, doesn't mean you should hesitate to make a good decision in the present.

Team chud

Team Chud/Kaius