9MM,Well said.RanchHand,I never gave you my
opinions of the constitution; instead, I pointed out that disagreement exists.
And if you know it does, why beat the dead horse? We could argue those points of
the constitution and even plenty of other parts you neglected to cover. It
wouldn't do either of us any good. Go vote if you like, but posting
constant contention on here doesn't do you or those you oppose any good. It
surely doesn't convince anyone. All it does is gets people to dig their
feet in a little more on the ground they stand on. I'm sure it does for you
too. The more two people do that, the less willing they'll ever be to reach
a reasonable compromise that appeals to both viewpoints.Dictate your
opinions of the constitution all day if you like. Some of your opponents will do
the same. In the meantime, the rest of us on both sides who actually WANT to get
along will happily do so. Those still fighting when compromises are formed
don't want freedom, but power to rule over others.Dictators
should have to move somewhere else.
My thoughts on this issue are. First, it is incredibly important
that our local governments take a vested interest in helping to create stable,
formal, family relationships so that social mores and commitments can be
transmitted to future generations that ensure the future stability and success
of our communities.Second, any other relationship that distracts the
community from ensuring its generational, social and economic stability, if not
marginalized, will be supplanted and marginalized by its competing philosophies.
Two sets of mores can not inhabit the same space. For our government has one law
from which we are all judged. To have two or more laws, creates inequality,
confusion and increased opportunity to be exploited.You cannot make
choices that lead to social instability, and expect social stability to remain.
Stalwart Sentinel,Maybe your views of what it means to be a faithful
Latter-day Saint differ from my own. I believe in putting my trust in the word
of God, not in the words of men. The opinions of the Supreme Court and the
opinions of the framers of the constitution are not without cunning and
intellect. But however sound they are, I trust that men are fallible.I believe and sustain Thomas S. Monson as a prophet of God. I believe that
when 15 prophets, seers, and proclaim a divine plan for the family to the entire
world, that it is of worth and deserves special recognition and attention.I believe I can hold up a light to the world, without forcing that light
on others; which belief I know can be accommodated via state recognition of
specific traditions.I welcome yours and RanchHand's views. I
don't welcome contending simply to contend, as RanchHand was doing. I
didn't even give my opinion but defended someone else's entitlement to
their own.I also believe that the opinions of a court do not
invalidate my opinions, religious or otherwise.What do you believe?
Ranchhand, It doesn't matter what you call your union. I
don't care, it is up to you and your religious congregation or
affiliation.I am saying, like I said before, make everyone meet the exact
same rules.Marriage has many different names from different cultures and
languages. Most cultures have poligamy, bigamy, and communal unions. The Ancient Egyptians practiced incest, as did prewar Europe. 1st degree
relatives marrying each other. Then there are those from Puapa New Guinea,
that practiced homosexual marriage. They also ate their dead relatives. I
really don't know if this is where you were headed with all your stories?
Let us be clear. This is not a sign that Utah is willing to show some tolerance
and acceptance. It's a sign that Salt Lake County is. The rest of Utah is
still a ways off. But progress is progress. Baby steps.
@I know it. I Live it. I Love it;From The Consitution of the United
States of America:Article 4 - Section 1 -Full Faith and
Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial
Proceedings of every other State. Amendment 14 -1. All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;I guess
the Constitution just doesn't apply to GLBT Americans, does it. Again I
ask you: Did you have to move to another state to marry your SO? Regardless of
your personal beliefs, we are ALL Americans. If you don't have to move
from your home to receive Constitutional rights, why should others?
Call it what you must, but what is wrong in the eyes of God is still wrong.
@Cats"Why don't they just get married?"...
because you all banned it in Utah. Goodness, if this were any other state
I'd ask if you all were drunk at the polls when you voted that ban into
place since multiple of you don't seem to remember it.
To: I know it...Marriage is a fundamental right protected under the
COTUS (Loving v Virginia) so RanchHand does not "believe" that to be a
right, it is in fact a recognized right. The fictitious "right" in this
conversation is the perceived right one has to inpose their personal, spiritual
convictions on the subject into secular government. An individual's
religious beliefs on the matter are trumped by sound, recognized legal rights
and that is the current battle underway in our court systems. It is only a
matter of time before you realize you never "had the right" to restrict
marriage from others based on your personal perspetive. Furthermore,
based on your moniker, I assume you are LDS, like me. As such, I find it
unfathomable that you would use the phrase "traditional marriage" when
you know that little more than 100 years ago that same argument was used to
disenfranchise our ancestors. I can think of nothing more hypocritical than to
be treated unfairly as a minority and, now that we've become part of the
"majority," turn and prey upon others who are part of the new minority -
especially when it comes to something so dear as marriage.
RanchHand,You ask why someone should have to move states in order to
satisfy what they believe to be their right. You know the answer to that. Of
course, everyone posting here likely has a different opinion of where
state/federal powers should extend or be limited to, but the point is that you
understand the concept and that the various political parties and people have
different opinions on this issue. Even the Supreme Court hasn't quite made
up its mind.My point is that you know the answer to that question,
yet you still ask it. To me, that means you are still fighting good people over
their opinions. If you want to promote your own, that's fine. But after
reading enough of your comments, I suggest a change of direction. If some of us
in Utah want our state to recognize traditional marriage only, and leave this to
be a state issue, that is our right. We have every right to want government to
function a certain way. You have every right to disagree. But endless arguing
over something you already know the answer to, how do you feel justified in
@USAlover; Why should someone have to move in order to be married?
Did you have to move to get married? If not, why should anybody else?@county mom;Marriage is already a civil union. Your religious
marriage is not valid without a government issued license. If a gay couple
belongs to a church that allows them to marry, do they still get to use the
word? Do you see how silly your argument is against simply allowing us to
marry, just like everyone else, when put in that light? Some churches do allow
same sex marriages. If you don't agree, that is your privilege, just not
your right to deny it. You are welcome to belong to a church that doesn't
allow it, you just don't get to determine what we call our relationship
This is a feigned attempt to look compassionate. It is Jim Crow for
LGBT, nothing more.
If I were gay, and marrying my partner was THAT important to me, I'd move
to a state that allows me to marry.
Cats: "Why don't they just get married?"Because Utah
law won't allow them to.Therein lies the problem. This
"registry" is a half-baked, however well-intentioned, effort to insert a
little reason and basic human decency into Utah's unreasonable position on
marriage equality.Fortunately, this issue will resolve itself with
time - probably less time than you think. Marriage equality has unstoppable
momentum in our nation. As Martin Luther King, Jr. observed,
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
Ranchhand, you and I have had this discussion before. Same old same old.I
still believe that marriage is defined by God in the Bible.I still agree
with many nations in Europe on this one. Every non-related adult couple
should be given a union binding and recognised by the government as equal, when
they apply for that union in the court house.Then what ever religious or
secular cerimony they have after that is totally up to them and their religious
leaders. At that point as far as the government is concerned they are a
couple.But, no one important listens to me and those who believe in unions
After reading this article and me living in Brazil I have some thoughts. Here in
Brazil they have something very similar to this. Just that here in Brazil they
have to prove that they have been "together" or a couple for at least 5
years for the government to accept their relationship. According to the article
it's an almost imediate thing. Now I would like to know how one would get
out of the "contract". At least what I've seen and heard here in
Brazil it's nothing like a divorce and if they don't get out of the
contract and then have other relationship it causes a whole lot of leagl issues.
But of course America is nothing like Brazil, yet. But with many of the issues
at hand I'm afraid America is starting to look a whole lot more like
Brazil. But if they have thought out all of the little side notes to this
registry I think it could be a big help for many people in the country. But my
opinion still stands as they should just get married legally instead of the
Why don't they just get married?
@county mom;If you "personally believe that marriage is between
a man and a woman" then that is what YOU should have. Nobody else should be
obligated to live by YOUR beliefs. Period. As for the government
staying out of marriage, are you willing to give up your government provided
benefits for being married? If not, that is hypocrisy. Additionally, my religious beliefs allow same sex marriages. Are my religious
beliefs covered by the 1st Amendment?@I-I-I;Sorry, but
tolerance and respect don't deny equal rights to other citizens and require
them to accept a lesser relationship status. I glad you're satisified with
the registry (I'm not); why don't you use it for your own relationship
then instead of getting married?"I believe those who don't
accept that don't really want democracy but power." - The irony, it
burns.@toosmartforyou;You're the one trying to
change the definition. Marriage has NEVER been only one-man/one-woman. Ever.
Many ancient cultures allowed same sex marriages.
From comments above:"The government should totally stay out of
marriage. " Agreed. Which is why religious arguments against
marriage equality have no place in public policy.Strider303: "Is
it fraud to be on two lists at a time? To have a different 'committed'
partner at the same time?" By pointing out the inadequacies of
the registry you're making the case for marriage equality."I am not in favor but accept the registry as evidence that people are
afraid of commitment, but want someone in their life so "marriage light"
is created." You make no sense here. These couples _want_ to
celebrate their commitment and have it acknowledged with full legal standing,
but your laws against marriage equality prevent them from doing just that.
You're the one forcing "marriage light" on these folks, not
them.KnowItLiveItLoveIt: "I'm LDS and I am satisfied with
this registry. I believe it accommodates the needs and rights of the
minority." Sorry, but the concept of "separate but
equal" has been roundly repudiated in court multiple times. American
citizens are American citizens. We have no second-class citizens in this
"Bradshaw said the requirements are not overly strenuous, but noted that the
registry requires a higher threshold of documentation than couples applying for
a marriage license."--- Does anyone else find it strange that to
live together as a couple you need more documentation than if you just get
married?"To me this is a very, very important ordinance and
change," he said. "It really does give nontraditional couples an
opportunity to have their relationships codified."--- Hooray for
second class citizenship (better than nothing I suppose).
Accepting social/cultural change is a long process. This is a definite and
welcome step in the right direction. It is the human thing to do.
HS Fan - Congratulations on being heterosexual for 24 years. That's a great
achievement.On the whole, I support the idea of a registry. It could
prevent a lot of heartache when a committed partner is denied access to their
loved one because they are not legally married. However, as with any kind of
legislation, the devil is in the details.
@toosmartforyouMarriage has multiple definitions. Your church defines it
differently than other churches after all (I assume you believe it to be for
eternity rather than until death). The legal gov't definition is another
definition. It's that definition that is being altered, not the one used by
your church. Really your complaint should be that gov't uses the term
marriage for ANY relationship.
The registry hasn't specifically identified the legal rights enforceable by
registering, how dissolution is to be handled, or what their standing in federal
tax code would be.If this is an attempt at some sort of legal union,
then a much more serious discussion of non-traditional relationships place in
our state and nation is necessary.I feel that marriage in my (LDS)
faith is defined as between one man and one woman, but do not feel that my
marriage is in any way altered by providing a mechanism in law to provide the
same legal rights for non-traditional committed relationships.It is
when we try to apply religious principles to a legal problem the semantics seem
to the stumbling block. We need serious mutually open dialogue between all the
parties involved and find an acceptable compromise that seeks the greater good
rather than drawing lines in the sand.
One thing the article or maybe the legislation didn't cover: how does one
get off the registry? You know, when the fun is gone from playing house and one
"committed" partner wants out. Is this registry legally binding? If
companies or local entities that provide benefits to "committed"
partners, how are those benefits transferred when the benefit earner breaks the
"commitment" and wants a new partner?Is it fraud to be on
two lists at a time? To have a different "committed" partner at the
same time?Is a "promise" ring required?How come
you can get married at 16, but can't get on the registry until 18?This reminds me of a sign on a sailboat I saw when in Hawaii "Marriages
performed by the captain are on;y valid for duration of voyage". I am not in favor but accept the registry as evidence that people are afraid
of commitment, but want someone in their life so "marriage light" is
created. The gods of PC must by laughing.
HSThose who say marriage between a man and a woman is
"marriage" and those legally together in civil unions will have the same
rights in regards to housing, employment, medical decisions, etc how is there
any discrimination except for the term "marriage?" Who is trying to
change the definition of a term and being unreasonable? This isn't about
"rights" after all, is it? It's about a perceived inequality based
upon a religious definition and that is all it is about. Have your registry,
legal rights and everything that goes with it. Let religion define
"marriage" as they wish. No one is being hurt; everyone has the same
exact legal rights.That's the way it should be and whatever
corporations or other States decide is their business. After all, that is a
state's rights issue. Just because everyone doesn't agree with the
terminology doesn't mean they are "behind." Rights should be the
issue, not definitions.
This is a sign of respect from our state to those in the minority. This
testifies that Utah is willing to show tolerance and respect for people with
different beliefs while maintaining the traditional social standards we wish to
uphold.I'm LDS and I am satisfied with this registry. I believe
it accommodates the needs and rights of the minority. I know we all don't
see completely eye to eye on this, but this is a compromise that offers to
satisfy each party.I'm sure there will be people on both sides
that refuse to accept it, demanding more of their own version of
"correct", but I believe this is good. It is meant to help foster mutual
growth on an issue where we stand head to head. I believe those who don't
accept that don't really want democracy but power.I hope
Utah's future can grow in this form of mutual tolerance and respect.
HS fan, I have been married for many years also. I like this idea. I
personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. The
government should totally stay out of marriage. Each mature nonrelated
couple should be given a union from the government at the time they enter the
court house and apply.Marriage should be according to the religious
beliefs of that couple. No more no less.
What a joke. I get it that this is the best that we could expect from any
goverment in Utah but it is so far behind what corporate America and the rest of
the country are already doing. As a happily married, hetrosexual person for 24
years I do not feel threatned by equal rights for all people and have not yet
heard one reasonable, fair, non-religous argument.