Connect with us

Utah Federal Appeals Court Ruling Finds Same-Sex Marriage Bans ‘Serve Only To Oppress’

Published

on

A federal appeals court finds a right to marriage for same-sex couples, and, in an historic ruling, not only finds Utah’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional — upholding a lower court ruling — it calls bans on same-sex marriage oppressive.

In a two to one decision today, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the decision by Judge Robert Shelby’s December that found Utah’s Amendment 3, banning same-sex marriage, unconstitutional.

“We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm. … [Under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States Constitution, 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, and that Amendment 3 and similar statutory enactments do not withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

As noted by the court in its 108 page ruling (PDF), this is the first time the 10th Circuit has taken up the issue of same-sex marriage bans. And while more than 15 federal judges have upheld marriage equality as a fundamental right across the nation, this is the first such appellate court to make such a ruling.

And the court did not mince words about its views that Amendment 3 is “oppressive:”

The drafters of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments “knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.” Id. at 579. A generation ago, recognition of the fundamental right to marry as applying to persons of the same sex might have been unimaginable. A generation ago, the declaration by gay and lesbian couples of what may have been in their hearts would have had to remain unspoken. Not until contemporary times have laws stigmatizing or even criminalizing gay men and women been felled, allowing their relationships to surface to an open society.

The court also went directly after Utah’s claims that children of same-sex parents are worse off than children of opposite-sex parents, saying:

“[Bans on same-sex marriage] deny to the children of same-sex couples the recognition essential to stability, predictability, and dignity”

One of the biggest arguments Utah made before the court was that Amendment 3 should be upheld because “the majority of Utah citizens are in favor of it.” The 10th Circuit strongly disagreed, saying that fundamental rights cannot be decided at the ballot box.

“Plaintiffs in this case have convinced us that Amendment 3 violates their fundamental right to marry and to have their marriages recognized. We may not deny them relief based on a mere preference that their arguments be settled elsewhere. Nor may we defer to majority will in dealing with matters so central to personal autonomy. The protection and exercise of fundamental rights are not matters for opinion polls or the ballot box. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

The court also reemphasized that its ruling (like all other rulings in favor of same-sex marriage) does not in anyway force a religious institution to perform any ceremonies they do not with to.

“We also emphasize, as did the district court, that today’s decision relates solely to civil marriage. See Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1214 (“[T]he court notes that its decision does not mandate any change for religious institutions, which may continue to express their own moral viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage.”). Plaintiffs must be accorded the same legal status presently granted to married couples, but religious institutions remain as free as they always have been to practice their sacraments and traditions as they see fit.”

The 10th Circuit has placed a stay on its ruling, which means that no further marriages by same-sex couples will take place while Utah decides whether to appeal the ruling (they presumably will) to the U.S. Supreme Court. It could be 2015 before the high court takes up the case, if the court chooses to take it up at all.

Meanwhile, Utah’s second lawsuit over same-sex marriages, which is being brought by the Utah ACLU, is also before the 10th Circuit court. In that case, which has not received a ruling yet, same-sex couples are suing the state for refusing to allow them to legally adopt the children they are already raising. The adoption process was begun while same-sex marriage was legal in Utah, before the stay was put in place.

Elsewhere in the country, a judge in Indiana also ruled today that that state’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, and struck down that law.

You can read the full ruling from the 10th Circuit here.

 

Image: Moudi Sbeity (R) and Derek Kitchen, plaintiffs in Utah’s freedom to marry case. Photo by National Center for Lesbian Rights

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

At Faith-Based Event Trump Courts Religious CEOs, Uses Expletive, Calls Dems ‘Evil’

Published

on

During a White House Faith Office event focused on renewing America “spiritually and financially,” President Donald Trump lashed out at “evil” Democrats and used an expletive while venting about his indictments and impeachments.

The meeting was attended by about 60 CEOs and business leaders who have donated to faith-based causes, in an attempt to persuade them to invest in the White House Faith Office, according to Fox News.

“White House Faith Office senior advisor Pastor Paula White, Faith Director Jenny Korn, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Small Business Administrator Kelly Loeffler will attend the event and also deliver remarks,” Fox News also reported.

READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz

Trump was “expected to explain why the White House Faith Office is so important to his agenda,” and “encourage business leaders to help the Trump administration, specifically on programs concerning foster care and adoption, fatherhood initiatives, poverty alleviation, substance abuse and prisoner reentry.”

But the President also explained (video below) “one thing” about Democrats: “they have bad policy, they’re evil people in many ways, but they stick together,” he claimed.

Trump warned that if Republicans don’t stand together “and make the economy strong…you’re gonna literally have perhaps a depression, where you people so rich, so beautiful, so nice to look at, will be totally busted. And let’s see how long your wife stays with you, your beautiful — she’ll stay with you for about three weeks and she’ll say, ‘Darling, I can’t take you anymore. I can’t take it anymore, darling, I’m leaving you’.”

The President also denounced his indictments and impeachments.

“Indicted five times, impeached two times, all b——-, right?” he told the group. “Oh, terrible stuff, and I got impeached for making a perfect phone call.”

READ MORE: ‘Like Taking a Knife to a Gunfight’: Trump’s Russia Tariffs of ‘About 100%’ Mocked

Trump also claimed that he is “getting rid of” the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 provision in the tax code that bans  certain non-profits, including groups like churches, from endorsing political candidates. It has never been fully enforced, and no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status solely for violations of that law.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation denounced the meeting’s agenda.

“Trump is again blurring the line between church and state,” FFRF wrote. “A president shouldn’t be rewarding CEOs for promoting religion or using public office to advance a ‘faith-centered’ agenda. Government must serve all Americans — not just the religious.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Absolute Cringe’: DHS Ridiculed After Attacking CNN Report—by Confirming It

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘Like Taking a Knife to a Gunfight’: Trump’s Russia Tariffs of ‘About 100%’ Mocked

Published

on

For the past few days, President Donald Trump and his allies have been teasing what was billed as a major announcement about Russia. On Monday, the President issued a warning to President Vladimir Putin: sign a cease-fire agreement within 50 days with Ukraine or face tariffs of “about 100%” on Russian goods imported into the United States.

“I am very disappointed with President Putin,” Trump said on Sunday. “I thought he was somebody that meant what he said. And he’ll talk so beautifully and then he’ll bomb people at night. We don’t like that.”

“I’m disappointed in President Putin because I thought we would have had a deal two months ago,” Trump declared on Monday from the Oval Office, continuing what has been a rare distancing from the Russian dictator. But in announcing his secondary tariffs of about 100%, Trump added, “I hope we don’t have to do it.”

Trump called the tariffs “major” and “very severe,” while telling reporters that he speaks to Putin “a lot.”

READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz

He also defended giving Russia 50 days notice by saying, “I think it’s a very short period of time,” and, “I’ve just really been involved in this not very long. It wasn’t an initial focus. This is a Biden war. This is a Democrat war.”

Critics disagree.

Some observers are noting that Trump ran for re-election last year on the promise he would end Russia’s war against Ukraine in one day. Some also note that 50 days gives Putin a lot of time to inflict further damage on Ukraine, although Trump also announced he is authorizing Patriot missiles to go to Ukraine.

Technologist, historian, and researcher Dave Troy, who has written extensively on Russia, noted: “Trump’s announcement on Russia/Ukraine is not significant. 1) we’re not paying for weapons, we are selling them to NATO, 2) secondary 100% tariffs isolate the US from Russia sphere of influence, a strategic goal for Putin, 3) 50 day window provides pretext for attack escalation.”

Former Obama National Security Council official Tommy Vietor wrote: “I’m glad that Trump finally figured out that Putin is a liar who can’t be trusted & has chosen to support Ukraine, but: 1) he ran on ending this war in 24 hours and failed, 2) he said sending weapons to Ukraine would lead to World War 3, but now is doing exactly what Biden did.”

Last year, the U.S. imported only $3 billion from Russia, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

READ MORE: GOP Senator Denounces Anti-ICE Democrats as ‘Pawns’ of an ‘Anarchist Agenda’

“Congress has been waiting on Trump’s green light for a bipartisan bill that would slap 500% tariffs on any country doing business with Russia,” reported Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich. Later, she added that Trump appears supportive of the legislation, although he said, “I’m not sure we need it, but it’s certainly good that they’re doing it.”

“Trump’s big reveal on Russia,” observed journalist Marcy Wheeler, “is to give Putin more time than he is giving America’s nominal allies to do what he demands, 50 days instead of 20.”

Daily Beast columnist and creator of the Russian Media Monitor, Julia Davis, wrote: “Seems like this ‘major announcement’ was teased ad nauseam solely to distract from the Epstein fallout. We already knew about selling Patriots to Europe. Trump is giving Putin 50 more days to bomb Ukrainians before he considers doing anything about it.”

Rina Shah, a Senior Fellow at the Rainey Center for Public Policy, wrote: “Threatening tariffs on Russia to try to settle its 3+ year war on Ukraine? This is like taking a knife to a gunfight.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Absolute Cringe’: DHS Ridiculed After Attacking CNN Report—by Confirming It

 

This article was updated to include the quote from Julia Davis

Continue Reading

News

Trump Official: Never Mind Rising Costs, President’s ‘Leadership’ Is Making Prices Drop

Published

on

Prices across a wide range of sectors have been rising, and economists expect once President Donald Trump’s tariffs fully go into effect the increase may be substantial, but according to one top Trump official prices are dropping. He credits “patriotism” and the President’s “leadership.”

“Economists, researchers and analysts have warned that President Donald Trump’s sweeping trade policy of tacking steep tariffs on most goods that come into America will deliver a taxing blow to consumers via higher prices,” CNN reported last week, while noting that “recent months’ economic data has shown that overall inflation has remained fairly tame.”

The price of gas for example, may be down by 11.9% (yet nowhere near as low as what President Trump claims), but electricity and natural gas costs are up.

READ MORE: ‘Dumb-Dumb’: Fox News Host Declares Rising Democrat a ‘Mental Deficient’ Amid Senate Buzz

Through the end of May, food prices are up 2.9%, meats, poultry, fish, and eggs are up overall 6.1%, electricity is up 4.5%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Also, rents are up 3.8%, and auto insurance is up 7%.

Bottom line, inflation is currently at 2.4%. The new report is due to be out on Tuesday, and expected to show significant price increases. One prediction shows inflation is expected to jump to 2.7% in the upcoming report.

White House Director of the National Economic Council (NEC), Kevin Hassett, offered a different take.

On CNBC on Monday (video below), Hassett pointed to what he says is a report from the Council of Economic Advisers “that showed that import prices into the U.S are dropping, actually dropping during all this.”

He points to what he calls President Donald Trump’s “leadership” for the decrease in at least some prices.

Hassett says his “theory” as “an economist of why that is, is that Americans, because of President Trump’s leadership, have recognized that when they buy an American product, they not only get perhaps a better product, certainly a better product, most of the time, but they’re also making their community stronger.”

READ MORE: GOP Senator Denounces Anti-ICE Democrats as ‘Pawns’ of an ‘Anarchist Agenda’

“And so there’s, I think a lot of patriotism in the data,” Hassett insisted.

“The bottom line is people prefer American products, and so therefore, the demand for imports has gone way down, down so much that even with what tariffs have been there, where people would say, ‘oh, they might increase prices at least a little bit,’ we’ve seen prices going down,” he claimed.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Absolute Cringe’: DHS Ridiculed After Attacking CNN Report—by Confirming It

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.