Gay marriage Ban Struck Down in Utah.

[Nhoj]

Ah, the first cheap Mandela quote.

I'm loving your butthurt in this thread. I can virtually hear you seething.

It is glorious to see his whining. Simply glorious.

This is the ruling that will help lose Utah Democrats UT-04. Glorious for Mia Love.

Im not sure why you imply they had a chance anyways. Was another matheson looking at running or something?

[Zioneer]

Ah, the first cheap Mandela quote.

I'm loving your butthurt in this thread. I can virtually hear you seething.

It is glorious to see his whining. Simply glorious.

This is the ruling that will help lose Utah Democrats UT-04. Glorious for Mia Love.

They were already going to lose it, and anyone who cares all that much is already aware that the Mathesons and any other serious Utah Dem UT-04 candidate doesn't support gay marriage.

Also, my sister can now get married to her girlfriend, so I couldn't care less about what you think.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I think this ruling may actually be a slight electoral boost to more liberal candidates (in Utah and elsewhere). It helps vindicate and encourage the liberal base. They'll fight to keep the ruling from being overturned.

The right-wingers who were angered by this ruling were already likely voters.

[Hifly]

Ah, the first cheap Mandela quote.

I'm loving your butthurt in this thread. I can virtually hear you seething.

It is glorious to see his whining. Simply glorious.

This is the ruling that will help lose Utah Democrats UT-04. Glorious for Mia Love.

They were already going to lose it, and anyone who cares all that much is already aware that the Mathesons and any other serious Utah Dem UT-04 candidate doesn't support gay marriage.

Also, my sister can now get married to her girlfriend, so I couldn't care less about what you think.

You seem to dispute the notion that Dems were already going to lose it in the other thread about Matheson's retirement.
But yeh, this will help them lose it. Then you can go on Dailykos and whine about how Utah doesn't send any Democrats to congress.
Congratulations to your sister.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Wonderful news, though I am hoping that the SCOTUS will stick to Utah and not force whatever decision they make on the nation.

Anyway, its poetic justice to see Utah of all places legalizing gay marriage, and I am thrilled to see so many people taking advantage of their long denied rights.

[RedSLC]

Ah, the first cheap Mandela quote.

I'm loving your butthurt in this thread. I can virtually hear you seething.

It is glorious to see his whining. Simply glorious.

This is the ruling that will help lose Utah Democrats UT-04. Glorious for Mia Love.

They were already going to lose it, and anyone who cares all that much is already aware that the Mathesons and any other serious Utah Dem UT-04 candidate doesn't support gay marriage.

Also, my sister can now get married to her girlfriend, so I couldn't care less about what you think.

You seem to dispute the notion that Dems were already going to lose it in the other thread about Matheson's retirement.
But yeh, this will help them lose it. Then you can go on Dailykos and whine about how Utah doesn't send any Democrats to congress.
Congratulations to your sister.

I think what he means is that without Matheson, democrats were going to lose this regardless of the ruling.

Anyway, I don't think this would have a significant impact, even if Matheson was still in. As Zioneer said, Matheson (any presumably, any other prospective UT-4 candidate) doesn't support gay marriage, and the ruling was completely out of his hands. That, and Matheson got most of his support fro the district's share of Salt Lake County, which is actually one of the most "moderate" counties on the issue (although it takes in some of the more conservative parts of the county), and is somewhat more focused on economic conservativism.  Most of the more hardcore anti-gay-marriage voters in the district are straight-ticket R voters that probably wouldn't have voted D anyway.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Ah, the first cheap Mandela quote.

I'm loving your butthurt in this thread. I can virtually hear you seething.

It is glorious to see his whining. Simply glorious.

This is the ruling that will help lose Utah Democrats UT-04. Glorious for Mia Love.

Why don't you go whine at Free Republic, you nasty little troll.   

[Hifly]

Ah, the first cheap Mandela quote.

I'm loving your butthurt in this thread. I can virtually hear you seething.

It is glorious to see his whining. Simply glorious.

This is the ruling that will help lose Utah Democrats UT-04. Glorious for Mia Love.

Why don't you go whine at Free Republic, you nasty little troll.   

I have no idea what that is. Is holding opinions different to yours a qualification for being a "troll"?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Ah, the first cheap Mandela quote.

I'm loving your butthurt in this thread. I can virtually hear you seething.

It is glorious to see his whining. Simply glorious.

This is the ruling that will help lose Utah Democrats UT-04. Glorious for Mia Love.

Why don't you go whine at Free Republic, you nasty little troll.   

Have you read any of his other posts? He hardly is a conservative. Why don't you go to RevLeft and post another "OMG Republicans are stoopid" thread instead of calling out your own kind.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

While I'd much rather see this done through legislature than the courts, I don't see a SCOTUS ruling itself in favor of government recognizing gay marriage as being divisive in the manner of Roe in the long term.  What would put the issue closer to that level of divisiveness over the Court is if they were to rule that the law cannot allow for private institutions to discriminate between gay and straight marriages.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A question for those comparing this to Roe.

What Percentage of Americans would have to back gay marriage for you to say:     

"Okay, the Country is ready for this now."  ?

I'd say 60% and 37-40 States should be good.

The cause for marriage equality seems to have a pretty bright future through State initiatives, and the SC decision could be limited to making the last few opponents abide once everyone else already has.

60% support seems more than reasonable by 2020, but thirty-seven to forty states is kind of a stretch.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

People who conform their beliefs to those of a certain electorate out of fear of losing them are cowards in the worst degree.

This ruling has literally no impact on Matheson's seat, Mary Landrieu's seat, or any other Democrat's seat and I don't even know why we're debating this.

[Joe Republic]

Ok, this 'hifly' concern troll is pretty awful.

"This is going to lose UT-4 for the Democrats!!"
"No, they were going to lose it anyway."
"Well, this ruling isn't going to help them in UT-4."
"Okay, but again, they were losing it anyway."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ah, the first cheap Mandela quote.

I'm loving your butthurt in this thread. I can virtually hear you seething.

It is glorious to see his whining. Simply glorious.

This is the ruling that will help lose Utah Democrats UT-04. Glorious for Mia Love.

LOL, all this will do is make Mia Love win by very slightly more. Matheson and other members of the House didn't get to vote on confirming this judge. As for Utah's 2 Senate Republicans, Lee and Hatch, they both supported the judge. Maybe they should be the ones losing votes, haha.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Okay, I just spent over a hour cleaning up a rather nasty flamewar which ended up injuring both sides and I easily could have handed out more points if I hadn't used what was was left of my Christmas spirit to be generous.  I might have even sent some points towards a certain Floridian for egging them on somewhat if was in Scroogy mood.  Now I'm going to unlock this, but if I end up get distracted from making Christmas cookies this evening, it won't be just my cookies that get singed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Utah Senator Mike Lee on Robert Shelby last year

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.fedsocblog.com/blog/sen._mike_lee_holds_fast_to_principle_with_no_votes_for_judicial_nominees/

LOL

[Horus]

Ah, the first cheap Mandela quote.

I'm loving your butthurt in this thread. I can virtually hear you seething.

It is glorious to see his whining. Simply glorious.

This is the ruling that will help lose Utah Democrats UT-04. Glorious for Mia Love.

Why don't you go whine at Free Republic, you nasty little troll.  

Have you read any of his other posts? He hardly is a conservative. Why don't you go to RevLeft and post another "OMG Republicans are stoopid" thread instead of calling out your own kind.

From what I can tell he isn't really a liberal or a conservative, but a concern-trolling populist-authoritarianish guy.

[Blue3]

I'm surprised I haven't heard of rioting in the streets yet.

[Indy Texas]

I'm surprised I haven't heard of rioting in the streets yet.

Mormons are far too well-behaved for such things.

But when they announced the decision on the news, I heard that one Mormon man in Provo excused himself from the dinner table, went into the bathroom, shut the door, stuffed a towel under the door to soundproof it, and said "Gosh darn it all to heck!" It was quite the scandal. Everyone in his ward is talking about it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm surprised I haven't heard of rioting in the streets yet.

Mormons are far too well-behaved for such things.

But when they announced the decision on the news, I heard that one Mormon man in Provo excused himself from the dinner table, went into the bathroom, shut the door, stuffed a towel under the door to soundproof it, and said "Gosh darn it all to heck!" It was quite the scandal. Everyone in his ward is talking about it.

Quite understandable.  Having the radio on during dinner? Dinner is a time to connect with your family, not be distracted by electronics.  He should be ashamed of letting such a thing happen in his home.

[H. Ross Peron]

To be fully honest, I'm a bit worried that it's too soon for such a ruling. This might well turn into a Roe vs. Wade, abruptly blocking the natural evolution of public opinion and enraging the religious right. So far, there isn't even a clear majority in America that supports SSM... If let things happen normally, chances are that by 2020 that majority will be overwhelming. But if gay marriage is forced down the conservatives' throat by the SCOTUS now, chances are we'll get the same never-ending debates on this, with possibly very bad repercussions on assorted issues such as anti-discrimination laws or adoption.

Sorry for the concern trolling.

Ultimately I don't think gay marriage will end up being an emotional issue on the same line as abortion was and is. Consider for example that a decade ago most liberal politicians (including pro-choice ones) opposed gay SSM, yet now there is virtually no politician who is supportive of abortion rights and opposed to gay marriage but there is a noticeable continigent who hold to the reverse combination (Bob Casey, Joe Donnelly etc.). It'll end up more like laws that legalized no-fault divorce in the long-run-something bemoaned by traditionalists but not something that is absolutely urgent to them like abortion.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

For some reason I expected this thread to be getting way more posts. Gay marriage in Utah, LOL.

[Hifly]

For some reason I expected this thread to be getting way more posts. Gay marriage in Utah, LOL.

There were but they were deleted

[politicallefty]

Huh?  This case will not be heard by the entire circuit en banc.  It's going to be a 3 judge panel. 

Also, you're forgetting about the senior status judges who are 6-4 Republican nominees.

Yeah, I know it's a 3-judge panel first (which can realistically result in a wide array of potential rulings), but it's quite possible that this case could be heard en banc depending on that ruling. In that case, I don't think the senior status judges have votes. If it does reach that point, it's also possible that Obama's current (two) nominees will have filled the remaining vacancies, one of which has already passed the Judiciary Committee. Either way, if the Tenth Circuit in any form upholds the district court ruling, I don't see how it doesn't get to the Supreme Court, as there would essentially be a circuit split.

[bedstuy]

Huh?  This case will not be heard by the entire circuit en banc.  It's going to be a 3 judge panel. 

Also, you're forgetting about the senior status judges who are 6-4 Republican nominees.

Yeah, I know it's a 3-judge panel first (which can realistically result in a wide array of potential rulings), but it's quite possible that this case could be heard en banc depending on that ruling. In that case, I don't think the senior status judges have votes. If it does reach that point, it's also possible that Obama's current (two) nominees will have filled the remaining vacancies, one of which has already passed the Judiciary Committee. Either way, if the Tenth Circuit in any form upholds the district court ruling, I don't see how it doesn't get to the Supreme Court, as there would essentially be a circuit split.

I beg to differ.  Rehearing en banc is an extraordinary procedure for a specific purpose of correcting a major error or conflict with the circuit's precedents.  It's pretty difficult to have an obvious conflict in a case where the precedent in the circuit is thin.  This is the first post Hollingsworth case of its kind.  What precedent of the circuit would it conflict with?