Governor, state attorneys say decision leaves Utah in 'chaos'
@wrz --"Marriage is a right but it's not covered in the US
Constitution...."Yet again -- look up the concept of
unenumerated rights. I've already cited several SCOTUS precedents."Marriage is covered in state law and state law only."Yet
again -- that isn't true. As the DOMA decision specifically stated,
"'Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate the meaning of
marriage in order to further federal policy.'""That's why DOMA got reversed."DOMA section 3 got
reversed because it was unconstitutional."And you can't
pick one group, such as polygamists, and give them the right to marry without
giving all others"Yet again -- Of course you can.Yet
again -- all individual rights are limited by harm.Yet again --
Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey significantly increased risks of harm.Yet again -- Gay marriage doesn't.You can ignore these
principles as long as you want -- but the courts are well aware of them."'Loving' was about racial marriages, not gender."The attorneys in Loving argued that nobody was discriminated against
because everyone was allowed to marry, as long as they married someone of their
own race.That argument didn't work then, and it won't work
"Look up the concept of 'unenumerated rights.'"Marriage is a right but it's not covered in the US Constitution. If you
think it is please cite the reference. Marriage is covered in state law and
state law only. That's why DOMA got reversed.Marriage is not a
universal right lest homosexuals, polygamists, incestuous couples, juveniles,
mixed groups, etc., start marrying. And you can't pick one group, such as
polygamists, and give them the right to marry without giving all others who
desire to marry, the same privilege. Such conduct would be discriminatory. And
that would include geezer/10 yo marriages."... part of the
court's decision specifically states that 'Congress has enacted
discrete statutes to regulate the meaning of marriage in order to further
federal policy.'"Of course Congress can pass laws re
marriage (such as for tax filing purposes) but not who can marry whom."... this argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it
won't work now."'Loving' was about racial
marriages, not gender.Now, in order to get this passed the monitors,
for some reason I have to say nice things about you. :):):).
@Contrariusier"Look up the concept of 'unenumerated
rights.'"Marriage is a right but it's not covered in
the US Constitution. If you think it is please cite the reference. Marriage is
covered in state law and state law only. That's why DOMA got reversed.Marriage is not a universal right lest homosexuals, polygamists,
incestuous couples, juveniles, mixed groups, etc., start marrying. And you
can't pick one group, such as polygamists, and give them the right to marry
without giving all others who desire to marry, the same right. Such conduct
would be discriminatory. And that would include geezer/10 yo marriages."... part of the court's decision specifically states that
'Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate the meaning of marriage
in order to further federal policy.'"Of course Congress can
pass laws re marriage (such as for tax filing purposes) but not who can marry
whom."... this argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia,
and it won't work now."'Loving' was about racial
marriages, not gender.Now, in order to get this passed the monitors,
I have to be nice. By the way, how are you getting around the four comment
@wrz --"nothing in the US Constitution about marriage.
..."Look up the concept of "unenumerated rights".SCOTUS has affirmed many times that marriage is a basic civil right. -- Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil
rights of man'..."-- Zablocki v. Redhail -- "the right to
marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals"-- Skinner v.
Oklahoma -- a person, being cut off from "marriage and procreation,"
would be "forever deprived of a basic liberty."-- Turner v. Safley
-- invalidated a prohibition on marriages by prison inmates under privacy
rights-- Meyer v. Nebraska -- the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment
"without doubt…denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but
also the right of the individual to ... marry, establish a home and bring up
children...""SCOTUS ruled in DOMA that the federal
government cannot pass laws re marriage."No it didn't. In
fact, part of the court's decision specifically states that "Congress
has enacted discrete statutes to regulate the meaning of marriage in order to
further federal policy" (p. 2)."This is not discriminatory
since it applies to all citizens of the state... "Yet again --
this argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work
@Contrariusest:"Many Supreme Court rulings have affirmed and
reaffirmed that marriage is a basic civil right, protected by the
Constitution."There's nothing in the US Constitution about
marriage. If you think there is, please provide a cite.Furthermore,
SCOTUS ruled in DOMA that the federal government cannot pass laws re marriage.
This authority belongs to the States. And Utah passed a marriage law that says
marriages have to be between man and woman. This is not discriminatory since it
applies to all citizens of the state... all, ALL can marry with the proviso that
the marriage is between one man and one woman. It means that polygamists
can't marry, incestuous persons can't marry, siblings, first cousins
can't marry, etc."I haven't started posting nonsense,
so there's nothing for me to stop."I have to say nice
things about you in order to get this comment accepted. So, here goes :) :) :).
I've tried half dozen times. Let's hope this time it works.
@ wrzYour rants about being able to marry children/family/multiple
people have been struck down dozens of times by now. The fact is, your opinion
on this topic is straight up wrong. "You better start
swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are
@draft Your supposed definition of marriage has not been the case in our
own country for much ore then a 100 years and has never been a universal truth
at any point in history let alone "throughout the history of the world."
The 10th Circuit denied the emergency stay about an hour ago.
Both the U.S. Supreme Court "Windsor" decision and Judge Shelby's
decision are absurd, because they attempt to validate the misnomer of "same
sex marriage" by attempting to change the intrinsic definition of the word
"marriage." Throughout the history of the world, the only definition
"marriage" has ever had has been the "legal union of one man and one
woman as husband and wife." There has never been a right of persons of the
same sex to "marry"; therefore, the idea that persons of the same sex
have a fundamental constitutional right to "marry" is absurd.If state or federal legislative bodies wanted to pass laws allowing legal
unions between persons of the same sex, they certainly could do that; they could
even define the parameters of a same sex legal union to include rights and
privileges identical to those available to "marriage" partners.
However, the judicial branch cannot legitimately interpret a same sex legal
union to be a "marriage," because a "marriage" has always only
involved a man and a woman, as husband and wife, as an intrinsic, definitional
requirement.Therefore, both the Windsor and Shelby decisions
constitute inexcusably shoddy legal work.
@wrz --"...why can't polygamists, pedophiles, incestuous
persons marry?"Here we go again.Individual rights
are always limited by harm.Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey greatly
increased risks of harm compared to other forms of marriage.Gay
marriage doesn't.It's a very simple distinction.Look up the harm principle. Courts understand it, even if you don't."...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted
to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but) does not mean that this
constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or
incestuous relationships....the state continues to have a strong and adequate
justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous
relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family
environment. ..." -- In re Marriage Cases, slip op. at n. 52, 79-80.Justice Bauman of the Supreme Court of BC, reaffirming Canada's
polygamy ban: "I have concluded that this case is essentially about
harm,"... "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact
that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular
religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to
occur wherever polygamy exists."
Here is a thought to consider:Next week, a judge may rule that the
legal definition of "honest" applies to people who tell lies. If he
does, most of us will do our best to abide by that ruling. However, the new
"honest" is a very different animal than the old "honest".This is also true of SSM--it is a very different animal than the old
@antodav:"There is no basis anywhere for this belief that same-sex
marriage is a 'fundamental right...'"Marriage is a
fundamental right. So why can't polygamists, pedophiles, incestuous
persons marry? This judge, Shelby, has some more ruling to do re other marriage
arrangements."equal protection under the law"The
US Constitution's Equal Protection deals with state law. And the Supreme
Court ruled the federal government has no jurisdiction in marriage (DOMA).
Therefore it's up to the states to define marriage which the Utah did...
between a man and a woman... not same sex, not polygamy, not incest, not
child/adult, not siblings, etc."This is just another
Obama-appointed activist judge (Shelby)..."He should be
impeached, and immediately!@Jason Williams:"The Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equality under the
law."That's right... state law. And Utah State law says
marriage is between a man and a women."A state constitutional
amendment preventing same-sex couples from marrying is discriminatory and
illegal/unconstitutional. CASE CLOSED."Wait a minute... what
about polygamy, incest, child/adult, siblings, etc., marriage? If same-sex is
allowed so must all combinations of marriage be allowed under 'Equal
@John Pack Lambert of Michigansegregation used to be widely
supported in the south. and the supreme court had the nerve to struck it down,
against southerners' will? how dare they?
@Hoss1059"I would challenge anyone to go on-line, listen to any
of the talks given by leaders on the subject and see if there is anything mean
and hateful said about gay people."Of course there is nothing
mean and hateful said about gay people, but that is not the standard. There was
nothing mean and hateful said about black people for 100 years while they were
being denied the priesthood (for no valid reason). There is never anything mean
and hateful said by leaders out loud.
@John Pack --"The memory of Emmet Till and many others who were
lynched and whose lynchers never faced justice has been insulted by this
description."Let's see --Gay people in the US
are still eight times more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than
straight people. LGBT people are still beaten to death on the streets of our
cities with their attackers yelling homophobic slurs at them. In
some countries, gays can literally be put to death just for being gay.I was living in Knoxville just a few years ago, when a man stormed into a
Unitarian church gathering there and shot nine people just because he hated
"liberals, Democrats, blacks, and gays". We see continuing
violence against gays all over the world -- like those mobs in Russia and the
the Republic of Georgia, some of which have been led by priests.Civil rights for LGBT people is **literally** a matter of life or death. I think the comparison with lynchings and racial civil rights is quite
apt.(Oh, and btw -- one of the leaders of MLK's civil rights
movement, Bayard Rustin, was an openly gay black man.)
I am amused by all the whining about "one activist judge". First of
all, let's admit that the words "activist judge" always and only
apply when one doesn't agree with that judge's decision, nothing more.
It's simply an infantile expletive because you think that you know better
than the judge.These matters receive the benefit of the entire
judicial hierarchy. No one judge gets final pronouncement on anything, so your
dismissal of all things you don't like being due to an "activist
judge" are ridiculous. Let's look at the long litany of
cases to date. Virtually every pro-equality decision has withstood appeal.
SCOTUS did an elegant job of telegraphing where this is headed in the Windsor
decision. Anti-gays won ANYTHING lately?Clearly, legal same sex
marriage is coming to all 50 states. NO one has been able to produce a legally
sustainable argument to deny gay citizens equal treatment under civil law. And
despite all the (typically) vague dire chicken-little predictions of doom, NONE
of these has come true. All the whining and prognosticating just comes off as
pathetic, especially since it's consistently shown to be without any
Tomsic's hateful comparison of Herbert to Wallace is also not accurate.
This probably shows that Tomsic does not know her history. Wallace was not
stopping a school girl, he was stopping an adult male.Brown v. Board
was in the 1950s and from Kansas. Wallace's actions were in the 1960s in
Alabama. They also connect with the University of Alabama, not a K-12 school.Herbert is right. One judge should not be able to overturn the
established law and then ignore that there will be an appeal. Especially when he
engaged in fraud to confuse people as to when he would make the ruling to
prevent the state from properly anticipating him.Tomsic has made a
sickening attack on the memory of those who fought for African-American civil
rights. The memory of Emmet Till and many others who were lynched and whose
lynchers never faced justice has been insulted by this description.Defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman is central to its function
and meaning. It is about marriage meaning what it is meant to, not about animus
towards any individuals.
Judge Shelby made a horrible ruling.The question before us is what
is marriage. Is marriage an institution designed to focus as much as possible
child rearing into the actions of their own biological parents, or is it an
institution about adult relations and desires? The problem is that
the people who have the latter definition refuse to recognize that those who
oppose the redefinition of marriage do so because there is a cogent current
definition of marriage that is undermined by their redefinition.Their hateful attacks on their opponents and unwillingness to recognize that
their opponents have legitimate views have destroyed any change of developing
logical marriage law.Marriage is a public policy decision, and how
it is implemented should be a public policy decision as well. The state has
presented cogent arguments, the only problem is that Judge Shelby has too fully
embraced the ways of the radicals who call their enemies haters and will not
listen to the arguments of others, and assumes just because he does not see an
argument as valid it is not.The very fact he admits others will rule
should compel him to stay the ruling.
@Justmythoughts 4:31 p.m. Dec. 23, 20131 judge > the will of
Utahns. That is the only way something like this would ever pass. I'll bet
he is real proud of himself.--------------------Actually
that should read as follows -- let me correct your statement: THE CONSTITUTION
> the will of Utahns. And rightly so. I've read the
decision. It is well-reasoned and argued, and firmly based on the Constitution
and case law reaching back to the 1880s. Good job, Judge Shelby!
patriotCedar Hills, UTre:Bob KA large percentage of
teachers in the 1950's were gay??....NO - I wrote that many of the
best teachers have always been Gay. Maybe those in Utah moved out, cant tell
you, but bet you just never knewChildren are best taught and
nurtured by a mother and father - that is why God created and ordained the
family unit as a Father, Mother with children and with NO exceptions.....So, as a Christian, do you want to leave all the kids Gays would adopt in
orphanages?And should a man whose wife leaves him have his kids put to
death?unless of course you attempt to quote scripture and then you
get fired by the God-less left!!....Quoting Scripture in a secular
situation, such as work or a court, is rude, and it is stupid and unkind. People
who won't shut up about their religious views at work should be fired, as
should anyone who monopolizes the job with an outside issue.I know
many here think of Utah as a guided only by mormon doctrine, but, in order to be
a State, you cannot pass unconstitutional discrimination.
I guess what really bothers me is that there are so many fingers pointing at the
LDS church by those whom I highly doubt have ever really listened to the
teachings of the modern prophets and church leaders.Having close relatives
that are gay I listen intently to talks particularly on this subject. As I
think is the case many times here, my relatives don't listen to conference,
they listen for what is said about conference by their friends who are out to
take offense to the least of anything that is said.I would challenge
anyone to go on-line, listen to any of the talks given by leaders on the subject
and see if there is anything mean and hateful said about gay people.IMHO,
the church has done much lately to encourage tolerance and love of all our
brothers and sisters no matter their differences.
Article title: "Judge declines to issue stay in same-sex marriage
ruling".Quote from Heber C. Kimball: "The time is coming
when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it
will be difficult to tell the face of a saint from the face of an enemy to the
people of God. Then, brethren, look out for the great sieve, for there will be
a great sifting time, and many will fall...."Coincidence?Wise people know the answer to that question.
Sorry that should be lucky
Better now, Utah - to be State #18 than to be State #50 to grant same-sex
marriage --- save the agony.
@milojthatch Your statement is pure hyperbole. There is no war on religion. The
Government is not forcing any religious organization to conduct same sex
marriages, the military is not breaking down churches the stop people from
worshipping. This is simply a movement in offering all adults the same property
and wealth rights heterosexual couples currently enjoy. It's simply a
matter of equal rights, anyone who thinks this is a war on religion really needs
to take a moment and reflect on facts and not their emotions.
Milojthatch,You're kidding right?Gays get married -
for the most part you do not know who those gays are - and where their marriages
are taking place, but you feel attacked?Seriously?You
probably don't agree - I don't know - with other kinds of marriages
--- i.e. first cousins getting married, cohabitation, etc. --- chances are ---
you have no idea where those are taking place --- and you feel attacked?It's live and let live.(I may not agree with a lot of
people and how they live their lives --- but my life is the furthest from being
I just hope all of those newlyweds had the opportunity to update their income
status on the ACA exchange (maybe that's why the deadline was extended).
After all, they are no longer single income moms/dads. The sword cuts both ways
in marriage, some things are in a married couple's favor and some are not.
And great was the fall thereof
It has been most amusing to read all that fight about it,the article is
very informative to me, and even my comments kicked out once in a while,it
seems to me that we are entering a new time in Utah, some do suggest to calm it
down and get back to basics.I would advice DN and other folks of
this kind to open up more,that each one of us get enough information in
this ongoing shift of society.I do not believe in keeping quiet, just
because it might sound better,this issue must be kept alive.To
get back to basics, means to keep up with our awareness !!all the time!!
Congratulations to all those who got married this weekend! And I
look forward to hear about those who will do so in the future. If
you think a stay against gay marriage will end the issue here in Utah, you have
ignored the other x17 states in just x9 years. Gutting Prop 8 and DOMA. And now,
the marriages here in Utah. Tell me again how LGBT are
'loosing' this battle. I rather enjoy the irony. You can
cite your God as much as you like. Let me be clear: I don't
care. As a tax-paying American citizen, I should have access to the
1,100+ rights given to straight couples. Since, gay couples are
more then willing to adopt and give a home to many unwanted children from those
straight couples. The train has left the station after MA allowed
gay marriage in 2004. Now, the question is only what LGBT married couples will
sue for. Since they are now factually being denied rights and legal protections,
under their legally validated marriages. Those against marriage now
face the question of WHEN it will be legal. Not 'if'. So please, stop calling LGBT and their marriages a 'curse',
insults, etc. WWJD?
As a Latter day Saint, I'd rather have God's respect than that of the
World's.This is not about "civil rights" or
"marriage," it's about the growing war on religion. After same-sex
"marriage" is the law of the land in all 50 states (and it will be, in
time), the 1st Amendment will slowly, but surly be ripped to shreds, and all
religious people, Christian or not, who disagree with homosexual behavior will
be persecuted to the extreme by those who claim "tolerance."What a sad year 2013 has been for America and the World...
@bostonjoe, @thomasjefferson ~ I work and pay my taxes...gay people work and pay
their taxes. I enjoy the right to marry the woman I chose and obtain the
benefits of my marriage through tax breaks, survivor benefits and literally
thousands of other federal and state benefits guaranteed me as a married
American citizen. Gay people are American citizens the same as you and no one,
not you, me nor anyone else can deny an American citizen the same rights you
have. That is written in the Constitution. It is plain and simple. If you
don't like it you may move to North Korea or Russia. Also...plain and
Just like in other places, the arrival of gay marriage will not cause a stir in
most peoples' lives at all. Get over it. Don't want a gay marriage?
Don't have one.
...and so...another step closer to the second coming.The signs of the
times are all around us.Are you ready?
Judicial tyranny will not stand the test of time.
Judge Black in Ohio just sided with SSM being allowed in Death Certificates.He stated:, Black wrote that "the fact that a form of
discrimination has been 'traditional' is a reason to be more skeptical
of its rationality.""No hypothetical justification can
overcome the clear primary purpose and practical effect of the marriage bans ...
to disparage and demean the dignity of same-sex couples in the eyes of the state
and the wider community," Black wrote."This is bigger than
Utah, this is becoming the emancipation of love in the United States of America.
The LDS CHurch will never relax its position on Gay Marriage. Some people just
don't get it. This is Gods law not the law of man. To procreate you need
to have a man and a woman. It's pretty simple. The Bible states in
several places that a man and a woman make up a union not two men or two women.
Now the Gays and lesbians want to turn those holy words into something that fits
their lifestyles. THe LDS people and their leaders love their gay and lesbian
brothers and sisters. But God will no be mocked. Marriage is between a man and
a woman. anything else is an abomination before God!!!
@patriotWe would be so likey to be like San Francisco, it is a city
of great diversity and a rich cultural life. Diversity is nothing to fear.
procuradorfiscal:Looks at the pictures that accompany this
article.See all those happy people in line?That IS
"real" America.I've been posting here for years and
have to see an argument against same-sex marriage that doesn't revolve
around a paranoid version of "because God said so." If you have one,
I'd love to read it.
I'm sorry that this has happened. The scriptures are adamant and the Church
must follow the admonition of the Lord regardless of judges or personal wants of
those involved. Why is this ruling being accepted when it is one judge's
opinion against what the majority of the state wants. Talk about running rampant
upon the belief of others. Why is it that the homosexual community wants us to
accept what they do but is unwilling to accept our belief system in turn. We
must always accept others as the children of our Father in Heaven but we do not
have to accept that which is against our own belief system simply because others
want us to. Please respect our beliefs as well.
procuradorfiscal: "...[T]he fact that a handful of corrupt, partisan
'judges' hold desperately, resolutely to their prejudices and
preconceived notions, is evidence more of their transparent self-interest and
perfidy, than of the legitimacy or skill of the arguments made on behalf of real
America."My irony meter not only pegged its needle but leapt in
the air and crashed to the floor in pieces with that one, as did my "No True
Scotsman" fallacy meter. The statement is beyond calibration. The ones
clinging "resolutely to their prejudices and preconceived notions" with
illegitimate arguments in this case are not the judges. As to the
"real" America? It's bigger in heart and broader in vision than
you can imagine.As others have requested of you previously to no
avail, please substantiate your claim of Judge Shelby's corruption with
Everyone is so concerned about being on the winning side or the losing side. If
you think about how it happened, we all lost. The constitution is a documnent
'of the people, by the people and for the people.' The fact that one
person can invalidate the vote of millions of people is scary. You may feel
that you have justice in this case, but it really says that we no longer have a
democracy or a republic, but rather an oligarchy. A few self-proclaimed wise
men and women are telling us that we are too stupid to govern ourselves. That
isn't what the constitution was set up for. Everyone should be afraid of
I hope as many couples as want to can get married before this gets tied up in
appeals. It's been great to see these people so happy.
@procuradorfiscal --"Saying don't make it so."Of course not. But all the courts to which this issue have been brought, in
states all across the country, have come to the same conclusion -- including the
Supreme Court. And, oddly enough, I trust them to know more about both the law
and the Constitution than you do.btw -- didja see the short article
about the judgment in Ohio today? You can add that court to the tally as
well."In his lengthy decision, the Cincinnati-based judge says
that "once you get married lawfully in one state, another state cannot
summarily take your marriage away.""Absolutely correct.
States won't be allowed to continue ignoring the Full Faith and Credit
clause of the US Constitution for very much longer."Many, many
convincing arguments were skillfully made."They weren't
convincing enough to actually convince any of the judges."Millions of real Americans agree"LOL!Now
anyone who disagrees with you is not a "real" American??
... This is civil marriage people, no church or faith is being forced to perform
"Marriage Equality" ceremonies. That's left up to each religious
organization. This is simply "Separation of Church and State" as
Jefferson supported. This is about financial/legal rights as well as being on
the right side of history. We've had "Marriage Equality" here in
NYS for many months and it's celebrated and welcomed here!
We are encouraged to promote the message of the Family Proclamation to the
leaders of our nation. Does it not say that in the Proclamation? If one
can't stand up to their own believes sit down and watch. I will stand with
my beliefs and the Church I fess to believe in. We have two meanings here of
marriage . One of God's and one of Mans. Witch one will you follow?
@patriot --"First of all this activist judges ruling is NOT
constitutional and will be overturned..."Ummmm.....was it you or
procuradorfiscal who so confidently claimed a just a few weeks ago that Hawaii
would never legalize same sex marriage? It was some user with a "p"
name, in any case.And I know you're the one who so confidently
claimed that I must watch MSNBC -- when in reality I don't even have
cable.And just a day or two ago you were busy claiming that all
those polls proving more than 50% nationwide support for gay marriage must have
been conducted in San Fran.Your predictive powers aren't
looking very reliable right now.In reality, this ruling will stand.
It's the only possible ruling under the US Constitution -- and Utah's
attorneys have utterly failed to provide any evidence in support of their
claims.@bandersen --"Your answer is comical!
"I'm always happy to spread a little sunshine.But comical or not, my answers are correct.
Is not polyandry same-sex marriage? In polyandry, you've got multiple men
and women married/sealed to each other. For that matter, isn't polygamy
also a form of same-sex marriage? Aren't the sisters in a polygamous
marriage members of one big family (rather than a bunch of separate families)?
I fully expect that at least one of the already-licensed same sex couples
intends to file suit against the LDS church for not being allowed to marry in a
Temple. It's only a matter of when, not if. I sympathize with same-sex
partners who would like to have some of the legal conjugal rights traditionally
associated with marriage, but this is not the way to achieve that. Same-sex
"marriage" has only one purpose - to attack the traditional family and
the religious freedom of those who cherish it. I guess public is going to have
to have that fact shoved right into their face before they understand.
1 judge > the will of Utahns. That is the only way something like this
would ever pass. I'll bet he is real proud of himself.
All of these comments remind me of a quotation "they have joy in their works
for a season, but by and by the end cometh . . . " Don't remember who
said it, though.
procuradorfiscal:What makes this Judge Self Serving? He is a
Heterosexual married man and I doubt he had much skin in the
"homosexual" game. He did what he was supposed to do and ruled in favor
of ALL man based on the premise of the Constitution. Bias is a week argument
any way. It can't be proven and both sides of this debate can use it to
further their argument. Are you not biased in your thought process regarding
this subject? I was not around but I have herd from relatives who
have told me there was this kind of backlash in the Utah when Blacks were given
the same freedom the whites had. This was the beginning of the end some
proclaimed. I wonder what happened? Even the LDS church came around in the
early 80's and modified the BOM so Blacks had the same rights as their
White brethren. The church our community and the world is better for it.We live in the greatest country in the world where we are free to
continue in this heated debate and where all Men are created equal. Bottom line, you can't vote away peoples rights. Period!
Morality is doing what is right, no matter what you're told. Religion
is doing what you're told, no matter what is right.The comments
above seem to fall into those 2 categories.Unfortunately using
"God told me" as a defense has never been a good defense in a court of
law. (Even when you have a hand written letter from God like the Lafferty
Bros.)On the other hand you have folks who want their love and
families to be recognized as such, and use intelligent well thought out
arguments and the very Constitution which so many of the religious right claim
to be inspired.Glad to see we're doing the Right thing.Quit concentrating on sex so much, it makes up such an infinitesimally
small percentage of the time you spend with your spouse that it should hardly be
the focal point of the argument.
No one ever correctly said same sax marriage was a good thing for anyone gay or
lesbian. I'm all for gay rights but let's remember that same marriage
is a curse, not a blessing. We, as communities, states and nations all benefit
from marriage between one man and one woman, especially the LGBT community.The practical, social, religious and legal advantages of permitting same
sex marriage are too few to outweigh the costs. Let's not trade our
birthright for a mess of pottage here. Too many LBGTs across the US have had
their right to enjoy the benefits of living in a state that values traditional
marriage taken away. Let's not add to problem.
As an active LDS member, I am totally opposed to this hateful things I'm
hearing about gays. As christians we should know better on how to treat
others.Having said that, I am a traditional marriage supporter, but
I also believe there must be a way to give gay couples all the civil rights they
@antodav --" The court is run by men and its opinions and
rulings change and contradict each other all the time. "The
Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed that marriage is a basic civil right
in more than 10 decisions spanning more than 100 years -- which obviously has
involved many different panels of justices.@calcu_lus --"Gay marriage is not the enlarging an institution, it is the destruction
of an honored institution. "Please explain how gay marriage
destroys anything. Be specific.Attorneys in multiple court cases --
even arguing before the Supreme Court itself -- have completely failed to prove
any harm from gay marriage. What makes you think you know better than all those
re:Bob KA large percentage of teachers in the 1950's were gay??
Where exactly? I would dare say not even in San Francisco. Dream on. Children
are best taught and nurtured by a mother and father - that is why God created
and ordained the family unit as a Father, Mother with children and with NO
exceptions. Man perverted the laws of God with gay marriage and the consequences
will be dire. As Americans we have the right to fight for the kind of society we
want for our children and grandchildren...unless of course you attempt to quote
scripture and then you get fired by the God-less left!!
@Meckofahess"We LDS certainly are comfortable with all men having the
same privilege to WORSHIP...... but not to sodomize! "The issue
at stake here is same-sex marriages, not same-sex sex...@Mack2828"If you ever wondered what it would have been like to live in Sodom and
Gomorrah you don't have to wonder anymore."That's been
true for a long time, much like Sodom and Gomorrah this place is full of
salt.@patriot"Sure glad I live in south Utah County. With
BYU and a VERY conservative population it provides a buffer from Salt Lake
Valley which is going to deteriorate significantly with this ruling. "It's like a racist in a very white part of Idaho... and no,
nothing's going to deteriorate. On the contrary, things will improve.
I've been told that marriage strengthens relationships and bonds and
improves situations for kids. This'll be fantastic for same-sex couples and
Thinks I think. If the LDS church allowed gay marriage to ever happen in the
temples of God, then the LDS church is now a false church. Why do you think we
came out with The Family, A Proclamation to the world. Because we new this was
going to happen.
Spydee, you wrote, "What I think is sad is that twice now, once in
California and now in Utah, the citizens have passed a constitutional ammendment
and a single judge can overturn it."You are leaving out the
Supreme Court ruling striking down DOMA as unconstitutional. No one has been
able to offer a convincing argument demonstrating that gay marriage would cause
harm to others. It boils down to a religious belief that family must be
limited only to those who join for a union in which they are more likely to have
children of their own. Doesn't this beg the question: What's the
government business regarding those who either can no longer reproduce; those
who can't produce; and those who wish to marry and not have children.
It's a religious belief, and it lacks evidence. In fact, the evidence so
far points the other direction, meaning that children are well adapted and
healthy like a lot of other children. Furthermore, as more and more people have
stopped hiding their same sex relationships, more and more people learned that
homosexuality is not a moral issue.
There are two things that strike me here the first are the number of same sex
couples that want to get married and I am really OK with that. The thing I am
not OK with is those "religious" people who are so caught up in the
doctrines of their faiths that they forget that same sex couples are real
people. Same sex couples may be your sons and daughters, your brothers and
sisters and so on. Is it not important to show charity to them? They have lived
a life of being second class for so long and now they have a chance to be the
person the Lord created them to be. Is that not a reason to be happy for them?
It is time for lds people to look to the prophet, and for the prophet to look to
God.In fact, the issue is somewhat overdue for a revelation.It is
going to take a lot of prayer, in my view, for men born 75-90 years ago to see
the modern world, but God can show them the way.Not ONE of the
comments I have read here and on other threads about this ruling mentions that
thousands and thousands of Gay kids are born to mormons (larger families mean
more Gay kids).Should you not be concerned about your own kids, not
the people who are down at the Courthouse, enjoying their new freedom?The
present church policy has moved from "indoctrinate them or shun them" to
"love them and treat them well, but they are, in effect, cripples, until
they give in and marry heterosexually"Encouraging your children
to be who God made them, not to be people it is easier for you to understand,
seems to me to be exactly what Jesus would ask of you.
Contrarius: Your answer is comical! Your distinction between gay marriage and
polygamy is comical. I doubt Deseret News will even print this innocuous
personal opinion because they are part of the media that finds it more
convenient to defend your point of view,no matter how offensive it is to
families, God, and me, than allow anyone to respond to you without hurting your
re:SlopJ30Have you ever watched the classic James Stewart movie
"It's A Wonderful Life"? Recall "Pottersville"? If this gay
marriage constitutional travesty is allowed to stand then expect Salt Lake to
look alot like the little brother of San Francisco in 20 years. I don't see
this ridiculous ruling standing however so not to worry. First of all this
activist judges ruling is NOT constitutional and will be overturned...I would
guess within weeks not months. Second, the LDS church will not stand for this
abomination to fall upon the families and children of Utah. Utah is still a vast
majority of LDS - especially Utah "Happy" Valley. Before your pants
start on fire from my comments - remember I am NOT anti-gay. I AM
anti-gay-marriage and for the sole reason to protect children and the family
unit. I have a friend I grew up with who is gay and a member of the LDS church
and he understands and accepts the churches position. So - join with me and
let's keep Salt Lake "Bailey Park" instead of deteriorating into
patriotCedar Hills, UTSure glad I live in south Utah County. With
BYU and a VERY conservative population it provides a buffer from Salt Lake
Valley which is going to deteriorate significantly with this ruling.
Wouldn't want to raise my kids in any public school in Salt Lake Valley
going forward. Expect an explosion of gay teachers and other collateral
damage..... I am tempted to correct that to "Wouldn't want
my grandchildren to..." Even in the 1950's, a large percentage of the
best teachers were Gay. Perhaps it was because they could not have families, and
had the time to devote to others's kids.RSLfanalwaysWest
Valley, UTI am fine with the allowance for gay marriage in Utah. But I am
very disappointed that a judge can reverse a popular vote by the people.....Slavery and segregation were reversed "against the will of the
people". In California, voters were tricked by outsiders (you know who) into
passing Prop 8, which was behind in all polls early on. ... If there were
no judges upholding the Constitution and balancing mistakes by voters, we would
be in trouble
If you ever wondered what it would have been like to live in Sodom and Gomorrah
you don't have to wonder anymore.
San Diego - "Sodom and Gomorrah all over again."Agreed, the
pious are being very inhospitable to their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
To UTEEXPAT:Sodomy and homosexual sex within this so-called
"same sex marriage" is not the same as "We claim the privilege of
worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and
allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they
may.". We LDS certainly are comfortable with all men having the same
privilege to WORSHIP...... but not to sodomize! The courts and
judges can rule that same sex marriage is legal all they want, but in the laws
of heaven and within the eternal moral code revealed in the Holy Bible, same sex
marriage, sodomy and the like are outside of God's laws and considered as
sinful behavior in his eyes. Killing babies via abortion is legal in
America's corrupt legal system, but it is not moral or acceptable in the
eyes of God (unless the health of the mother is threatned or secodnary to rape).
The problem is that when corrupt courts and judges make such behavior legal, it
is harder for some to determine right from wrong.
@USNGary and San Diego "Sodom and Gomorrah....enough
said"Sodom was about arrogance, not homosexuality."Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters
had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor
and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me."
(Ezekiel 16:49-50)@2 bits --"I don't see how
you can make the Equal Protection case for Gay marriages... and deny equal
protection to polygamous people"It's very simple.All individual rights are limited by harm.Polygamy, incest, etc.
all convey a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of
marriage.Gay marriage does not.It's a simple
distinction.Look up the harm principle.@Wilson --"So where do we draw the line"We draw the line at
harm, of course."years ago nobody would be able to fathom the
acceptance of homosexuality."Years ago nobody would be able to
fathom allowing women to vote."what happens when and if they
start demanding rights to marry the kids they coerce into relationships?"The law will point out that they are doing harm, of course.
Also, the nastiness of some of these comments directed towards the Church belies
any claim of "tolerance" or belief in "equality" among those
making them. And if you think that the Church will EVER allow same-sex sealings,
you are a fool—ignorant of the doctrines that are most fundamental to the
Church's teachings, which come from God, not the vain whims of men.There is nothing about this ruling to celebrate. It represents gross
abuse of federal power, part of a drawn-out, nationwide attack against the core
meaning of the family, shifting it from being about children to about selfish
adults instead. As with everything today, to the detriment of society as a
whole. Future generations will not even know what the concept of a
"mother" and a "father" is, like something out of Huxley's
prophetic dystopian novel Brave New World. They will become disposable
commodities with little more value than status symbols or fashion accessories,
for people who pretend to be parents but are not, in any real sense of the word.
This is the world "progressives" have wrought for themselves
and their posterity. They cannot blame anyone else for the consequences thereof.
re:Baccus0902My wife has taught for 18 years in Utah Valley and
knows no gay teachers but that's not to say a few didn't slip through
the cracks. My point is there is a UNIVERSE of difference between the two
valley's as far as culture (Salt Lake vs Utah) and I suspect 99% of this
gay marriage fall out is going to happen north of the point of the
mountain...until the Supreme Court overrules the activist judge and restores
Utah's constitution to the people. As with San Francisco, there are
beautiful places to live outside the city in neighboring communities ...just
don't go near the city itself. Having gone to many JavaOne tech conferences
there things can be quite....scary inside the city if you know what I mean.
After reading the comments sections regarding this particular subject, I
personally can't say there is any productive reason to bother with offering
an opinion. The lines are drawn and the opinions are so polarized that it's
virtually nill that one side is going to convince the other (not saying which
one) that their view point is in any way valid, but only to those who are
choosing to defend their personal beliefs guarded in faith, may I suggest the
following bit of text from a very old book. Mathew Chapter 7 vs 6.
Gay marriage is not the enlarging an institution, it is the destruction of an
honored institution. The celebrants can expect continual opposition and civil
Courts cannot invent rights. They seem to think they can, and have been actively
trying to do so for the past 50 years, but rights are not inventions of the
state. Rights come from natural law, which is intrinsic to human beings and is
issued, beyond the power of any government to litigate, from the Creator of all
mankind.The courts may claim that there is a right to marriage, just
as they claim there is a right to abortion, just as some now claim there is a
right to "free" health care…that does not make it so. The court is
run by men and its opinions and rulings change and contradict each other all the
time. A hundred years ago the court would lot have ruled as it does today and it
will probably not rule the way it does today a hundred years from now. Judges
are political appointees, and their rulings tend to represent the political
agenda of whoever is in power—not objective legal principles, in which
justification for these rulings is nowhere to be found.
Sodom and Gomorrah all over again.
Are any same sex marriage certificates being given out in Utah county?
I have always felt the importance of participating in the workings of
government, that it was my personal duty to vote and be informed and involved.
Judge Shelby has now shown me with his ruling on marriage in the state of Utah
that the tyranny of the Judiciary supersedes the democratic process and tha the
will of the people can be changed by one person. Shame on Judge Shelby.To those who will call me out and say "but marriage is a
Constitutional right for all persons", the answer is NO it is not a
Constitutional right. Sinice 1787 it has not been a Constitutional right, and
the present Supreme Court has, although having had opportunities, has not
declared it to be "Constitutional".
Interesting the Utah LDS wedding cake bakers and photographers and florists are
finding themselves having to thinking about dealing with this years before they
thought they would have to.......
ThinksIThink: No way will the LDS Church ever allow a gay to marry a gay or a
lesbian to marry a lesbian in any of their temples. It is a fundamental part of
the doctrine of the Church that a gay or lesbian relationship is not pleasing or
lawful in the eyes of God. Please refer to "The Family A Proclamation To the
World", which states that "man and woman" are to be united for the
purpose of procreating God's spirit children, to be born into the world.
This doctrine is fundamental to the Church and can never change. Men and women
can and do change aspects of their lives, even natural affection and sometimes
even their gender, but God will not allow His doctrine to be changed. And the
First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who are the governing
quorums of the Church will not change God's doctrine. Wouldn't hold my
breath very long that this change will be forthcoming.
Re: "And here comes the Hatred!"Well, that's
refreshing. A liberal who's man enough to admit he's a hater. So few
will, these days.I reserve my hate, not for people, but for their
actions. The actions of this corrupt "judge" will go down in history,
along with those of the self-interested California "judge" that ruled
against millions of Californians in a vain attempt to legitimize and force
acceptance of his own marriage plans.Both "judges" know
better. Both "judges" know they are not free to overrule the US Supreme
Court. They both know their decisions are unsupported, both in law and fact.
They know they were made in their own selfish interest, not in the interest of
either LGBT activists, or of the real America they swore an oath to protect.They chose to knowingly violate that oath, the ethics and integrity of
their profession, and, worst of all, the Constitution. And, they've
probably convinced themselves their perfidy was justified because it obtained
for them some kind of victory.It didn't.
I'm a fifth generation proud Utahn whose ancestors crossed the plains. I
support the ruling with all my heart and am pleased our gay brothers and sisters
are finally getting afforded equal rights.It's a great day to
be a Utahn and an American!
So where do we draw the line for right and wrong if not for our personal
beliefs. I'm as much using religion as you are using the lack of religion
to justify your decisions. The problem here is that people will continue to
change the definitions of right and wrong. Right now it's set to a trend of
wrong being considered right. Isaiah 5:20 For a long time, homosexuality has
been considered wrong and sinful. People that are homosexual have been
considered sick. I'm sure years ago nobody would be able to fathom the
acceptance of homosexuality. Well, right now child molesters are wrong, sinful
and often sick. But what happens when and if they start demanding rights to
marry the kids they coerce into relationships? What if that kid believes the
adult loves them and that they love the adult? It's all love, right?
It's consensual, right? Who are we to deny their love and right to love?
Where do we draw the line, and when does that line stop being pushed? It's
a slippery slope.. You may laugh, but people probably laughed at the
"extreme" thought of homosexuals being allowed to marry.
@TumbleweedGods laws are not mans laws. You're allowed to believe
whatever you want. And I know that in Utah many laws based purely on LDS
theology exist(go look at the liquor laws and tell me they aren't due to
LDS theology) But civil rights are non negotiable in court, and when the
argument in court is basically. Well we don't like it, and our god
doesn't believe we should do it that in itself is a reason to strike down a
law. This is America, you can believe whatever you want, but you don't get
to pass laws based on your religion. My question is why religious conservatives
lost their minds about Sharia Law, yet have no problem with trying to impose
their religion on the rest of us. I'm from Utah. If I wanted to be LDS I
could find multiple people to bring me in. But if i'm not LDS why should I
have to follow your religion?
desertPotsdam, 00"What people cannot understand, is the
will of children, that are trampled under boots of ignorance.There is Harm
done to them, since they cannot choose or decide upon their fate, they must go
where the adult-world is telling them to go."Funny, I feel the
same way about those poor kids who are raised in religious households. It is so
sad that they have to be ignorant of the actual world and believe in these
fantastical myths. But then these are NOT MY CHILDREN and so none of my
@VariedHueUm, no. All major polls pointed to a close Obama victory. The
only person calling a Romney victory was Karl Rove. Go youtube his fox news
appearance and watch him freak out when the election is called for Obama.
I am glad that there are laws protecting children against adults, no matter what
gender, who would attempt to sexually abuse them.If you are under 18
and you are sexually assaulted by an adult, no matter what their relationship is
to you, just report it to the police and that assailant will be put behind bars
and kept away from you for at least the number of years it takes for you to be
old enough to be on your own.
The time for this idea has come. There is not much people can do to stop it. As far as arguments against SSM there are no legs to stand on:Nature: refuted (various studies)Reproduction: refuted (sterile
hetero couples)Tradition: not much of a legReligion:
Refuted. Seen as bigot, don't believe in that God.Morals:
Refuted: New morality, who are you to say right and wrong.Good game
Country.berry,Nobody said gay marriage leads to polygamous marriages.
Re-defining "marriage" to include homosexual couples opens the door for
re-defining it to include polygamous couples.I don't see how
you can make the Equal Protection case for Gay marriages... and deny equal
protection to polygamous people who want to marry. IF we deny them that...
have we not denied them equal protection under the law?So how long
will it be before someone goes to court and gets the same judgement that
according to the equal protection clause they must be allowed to legally marry
as well?I think that's what they are getting at.---The precedent has now been made that ANY relationship you can
think of MUST (by equal protection) be allowed.It will be pretty
easy to make the case for polygamy after gay marriage has plowed the ground and
made the case that ANYbody who wants to marry must by law be allowed to marry
and have their marriages considered just as legal, binding, and respected by the
law, as any other "marriage".How can you deny polygamous
couples to openly marry now? (remember equal protection).
What's next!? Women getting the right to vote?Thanks OBAMA
@The Real U: Voters have standing and the people of Utah, most of whom are
religious, not only voted to stop blasphemy against marriage, which God has
ordained, but they have the right to vote the free exercise of their religion.
Or did you forget about the Free Exercise Clause like the federal courts seem to
have? Funny they recognize adult porn as "free speech" but have
completely forgotten that our laws are based upon the commandments God gave
Moses, which eventually developed into our common law (which incidentally
considered, until just recently, homosexual sex to be an egregious felony).
Like I said earlier, the people of Utah have a right to rely on their vote to
keep their law from being offensive to their Maker. I fear for my children and
grandchildren that the Divine protections we once enjoyed because of the
reverence our laws had for Deity will soon disappear and the American people
will pay a heavy price in physical, spiritual and emotional suffering. May God
remember the efforts of those who have worked so hard to keep our laws from
offending Him, our Creator.
Sodom and Gomorrah....enough said
I can not choose to be homosexual anymore than they can choose to be
heterosexual. I do however draw the line at polygamy. You can not make polygyny
legal without polyandy....so what is exactly the point of marriage when you are
basically a group that randomly has sex with with others in the group? I
don't see the reasoning on how gay marriage leads to polygamous marriages.
Marriage is basically a legal contract between two people.
I'm a strait married man and have been for 18 years same wonderful woman,
we have three kids. Thrilled with the ruling, ether everyone is afforded the
same rights, or we have no rights at all! Does this ruling affect our marriage
in any way shape or form? No it does not. Just like defining marriage between
one man, one woman did nothing to stop Homosexual couples or even Polygamist
couples from living with one another and defining their co-habitation as they
saw fit. So the only hurdle remaining was how we taxed these fine folks, and
what privileges they had. Why deny people who love and care for each other the
same rights everyone else is afforded? If you think homosexuality is a sin,
that's fine, that's your issue. You can believe that all sorts of
things are a sin, but you don't get to enforce your personal beliefs on
others, at least not for very long. And to think it was Utah's law that
was the straw to break the camels back. How ironic.
@Tumbleweed @WilsonTo all of the posters attempting to use religious
beliefs as an excuse to justify intollerence - thank you, I needed a good laugh
today. Why you don't understand that religious thought has no
legal standing, well, that is beyond me. Live and let live.
@2 bits;If the decision would have gone the other way, what purpose
would a stay serve? We couldn't have married before the ruling still
wouldn't be able to marry after, right? The ruling can still be appealed,
but if you think it would fail anyway, why spend all that money defending it,
you obviously think the decision is the right one?@TruthIsKing;True marriage = true marriage; One-man/one-woman is only one form,
among many, of "true marriage".@Patriot;My
nieces saw one of their favorite teachers in line on the news and they were
thrilled for her.@no fit in SG;I don't think George
Bush would be terribly unhappy, as his father was "witness" for a
same-sex marriage (in the news) not that long ago.@Anti-government;I love you "activist Judge" types; you
fill my day with laughter.@RSLfanalways;One more time;
you can't vote on other people's rights.@jester6;I'm a Utahn, I did and do support this. You don't speak for
Interesting comments on DN today. People wishing a Merry Christmas specifically
to those mocking Christ's teachings of morality. Ironic. Also those poking
fun at the LDS community saying God should have let us know this was coming. If
you'd like to listen to General Conference and past General Conferences
then I think you would know that the saints have been preparing for what's
to come for a while now. As frustrating as it is, it is not surprising. The
Bible shows us the change in people's mannerisms at the last days. 1
Timothy 3. Unfortunately, though people will be blessed for following God, they
will still have to deal with the trials that will come through the disobedience
of the majority to God's will. I can imagine that things will get
significantly worse before they get better. I'm assuming there will be
more and more justification of sin. Just because clergy (of another faith with
authority being passed to them by man) performs gay marriage does not make it
right and it will not be recognized by God. They are fooling others while being
Here's the problem. Gays claim their marriages hurt no one. But
that's not what the scriptures teach that are believed by the majority of
Utahns. When a nation's laws become corrupted, particularly those that
offend God (marriage was ordained of God), those laws mock God and he is apt to
withdraw his protection from that society. That puts us all at risk of physical
and spiritual harm. Helaman 5:2 2 For as their laws and
their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who
chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were
ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.
Messed up with my last comment... the "(posted at" was supposed to have
a time. Missed that before commenting.
procuradorfiscal: "What a surprise that a corrupt, doctrinaire, liberal,
Obama-appointed 'judge' would again violate his oath of office, deny
due process of law, and take pot shots at the rule of law."And
here comes the Hatred!You know what I find hilarious about this
situation? I would be willing to bet those posting on here about how this
ruling is so un-just and basically saying they want a higher form of Government
to fix this ruling are the same ones who yell from the rooftops that we need
less Government. I just find it interesting how some people mold
their views of the Government like a piece of clay. When it works for them it
becomes a beautiful piece of art, when it doesn't it's a piece of clay
they want less of.
@Wilson --"Homosexuality by itself is unsustainable."So what? Only 5% of the population is LGBT. Human existence is in no
danger from gay marriage."It is unnatural and wrong."There is nothing unnatural about it. Many many nonhuman species engage
in homosexual behaviors out in nature. Therefore it's natural.@JNA --"Homosexuality is wrong and usually the beginning of
the end for a civilization."Please name any civilization that
has ever ended due to homosexuality. Even a single one.And before
you try for Greece or Rome -- both of those civilizations lasted more than 1000
years while encouraging homosexual relations. The Roman civilization didn't
end until about 300 years AFTER they outlawed same-sex marriages.So
let's see your examples. Please be specific.
The judge is clearly biased and that is hindering him from doing his job
properly. The stay should have been granted because the decision is going to be
appealed. A single judge should not be able to make such a huge decision. Judge
Shelby clearly has ego problems as well. I am not saying whether or not I
support his decision, because it doesn't matter. Regardless of how you look
at it, this judge is overstepping his authority based on his personal views. No
one should be celebrating a judge overstepping his bounds, even those who
support gay marriage. Shame on Judge Shelby, not necessarily for his view on the
issue, but for overstepping his authority. Shame on those who think judges
should have this much power too.
@ patriot"Wouldn't want to raise my kids in any public
school in Salt Lake Valley going forward. Expect an explosion of gay teachers
and other collateral damage."My dear Patriot,I hope you
can keep a secret.... Your children are already being taught by some gay
teachers in south Utah County... Shhhhh!God bless all people getting
married in Utah, heterosexuals and homosexuals. Funny, but I hope
Virginia soon follows the example of Utah (Never thought I would make such a
What right, if any, does a person with a religion have. Does separation of
church and state mean that those that choose to not separate themselves from God
will not be allowed to have a voice in matters of state?
@antodav (posted atI think the judge has read the Constitution, but have
you read Amendment 3?It does two different things: 1) "Marriage
consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman" and 2) "No
other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or
given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."Therefore
goes against the "Full Faith and Credit clause (Article IV, Section 1)"
because Utah doesn't recognize the marriage in the state. That makes your
argument invalid as far as there is nothing wrong with the law. You have
actually proved that there is another thing wrong with the amendment.
@WilsonPleasanton, CA"I'm assuming that the same
people that are supporting gay marriage will also support polygamy so long as
it's in the name of "love." Polygamists aren't bothering
anybody...". . .If opponents to polygamy can
establish a "rational basis" then, no. A religious manifesto is not a
"rational basis."But, if there's no "rational
basis" to prohibit polygamy – or any other type of marriage –
then yes, I will absolutely support all of them them. And so should you.I, for one, believe that any religious sect that calls for and blesses
everlastingly polygamy within their own latter-day scriptures should have the
door opened so they can return to their roots and live it completely, fully,
faithfully and legally.
Just because the homosexual lifestyle is popular and supported by the majority
of Americans, and just because 18 states now legalize gay marriage DOES NOT make
it right. Nor does it change God's laws which we will ALL be held
accountable for at some point. I feel for those who struggle with these
attractions. Tic toc, tic toc, tic toc.......
aislander, there is not "Congrats to Utah" as Utahns did not and do not
support this. This was and edict from a liberal appointee who has no stake in
Utah, it's citizens or their values.
I am fine with the allowance for gay marriage in Utah. But I am very
disappointed that a judge can reverse a popular vote by the people.
@patriot our comment just makes me sad for your kids, it is
unfortunate they will grow-up around such narrow views of the world and people
What people cannot understand, is the will of children, that are trampled under
boots of ignorance.There is Harm done to them, since they cannot choose or
decide upon their fate, they must go where the adult-world is telling them to
go. Adults are fallen people as we do understand, that the natural man is an
enemy to God."For the anatural man is an enemy to God, and has
been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to
the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a
saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child,
submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things
which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his
father."Since children are in the hands of men by law, they are
in the hands of God by spirit.That means no matter where the rulings will
go, God will change the course of history to protect his children. Nodoby can do
anything about that, not even the church.God reigns in heaven.
I don't know about you but since all these militant gays posted all their
media-backed propaganda and statistics my opinion has been totally changed.Not!One activist judge deciding and then re-deciding to
uphold his own liberal interpretation doesn't change much in terms of right
and wrong....even if it is legalized. Legal does not equal "right"
regardless of how bad they want it to be the case. I'm sure they will keep
trying to prove it is though. They never seem to stop ramming their
militant opinions down everyones throat. Its free speech when they express
their opinion and it is hate speech when anyone else expresses theirs. Funny
how that works.
Any one had any contact or discussions with Orrin Hatch, Mike Lee and George
Bush today? Love to have been a fly on the wall when the three of them
heard what is going on in Utah the past few days.Those three fellows were
the initiators of Judge Shelby's Judicial position.Can't pin
this one on President Obama, sorry folks.
@Tumbleweed 12:14 p.m. Dec. 23, 2013Centerville, UTWhy
hasn't the news media checked to see if Judge Shelby is gay? Doesn't
the media believe that's an important fact for the public to know? Wikipedia says: "Shelby lives in Salt Lake City with his
life partner and their two adopted sons."---------------------That so-called Wikipedia quote is not
accurate. I just looked at the page for Robert J. Shelby, a judge in Utah, and
it said:"Shelby lives in Salt Lake City with his WIFE ANGELA and
their two adopted sons."Please -- do better research before you
post something like that. Make sure that what you say is true.
JNA says: "Wake up, because the apathy of heterosexual community is going to
destroy us."Huh. And here I thought I was in a community of
Americans, including gay, straight, black, white, brown, yellow, left-handed,
right-handed, bald, hairy, fat and thin people. I've never once thought of
myself as part of "the heterosexual community." Are there annual dues
and meetings involved?Patriot says: "With BYU and a VERY
conservative population it provides a buffer from Salt Lake Valley which is
going to deteriorate significantly with this ruling. Wouldn't want to raise
my kids in any public school in Salt Lake Valley going forward."More hilarity. You do know that kids don't catch gayness like a virus,
right? The funny thing is, more and more children of conservative parents are
wondering why their parents are so obsessed with gays' bedroom activities.
In 20 years, when Salt Lake Valley has not "deteriorated" in any
identifiable, measurable way, will you retract?
I am now embarrassed to be a Utahn.True marriage = one man and one
@Lagomorph --"I spent several hours at the SL City-County
building this morning"Are congratulations called for? I'm
ready to throw the confetti!@Wilson --"I'm
assuming that the same people that are supporting gay marriage will also support
polygamy so long as it's in the name of "love.""Here we go again.Individual rights are always limited by harm.Polygamy, incest, etc. convey significantly increased risks of harm
compared to other forms of marriage.Gay marriage does not.It's a very simple distinction.Look up the harm principle. "See what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. "Sodom and Gomorrah was about arrogance -- not homosexuality."Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters
had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor
and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me."
From the article: "A team of volunteer clergy and officiators filled the
lobby and wandered the halls performing marriages for cheering and weeping
strangers." Just a reminder that many religious denominations are perfectly
willing to officiate at same-sex marriages. The licenses cover the civil side of
marriage, where equality is every citizen's Constitutional right; each
church can still decide whether or not to add religious blessings to the mix.
Why should any one church get to dictate to the others? One of the key purposes
of our Constitution is to preserve minority rights.
The fact that Utah's governor's back round is real estate, rather than
the law, may account for his lack of knowledge on the Constitution. I
understand that he is also LDS, so his commitments may be.........Utah is
going to be remembered for other things now.Perhaps that frequent inquiry
most of us experience...."Hey, are you a Polygamist too?" will not
be heard as often?
The judge probably made the right decision (based on the law).But
the thing that bugs me a little is... the judicial system seems so one-sided.
I know if the decision had gone the other way and an injunction was requested to
give them time to appeal... they would have been given some time.I
don't like when judges decide their decision is final and can't be
appealed.I do think we would get the same decision in the end, even
if it went to the Supreme Court. But it bugs me that this judge won't
even grant an injunction while they appeal. When I know they would (and have)
granted injunctions when the other side requested them.
@antodavIf you are going to call out a Federal Judge for not knowing
the Constitution - you should probably know it yourself first. Utah's 3rd Ammendment is in clear violation of the SUPREME law of the
land - the 14th Ammendment of the U.S. Constitution:"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"
@JNA;I don't care if the LDS church marries LGBT couples in the
temple or not, but I do think it should lose it's tax-exempt status for
attempting to violate the civil rights of American Citizens though.VariedHue says:"Why wasn't the State forewarned?"--- You would think that with something this important to their god, he
would have given them some heads-up, wouldn't you?
Sure glad I live in south Utah County. With BYU and a VERY conservative
population it provides a buffer from Salt Lake Valley which is going to
deteriorate significantly with this ruling. Wouldn't want to raise my kids
in any public school in Salt Lake Valley going forward. Expect an explosion of
gay teachers and other collateral damage.
Funny how judges are "corrupt" or "ruling from the bench" when
they make a decision you disagree with. Sour grapes is all I see.Wilson says: "People are thinking they are so much more knowledgeable than
God . .It's not my place to judge you, but what you're doing is
wrong."It would be difficult to write a parody of sour,
hand-wringing social conservatives funnier than that. If you don't see the
humor there, pointing it out would be futile.USNGary says: "A
man cannot have a baby and a woman cannot procreate with another woman."I can't believe people are still making this argument, as the
inability to procreate extends to straight people as well. Do you support a ban
on sterile couples from marrying?Procuradorfiscal says: "This
sowing of the wind can never produce the result to which the LGBT clearly aspire
-- enforced acceptance of their pet vice by real Americans."*SNICKER!* I don't think we define "real 'Mericans" the same
way, Hoss. And again, you miss the point: it's irrelevant whether you
accept someone's vice or not. Doesn't involve you; not your business.
@procuradorfiscal. If you have evidence that Judge Shelby is corrupt, please
present it. If not, you should tone down the rhetoric.
@USNGary"Utah should just make a new law that is constitutional and
BAN gay marriages"You can't, since you already have it and
it's been overturned in the court, you have to play with the hand you were
dealt which is seeing this one through the appeals process.If you
were to try and start a new one it'd face an immediate lawsuit before it
could even go into effect.@JNA"Homosexuality is wrong and
usually the beginning of the end for a civilization."There is
not a single civilization on Earth that has ever collapsed as a direct result of
acceptance of homosexuality.@Spydee"What I think is sad is
that twice now, once in California and now in Utah, the citizens have passed a
constitutional ammendment and a single judge can overturn it."What's sad is that you think you can violate the US Constitution and not
have that law properly struck down by the courts.
Now the only question is: how long until the LDS church claims that they
supported gay marriage all along, were consistent in that support, and
that's the reason that Utah was among the first states to approve gay
UteExpat:Thank you. The perfect quote for the situation coming directly
from the Articles of Faith.
If there wasn't a solid reason in the first place, it hasn't changed.
Let the weddings continue.
"What I think is sad is that twice now, once in California and now in Utah,
the citizens have passed a constitutional ammendment and a single judge can
overturn it."Yes, it's heartbreaking when people vote to
turn others into second-class citizens and that pesky Constitution gets in the
way. If someone else having the same privileges you do is burning
you this bad, you must have a really easy life.
procuradorfiscal: "What a surprise that a corrupt, doctrinaire, liberal,
Obama-appointed 'judge' would again violate his oath of office, deny
due process of law, and take pot shots at the rule of law."Obama-appointed, yes, but with strong local support.Sen. Orrin
Hatch (R-UT): "A man of keen intellect, Robert Shelby is a strong choice to
serve on the U. S. District Court. Throughout his legal career, he has
demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the law. I look forward to the
Judiciary Committee evaluating his nomination." (11/30/2011)Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): "Whenever we have had a judicial vacancy in
Utah, no matter who occupies the White House, I look for a candidate to
recommend who is widely respected in the legal community and who can be widely
supported by the Senate. Bob Shelby certainly meets that test... Mr. Chairman,
I strongly support Bob Shelby’s nomination and commend him to my Committee
colleagues." (4/26/2012)Oh, yeah. I forgot. Hatch is a RINO.
@procuradorfiscal & antodav: Would this be the same "liberal,
activist" judge who was recommended on the floor of the Senate by Orrin
Hatch and Mike Lee? Because I don't see them showing a lot of goodwill to
liberals.At this point, I guess whatever excuse makes you feel
better, not to mention allows you to dodge the real issue, will be the one you
Some of you are under the impression that Judge Shelby's has a precedent.
May I remind you that the supreme court declined to rule on California's
position. In California, its own supreme court declared it unconstitutional in
that state. Judge Shelby has basically ruled that all 50 states must allow
same-sex marriage. He has most likely put the US Supreme Court in a bind as
throughout history, it has shied away from making landmark precedents unless
they absolutely had to as in Brown vs Board of Educ. or Roe vs Wade. Why was the
case brought to federal court and not go through the state system first? Why did
Judge Shelby claim that he would not be able to have a decision until January 7
at the earliest and then issue his decision two and a half weeks early? Is there
a hidden agenda? How did 120 people know to get to the court house so quickly?
Were the forewarned about the decision? Why wasn't the State forewarned?
Just a few things to think about.
A very Merry Christmas to all Utahns, in particular to Judge Shelby and to all
who get married this week.
The Constitution has spoken and yet again proven it works for ALL of it's
Citizens.Thank the Good Lord and God Bless the USA!
This is a terrible sad day for our State and our country. Homosexuality is wrong
and usually the beginning of the end for a civilization. So many people have
their head in the sand regarding the lies from the gay community that no
religion will be forced to marry against their doctrine. There was one honest
post on here and it said "At the pace things are changing, I think we will
see changes in LDS policy that allows gays to marry in the temple." We will
NEVER see the changes in the "LDS policy" but we will see activist who
now have their foot in the door have the big bad government force religions to
comply.Now I say honest because it slightly touches on what the gay
and lesbian community truly want and that is to force the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints to marry same sex couples in the temple or lose any tax
exempt status. The door is now open for the gay and lesbian activist to make and
all out assault on any and all religions. Wake up, because the apathy of
heterosexual community is going to destroy us.
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates
of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship
how, where, or what they may."
What I think is sad is that twice now, once in California and now in Utah, the
citizens have passed a constitutional ammendment and a single judge can overturn
it.We have a U.S. President who bypasses the constitution and the
congress to get what he wants.We have a Senate who wants to bypass
procedures and allow new judges to quickly be appointed (before conservatives
gain control again).When the wicked rule, the people mourn (Proverbs
Procuradorfiscal:"It has. Time and time again. Real people, from coast
to coast, have always stood up for traditional marriage, against anything that
cheapens or opposes it."How does same sex marriage cheapen or
oppose heterosexual marriage? Is what the LGBT community doing hurting your vows
or commitments...if it is you may have much bigger problems.There
was also a time when slavery was endorsed the world over and blacks were brought
in as trade goods? People eventually have to wake up and realize their hatred
and bigotry don't make for a harmonious and functional society. What I
believe to be morally right or wrong doesn't change the rights of citizens
to choose who they will spend their lives with and make commitments to.
Homosexuality by itself is unsustainable. In fact, a woman cannot procreate
without a man or use of a man. It is unnatural and wrong. It is self-serving
action, camouflaged by "love." The only reason "educated"
judges/lawmakers can say there is no "proof" that this will negatively
affect others is because they are left to their limited understanding. It's
the same reason the Pharisees/Sadducees thought to question Christ on doctrine.
They were blinded by limited understanding. They were always wrong. We know from
the past that these things are not tolerable to God who loves all people with a
perfect love. Using the word love to justify sin will not work out in the end.
How about those who love the adversary more than God. Are they for their love or
rebellion? Marriage between man and woman, with the gospel, can help people
draw nearer to God. Marriage between same sex couples, ignoring the gospel, will
help people draw nearer to the adversary. As much as people will try to ignore
those that, it will happen. The more a nation follows the adversary more than
God, the less blessed we'll be.
12th Article of Faith.
If polls were to be believed then Romney would be president. But the election
was held and Obama is still president. Utah voted but apparently opinion polls
seem to carry more weight than actual elections. Until you can look at the
polling questions, how they were written and in what order, polls aren't
worth a thing.
Big Bubba said; "... the Church would likely earn more respect from people
around the world if it stopped opposing gay marriage. But as we learned in
Sunday school, embracing the teachings of the living prophet is not always
fashionable, especially in an increasingly secular world."I
agree as far as it concerns our own members who should embrace the
prophet's teachings and, indeed, "choose whom they will serve." But
taking away the freedom of outsiders is not our duty and does not earn respect.
@ Wilf 55,My last comment was too heavy-handed. What is more
important to me than all this marriage debate is being able to sit next to you
in church as good friends despite our personal differences of opinion. God
Re: "The 'will of the people' has spoken."It has.
Time and time again. Real people, from coast to coast, have always stood up for
traditional marriage, against anything that cheapens or opposes it.Like LGBT "marriage."And, time and time again,
doctrinaire, self-interested, leftist, lower-court judges have illegally
overruled the US Supreme Court, corruptly legislating from the bench, in a
coordinated effort to substitute a discredited, unreasoned, unsupportable
constitutional construction for that of the Nation's founders and
preservers.Their tactic is corruption. Cheating. Pure and simple.If LGBT activists were genuinely convinced that their views were
supported by a majority of the Nation's real people, they wouldn't be
pushing so hard for corrupt, illegal, judicial "solutions."Like Judge Shelby's.They would, instead, be crafting valid,
supportable legislation -- that many of us might well embrace, assuming proper
protection for people of conscience.This sowing of the wind can
never produce the result to which the LGBT clearly aspire -- enforced acceptance
of their pet vice by real Americans.They should, however, worry
about reaping a whirlwind of new opposition by their corrupt tactic.
Utah should just make a new law that is constitutional and BAN gay marriages....
God said to go into the world and procreate. doing the acts of procreation is
not procreation. a man cannot have a baby and a woman can not procreate with
I'm assuming that the same people that are supporting gay marriage will
also support polygamy so long as it's in the name of "love."
Polygamists aren't bothering anybody. Same with a man that says he loves an
underage minor. Are you okay if they get married, so long as they "love"
each other? I wonder how much more of a decline we'll see as the American
people try to blur the lines of right and wrong. Just goes to show how much more
people are confused when left to their own understanding. People are thinking
they are so much more knowledgeable than God. 1 Timothy 3 and Romans 1:27 This
isn't the first time these sorts of things have happened among the human
race, either. See what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. And yet, people are
so quick to forget God and instead support the adversary. Gay marriage is NOT of
God and every victory for gay marriage is a victory for the adversary. I'm
sure people will continue to mock the position I and many others have of
homosexuality. It's not my place to judge "you", but what
you're doing is wrong.
Welcome Utah, to the real world.Real issues.Real people.Real
love and real lives.
Why hasn't the news media checked to see if Judge Shelby is gay?
Doesn't the media believe that's an important fact for the public to
know? Wikipedia says: "Shelby lives in Salt Lake
City with his life partner and their two adopted sons."If
"life partner" means gay partner that would be important to know
inasmuch as the Deseret News has already questioned the skimpy precedent this
Judge used to make his decision. If his decision could have been influenced by
his bias as a gay person, wouldn't that be an important fact for
Utah's citizens to know inasmuch as they already decided by a 2/3 vote that
gay marriage should not be permitted in their state?
Hee-haw, just have to laugh at the self deception out there. LEGAL does not =
Grandma 20: The Washington Times/ABC poll nationwide indicates that
58% of the US population supports legal gay marriage, only 36% oppose. I realize
that there might be a little wiggle room for error, but you have to admit that
is a very wide spread! I challenge you to produce ANY recent nationwide poll
that does not show majority support for gay marriage. Further,
polls show that only 13 states now have a majority of their population opposing
legal gay marriage. And as we see from the past few days news, even that
doesn't really matter anymore, because the courts are universally finding
that there is no legally sustainable reason to deny equal treatment under civil
marriage law to law-abiding tax-paying gay US Citizens. nor to deny the many
many Christian and non-Christian churches that want to perform gay marriages the
ability to do so. And Congrats to Utah! Let the weddings continue!
A prominent anti-marrriage equality politician was on local radio talk show
last Friday afternoon making the "optimality" argument, saying that
children with married parents have the best social outcomes. I spent several
hours at the SL City-County building this morning. I was struck by the number
of children there, from babes in arms to toddlers to tweens.. I challenge this
woman to go down there and meet with these kids and tell them, "You know, I
could improve your chances of succeeding in life by supporting your
parents' right to marry, but I would rather that you bear the consequences
of having unmarried parents and risk suboptimal social outcomes." To me,
that seems like premeditated and willful cruelty. If proponents of
"traditional" marriage are going to wheel out the child welfare
argument, then they need to acknowledge that they are throwing a significant
number of very real children into suboptimal family situations. The state based
much of its argument in the original case and the case for the stay on
"responsible" procreation. These gay couples have already procreated
and will continue to do so. The responsible thing for their children's
wlefare is to let them marry.
It's just a matter of time before a federal court strikes down the same
kind of law here in South Carolina! The history of this country is one of the
struggle for an ever-widening circle of freedom and equal opportunity. There
will always be people who believe strongly in their religion or their politics
to the point where they feel they can impose their views on others. But the
whole point of being free is that you get to do and believe whatever you want
until you reach the point where it violates my rights to exactly the same thing.
No one is forcing people like Phil Robertson to get gay-married or to read a
real book on US history so that he might know and understand what
African-Americans went through before the civil-rights movement. But we can
reasonably expect him to accord every one who disagrees with him the same rights
he takes for granted himself. What is truly amazing is that marriage equality
would come to Utah first! It's enough to make you sing "I
believe!" right along with Elder Price!!
If Utah continues to challenge this they can probably go to a federal appeals
court in Denver.But my guess it would be pointless as would The Supreme
Court.This is the way it is and Utah should move on and use it's resources
in other ways.One by one,all states will recognize gay marriage.
What a surprise that a corrupt, doctrinaire, liberal, Obama-appointed
"judge" would again violate his oath of office, deny due process of law,
and take pot shots at the rule of law.Liberals daily demonstrate
they can't be trusted with the common good.
@ Wilf 55,As a fellow member of the LDS faith I respectfully say
that "tolerance" on gay marriage is not in keeping with the teachings of
the living prophet and apostles. However, you are right that the Church would
likely earn more respect from people around the world if it stopped opposing gay
marriage. But as we learned in Sunday school, embracing the teachings of the
living prophet is not always fashionable, especially in an increasingly secular
world. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.
I hope the state will continue to fight this. We were the first to stop ERA. I
hope we can be the first to defend the will of the majority.
The judge made the right decision is refusing to issue a stay. Same-sex couples
have been discriminated against long enough by the voter-approved amendment to
the Utah State Constitution. Governor Herbert claims confusion has been caused
by Judge Shelby's ruling. The confusion seems to lie with the
governor's evident lack of knowledge about our constitutional form of
government here in the United States. The courts have ruled that the right to
marry is a fundamental right. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment guarantees equality under the law. A state constitutional amendment
preventing same-sex couples from marrying is discriminatory and
illegal/unconstitutional. CASE CLOSED.
Pagan Salt Lake City, UT'Gallup Poll: Majority of
Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews -
05/20/2011'For the first time since Gallup started studying the
issue in 1996, the polling organization found a majority of Americans favor
legalizing same-sex marriage.'I beg to differ with you. The
Gallop Poll and or any other poll only polls certain areas of the U.S. -- not
the whole country. And it depends on where in the country.
It is not the judge's responsibility to do the job of the lawyers. The lawyers failed to present evidence to support their claims and they
failed to ask for a stay should the court find against them. Now
that a decision has been reached, the state has failed to present any evidence
for why, when same-sex marriages are already happening, there should be a stay
stopping them.The burden of proof lies on the state - and they are
falling short and leaving the judge no legal option but to find against them.
Thank you judge Shelby!
This was not only predictable and anti-climatic, it was right.The
handwriting is on the wall... even if the Supreme Court ever decides to hear
this case, Utah will have paved and payed the way to ending the bans against
same-sex marriage in all states.Utah and Governor Herbert and
religionist opponents need to get used to the fact that Shelby in Kitchen does
absolutely nothing to interfere with Utah's or any church's right or
ability to "to best defend traditional marriage within the borders of
Utah."And every gay person in Utah, whether married or not, will
help defend traditional marriage. If it ever comes under attack. As
it is, they already support and celebrate and honor traditional marriage among
family and friends and society at large.In the end, Herbert, et.al.,
are not defending traditional marriage, they're defending sectarian
religion and it's imposition on individual constitutional rights.
At the pace things are changing, I think we will see changes in LDS policy that
allows gays to marry in the temple.
The new situation in Utah is world news. The Mormon church would deserve much
respect in all advanced countries if it would tone down its opposition to
same-sex marriage as far as it concerns non-Mormons. A church should not try to
rule the lives of others. If the church wants tolerance for its programs and
missionary work, it would profit by showing tolerance to others.
I don't think this judge has even read the Constitution. There is no basis
anywhere for this belief that same-sex marriage is a "fundamental
right", or that it has anything whatsoever to do with "equal protection
under the law" (protection against WHAT exactly? Is the government punishing
people for not being married?), or that the Federal Government has any business
whatsoever legislating marriage at all. Per the 10th Amendment, any such power
is reserved to the states, meaning that Utah can make whatever marriage laws it
wants so long as it adheres to the Full Faith and Credit clause (Article IV,
Section 1) which requires it to recognize marriages performed in other states as
legal in Utah even if the marriages could not be legally issued in Utah itself.
This is just another Obama-appointed activist judge legislating from
the bench according to his own personal opinions instead of according to the law
itself. The state should continue to appeal this ruling up to the Supreme Court
where hopefully, maybe, sanity and honest jurisprudence will prevail.
If you think you can use your religion to deny other their rights then get ready
for more disappointment.
Unless you have traded 4 head of cattle for a spouse…you are
already in a 'non-traditional' marriage.As for
child-rearing."In most ways, the accumulated research shows,
children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of
heterosexual parents. They show no increased incidence of psychiatric
disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While
girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual
partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by
heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion
nor to identify themselves as gay."'Coparent or
Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS
Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10-
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)*'Pediatric Group Supports
Same-Sex Marriage – Time magazine – 03/21/13'The
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says it’s “in the best
interests” of the children.'There. I am not using
'God' in my claims. I am not forcing my beliefs upon anyone else. I am
not vilifying opposition. So I would ask that the Deseret news finally allow
this information.Thank you.
Woo Hoo, let the weddings continue.
More sources showing what the majority want…'Poll: New
High Of 58 Percent Support Same-Sex Marriage' – By TOM KLUDT –
By Talking Points Memo – 03/18/13'At a time when the
Supreme Court prepares to take up same-sex marriage and the Republican Party
determines the best approach to the issue going forward, an ABC News/Washington
Post poll released Monday showed a new high-water mark in support for the right
of gay and lesbian couples to tie the knot. The poll found 58 percent of
Americans now believe marriage should be legal for same-sex couples, while just
36 percent said it should be illegal.'As for the consequence of
gay marriage, lets look to MA. Ten years after they allowed gay marriage.'TEN YEARS later, 85 Percent of Massachusetts voters say NO HARM
from Marriage Equality' – 09/27/13'Massachusetts now
has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, same-sex families now enjoy full
legal protections….'You can have your opinion. But do not fabricate the 'consequences' of gay marriage, as we all
know what Jesus said about… false witness.
'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By
Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011'For the first time since
Gallup started studying the issue in 1996, the polling organization found a
majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.''Poll: Support for gay marriage UP among Catholics' – By
Jillian Rayfield – Salon – 03/08/13“Catholic
voters are leading American voters toward support for same-sex marriage,”
Peter A. Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling
Institute, wrote in a statement.'A Majority of Young
Republicans Support Gay Marriage' - —By Tim Murphy – Mother
Jones – 03/08/2013'The short of it: Even young
Republicans think conservatives are fighting a losing battle.'The 'will of the people' has spoken. Maybe some should