Utah's Draconian Same-Sex Marriage Laws Deemed Unconstitutional

[rockgremlin]

It's about time someone stood up for what is right!!



Utah judge rules same-sex marriage law unconstitutional
By Emiley Morgan
December 20th, 2013 @ 2:12pm
[COLOR=#000000]

[I][I][I][I][I]
SALT LAKE CITY

[rockgremlin]

Equality....Isn't it about....time?

[Sombeech]

in related news, nothing will change

[DOSS]

in related news, nothing will change

Well other than the ability for same sex couples to have equal rights under the law... yeah guess that is nothing hu?

[accadacca]

KSL.com - Counties in Utah that told us they were issuing marriage licenses when we called. In a ruling released today, a Federal judge ruled that Amendment 3, Utah's same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional. Several counties that are a "no" told us they were waiting for a decision from their county attorney or from the state.

NOTE: This status of this map could change at any time. Many counties were discussing the ruling at the time of publishing this graphic.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1522776_10152114171008676_420326125_o.png?dl=1

[Sombeech]

Well other than the ability for same sex couples to have equal rights under the law... yeah guess that is nothing hu?

I think of all the straight unmarried couples living together that are discriminated against because they can't get "equal rights" out of wedlock. Is there no end to such hate and bigotry?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[DOSS]

I think of all the straight unmarried couples living together that are discriminated against because they can't get "equal rights" out of wedlock. Is there no end to such hate and bigotry?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

I don't actually disagree.. how about we just ban all marriages and remove all spousal privileges across the board..

[Sombeech]

I agree with part of your statement, that the government should stay out of our bedrooms, as Liberals say. This goes both ways, pun intended, that if we don't want the government snooping around our sexuality, we shouldn't need them to benefit us when they do just that.

I've got nothing against gay marriage. I'm against government managing what should and shouldn't be allowed.

Then when discrimination ends against straight couples living together without "equal rights", the anti hate protests must then be turned to the single folks of any sexual persuasion who aren't getting benefits because they are too ugly to hook up.

Why is it only the attractive people get these benefits???? What about the butterface single peeps?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[DOSS]

I agree with part of your statement, that the government should stay out of our bedrooms, as Liberals say. This goes both ways, pun intended, that if we don't want the government snooping around our sexuality, we shouldn't need them to benefit us when they do just that.

I've got nothing against gay marriage. I'm against government managing what should and shouldn't be allowed.

Then when discrimination ends against straight couples living together without "equal rights", the anti hate protests must then be turned to the single folks of any sexual persuasion who aren't getting benefits because they are too ugly to hook up.

Why is it only the attractive people get these benefits???? What about the butterface single peeps?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Lots of ugly people hook up and get married.. look at yourself, I don't think it is only attractive people. :bootyshake: And I don't think it has to do with the bedroom., more the courtroom, hospital, ownership, survivors benefits

[Sombeech]

What about those who love the single life, but they have kids. Sheesh, don't they need those equal rights even more?

Or if they don't have kids, don't want 'em, don't want a partner, but they have cats? Dammit cats need love too.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Byron]

http://dartobserver.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/Men%20Kissing%202-726296.jpg

[Byron]

.http://content5.videojug.com/24/24888a29-4d82-d0c2-e5df-ff0008c8ac51/how-to-kiss-someone-passionately.WidePromo.jpg

[DOSS]

What about those who love the single life, but they have kids. Sheesh, don't they need those equal rights even more?

Or if they don't have kids, don't want 'em, don't want a partner, but they have cats? Dammit cats need love too.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

All of your complaints are resolved with the banning of marriage and spousal privileges across the board

[whansen]

What about those who love the single life, but they have kids. Sheesh, don't they need those equal rights even more?

Or if they don't have kids, don't want 'em, don't want a partner, but they have cats? Dammit cats need love too.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Ya and what about polygamists or brothers with sisters or parents with children they may what to get married to each other and have rights too?

[Sombeech]

Ya and what about polygamists or brothers with sisters or parents with children they may what to get marriage to each other and have rights too?

No, not if people think they're Mormon.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[rockgremlin]

And I don't think it has to do with the bedroom., more the courtroom, hospital, ownership, survivors benefits


^^^THIS^^^

Where they choose to stick their genitals is a very minor detail in the larger picture.

In Utah it's an uphill battle because Mormons can claim up and down about how they preach love and tolerance towards homosexuals, but just last Sunday I sat through a talk delivered over the pulpit from a member of the high counsel telling us about how we need to stand up against evil and corrupt social policies that attempt to "call good evil and identify corruption as incorruption." That about sums it up right there....Mormons love homosexuals even though homosexuals are sinners who need to be quarantined from the rest of normal heterosexual society, and shouldn't be given the same rights and privileges as those who "choose" to be straight. It's blatant discrimination masquerading as tolerance, and anyone who claims differently is grossly deluded.

[double moo]

I thinks it's pretty progressive of our state - especially since we weere rated the number 1 gay city in America last year.

With last weeks ruling on the Polygamous law being unconstitutional, and now this Gay marriage being allowed... can the Gay folks now have more than one spouse also?

[BruteForce]

So sick of this constant bickering in America:

Democrats -v- Republicans
Straight -v- LGBT
Left wing -v- Right wing
Black -v- White
Muslim -v- Non
Ford -v- Chevy

Sad, really. Stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours.

A snippet from a recent USA Today article:


Let the record show which side of this debate is pushing their agenda on everyone else, and using the coercive force of government and bullying tactics in the media and pop culture to do so. It is not the Christians. The sad truth is most American Christians would prefer to leave people in their sin provided Christians are left alone in turn.

[Sombeech]

^^^THIS^^^

Where they choose to stick their genitals is a very minor detail in the larger picture.

In Utah it's an uphill battle because Mormons can claim up and down about how they preach love and tolerance towards homosexuals, but just last Sunday I sat through a talk delivered over the pulpit from a member of the high counsel telling us about how we need to stand up against evil and corrupt social policies that attempt to "call good evil and identify corruption as incorruption." That about sums it up right there....Mormons love homosexuals even though homosexuals are sinners who need to be quarantined from the rest of normal heterosexual society, and shouldn't be given the same rights and privileges as those who "choose" to be straight. It's blatant discrimination masquerading as tolerance, and anyone who claims differently is grossly deluded.

It's not at all about who has sex with whom. It's the involvement of the Federal Government. We can trudge this point over and over again but you'll still come back to the false claim of bigotry. The side that brings up the issue of sexual relations is the Left. The Right only wants to limit the reach of the Federal Government into our bedrooms.

If only these folks would take their own protests seriously. It turns out, it's the Right that wants the Government out of their bedrooms, not the Left. Please prove me wrong.

http://www.troll.me/images2/sandra-fluke/government-should-stay-out-our-bedrooms-but-pay-for-abortions-and-birth-control.jpg


http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002564811/2223203531_2042068487_9f5f6cd3a2_z_xlarge.jpeg

[Sombeech]

A snippet from a recent USA Today article:





Let the record show which side of this debate is pushing their agenda on everyone else, and using the coercive force of government and bullying tactics in the media and pop culture to do so. It is not the Christians. The sad truth is most American Christians would prefer to leave people in their sin provided Christians are left alone in turn.

Exactly! Christians aren't trying to "Stop Sin Around the World". They want to worship freely, and want the Government to keep the promise to not infringe on their right to do so.

I could call out those of you who have said "Stop cramming your religion down our throats". Those very same people are cramming Gay Marriage down the throats of everybody, not just Christians.

[Sombeech]

Well other than the ability for same sex couples to have equal rights under the law...

10 Internet Points for anybody who can list several rights they will now have.

This shouldn't take an internet search, since it's so important, people would know the rights they have been fighting for so passionately, they shouldn't need Google to now discover what they've been fighting for.

And..... Go.

[Absolute Gravity]

The Right only wants to limit the reach of the Federal Government into our bedrooms.

Your kidding right? Cause I don't see much blue when I look at the list of states that still had anti-sodomy laws in 2003 at the time of Lawrence v. Texas:

Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia.

What about groups like Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, Christian Coalition, and the American Family Association?

Do you think Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Phyllis Schlafly, Tony Perkins, Rick Perry, etc don't count as 'The Right'?

I think it is getting better, but your statement only has any truth to it if you exclude the Fundamentalist Right, but that would be excluding a huge chunk of what is considered The Right.

[Sombeech]

I think it is getting better, but your statement only has any truth to it if you exclude the Fundamentalist Right, but that would be excluding a huge chunk of what is considered The Right.

so do you or do you not want the government out of our bedrooms?

PS, I'm still waiting to hear about these newfound rights (that's a plural) without a necessary internet search.

I mean after all, these rights should be burned into your brains because you've been fighting so hard for them, but you'd need to google it first?

That's unfortunate.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Absolute Gravity]

I wish the government didn't have to be involved, but I feel that when the power of the government is not being used to protect privacy it will be used to invade it. And while it's implementation of protecting privacy is not going to be perfect that is the side I'll take. Hopefully as we move forward past this issue some of the energy can be redirected to other issues like domestic surveillance, which I think the bases for both parties can (but won't, edit) find common ground.

[Absolute Gravity]

No new rights. Their existing rights are just not dependent on the person they love being of the opposite sex.

[Sombeech]

No new rights. Their existing rights are just not dependent on the person they love being of the opposite sex.

Insurance is a big part of this, correct? What about Obamacare?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Absolute Gravity]

Sure. Insurance benefits afforded to direct family.

I'm pretty sure that Obamacare already had LGBT non-discrimination clauses in it, so that may not be a factor?.

[Sombeech]

Sure. Insurance benefits afforded to direct family.

I'm pretty sure that Obamacare already had LGBT non-discrimination clauses in it, so that may not be a factor?.

I believe you're correct. What I'm really after is finding out these Equal Rights that we've been holding back on Gay couples, insurance is not one of them anymore and it has nothing to do with Gay Marriage.

Again, without the help of the internet, what it really boils down to is a word; Married.

This will not stop any anti gay bigotry just like Obama didn't stop any racism. This has nothing to do with Christianity pushing their beliefs on the world. It's all about giving people equal rights.

What rights are waiting to be given now that Gays can be wed? I surely hope a newly married Gay couple would have a clue regarding what rights they've been fighting for, because it turns out not a lot of people do.

[cchoc]

Being 'married' has to do with how you file your tax return, survivor and dependent benefits, division of shared property in the event of divorce, etc. It is the right to get married that is at issue. The government isn't trying to force churches to perform gay marriages, nor is it trying to get ministers to support them from the pulpit. If a loving and supportive couple (or group as far as I am concerned) want to get 'married' it doesn't threaten or weaken my marriage. Group marriages would be a divorce lawyer's wet dream, though.

And unmarried couples who are allowed by law to marry aren't being discriminated against, they made a choice.

[Absolute Gravity]

what it really boils down to is a word; Married.

Primarily I think so, and also think that is enough. But with that come the family, tax, military, Social Security, and social benefits. I think all of that is worth fighting for. It benefits people I know and love, and I think benefits modern societies as well, even if it is a small portion of the population.

And sure, Obama didn't stop any racism, but the inclusion of everyone into society and the political process over the course of the last 50 years has. There is surely less racism now than at the time the Civil Rights Act was passed. That change is happening too with regards to the LGBT community. The anti-gay bigotry will not be immediately negated, but with time it will be significantly lessened.

This is just one step, no?

[rockgremlin]

Being 'married' has to do with how you file your tax return, survivor and dependent benefits, division of shared property in the event of divorce, etc. It is the right to get married that is at issue. The government isn't trying to force churches to perform gay marriages, nor is it trying to get ministers to support them from the pulpit. If a loving and supportive couple (or group as far as I am concerned) want to get 'married' it doesn't threaten or weaken my marriage. Group marriages would be a divorce lawyer's wet dream, though.

And unmarried couples who are allowed by law to marry aren't being discriminated against, they made a choice.

Well said. I can't understand how my marriage is threatened if gays want to enjoy the same rights and privileges as I do. Explain to me again how my family will suffer if we start treating gays like everyone else?

[Sombeech]

Well said. I can't understand how my marriage is threatened if gays want to enjoy the same rights and privileges as I do. Explain to me again how my family will suffer if we start treating gays like everyone else?

My marriage is not threatened by Gay Marriage, I'm not sure that ever was a "thing", but the Left sure brings it up a lot as if they're trying to warn us of it.

I keep seeing rights and privileges mentioned but confound it I'm not sure what those are specifically.

[DOSS]

My marriage is not threatened by Gay Marriage, I'm not sure that ever was a "thing", but the Left sure brings it up a lot as if they're trying to warn us of it.

I keep seeing rights and privileges mentioned but confound it I'm not sure what those are specifically.

First - you might want to look into what the state was arguing as its reasons for the "anti" gay marriage law that just got overturned.. that will show you where the marriage threatened by gay marriage thing became a "Thing"

Second the rights (there are none other than to be given equal treatment).. as for privileges... those can be found with Tax filing privileges only married people have, end of life care decisions, social security, death and retirement benefits... there you go with some of the specifics... I know that these have been pointed out to you before but you seem to not want to read them...

[Byron]

.http://www.dawtrina.com/personal/film/bloguploads/1970s/1971thepinkangels3.jpg

[Sombeech]

So without marriage, you want me to believe, again, that they would have no end of life care and couldn't name anybody in their will.

What are they on, Obamacare?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[DOSS]

So without marriage, you want me to believe, again, that they would have no end of life care and couldn't name anybody in their will.

What are they on, Obamacare?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

A married person does not have to name their spouse in their will or any other legal document to authorize end of life decisions /death benefits.


Also does everything have to be spoon fed to you or are you willing to actually educate yourself on this instead of just continually asking the same questions and not believing what you are told?

[Sombeech]

A married person does not have to name their spouse in their will or any other legal document to authorize end of life decisions /death benefits.

Neither do civil union partners

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[DOSS]

Neither do civil union partners

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

hmmm well gays were not even allowed to be civil union partners in Utah until this was over turned... and really are you getting stuck on the word marriage? do you really think that is only a religious convention? do you mean to try to argue that the word marriage is not on a single government document and that it is only used in a religious connotation and that you feel that separate but equal is a good idea to try again?

[Sombeech]

No.

Hey, you or anybody wants to get married, go for it. Again i don't oppose Gay Marriage contrary to what you may think.

I'm just not a bigot for pointing out fallacies in the protests claiming there are these rights being withheld from somebody because they're Gay. I'm simply asking what these rights are, and if anybody that is fighting for them can even name a few without the internet.

When i fight for something, i know damn well what it is, and it's never just a word.

Have i said i oppose gay marriage? No.

Do i oppose the way the people have been overridden again by an activist judge?
Yes.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Byron]

.http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1101613.1340635967%21/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_635/2012-new-york-city-gay-pride-parade.jpg

[rockgremlin]

A federal judge took a step toward giving gay people the same rights that all consenting adults enjoy....and people are upset about this?

If anything we should be celebrating. This is a victory not only for gay people but for all who believe in basic civil rights.

[Byron]

Personally, I don't think the freaks and fairies that run the media will be satisfied until the human race evolves into this....unicolor hermaphrodites.http://alysondunlop.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/grey-aliens-1.jpg

[jman]

Personally, I don't think the freaks and fairies that run the media won't be satisfied until the human race evolves into this....unicolor hermaphrodites.http://alysondunlop.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/grey-aliens-1.jpg

Haha, This reminds me of the TV Show, Community. On it, the school mascot of Greendale Community College is the "human being" represented by a faceless, sexless, colorless, raceless being, because in the show they wanted to make everyone welcome and this was the best idea to include everybody. Ha ha

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/12/23/e4e7emam.jpg


-Brett

[Byron]

HAR! That's hilarious! I've never seen that before. I actually considered the unisex grey person a few years ago when all this race, sexual and gender nonsense really took off.

It occurred to me because I'll be in a Starbucks standing in line with a black person in front or behind me sometimes. I've never done it, but sometimes I'd like to say "Hi, we don't know each other, but apparently we're supposed to have issues with each other because our skin color is different".

Know what I mean? I go to the grocery store and there's gay guys prancing around, blacks, butch dykes, Asians, Mexicans, etc...and I'm cruising the aisles just like everybody else. I don't see the differences of our sex or race...and I really don't think most of them do, either. I'd bet that most of America doesn't buy this crap any more than I do.

But the MEDIA blows a tiny issue out of proportion...and just who are they? Take a wild guess. I'll tell ya what I think is coming, eventually. They're going to declare that sex, even consentual, is violence against women. I know this is supposed to be all about the gay thing, but it all just blends together, doesn't it?

[tanya]

Why does anyone care what sex others have relations with. I have always thought that is nuts. If they are consenting adults and want to have sex - so what.

[Scott P]

Here's something I wrote to someone else who was upset that some Christians said that homosexuality was a sin . It's kind of on topic. It wasn't meant to be offensive.

The dictionary defines a sin as an offense against religious or moral law. So if anything was contrary to a religious teaching, regardless of which religion it is, it would be considered a sin. Several religions consider, for example, the act of being a Mormon to be a sin (I’m using that specific example only because I am a Mormon). To a Mormon however, drinking coffee is technically a sin.

So calling being a Mormon or drinking coffee a sin is technically accurate as per dictionary definition.

The important thing is to not judge people too harshly for their faults and differences, though many of us (including myself) are guilty of this ourselves at times.


"THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY, IT'S COMPLETELY NATURAL”.
Belonging to the LDS Church, I know only their position. Their position is that it IS NOT a sin to be homosexual. However, any sexual activity outside a marriage is considered to be sinful, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual.

You are correct that those feelings are completely natural. Like most religions though, the whole point of the religion is to overcome your natural desires and temptations for some type of reward after death. Almost all religions hold this same goal, though they all disagree on the means of getting there.

So, I can't speak for all religions, but as per my own religion’s viewpoint, sex outside marriage (including homosexual) is a sin even though being heterosexual or homosexual is not and even though those feelings are natural. On the other hand, no one should be disrespected or treated with violence for anything other than situations such as self-defense.

Also, it is hypocritical that many heterosexuals that claim to be moral only single out only homosexual sex instead of all other sex they consider to be sins as well. I’ve never seen a protest on pre-marital sex for example.

I hope you find the above useful, rather than offensive. It is only meant to express a viewpoint rather than to try and offend anyone.

[rockgremlin]

Why does anyone care what sex others have relations with. I have always thought that is nuts. If they are consenting adults and want to have sex - so what.


Agreed, however the real meat of the issue is the rights that married hetero folks enjoy that are withheld from gays.

I know it's been said before, and I know it's trite as hell but.....


....Equal Rights DO NOT Mean Special Rights.



....And by the way, contrary to the doctrines of mainstream Christianity, sexual preference is an inherent trait that you are born with. Being Gay is NOT a choice. Think about it...why would anyone choose to ignore their hetero preferences to live a life of discrimination, victims of hate and bigotry? Coming out to their families, friends, and co-workers because it's.......popular?! Give me a break.:topes:

[rockgremlin]

The genie is now officially out of the bottle.

Hundreds of same-sex couples wed; some Utah counties refuse to issue licenses
By McKenzie Romero
Updated - December 23rd, 2013 @ 11:26pm
[COLOR=#000000][LEFT]

SALT LAKE CITY

[Sombeech]

Whether you believe it's right or wrong, this has caused a lot of emotional response on both sides of the issue. Our representatives are supposed to represent, and they should process these types of things in the proper manner.

Not in some blast overruling judgement that sends people into a craze of excitement, escalating tensions on both sides. There is a proper way to roll out this policy that can invite understanding of how the law works.

A great deal of Utahns are wondering if this will be repealed, if this is only temporary.

If you think the overruling was the correct decision, it was still irresponsible to make that call without preparing the public, whether it's right or wrong. I believe this is part of the duty of our government, to roll out rulings in a responsible matter, not one that will divide the people. If you want to call the opponents of this ruling haters or bigots, do you think this helped? Do you think this forceful move will gently persuade the so called bigots to be more accepting?

No.

There's a proper way to do things, and this was not it.

[DOSS]

Actually the job of the judge is to rule if it is constitutional or not. We do NOT live in a democracy where mob rule is in effect. Judges determine if laws enacted are constitutional or not. Your representatives do represent you but we have a constitution that is in place to stop the people from infringing upon the rights of others. Please take a moment to learn about how our government actually works... Take a civics class, read think. Don't just regurgitate what your bishop tells you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

Here is some reading to help you on your way of self education http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3977&context=californialawreview

[double moo]

I don't think the Judge was out of line on "not preparing the public". Quite the contrary, I believe the State was in gross negligence. Had they formuated any sort of a Plan "B" in this suit they may have prevailed upon the judge to let them ease into it according to said plan. I believe it was arrogance on their part to think the judge would rule as happened. The majority of the public didn't even know the suit was at the stage it was, let alone a potential ruling as was handed down. It was the State's responsibility all the way... and they let it devolve to where it did.

[stefan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/01/14/federal-judge-rules-oklahomas-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/?tid=HP_top

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, the latest in a string of recent court decisions that have challenged such state prohibitions.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Terence Kern is stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not take place immediately in Oklahoma. On Jan. 6 the Supreme Court halted same-sex marriages in Utah, which had taken place over the course of 17 days after a federal judge there had ruled it was unconstitutional to bar gay and lesbian couples from marrying. Last month, the New Mexico Supreme Court decided unanimously to overturn its state's ban on same-sex unions.

[rockgremlin]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/01/14/federal-judge-rules-oklahomas-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/?tid=HP_top

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, the latest in a string of recent court decisions that have challenged such state prohibitions.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Terence Kern is stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not take place immediately in Oklahoma. On Jan. 6 the Supreme Court halted same-sex marriages in Utah, which had taken place over the course of 17 days after a federal judge there had ruled it was unconstitutional to bar gay and lesbian couples from marrying. Last month, the New Mexico Supreme Court decided unanimously to overturn its state's ban on same-sex unions.

wave of the future, better just get used to it

[Iceaxe]

http://www.lowbird.com/data/images/2014/01/imgur-w2wqrip.jpg (http://www.lowbird.com/)

[Scott P]

I don't care which side you are on, but this is funny. :roflol:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/same-sex-marriage-foe-makes-texas-sized-twitter-typo-n39521

Same-Sex Marriage Foe Makes Texas-Sized Twitter Typo

A GOP candidate running for lieutenant governor in Texas probably wishes he’d checked one of his tweets for typos.

State Sen. Dan Patrick, a conservative Republican locked in a primary race with incumbent Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, was quick on the Twitter trigger after a federal judge in Texas declared the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Here’s the first tweet, as captured by Texas Tribune reporter Reeve Hamilton:

72128

Patrick, who opposes same-sex marriage, quickly deleted the typo, replacing the tweet with this one :

72129

And he followed up with this:

72130

The federal judge has put a hold on the ruling while the case is appealed.