The state of Utah filed its reply brief in Kitchen et al. vs. Gary Herbert et al.
There's more. 103 pages worth. And the only thing that's new about it is the "judicial wrecking ball" metaphor. (That's a good one, actually. Pity it has no basis in reality.) Interestingly enough, the state brings up the 10th Amendment, but avoids the 14th Amendment assiduously, aside from incredulity at the idea that the writers of the latter would have envisioned it being used to "force" same-sex marriage on "unwilling" states.
The article gives a good summary of the filing. It's also worth noting the comments, which range from appalled to deeply embarrassed.
The debate over same-sex marriage presents precisely a "political quandary" best left to individual states and their democratic processes to resolve — an authority enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and upheld in numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions, attorneys for Utah argue in the state’s latest court filing.
To allow the "difficult policy choice" about marriage rights to be made by "judicial fiat" would not be akin to the "narrow" decision that ended bans on interracial marriage, but instead would unleash "an unprincipled judicial wrecking ball hurtling toward an even more important arena of traditional state authority," the state said.
There's more. 103 pages worth. And the only thing that's new about it is the "judicial wrecking ball" metaphor. (That's a good one, actually. Pity it has no basis in reality.) Interestingly enough, the state brings up the 10th Amendment, but avoids the 14th Amendment assiduously, aside from incredulity at the idea that the writers of the latter would have envisioned it being used to "force" same-sex marriage on "unwilling" states.
The article gives a good summary of the filing. It's also worth noting the comments, which range from appalled to deeply embarrassed.
No comments:
Post a Comment