Skip to main content

Natalie Dicou (L) and her partner Nicole Christensen wait to get married at the Salt Lake County Clerks office in Salt Lake City, Utah, December 20, 2013. A federal judge struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional on Friday, handing a major victory to gay rights activists in a conservative state where the Mormon church wields considerable influence. REUTERS/Jim Urquhart (UNITED STATES - Tags: SOCIETY) - RTX16Q0I

Here's a little ray of light for the 1,300 Utah couples whose own state government considers their marriages on hold after the Supreme Court granted a stay of a district court decision overturning the state's same-sex marriage ban: The Obama administration will recognize those marriages. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that:

"Recently, an administrative step by the Court has cast doubt on same-sex marriages that have been performed in the state of Utah. And the governor has announced that the state will not recognize these marriages pending additional Court action.

"In the meantime, I am confirming today that, for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages. These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds. In the days ahead, we will continue to coordinate across the federal government to ensure the timely provision of every federal benefit to which Utah couples and couples throughout the country are entitled – regardless of whether they in same-sex or opposite-sex marriages."

This is great news, but the story is incomplete. The promise of equality isn't realized and these couples have only partial justice.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:16 AM PST.

Also republished by Kossacks for Marriage Equality and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yay for POTUS (25+ / 0-)

    Isn't this part of what the government SHOULD do? Ensure that ALL citizens are treated as EQUALS under the law?

    I would LOVE to see how the RWNJ's heads are exploding over this. I can hear their arguments now: the will of the people, overstepping his authority- socialism, communism, marxism... waaaahhhhhhh- BOOM!

    The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. -Charles de Montesquieu

    by dawgflyer13 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:22:23 AM PST

  •  Yes we can..... (9+ / 0-)

    stand up to the theocrats.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:27:14 AM PST

  •  Well that's a clear message to Utah (9+ / 0-)

    Hope this doesn't ruin the Dems chances of carrying the state in 2016 :-)

    A government that denies gay men the right to bridal registry is a fascist state - Margaret Cho

    by CPT Doom on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:34:15 AM PST

    •  Actually, as much as it may be a "clear message" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cali Scribe, sfbob, LOrion, bythesea

      it is really only the administration being consistent in their current policy regarding the Federal recognition of same-sex marriages as equal to opposite-sex ones. It's been the administration's policy for a while now.

      Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

      by commonmass on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:00:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's still pretty big (5+ / 0-)

        Which previous administration would not only have made this a policy, but kept consistently applying it?

        I suspect you didn't mean to entirely make it sound like it's no big deal, but this really is a big deal.

        "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

        by anonevent on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, actually, I was really implying what you just (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cali Scribe, bythesea

          wrote. It's a big deal, but it's also an example of the administration being consistent about supporting the legal rights of same-sex couples. Which, I suppose is a big deal in itself historically.

          In other words, I would have been shocked if they DIDN'T recognize those marriages.

          Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

          by commonmass on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:08:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            commonmass

            I'm still going to be excited when they do something they really wouldn't have to do.  Maybe when it's the norm, I'll get angry at an administration for not doing it, but I don't feel yet that it's "normal" procedure.

            "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

            by anonevent on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:15:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Can you give me one instance of the admistration (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TrueBlueMajority, bythesea

              being inconsistent on this since they adopted this policy? I can't. Because for this administration, this IS the norm.

              I'm sorry if my position is not popular here, but it would kind of like getting excited over LBJ's administration taking action in support of civil rights in some southern state. That would be the norm for that administration. This is the norm for this one. For which I am very, very grateful as a gay man who has been married to another man.

              Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

              by commonmass on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:26:04 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, no, I don't mean to imply that Obama (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                commonmass

                has been inconsistent.  I'm talking about his administration in relation to other presidents.

                "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

                by anonevent on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:16:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  HERE from a SLC Lawyer…. (3+ / 0-)

        This is a bit dated…but possibly even more relevant now. I will send it to Laura and she or another may want to blog it. No one reads mine if I do.

        Op-ed: Take a deep breath, gay marriage opponents

        I have practiced law in Salt Lake City for almost 33 years.  (Judge Shelby’s) ruling was but a short and inevitable extension of the United State Supreme Court’s decisions in Loving (striking Virginia’s ban on miscegenation), Lawrence (Texas arrested two same-sex citizens for having private, consensual sex), and last summer’s Windsor case (which invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act),
        Constitutional rights are not voted on, no matter how large and determined is the majority who wish to deny their fellow citizens the enjoyment of some protected right.
        and...
        A court, however, has to make a decision in the moment. The parties are there, and they are entitled to a ruling. A judge cannot say "No thanks, folks, come back later when the public will be better disposed to me giving you what you are entitled to,"

        And whereas the executive and legislative branches can indulge the luxury of looking at issues in a detached, generalized and philosophical way, judges must look the litigants in the eye, as individuals with a dispute that demands resolution.

        It is beyond dispute that the three sets of same-sex couples who looked Judge Shelby in the eye have relationships that are loving, faithful, and bound by ties of caring and mutual support, representing the best qualities traditional marriage has to offer.

        This is why my church has, for many years, blessed the covenanted unions of same-sex partners and why we perform marriages for same-sex couples where it is legal to do so. In so doing, we promise to support them in their lives together.

        For Utahns who are lamenting the legality of same-sex marriage, please take a deep breath. Neither the Constitution nor the scriptures have changed.

        What has changed is our understanding of human sexuality and how that has enabled the formation of types of same-sex relationships that are unprecedented in human history, and that because of their inherent sanctity deserve legal legitimacy and the support of the larger community.

        As noted this is DEC 29, don’t know if he has written more, but he probably doesn’t need to.

        Proud to be part of the 21st Century Democratic Majority Party of the 3M's.. Multiracial,Multigender and MiddleClass

        by LOrion on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:38:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Wow. Great announcement by Holder. (7+ / 0-)

    Nailed it.

    "For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it." - President Barack Obama, Second Inaugural Address, January 21, 2013.

    by surfermom on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:36:51 AM PST

    •  Now if he would (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass

      just do something about his "our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it."

      When will he take action to extend UE, when will he stop fining financial institutions (taking a cut of their pie) and finally prosecute those that stole from homeowners.

      I am hoping, but not hopeful.

      Don't meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

      by Whitewitch on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:33:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  When we make him do it (0+ / 0-)

        There is an old Hasidic koan in which a Hasid asked his Rabbi why the Messiah has not yet come. The reply was, "Because we are the same today as we were yesterday."

        Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

        by Mokurai on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 12:17:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Utah will recognise them too. (11+ / 0-)

    They may try to drag their heels, but the SCOTUS has already ruled on that point.

    The moment Utah attempts to deny a benefit or service that has ANY Federal input, they are wide open to a 1300 strong class action suit, which they will lose.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:37:05 AM PST

  •  That part of the Utah ban (more) unconstitutional (3+ / 0-)

    Under the Full Faith And Credit clause, Utah pretty much has to recognize the actions of other states as valid, so the part of the initiative that bans recognition of all gay marriages is likely to fall during the court proceeding anyway. I know the courts have avoided that ruling so far, but Utah is going to force the courts to address it at this point IMHO.

    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

    by Phoenix Rising on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:39:07 AM PST

    •  SCOTUS may still opt to simply (3+ / 0-)

      deny cert on this issue allowing it to "percolate" at the appellate level until a Circuit conflict forces their hand. No one knows.

    •  Public Policy Exception (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, bythesea

      They'll certainly claim it.

    •  DOMA versus Full Faith and Credit (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass

      I'd be careful about this statement:

      Under the Full Faith And Credit clause, Utah pretty much has to recognize the actions of other states as valid, so the part of the initiative that bans recognition of all gay marriages is likely to fall during the court proceeding anyway.
      As GLAAD explains:
      The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down Section 3 of DOMA which prevented the federal government from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples, because it violated the constitution’s “equal protection” promise.

      The Supreme Court case did not challenge Section 2 of DOMA. Section 2 declares that all states and territories have the right to deny recognition of the marriage of same sex couples that originated in states where they are legally recognized.

      We still haven't had a ruling on whether section 2 of DOMA is constitutional.  States have long enjoyed the right to deny full faith and credit to certain official acts of other states under the "public policy exception" to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  So getting the Supreme Court to strike down section 2 is likely to involve a much tougher climb than the Windsor case did.  It could very well happen, but it's obviously not a given.

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

      by FogCityJohn on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:14:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Any positive change is going to be a tough climb (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        commonmass, FogCityJohn

        That is, I suppose, the nature of things that need the attention of the Supreme Court. They don't get the easy ones.

        On the other hand, it would seem to me that in cases where a state has heretofore not invoked the public policy exception and is now proposing to do so in the case of such a large class of marriages (now recognized in 17 states and the District of Columbia), that state would have to make exceedingly strong arguments to support a contention that they are not simply expressing animus.

        I'd think that Section 2 of DOMA would fall for the same reason that Section 3 did: it creates a class of marriages for the sole and express purpose of NOT recognizing them and therefore for the purpose of disadvantaging the individuals in those marriages. The Court has already signaled a disinclination to permit that sort of thing.

        •  True enough (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sfbob

          I think it's almost impossible to contend these same-sex marriage bans are the product of anything other than animus, but those arguments will nonetheless be made.

          I hope the Supreme Court (or at least five members of it) will again conclude that these bans don't qualify for the public policy exception.  They're not like the other types of legislation that have passed muster, I don't think.  This area of the law is made even more complicated because, IIRC, the cases distinguish between the effect states must accord to sister-state "judgments" and the effect they must accord to other acts.  

          Anway, we'll see what the courts do.  I suspect the Supreme Court will try to avoid decision of this question for as long as it reasonably can.

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

          by FogCityJohn on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 01:28:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  That still hasn't been determined (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass

      Sec. III of DOMA is still in effect -- meaning states don't have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states unless ordered to by a court (as in the case in OR). Only Sec. II of DOMA has been set aside, the part that says that the federal government can't recognize same-sex marriages. This could be the case that finishes DOMA once and for all and establishes full faith and credit for marriage equality (IANAL), but it might take a year or two to get from the 10th Circuit all the way to SCOTUS.

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:29:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Switch III for II and vice versa (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sfbob, commonmass

        in my post -- I was told there would be no math.

        There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

        by Cali Scribe on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:30:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, and you'd have to round it all off (0+ / 0-)

          to the nearest I as there is no "0". Which is why the Romans could never have invented binary code. LOL.

          Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

          by commonmass on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:51:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  During the Crusades some in the Catholic Church (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            commonmass

            denounced 0 as blasphemy against the Creator when Fibonacci introduced Arabic numerals to Europe. See, for example, the book Nothing Matters, about the history of 0, which states that William of Malmesbury denounced 0 as the work of the devil and dangerous Saracen magic.

            There were other objections to Arabic numerals in commerce, such as fear of forgery, leading to laws against their use for centuries. No church clock ever showed a 0 hour. That is why to this day the initial hour on the twelve-hour clock is 12, or even XII. World time and US Military time have gone to the 24-hour clock starting at 00:00 (Oh-dark-hundred) and continuing to 23:59:59.9999…

            Then you have Copernicus, Darwin, and the constellation of icky reproductive and family rights, including Marriage Equality.

            Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

            by Mokurai on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 01:30:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Good. People marry themselves after all (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass

    It's true.  Go research the sacriment of marriage.  The priest doesn't marry two people.  Nor a judge or government official.  The two people who choose to get married, marry themselves.  They say "I Do" and it's done.  Everyone else, EVERYONE, is just a witness.

    It's turning into one of the biggest crimes against people on behalf of government, that we have to beg and plead government to recognize something it doesn't have a damn thing to do with.

    The only thing, and I do mean ONLY thing a government can do is refuse to grant a government benefit to a marriage.  In every state where gay marriage isn't legal, those people can marry themselves today, and they ARE married.  They may be denied government recongnition, but that doesn't change the facts.

    Nowhere is gay marriage "illegal" because government has no power to stop it.  It's only not legally recognized.  We really need to start taking back much of the authority that we have ceeded.

    •  Thanks for pointing out that point. (4+ / 0-)

      That's exactly right: it's the couple that does the marrying and the clergy or judge simply certifies it as a legal witness. Now, clergy may bless the couple in the course of a wedding ceremony, but it's the couple that does the marrying.

      Which is something I wonder if some of the opponents of same-sex marriage miss. There seems to be a tremendous lack of understanding about what marriage is with religious bigots, whom I have often found to have a really poor understanding of traditional, mainstream Christian theology.

      Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

      by commonmass on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:03:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  exactly right!!! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Norm in Chicago, commonmass

      I wish more people understood this

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:30:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, when Terun and I were in marriage prep (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority

        with our Priest, that was one of the things he talked about early on. "I'm sure you know this, Bill, but let's all three talk together about some of the theology surrounding how the Episcopal Church understands marriage..."

        I would be highly surprised if there is an Episcopal priest anywhere in the country who would not address this theological point when preparing a couple for marriage.

        Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

        by commonmass on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:48:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This is good news, but not enough. (4+ / 0-)

    I have friends with newborns and babies due who were going to be able to put both parents on the birth certificate.  

    I hope this gets taken care of soon.

    I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

    by the dogs sockpuppet on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:49:49 AM PST

    •  Seems to me they can still do that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass

      Parents don't have to be married, legally or otherwise, do they?

      •  In the state of Utah, an unmarried couple (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        commonmass, sfbob, jlms qkw

        even of different sexes is limited based on Utah law.

        I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

        by the dogs sockpuppet on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:15:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here's an excerpt: (0+ / 0-)
        When an unmarried mother gives birth, the biological father of the child does not automatically have any of the legal rights or duties that go along with fatherhood. The law allows the mother, child, father or State of Utah to legally establish that a man is the father of a child. When this occurs, the child's paternity has been established. "Paternity establishment" gives unmarried parents all of the same rights and duties that married parents have when a child is born.

        I want to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night. -Bishop G. Brewer

        by the dogs sockpuppet on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:53:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  But this does show how vile the SCOTUS stay is (3+ / 0-)

    The Utah law is unconstitutional.  Everyone knows it.  But rather than let the marriages continue (and be federally recognized even as Utah refused to), while SCOTUS takes it's sweet time admitting reality, they issue a stay.

    Why?  The unconstitutional law will be overturned.  All SCOTUS has done is deny legal rights to everyone who could have been married in the meantime.  Disgusting.

    •  Sadly, it's not unconstitutional until (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, merrywidow

      either Kennedy says it is, or someone liberal replaces him or one of the other conservative justices.  And if it were held to be constitutional, then all these marriages will be nullified.

      "Harass us, because we really do pay attention. Look at who's on the ballot, and vote for the candidate you agree with the most. The next time, you get better choices." - Barney Frank

      by anonevent on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:08:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Question For Lawyers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass

    Will the administrations recognition of these marriages be helpful in the appeal?

    •  Probably not in any legal sense. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TooFolkGR, commonmass, sfbob

      The courts are the ultimate authority on what the Constitution requires.  That the federal government has decided to recognize these marriages as valid certainly doesn't hurt, but I don't really see how it adds anything decisive to the case.

      Utah's antigay amendment will rise or fall on the merits of the constitutional arguments.  So while the administration's action is kind of a nice piece of background information, I think its effect is a bit like the slow progress of marriage equality in other states.  It'll help give the courts some political comfort if they decide to strike down Utah's amendment, but I don't think it adds anything legally in the strict sense.

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

      by FogCityJohn on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:20:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, clearly the administration continues to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bythesea, sfbob

    affirm their commitment to supporting marriage equality. I am going to be very interested in what the Supreme Court eventually has to say.

    Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

    by commonmass on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:57:02 AM PST

  •  Republished to Kossacks for Marriage Equality. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bythesea

    Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

    by commonmass on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:58:05 AM PST

  •  Shoved Down Their Throat Like A Million Huge Cocks (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, merrywidow, doroma
    "Just promise me," said Mr. Phillips, fumbling for his pipe cleaners, "that no matter how wonderful the dance may be tonight, and no matter what Jeff and you may be feeling ... promise me that you won't give him a blowjob."

    "A w-what?" stammered Connie, backing away slightly. "A blowjob," Mr. Phillips repeated. "You know, when a fellow forces his dork down your throat and makes you suck on it until he eventually shoots his pecker-snot all over your tonsils."

    In the silence that followed, Connie, suddenly quite pale, looked beseechingly from Mrs. Phillips to Jeff, both of whom could only avert their eyes to the carpet. "Oh my God," gasped Connie, "th-that's... horrible... sickening..!" "You bet it is," replied Mr. Phillips, puffing his pipe alight, "just ask your mother."

    First Blowjob
    National Lampoon
    -Doug Kenney

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 09:59:01 AM PST

    •  ew. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jlms qkw

      Why the heck do we have random rape imagery in the comments that hasn't been HRed out of sight?  

      •  It is very offensive humor, to be sure, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Old Sailor

        but it is not random, IMO. One of the arguments opponents of same-sex marriage use is that the LGBT community is trying to "shove their agenda down our throats", which is itself rape imagery.

        Frankly, I think this bit of adolescent humor from National Lampoon illustrates just why the "shove the agenda down our throats" meme is so very highly offensive, which in my opinion, it is.

        Of course, the right--especially the religious right--is fond of rape in general, apparently.

        Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

        by commonmass on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:57:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  a little disingenuous (0+ / 0-)

          I do know why people use it.  I don't, however, think it's at all appropriate to see in the comments, not in this form.  

          •  I don't know if I'm being disingenuous: (0+ / 0-)

            I had a lesbian professor in college who used to draw those kinds of analogies all the time, to point this stuff out. However, if I had posted that comment, I would have followed it up with what I said in mine.

            Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

            by commonmass on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 02:40:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Equality...Unstoppable. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass


    More is expected from us. The challenge in life is finding out the names of those who really give a rip.

    by glb3 on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:02:33 AM PST

  •  Oh Noes! Going To Encourage Gay LDS To Come Out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass

    ....which would cause a disproportionate amount of anxiety.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:02:34 AM PST

  •  There's a bigger reason for Utah (the Mormons) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, jlms qkw

    to oppose same sex marriages than is generally known or understood.

    The Mormon Church has never denounced (or abandoned) polygamy. The 1890 "revelation" merely stated that since the laws against polygamy were upheld by the federal Supreme Court the head of the church would "submit to those laws" and use his influence over the members to "do likewise".

    The real fear of the LDS Church is that all laws governing marriage may be found unconstitutional (not just the same sex ones) and thereby put them in one hell of a mess. The recent federal court ruling against Utah's "unlawful cohabitation" law is only the beginning of the Mormon Church's problems regarding this issue.

    GOP - "Home of the Whopper!"

    by Templar on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:13:48 AM PST

    •  But why? they could marry as many wives (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Templar

      as they wanted legally if there were no laws, would that embarass them , is that what you mean? Their extremists would ruin the "religion"

      "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

      by merrywidow on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:35:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I only have a minute to answer but the main (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        merrywidow

        problem is the teachings of Brigham Young and other prominent  leaders that only polygamists go to the highest part of heaven. The present leaders do their best to wiggle out of these statements, but they were published "to the world" and cannot be disputed.

        The fundamentalists Mormons (like Kody Brown) still practice polygamy, but are denounced by the LDS church. They would have to accept them if polygamy were again legal. Also, the Church would be forced to"come clean" to their members regarding the true history and doctrinal aspects of polygamy which they have not done.

        GOP - "Home of the Whopper!"

        by Templar on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 11:00:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  this is also in court right now (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, Templar

      the state is getting ready to  appeal on the brown v. ?herbert case.  

      Ted Kennedy: “The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die…”

      by jlms qkw on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:46:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This creates a mess for filing income taxes. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, merrywidow

    If they submit taxes as married, filing jointly federally .... how are these couples supposed to file their state income taxes?

    Just another reason why federal law needs to trump state law and make all marriages recognized from state to state.

    “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

    by hungrycoyote on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:16:20 AM PST

    •  I agree, but... (0+ / 0-)

      I am firmly 100% behind the decision on moral and ethical grounds...

      But legally? Ai ai ai...

      There is no federal institution of marriage, just as there is no federal institution of divorce. If the law in Utah re: same-sex marriage is overturned (and the state returns to not allowing them), what does that mean for when the same-sex marriages/not marriages break up? They won't be able to be divorced, because they're not "married." And there is no federal process for divorce. So, are these couple now married in perpetuity in the eyes of the Fed?

      If the Supreme Court finds that the ban is unconstitutional, then there's no problem. But otherwise, I see some potential issues... But not being a constitutional scholar, I certainly may be missing some aspect here?

    •  It's just the opposite of how we did it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cali Scribe, hungrycoyote

      before the Federal government recognized our marriages: you used to have to file separately for Federal purposes and you could jointly in your equality State. In Utah, they'll be able to file jointly for Federal returns but will have to file separately for State purposes.

      Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

      by commonmass on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:30:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  not really (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, hungrycoyote

      Well, maybe it does, but it is not a unique or new problem.  We've known for a while that if a Utah same-sex couple had say a California marriage license, that the federal government would recognize it for federal purposes.  In other words, your marriage just needed to be legal in a jurisdiction; not necessarily the one where you lived.  The question is whether a Utah marriage license that Utah doesn't recognize counts as being married in a jurisdiction.  If at least one of the other 17 states was willing to honor the marriage licenses[or any foreign country for that matter], then they count for federal purposes.  The announcement just skips the confusion around this step and cuts to the chase and says they all count for federal purposes.

    •  I wonder what this does for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass

      Social Security -- even though the state refuses to recognize same-sex marriage, would a person in one of these marriages still be able to file for Social Security survivor's benefits if their spouse dies? What about those couples who were married out of state then moved to Utah (maybe to care for an aging parent) and one partner died?

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:39:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  PBO not perfect, but he is causing a revolution (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bythesea, commonmass, doroma, KJB Oregon

    in gay rights, his legacy of expanded civil rights will be historic

    "The poor can never be made to suffer enough." Jimmy Breslin

    by merrywidow on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:34:11 AM PST

    •  I agree. The good things this admistration has (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      merrywidow, KJB Oregon

      done are revolutionary in how good they are. All Presidents are flawed--sometimes deeply flawed--but very few do anything truly historic AND deeply good and just at the same time. Obama is one of those Presidents who has done something revolutionary, historic, and deeply good and to do this in the civil rights arena has ALWAYS been nearly impossible to achieve.

      Pope Francis: the Thumb of Christ in the eyes of the Pharisees.

      by commonmass on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:42:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  commie (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass

    That commie, what will faux news say about this travesty against the constitution

  •  I don't see why Utah folks should be upset (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass

    Had the decision gone the other way allowing same-sex folks to marry in the interim, Utah would have still chosen to not recognize their validity. For now. But there will be same-sex marriage in Utah and everywhere in this country.
    Cue: "We Are the Wave" song by Harry Belafonte.
    (I'd insert the link but can't get to it now.)
     

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by deebee on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 10:53:09 AM PST

  •  Excellent! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma
  •  Hoo-hoo, that's like a BIG drop of water in the... (0+ / 0-)

    GOP/TPer hot oil of their deep fryer!

    Phhhhssshhhhhttt! :)

    Excellent.

    Ugh. --UB.

    "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

    by unclebucky on Fri Jan 10, 2014 at 12:55:07 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site