Federal Government to Recognize 1,300 Same Sex Marriages Disputed in Utah - Polidicks

[quote]WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday made the latest contribution to a fast-moving legal battle over same-sex marriage rights as the Justice Department said that the federal government would recognize as lawful the marriages of some 1,300 same-sex couples in Utah even though the state government is largely refusing to do so. [/quote] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/us/politics/same-sex-marriage-utah.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=1[/url]

I remember a Simpsons joke that said that everything is allowed in Utah Is this true?

[QUOTE=proch;43501305]I remember a Simpsons joke that said that everything is allowed in Utah Is this true?[/QUOTE] Ha. Even the fact that Utah ever thought of allowing gay marriage is a surprise to me. I live in the north end of the state, home of the mormons. Nothing is allowed in Utah.

[QUOTE=bull04;43501329]Ha. Even the fact that Utah ever thought of allowing gay marriage is a surprise to me. I live in the north end of the state, home of the mormons. Nothing is allowed in Utah.[/QUOTE] Not even mormons?

Isn't there only 3 liquor stores in the whole state, and instead of walking inside you have too look through a book at the entrance for what you want or something asinine like that?

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;43501487]Isn't there only 3 liquor stores in the whole state, and instead of walking inside you have too look through a book at the entrance for what you want or something asinine like that?[/QUOTE] Not sure about the catalog thing. There are 2 stores that I know of in the valley so far, not sure how many others there are. They're also closed on Sundays (everything's closed on Sunday here). You can't sell liquor in gas stations here, and grocery stores are even pushing it, the alcohol aisle is about 1-3 freezers long. As a state, Utah is only allowed to teach Abstinence as well. This whole state is whacky as fuck and I can't wait to get out of it...

If it's true they are only allowed to teach abstinence that seems to be just as much of a problem.

It always surprising to me how "different" a state can be if it really wants to. Utah is a good example of this

[URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1346296"]Hi.[/URL]

The feds are probably overstepping their bounds here, and this can set a very bad precedent.

[QUOTE=bull04;43501525]Not sure about the catalog thing. There are 2 stores that I know of in the valley so far, not sure how many others there are. They're also closed on Sundays (everything's closed on Sunday here). You can't sell liquor in gas stations here, and grocery stores are even pushing it, the alcohol aisle is about 1-3 freezers long. As a state, Utah is only allowed to teach Abstinence as well. This whole state is whacky as fuck and I can't wait to get out of it...[/QUOTE] St george-hurricane-laverkin (where I live) ain't that bad, atleast not as bad as you're making it out to be. Compared to vegas (where I was previously), this place has a massive psychological support administration. Literally when I went to vegas some guy just threw random meds at me without even giving me any kind of psychological evaluation, and it was expensive as hell. Here it's like 1/10th of the cost and they gave me all sorts of options. Again, maybe there is a lot of religious nuts, but it's not all bad.

[QUOTE=darunner;43505474]The feds are probably overstepping their bounds here, and this can set a very bad precedent.[/QUOTE] They really, honestly, are not at all in this specific context.

[QUOTE=darunner;43505474]The feds are probably overstepping their bounds here, and this can set a very bad precedent.[/QUOTE] No, the feds are showing Utah its rightful place.

[QUOTE=O Cheerios O;43506980]No, the feds are showing Utah its rightful place.[/QUOTE] And then you get a Republican president who gets to say that all gay marriages are illegal and uses this as precedent.

[QUOTE=darunner;43507071]And then you get a Republican president who gets to say that all gay marriages are illegal and uses this as precedent.[/QUOTE] Do you even have an elementary school understanding of the how the government works?

[QUOTE=darunner;43507071]And then you get a Republican president who gets to say that all gay marriages are illegal and uses this as precedent.[/QUOTE] It has reached a point where that would be political suicide for a president. Even more than NSA.

[QUOTE=darunner;43505474]The feds are probably overstepping their bounds here, and this can set a very bad precedent.[/QUOTE] Since the part of DOMA that considered married couples as only one man and one woman was struck down, the federal government absolutely has a responsibility for administering same-sex marriage benefits. To not would be not doing their job. [QUOTE=darunner;43507071]And then you get a Republican president who gets to say that all gay marriages are illegal and uses this as precedent.[/QUOTE] That would be the executive overstepping their bounds and illegal. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;43507136]Looks like Utah is in for a dangerous encounter with "states rights". Remember kiddies, a state might have the right to do something, JUST LIKE the federal government has the right to deny grants/privileges if certain conditions aren't met. Fun times indeed.[/QUOTE] Actually it doesn't seem like they will pursue a states rights case at all against federal benefits [QUOTE]Mr. Herbert’s office issued a mild response, saying that the Justice Department’s decision “comes as no surprise” and that [B]state agencies would treat such couples as married when they are administering federal, though not state, benefits.[/B] No examples were listed. “Adherence to the rule of law, both federal and state as those laws govern respectively, is an unbending principle of this administration,” the statement said.[/QUOTE] Article also mentions that most marriage benefits are handled by states so don't worry darunner. The state of Utah can continue to treat same-sex couples as inferior human beings who don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.

[QUOTE=darunner;43505474]The feds are probably overstepping their bounds here, and this can set a very bad precedent.[/QUOTE] Don't see a reason why we [I]shouldn't[/I] force states that deny basic rights to its citizens to change their ass-backwards laws.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;43507243]Don't see a reason why we [I]shouldn't[/I] force states that deny basic rights to its citizens to change their ass-backwards laws.[/QUOTE] Well because it was originally a stance obama held as president when he publically would state how it should be the states own individual rights to allow/recognize same sex marriage. It's just a long standing and firmly held idea of the states maintaining their own power for their own decision.

[QUOTE=mysteryman;43507440]Well because it was originally a stance obama held as president when he publically would state how it should be the states own individual rights to allow/recognize same sex marriage. It's just a long standing and firmly held idea of the states maintaining their own power for their own decision.[/QUOTE]Carte-blanche states right is ridiculous. States need to be kept in check when they try to restrict the rights of the populous or oppress a minority.

[QUOTE=bull04;43501525]This whole state is whacky as fuck and I can't wait to get out of it...[/QUOTE] Whacky or not, I love my gigabit internet.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;43507134]Do you even have an elementary school understanding of the how the government works?[/QUOTE] Yes, I do. It's doing the exact same thing as Obama is doing right now, just the other direction.

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;43512418]I'm pretty sure using this sort of power for removing rights from people is handled differently than what's happening here.[/QUOTE] Is it? One could argue that what the feds are doing now is removing rights, as the people of Utah voted against this, and now this is being forced upon them against the will of the majority.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43507503]Carte-blanche states right is ridiculous. States need to be kept in check when they try to restrict the rights of the populous or oppress a minority.[/QUOTE] I'm not defending utah, i was just really putting out there why many people are against this (besides the omg gay murrige! aspect)

[QUOTE=mysteryman;43512964]I'm not defending utah, i was just really putting out there why many people are against this (besides the omg gay murrige! aspect)[/QUOTE] I'm totally in favor of gay marriage. I'm just saying that there is nothing in the Constitution about the right to marriage, or right to government benefits from marriage, and therefore the 10th Amendment would say this is something to be handled at the state level.

[QUOTE=darunner;43512973]I'm totally in favor of gay marriage. I'm just saying that there is nothing in the Constitution about the right to marriage, or right to government benefits from marriage, and therefore the 10th Amendment would say this is something to be handled at the state level.[/QUOTE] The Constitution is so loosely followed these days that it might as well be a recommendation instead of something to follow.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;43501487]Isn't there only 3 liquor stores in the whole state, and instead of walking inside you have too look through a book at the entrance for what you want or something asinine like that?[/QUOTE] Eat, drink, and be merry. For tomorrow ye may be in Utah.

[QUOTE=darunner;43512973]I'm totally in favor of gay marriage. I'm just saying that there is nothing in the Constitution about the right to marriage, or right to government benefits from marriage, and therefore the 10th Amendment would say this is something to be handled at the state level.[/QUOTE] I understand that you think it's overstepping boundaries but in this specific case in Utah it was such a giant cluster fuck that something foul was going to happen VERY soon, problems kept cropping up and no matter what, a side was going to lose bitterly, might as well have taken the more progressive route instead of in keeping with outdated mindsets. So the government stepped in on a federal level to stop this before something horrible happened. Once again in this case, the federal intervention was something that was nearly warranted for this specific situation.

[QUOTE=darunner;43512973]I'm totally in favor of gay marriage. I'm just saying that there is nothing in the Constitution about the right to marriage, or right to government benefits from marriage, and therefore the 10th Amendment would say this is something to be handled at the state level.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=darunner;43512640]Is it? One could argue that what the feds are doing now is removing rights, as the people of Utah voted against this, and now this is being forced upon them against the will of the majority.[/QUOTE] I don't know the exact wording, but the US constitution protects the people against a tyranny of the majority, it's Utah that are being unconstitutional.

[QUOTE=darunner;43512973]I'm totally in favor of gay marriage. I'm just saying that there is nothing in the Constitution about the right to marriage, or right to government benefits from marriage, and therefore the 10th Amendment would say this is something to be handled at the state level.[/QUOTE]Strict constitutional adherence is a bad joke someone forgot the punchline to long ago.