Trestin Meacham Versus Equal Rights

Item:

Former Constitution Party Utah State Senate candidate Trestin Meacham began a fast the day after District Judge Robert Shelby released his ruling that Utah’s Amendment 3 prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is unconstitutional. He is attempting to draw attention to what he says is an option for the state: Nullification.

Nullification is a far-right theory that has repeatedly been rejected by the Supreme Court. Article VI of the United States Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause that states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Utah’s Amendment 3 was a clear violation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (emphasis added).

…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Says Meacham:

“This has nothing to do with hatred of a group of people. I have friends and relatives who practice a homosexual lifestyle and I treat them with the same respect and kindness that I would anyone. This is about religious freedom, and an out of control federal government.”

H/t Think Progress

More info: Trestin’s Fast

UPDATE: Utah Man Starving Himself To Stop Same-Sex Marriages

UPDATE: U.S. Supreme Court on Monday put same-sex marriages in Utah on hold, granting the state’s request for a stay pending appeal.

  1. #1 by Ken Bingham on January 5, 2014 - 4:13 pm

    Ultimately the States have supreme control but not individually. If 2/3 of the States get together they can call a constitutional convention and could go as far as dissolving the entire federal government. The Federal government could not constitutionally do anything about it.

  2. #2 by Nathan Erkkila on January 5, 2014 - 5:18 pm

    So this person is willing to die to support the cause of oppressing people? Whatever; either he dies and life goes on or he gets caught in a scandal ordering fries.

    • #3 by Richard Warnick on January 5, 2014 - 7:48 pm

      It’s not that kind of fast. He’s not taking solid food, according to his blog, but is getting liquid nourishment and water. Nevertheless he’s lost 25 pounds.

      • #4 by Nathan Erkkila on January 5, 2014 - 8:43 pm

        Well of course he is drinking water and taking vitamins. He would be dead already if he didn’t. It is still an unsustainable diet and this idiot will die probably near the end of the month if he continues.

  3. #5 by brewski on January 6, 2014 - 3:48 am

    “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Then why does the left continue to promote discrimination based on race and sex?

    • #6 by Nathan Erkkila on January 6, 2014 - 4:43 am

      Tell me. How is preventing gays from marrying any different from preventing interracial couples from marrying?

      • #7 by brewski on January 6, 2014 - 5:19 am

        Tell me, how is discriminating in favor of the children of the CEO of Xerox any different from discriminating against Jackie Robinson?

        • #8 by brewski on January 6, 2014 - 5:26 am

          To put in bluntly, marriage has been a social institution that has been around for probably at least 20,000 years, if not much longer. The purpose of the institution is to provide security and commitment to the wife and children from their father for support and protection. Like it or not that is a historical fact. In no point in 20,000 years in any time and in any culture in any place has same sex marriage ever existed. Interracial marriage has indeed existed. In fact, I would argue that races don’t exist and never existed. They are a figment of your imagination.

          The easy answer for this is for the government to not marry anyone. It isn’t any of their business who marries whom. Anyone can enter into a contract with anyone whom they so choose. If they want to have a ceremony to celebrate it, then that is up to them and their god or gods.

          • #9 by cav on January 6, 2014 - 9:11 am

            ” the institution is to provide security and commitment to the wife and children…”

            Assuming an institutional purpose not necessarily in evidence.

            And?

          • #10 by Nathan Erkkila on January 6, 2014 - 2:43 pm

            If we want to argue history, then you are so wrong on this, it isn’t even funny. 20,000 years ago was the start of the ice age. Back then there were no written records which means that you’re argument is already been proved wrong. More to the point, Marriage in the traditional sense was used as a business practice where children were married off against their will for monetary reasons, political reasons such as peace treaties and even blackmail.

            As for the reason you stated, “The purpose of the institution is to provide security and commitment to the wife and children from their father for support and protection” is pretty god damn stupid. Infact it’s so stupid, it took me a while to stop laughing. So going by your argument, you’re saying that sterile women shouldn’t marry? People not having kids shouldn’t marry? Elderly couples should keep their license? What is the husband is disabled and can’t defend his wife if need be? Is he not allowed to marry?

          • #11 by brewski on January 6, 2014 - 3:31 pm

            Show to me that in any time, place or culture in history that legally sanctioned same sex marriage ever existed.

            Until then, you can laugh your illiterate ass off for all I care.

  4. #12 by Richard Warnick on January 6, 2014 - 6:55 am

    Pope Francis Advocated For Civil Unions For Gay Couples In 2010

    I was for civil unions until the California Prop 8 fiasco, when the right-wing (including Catholics and Mormons) went too far and sought to deny people their constitutional rights.

    • #13 by brewski on January 6, 2014 - 8:48 am

      and?

    • #14 by Richard Warnick on January 6, 2014 - 8:59 am

      And so I concluded that equal rights had to be, you know, equal. No second-class citizens. I came around pretty late in the game, as it turned out.

      • #15 by brewski on January 6, 2014 - 9:32 am

        But you are fine with legal preferences to the children of the CEO of Xerox?

        Okayyy.

        • #16 by Richard Warnick on January 6, 2014 - 10:15 am

          As is frequently the case, you are getting “news” from right-wing sources that the rest of us don’t follow. So you are going to have to explain what “legal preferences” you are talking about.

          • #17 by brewski on January 6, 2014 - 1:53 pm

            False premise yields no answer.

  5. #18 by brewski on January 6, 2014 - 1:56 pm

    “In the Federal Contracting Market being a woman or a minority owned small business can be an advantage. Government Agencies are instructed to set aside a portion of their contract opportunities to businesses that are classified as Woman or Minority owned.
    Government Contracts are available in a verity of industries and in different locations and all require the utilization of Woman and Minority owned small business. Properly establishing your Woman/Minority statues is the first step to qualify for set aside contracts.”

    http://www.biz-gov.com/woman-minority-owned.php

    My “right wing” source.

  6. #20 by Larry Bergan on January 6, 2014 - 3:18 pm

    The Supreme Court of the land slams on the brakes for now.

    Can this misguided guy eat now?

    I was sort of wondering whether the republicans and the media were finally going to give a crap about starvation diets.

  7. #21 by Nathan Erkkila on January 6, 2014 - 4:09 pm

    brewski :

    Show to me that in any time, place or culture in history that legally sanctioned same sex marriage ever existed.

    Until then, you can laugh your illiterate ass off for all I care.

    http://www.galiciae.com/nova/78210.html

    Or as Google Translate says.
    “Pedro Diaz called Muno Vandilaz and the two men that the April 16, 1061 staged the first gay marriage dated in Galicia and one of the first in Europe . It was in the town of Ourense Rairiz Vega will do now 950 years old , and historical document that represents the record reflects that this was in fact the Tombo Celanova Monastery , which is now deposited in the Historical Archive of Madrid .”

    Now tell me. How is preventing gay couples from marrying any different from preventing interracial couples from marrying? Discrimination is discrimination.

    Here’s the thing. I don’t know how old you are, but you need to learn something about the internet. You can find information on anything. If you make a baseless claim, then you are diving into a pool without checking to see if there’s any water.

  8. #22 by brewski on January 6, 2014 - 4:25 pm

    Very nice try. Although nowhere in any source is it shown that that marriage ceremony was ever legally recognized, which was my question.

    I am very glad to see that you have such a deep commitment to no discrimination of any kind any where. I assume then that you are against all minority scholarship programs, all women’s scholarship programs, all affirmative action of any kind, all government contracting set asides for women and minority owned businesses. Welcome to the conservative team!

    • #23 by Nathan Erkkila on January 6, 2014 - 5:07 pm

      It was done is a catholic church and the church was the legal branch of spiritual matters. Learn history.

      Don’t tell me that conservatives are against discrimination when you have people like Pat Robertson who thinks women should be beaten by their husbands or Rick Santorum who publicly called Obama a nigger. The places where slavery and segregation occurred are the most conservative areas in the US. Proof of conservative discrimination to this day is your views on homosexuals and why they should be treated as second hand citizens is proof.

      • #24 by brewski on January 6, 2014 - 9:30 pm

        I do not answer for everything said by any conservative especially ones I have absolutely no agreement with on any subject. Can I hold you accountable for everything ever said by Trotsky? You are being ridiculous, illiterate, uneducated and just plain unconvincing.

    • #26 by Glenden Brown on January 8, 2014 - 2:21 pm

      And yet not unexpected. Depressing and petty, yes, but also kind of expected.

      • #27 by Larry Bergan on January 8, 2014 - 8:06 pm

        Still not nearly as bad as Russia or Uganda; yeah for us!

        Except that very mean spirited Americans are responsible for the horror in Uganda.

    • #28 by cav on January 9, 2014 - 6:54 am

      And who is this ‘Utah’ of which the ‘governors office’ speaks?

      Might it actually be the population of the state, of which a sizable chunk are not of the ‘phobic’ sort ? Gary better check in with the populace which is undeniably composed of numerous ‘types’, all of whom are to be respected and represented.

      The weight of the ink in the governor’s pen has particular carrying power. It’s magical.

      • #29 by Larry Bergan on January 11, 2014 - 12:08 pm

        It has more to do with who the “American people” are allowed to speak through.

        I’m just an internet pundit. :(

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: