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

[QUOTE=mysteryman;43513409]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what, a side was going to lose bitterly, might as well have taken the more progressive route instead of in keeping with outdated mindsets.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] The government made no such push with California, who spent YEARS fighting similar legislation. [editline]12th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;43513755]Strict constitutional adherence is a bad joke someone forgot the punchline to long ago.[/QUOTE] It's not strict adherence. There is not a bit of language in it that even comes close to addressing marriage equality. [editline]12th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Rents;43513607]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] Yeah, it's the electoral college and the House of Representatives.

[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] the whole reason that the USA is a republic with a constitution is to defend against tyranny of the majority, you know, when the majority uses their larger voting power to disenfranchise the minority. kinda like what the people of utah did when they voted against this

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43515153]the whole reason that the USA is a republic with a constitution is to defend against tyranny of the majority, you know, when the majority uses their larger voting power to disenfranchise the minority. kinda like what the people of utah did when they voted against this[/QUOTE] By that logic, shouldn't the loser of the Presidential race win? To keep the minority from being disenfrachised by the majority?

[QUOTE=darunner;43515224]By that logic, shouldn't the loser of the Presidential race win? To keep the minority from being disenfrachised by the majority?[/QUOTE] yeah man totally [editline]13th January 2014[/editline] or maybe it means by this logic a president can't be voted in to take away a minorities rights (and not having people you don't like be able to marry isn't a right btw)

[QUOTE=darunner;43515224]By that logic, shouldn't the loser of the Presidential race win? To keep the minority from being disenfrachised by the majority?[/QUOTE] And if the one with less votes is the one which becomes president, you always vote for the one who you dislike the most to prevent them from winning.

[QUOTE=darunner;43515224]By that logic, shouldn't the loser of the Presidential race win? To keep the minority from being disenfrachised by the majority?[/QUOTE] so wait you're trying to justify Utah's backwards laws by deferring to the constitution but you don't even understand why it exists in the first place or what connection it has to the tyranny of the majority incredible

[QUOTE=Cone;43515488]so wait you're trying to justify Utah's backwards laws by deferring to the constitution but you don't even understand why it exists in the first place or what connection it has to the tyranny of the majority incredible[/QUOTE] I'm making a hypothetical there. My argument is that the federal government has no grounds to do what it is doing in Utah.

[QUOTE=darunner;43516670]I'm making a hypothetical there. My argument is that the federal government has no grounds to do what it is doing in Utah.[/QUOTE] The federal government has no grounds to decide what the federal government does or does not recognize? They're not ordering people in Utah to get gay married, the government is merely going to recognize the marriages which took place [b]in full accordance with the law and with the ruling of the judge who overturned Utah's constitutional ban.[/b] Expecting it to do anything else is asking the federal government to [i]violate it's own rules[/i].

[QUOTE=darunner;43516670]I'm making a hypothetical there. My argument is that the federal government has no grounds to do what it is doing in Utah.[/QUOTE] well hypothetical as it may be, you're still producing a non-sequitur by linking two entirely different things to further your argument. which either means you don't understand the basis of the constitution, or you do understand it and you're just being deliberately contrarian for no reason. the point is, the tyranny of the majority is the entire reason the constitution exists - and if your understanding of it as a concept is loose enough to draw that kind of ridiculous parallel (with one of the most integral concepts behind democracy as a whole mind you), then you don't understand the constitution either.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43516728]The federal government has no grounds to decide what the federal government does or does not recognize? They're not ordering people in Utah to get gay married, the government is merely going to recognize the marriages which took place [b]in full accordance with the law and with the ruling of the judge who overturned Utah's constitutional ban.[/b] Expecting it to do anything else is asking the federal government to [i]violate it's own rules[/i].[/QUOTE] States' rights means the Feds have no power outside of the physical territory of Washington DC, don'tcha know. And if you put weird punctuation in your name and spell it in all caps you can claim immunity to the law, too, as long as you remember to cite Uniform Commercial Code 1-207 (or UCC 1-308) and claim you have refused to contract your corporate Person with the US government. Fuck, you must've been home retarded during civics class. [B]Get with it man[/B] :v:

[QUOTE=bull04;43501525] As a state, Utah is only allowed to teach Abstinence as well. [/QUOTE] Isn't that all of the US though?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43516728] They're not ordering people in Utah to get gay married[/quote] Exactly. That is phase two.