1,500 rally to celebrate unexpected decision that led to gay weddings in Utah
Can someone explain to me how it is possible that for only between 2.4 and 4
percent of the population, we are going to such extraordinary lengths to
redefine marriage and family?
In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of
the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian.
In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans
were gay or lesbian (or "homosexual," the third option given). By 2011,
that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now
guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and
young adults were most likely to provide high estimates,approximating that 30
percent of the population is gay. Overall, "U.S. adults, on average,
estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian," Gallup found.
Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those
surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans
identify as gay or lesbian. From: "Americans Have No Idea How
Few Gay People There Are" by Garance Franke-Ruta May 31, 2012 The Atlantic
I thought letting gay people get married was supposed to destroy my marriage or
something? Does it just take more time or something? Because so far, I
haven't noticed any negative consequences to myself personally. :-P
My cousin was among those getting married yesterday in a same sex marriage. I am
happy for him and his spouse- although I am hetero I respect their right to love
one another; Just as we were admonished to do by the Lord. Don't throw
stones; do not judge. You may be surprised at who, in your own family, is also
homosexual. We love our cousin no differently than before. We are happy that he
can finally be married to the person he loves.
@John Pack --"The view that marriage is a child-rearing
institution that needs to be in a form that can produce children is a secular
argument that takes into account secular goals."First, multiple
courts have already agreed that procreation is not a requirement for
marriage.Second, gay couples produce children in the very same ways
as any other infertile couples."This is why it should be debated
through the legislative processes. "Loving v. Virginia already
settled the issue of state matrimonial laws that contradicted the US
Constitution. All state laws MUST conform to the Constitution.
The view that marriage is a child-rearing institution that needs to be in a form
that can produce children is a secular argument that takes into account secular
goals.The marriage debate is not "religious" vs.
"secular". It has two sides with both can be and are presented in
secular terms. This is why it should be debated through the
legislative processes. The definition of marriage is a complex issue that is a
matter of public policy and should be determined as such.This is
especially true when redefinition threatens the freedom of speech and religious
freedom of florists and photographers. In Washington state a florist is being
prosecuted because she would not consent to give the huge amount of time and
energy to support a wedding she saw as a violation of her religion. My favorite sister-in-law is Mexican, not just Mexican but conscious and
positive about her Aztec ancestry. My favorite nephew has an Aztec name many
cannot pronounce. Yet I would also defend the rights of anyone who held beliefs
that interracial marriage is against God's will to refuse to photograph the
marriage of an Anglo-American and a Mexican-American.
I am amazed at all the people that decry this as somehow anti-democracy. first
lesson in civics folks, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a
Constitutional Republic. The majority is constrained in many ways from what
they can impose upon minorities. Just becasue YOUR interpretation
of YOUR religion says something is wrong, does not mean you can force that via
law on others. Those arguing against rights and inclusion are, as
always, upon the wrong side of history. We must all be equal before
@SoCalChris --"You've made my point. Women's right to
vote was dealt with in the 19th Amendment."I've thought
about this more overnight, and actually IMHO this seems like a good question.Why did women's right to vote require a new amendment? I dunno. Nonetheless, the 14th has already been used in many other wide-ranging
cases, old and new, like:-- Roe v. Wade-- Bush v. Gore--
Brown v. Board of Education-- Loving v. Virginia-- United States v.
Wheeler-- Lawrence v. Texas-- Romer v. Evans-- Santa Clara
County v. Southern Pacific Railroad-- Skinner v. State of Oklahoma--
and many othersAnd I bet the framers of this amendment didn't
intend most of those applications, either.
I have to scratch my head when I read comments about this only being about love
and why can't we allow others with different opinions about religion to
just be left alone to lead their lives as they see fit. If this was true, why
were two businesses singled out...the bakery and photographer...and forced to go
against their beliefs and cater to the business of two gay marriages? After
being assured that this would never happen...guess what...it happened! The
religious views and rights of these two businesses were thrown out the window
and everything they worked for all these years will go down as they lose their
businesses defending themselves against two couples who were in it for
'love', but demanded the services of two people who did not support
them. Where is the love and mutual respect there? Why would they even want to
bring disharmony to their 'special day' if it wasn't a
politically motivated activist statement? Marriott Hotels has for years reached
out and catered to LGBT weddings...take your business there and leave other mom
and pops alone instead of forcing them to bankruptcy...no love there.
@Here --" Living the GLBT lifestyle is not natural"Actually, many species of nonhuman animals practice homosexual behaviors out
in nature. Therefore, it's perfectly natural.@hankel --"Where is the sense of responsibility with these grown adults to
obey the commandments of God, if, for no other reason, than to set the example
for children and young people?"You are presupposing that gay
marriage is a bad thing. Those of us who don't believe that it is a bad
thing don't mind one bit if kids are exposed to the idea of equal rights
for all citizens.And btw -- there is no commandment that says
"thou shalt not be homosexual."
Someone commented that this doesn't hurt anyone else. What about young
people who are so impressionable?The attitude that gay marriage is OK is
sending the wrong message to them. It makes me think of Luke 17:2, which says
"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his (her) neck,
and he (be) cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little
ones." Where is the sense of responsibility with these grown adults to obey
the commandments of God, if, for no other reason, than to set the example for
children and young people?
@ThomasJefferson --"There are a few and one blogger in
particular that use the same fear tactics of "harm" that those who
oppose LGBT rights have used."Nope.There's lots
and lots of good evidence concerning the harms associated with polygamy.
I'll be happy to cite many sources on request -- though maybe not tomorrow,
'cause I'll be busy.In contrast, there is NO good evidence
of any material harm coming from gay marriage."It goes beyond
hypocrisy! "It's not hypocrisy. It's called
reality.Individual rights are always limited by harm.Polygamy, incest, and so on are known to convey significantly increased risks
of harm.Gay marriage does not.Look up the harm
principle."have the integrity to use it completely and equally
for all."Absolutely. The harm principle applies to everyone
equally.@SoCalChris --"You've made my point.
Women's right to vote was dealt with in the 19th Amendment."I've made the point that the Founding Fathers never intended a lot of
things that we now consider constitutional rights. If that was your point too,
then we are in complete agreement.
Recently the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, on three different occasions,
made three different earth shaking statements. (At least it shook my earth where
I stand).1. I do not believe in a Catholic God. I believe in a God (God
of all).2. I do not believe in a Centralized Roman Catholic Church. I
believe in a Universal Catholic Church.3. I am not going to
change the dogma in the Church. I am going to change the priority of
the dogma in the Church. We spend far too much time on issues of abortion,
right to choose, gay rights etc. We should be spending more time
worry about the poor and what we can do to make their lives
better.(I paraphrase only because I can not remember the exact
words, however I think the Pope shows more sensitivity to those things most
talked about with more examples in the Bible.I think that our own
Church is also improving in many ways in the same direction. I hope so.
As one of you already stated, there are plenty of things that are legal but
immoral. SSM is one of them. Some things don't change. Some do. Some
activities bring eternal happiness. Some can’t. SSM is one that does
not. That can't be that hard to understand. Some of us will never accept
it as a normal, healthy lifestyle. I ask all those of good faith to
continue to discuss these issues. The dialogue is far from over.
This ruling will not solve the problem. Living the GLBT lifestyle is not
natural, not divinely sanctioned. Never will be. Happiness will not be the
result now or in the long run because of the conscience we all have and the lack
of God's approval. I'm not talking about national, state, or local
laws or which religions, people, or organizations support SSM. I'm talking
about nature and universal laws of happiness that God, yes God, has revealed to
us for our happiness.Admittedly, there are sincere people on both
sides of the fence. But I believe the GLBT community will find another way they
are downtrodden and seek legal redress. They will not stop. In reality, they
will not be truly "happy” till they do what is right. They will
continue to fight those who try to defend traditional marriage and traditional
values. From past history, it seems their "lifestyle" will not allow
them to let it go at this.
Oh, yes, and the sky is falling! And the End is here! And the halls of Congress
are filled with Communists!Wo! Wo! All bad things and stuff!(end hyperbole and nonsense)
Many of you can continue coming up with ways to insult and marginalize one
another. As for me, I will pray for peace tonight. After all, isn't that
what we supposedly celebrate this time of year?
I find it interesting that so many hateful comments towards the LGBT community
get published and not denied.
It wouldn't surprise me to see Utah be the first state to get out of the
"marriage" business-- and start issuing "licenses for legal
union" instead. Then, if you want to get married, you take your paperwork
to a church-- if you want a legal union-- you go to a legal official.
The ruling is not the end of this. The next step is adding to the school
curriculum that teaches such behavior is normal and to encourage such behavior.
This is no less than a step toward total mind control where any whisper of
support for traditional marriage is vilified and eventually criminalized. There
is no Constitution. The 1st Amendment will be ignored in favor of today's
view of the 14th Amendment. Mark my words...this is not the end.
@Meckofahess"Think there are any signs in the world that he is
displeased with the behavior of his children?"Nope, and
considering that I almost slipped on icy sidewalks a few times today, I'm
left wondering how many same-sex marriages we need to get a bit of salt to fall
to take care of it.@grj"where did all the children of
those couples "married" under this new interpretation of the law come
from? There isn't ONE - NOT ONE - of those couples who jointly created
those little lives. And that is why boys can't "marry" boys and
girls can't "marry" girls. "For a long time the
idea was pushed that gay people should marry people of the opposite gender and
try and force away the gay. Didn't work very well, resulted in a lot of
divorces and some children. Some of those kids were adopted, for you see single
people can adopt in this state, which of course includes single gay people. Some
of those getting same-sex marriages are bisexual and so, well, you can figure
that one out. Some of them are a result of in-vitro fertilization/surrogate
Saying this doesn't have any effect on heterosexual marriage is like giving
Harvard diplomas to high school graduates. Re-defining marriage to be something
its not cheapens it.
What is the big deal DN, KSL and the rest of our local medias. Can you guys just
leave it alone and not put in paper and tv? I might as well not read or watch tv
with you guys!
In the spirit of the 11th AOF, I suggest much of the rancor that seems to
surround this issue would dissipate if we let all consenting adults decide how
they want to define "marriage" just as we let folks decide how (or if)
they worship God.I agree with the principles set out in the
Proclamation on the Family and believe the world would be a better place if all
accepted those principles. I can invite others to follow those tenets but
can't force them on anyone any more than I can force on anyone how (or if)
they worship God. Most importantly, I can't allow their
decision not to follow those tenets to diminish my love for them as my brother
Are the police going to confiscate the certificates if the Tenth circuit
reverses. Will they use warrants?
I'm wondering - - - where did all the children of those couples
"married" under this new interpretation of the law come from? There
isn't ONE - NOT ONE - of those couples who jointly created those little
lives. And that is why boys can't "marry" boys and girls can't
"marry" girls. Oh sure, they can show up at the courthouse and say their
I do's and get a paper, but to call that relationship a "marriage"
is irrational and unjustifiable given the entire history of civilized mankind.
Even if a majority of citizens favor something that is immoral and sinful in the
eyes of God, making it legal doesn't make it right. It also doesn't
make a sin right if a majority of people tolerate it, it just mocks Almighty
God! Think there are any signs in the world that he is displeased with the
behavior of his children?
Look, SSM opponents lost and rightfully so. Now, comes the bigger step of being
the bigger person and admitting that at least on this issue, you were
completely, totally, 100% wrong.
Civil law is civil. Religious doctrines and laws are religious. Marriage is a
civil right. Religions don't have to participate in civil contracts they
don't approve. Religious doctrine can't be allowed to trump civil
rights. There is no excuse for denying people civil rights - PERIOD.
"I would be willing to bet that over half of those marriages were knee jerk
reactions to the ruling."Of the three couples I know who have
gotten married, one has been together for four years, one for eight years, and
the third for fifteen years. I can't speak for the rest because I
don't know them. These three couples did not have knee-jerk reactions, but
they chose to wait until they could legally get married in their home state.
Contrariusester,You've made my point. Women's right to
vote was dealt with in the 19th Amendment.
The Dictionary definition of a husband is "The male partner in a
marriage." Somehow, that just doesn't describe my relationship with my
wife for the last 40 years. I've been a protector who worshipped her
always.Since we can now have two husbands married to each other, I
really feel a need to invent a new word to describe the old relationship, but I
can't come up with anything that comes close. Any suggestions?
It would be in the best interest of Utah officials not to waste tax payer money
with regards to overturning this ruling. It's a fight they can't win
and would be a big waste of taxpayer money...
@Billy Bob"I would be willing to bet that over half of those marriages
were knee jerk reactions to the ruling."A lot of them have been
wanting to marry for years but couldn't. The rush is because they know this
could be appealed or put in a stay so their time to get married might be
limited.And besides, if a lot of them fail like you think, who
cares? Half of man-woman marriages end in divorce. "A lot of
those marriages surely are knee jerk reactions, "hey current partner, lets
go get married just because an arrogant liberal judge unconstitutionally said we
could" "People get married for lots of reasons, none of
which are "let's spite Billy Bob".
@SoCalChris --"...there are plenty of judges who adhere to the
same politically correct dogma you do. "By "politically
correct dogma" you must actually mean "the US Constitution".Supreme Court decisions have upheld marriage as a basic civil right in
many decisions spanning more than 100 years, obviously involving many different
panels of justices."the framers and ratifiers of the 14th
Amendment had no intent that the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause
provide for SSM."I doubt those framers and ratifiers intended to
give women the right to vote, either."They did not want to
participate in a same sex wedding ceremony. Big difference."Baking a cake is no more participating in sin than cooking lunch for black
kids is.If you don't want to uphold the laws of your
jurisdiction, then don't get a business license. It's simple."To my knowledge, no gay photographer has ever been forced to photograph
an LDS wedding."Of course not. Those gay photographers
wouldn't have to be forced.@Ranch --"...this is
the first time; the. first. time. we've actually been able to go down and
say "I do"."Didja, didja?? I'm ready to throw
I live in Utah and the reactions and comments I have seen on FB and elsewhere
leaves me a little bit surprised. Most of the comments about gay marriage have
been favorable and some people don't even really care about the issue.
Utah is becoming less and less conservative on different issues, especially in
the bigger cities like Salt Lake and St. George. Very interesting...
Same-Sex Couple Benefits?Spousal survivor/retirement benefitLump-sum death benefit- surviving spouse gets $255 from government:pay
funeral arrangementsTax BenefitsJoint returns- unmarried couples
lose $1,000s/year filing separatelyCreating "family partnership-
couples divide business income among family members=tax savingsEstate Tax-Estate Planning Benefits-available to married couplesEstate/gift tax exemption- surviving spouse no taxes on$ received from
deceased spouse under exemption limit ($5 million)Estate Tax
"Portability"- Married combine personal estate tax exemptions. Second
spouse dying can leave property (up to $10 million) free from federal estate
tax. Unmarried couples only $5 million tax-freeLife estate trusts-
Married couples can create life estate trusts: provide tax advantages with
spouse's death: Surviving spouse-trust property tax-free. Non citizen
surviving spouse can postpone paying estate taxes above exemption amount.Veteran-Military Benefits: Spouses of deceased veterans-numerous
benefits:health care, death pensions, educational assistance, home loan
guarantees, vocational training, bereavement counseling.Living
military personnel spouses: health care, family separation pay, relocation
assistance. Federal Employment Benefits- denied unmarried employees.
Examples-health insurance; wages, worker's compensation, health insurance,
retirement plan benefits for surviving spouse.Immigration Benefits-
Non citizen obtains legal residency, later citizenship, when married to citizen.
Contrariusiest,You're not going to get an argument from me that
there are plenty of judges who adhere to the same politically correct dogma you
do. But that doesn't mean it was written in the Constitution. Please have
the honesty to admit that the framers and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment had no
intent that the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause provide for
SSM.Those photographers, bakers, florists, etc had no issue about
whether or not someone was gay. They had gay clientele. They did not want to
participate in a same sex wedding ceremony. Big difference. To my knowledge,
no gay photographer has ever been forced to photograph an LDS wedding.And no, I don't believe religious arguments are necessary or proper in
opposing SSM. Personally, I don't want my school kids taught about
homosexuality at a young age. There will be no way to avoid that with SSM. The
Constitution does not require a public, legal statement that homosexuality is
every bit as normal and healthy as heterosexuality. That's the statement
SSM makes. It's perfectly rational to oppose SSM without invoking religion.
Btw, I strongly favor civil unions.
@Billy Bob;I've been with my partner for over 15 years. Why
should we have to go to another state to receive the same benefits that my
siblings receive here for the cost of a marriage license?As for
"knee jerk" and possible failed marriages; three of my siblings have
gone through a divorce and are now on their second marriages. Another sibling
is in the process of separation and is heading for divorce. In the
15 years that my partner and I have been together, this is the first time; the.
first. time. we've actually been able to go down and say "I do".
Congrats Utah! Because “ALL” families are important!
@Billy Bob --" ...why did they not rush to California (or
another state) to get married there"Because, of course, their
California marriage would not have been recognized in Utah -- because Utah kept
insisting on ignoring the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US
Constitution.Try LOOKING at the pics and video from the clerk's
offices. Older people, people with kids -- these people are obviously committed
to each other. And now the state will official recognize their commitment.@Kathy --"The study you cite only included single
parent, divorced and never married individuals."Pagan has cited
a lot of studies. Which one are you talking about?"It is
disingenuous to cite a study that does not include heterosexual married
couples"Disingenuous? You mean like Mark Regnerus -- who
compared single lesbian mothers to married straight couples and then claimed
that kids do worse in gay-led homes? You mean like Doug Allen -- who compared
unmarried gay households to married straight households, and then claimed
longterm deleterious effects of gay-led homes -- even though his data was
gathered when gay marriage had been legal for less than a year? You mean
disingenuous like that??
The morning light from Utah was biblical.Thank you Judge Shelby, you
have made this a Christmas of hope, understanding and compassion.You
are Santa to thousands of proud, and now legally married Utah families.Bless you!
Cuanto odio que hay en Utah. La religion los volvio
ignorantes,hipocritas,negadores, delirantes, discriminadores, no pensantes,
faltos de empatia, solidaridad. Es increible lo que provoca en la gente
creer en dios, y justificar el odio a traves de eso. Lamentable , triste,
decepcionante. Y si, obviamente , es el final de los tiempos. De los tiempos de
los tiranos religiosos, y seguidores de dioses violentos, discriminadores, y
llenos de pasiones humanas, que los convierten en cualquier cosa, menos en seres
divinos. How much hatred lives in Utah!!. Religion turned people
ignorants, hypocriticals, deniers, delusionals, discriminators, non-thinkers,
lacking empathy and solidarity.It's amazing to see what believing in
god causes on people, and how them justify hatred through that believe.It
is unfortunate, sad, disappointing.And yes, obviously, this are the Last
Days. The end of the times of religious tyrants, and followers of violent
discriminatory gods, full of human passions that make them anything but divine
Pagan,The study you cite only included single parent, divorced and never
married individuals.Those divorced, single and never married parents
produce 90% of children with mental illness, incarceration, runaways, and
homeless children. That does not even begin to talk about poverty,
discipline and learning problems in school and how it affects our society. If
you are talking about comparing being as good as the way that we produce that
many disadvantaged children then yes it is the same as that. It is
disingenuous to cite a study that does not include heterosexual married couples
in it and then say LGBT are the same as heterosexual married couples.
Billy BobSalt Lake City, UTI would be willing to bet
that over half of those marriages were knee jerk reactions to the ruling. --------------And I am willing to bet that 3/4 of those
couples have been together longer than you and your spouse were together before
you were married...
Homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic like race or sex. It is well
explained in an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court by Dr. Paul McHugh MD of John
Hopkins University School of Medicine. He is an expert in the field of sexual
identity. The brief can be found on the American Bar Associations web site,
Supreme Court briefs. It was the United States v, Windsor case.
I would be willing to bet that over half of those marriages were knee jerk
reactions to the ruling. A lot of them will result in failed marriages. If they
really were that ready to get married that they rush to the court house, why did
they not rush to California (or another state) to get married there before it
was unconstitutionally deemed legal by a single judge in Utah? A lot of those
marriages surely are knee jerk reactions, "hey current partner, lets go get
married just because an arrogant liberal judge unconstitutionally said we
could" is a paraphrase of what they said to each other, with a few bits of
honesty thrown in that they surely didn't say, but should have.
@SoCalChris --" it's not so cute for the photographer in
New Mexico or the baker in Colorado... "When anyone takes out a
business license they agree to abide by the laws of their jurisdiction. They
have no more right to refuse services to gay people than the Walgreens
lunch-counter owner had to refuse services to black college kids."It's ironic that liberals continue to badmouth Christianity.
Judeo-Christian values are what gave us our Constitution, Bill of Rights and
13th and 14th Amendments. "It's ironic that a few Christian
conservatives continue to pretend that this is an issue of Christians vs. gays.
In reality, many Christian denominations are already happy to perform same-sex
wedding ceremonies, and many gays are devout Christians."But
sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the recognition of
same sex marriage."Marriage has been recognized as a basic civil
right for more than 100 years. And the Equal Protection Clause guarantees equal
rights for all. Sorry, the Constitution and every court to which the issue has
been brought disagree with your claim.
"You know, I was married for 23 years to the love of my life and he died 6
years ago. I think of all the wonderful years we had and the wonderful fringe
benefits of having 3 beautiful children.... And someone made the
comment that this is not about equality. Well yes it is about equality. And why
in the world would be not allow those equal rights for individuals who truly
committed to one another in life to be able to – to show that in the way
of a marriage.My daughter came out of the closet a couple of years
ago and you know what I thought I was going to agonize about that.
Nothing’s different. She’s still a fabulous human being and
she’s met someone she loves very much. And some day, by God, I want to
throw a wedding for that kid. And I hope that’s what I can do. I hope she
will not feel like a second-class citizen involved in something called a
deomestic partnership which frankly sounds like a Mary Maids franchise to
me." (WA State Rep. Republican Maureen Walsh)
Funny how people are bound to stew,If you don't fit in their point of
view,Brim full of advice what you should do.
hold on people it is going to be a rough ride. satan is winning the minds of the
utah judges now like many other judges
I'm so confused...!
Pagan, it's not so cute for the photographer in New Mexico or the baker in
Colorado, who have no problem serving gay customers, but choose not to
participate in same sex weddings. Yes, they have been accused of crimes and
their livelihoods have been threatened for being "heretics." It's ironic that liberals continue to badmouth Christianity.
Judeo-Christian values are what gave us our Constitution, Bill of Rights and
13th and 14th Amendments. Gay people are protected in their right
to live the life they choose and are entitled to civility and fair treatment.
But sorry, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires the recognition of
same sex marriage.
Truthseeker:I should have written "he and his NEW wife", I
There should not be discrimination in housing, employment, taxes, or in any
other way, regardless of religious orientation, sexual preference, race, etc.
But the term marriage should not be destroyed by a small minority who want
something that looks in many ways similar but is in reality very different.
Call it "domestic union", or anything else, but gay partnerships are not
"marriage". The rest of the community deserves a word that describes
the traditional foundation of family. There are good reasons for preserving the
word marriage. It is the ideal for most who are born on this planet.
Anyone who was at the County Complex (as I was yesterday morning) would have
experienced, not "chaos," but extraordinary jubilation and community.
There was a lovely Latina with her son and daughter (they looked to be about 8
and 6), her face beaming, focused on her sweetie during her vows, barely able to
contain her joy, her face quivering trying restrain the tears. There was the
silver-haired couple who obviously had been together for decades, in firm
embrace after their "I do"s. There were young mothers with babes in
arms and dads with sons in matching ties. Not that there was a competition, but
the award for most heart-meltingly cute couple goes to Jax and Heather Collins
(I feel authorized to mention their names because they are identified in the
DesNews photo gallery accompanying this story). Heather totally rocked the
dress. Take your regular wedding, multiply it by 200, and mix in a healthy
dollop of liberation and a dash of sleep deprivation. That was the County
Complex yesterday. Sheer exuberance. Anyone who could not be moved by that--
from the individual celebrations to the collective atmosphere of joy-- has a
heart two sizes too small.
'The right to marry someone of your own gender does not magically appear in
the Constitution 150 years after an amendment was ratified because a politically
correct judge says so.' That's cute. A
judge. So, once again we are ignoring the 1) Judge who struck down
Prop 8, 2) The 2nd judge who ruled in favor of striking down Prop 8. 3) The 10th
circuit who struck down Prop 8 and 4) The supreme court that also ruled against
Prop 8? Are we also ignoring DOMA? No, I think history
proves there have been MANY judges who support that tax-paying LGBT Americans
are factually discriminated against. Denied the 1,100+ legal rights and
protections our straight friends enjoy. Give me an example of
someone arrested by a 'liberal judge' for heresy.
Please. No, I think you are confusing the inquisition, with
constitutional law. Common mistake. So, America is not a
'christian theocracy'? Ok… prove it.
Allow LGBT Americans, who pay taxes and bleed and die in wars, the same rights
afforded to you. America is a place to INCLUDE many religions. Even
the ones that disagree with one another. Side by side. Because how
long until you, are not living according to someone else's
Re:KJB1??????Howard W. Hunter and his first wife had 3 sons (one
died in infancy). His first wife died in 1983 and he remarried in 1990 at the
ripe old age of 83.
To all the naysayers. If you really wanted to ban gay marriage you needed to
write a bill that didn't single out a group. That is why the law was
overturned, because the law was poorly written. Now why would someone
write a poorly written law? Lots of reasons.
As we try to grasp the wonderful Christmas spirit and help those who have had
difficulties in their lives...Sadly, there appears to be many urgent needs
in "traditional" heterosexual relationships and families. The father
and/or the mother has abandoned their children, the parents and/or children have
suffered because of substance abuse, parents have lost their employment. Rather than hammer the newly married gay couples, lets all work together and
try to fill the urgent needs of these families here in Utah, America, and around
our planet. Everyone deserves assistance and love, particularly during
this Christmas season.
"We do not live in a theocracy, so claiming the law is against a
"sin" is not a legally valid reason."" The United
States is not a theocracy. The government isn't here to protect your
personal Bronze Age religious beliefs from 21st Century realities."We don't live in a theocracy of political correctness either. The right
to marry someone of your own gender does not magically appear in the
Constitution 150 years after an amendment was ratified because a politically
correct judge says so.A secular rather than religious authority has
handed down a pronouncement like a papal bull. The PC crowd are the ones who
are fine with policy being changed by someone who is simply more enlightened
than the voters of Utah.There has never been a threat of a Christian
theocracy in this country. There is a real threat of secular rule of judges,
even to the point of putting people in jail for heresy. Please. No more talk
of a Christian theocracy.
This is the best Christmas present for Utah. Now all Utah citizens can live in
matrimonial bliss if they so desire. I notice that many of the comments involve
quoting the bible. I would ask that you look into your own hearts and see what
is truly in the best interest of these people getting married. How can you so
easily condemn those whose only crime is being different than you? Do you see
the parallels to the forced integration of southern schools in the 50's and
60's? Think honestly and think for yourself.
JPLofMI: "Thus we need a man/woman form, the only form that can create
children."Had you been at the City-County Building yesterday,
you would have been amazed at the number of children there to attend their
parents' wedding. Gays DO have children (about one in every three or four
gay households has children). The advantages to children's welfare from
having married parents are well documented. Do you really want to be on the
side of denying them those benefits? How does that improve child outcomes?bc5: "...a civil rights issue like interracial marriage... A person
cannot choose his race, it is genetic."Please show me the
Methodist or Muslim or Mormon gene or acknowledge that by your logic religion
does not deserve civil rights protections either (and yet religious freedom is a
dominant theme in this paper). One's sexual orientation may or may not be
purely genetic or choice (I'm inclined to believe it is a complex
combination of both), but it is a deep, fundamental aspect of a person's
identity on a par with religion.
I have been with my partner for 15 years. Looking back, I would never change it!
It has been wonderful to share my life with him. He has been with me during some
of the hardest times in my life. Every year I find that I care about him more
and more! Where would I be if I accepted what some people believe about me? I
would have missed all those wonderful years with him and his family and my
family and all our friends!!! I love my family. I love the Church and I do my
best not to offend, but I will not be ashamed of who I am nor will I be ashamed
of my partner and all those wonderful years we have had. I will even say that I
believe, with all my heart that God is 100% ok with who I chose to be with and
He is happy about what has happened! Tell me that I don't have a
Constitutional right to liver my life in a way that makes me happy! I am 50
years old! Don't treat me like I am some idiot! Try giving the respect you
so demand for yourselves!
'If it is not genetic then it is a lifestyle choice.' I
will concede there is no gay gene. However, if you think it is a
'choice', then I suggest you look again…
*'Psychologists nix gay-to-straight therapy' - AP - 08/05/09'The American Psychological Association slams technique that seeks to
change sexual orientation.No solid evidence exists that such change
is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce
change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.' From our own Deseret news… * Gay man says
'reversal' therapy did not change him' - By Lisa Leff -
Associated Press - Published by DSNews - 01/20/10 'SAN
FRANCISCO — A gay man testified Wednesday in a federal same-sex marriage
trial that the "reversal therapy" he underwent as a teenager to change
his sexual orientation drove him to the brink of suicide.'
'Homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. All of the major medical
organizations, including The American Psychiatric Association, The American
Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that
homosexuality is not an illness or disorder, but a form of sexual
expression.'- Published online: 11/2008- Source: Gay,
Lesbian, and Bisexual Teens: Information for Teens and Parents - America
Academy of Pediatrics
@ExiledSonofUtah --" One thing I want is a police car with
lights and siren..."Of course fraudulent police cars cause harm.
That's pretty obvious. So would having tanks running down the street,
printing fake money, and so on.In contrast, every attorney in every
gay-marriage-related court case has tried desperately to prove harm from gay
marriage. They have all failed spectacularly. Gee, I wonder why.@grj
--"A boy can't "marry" a boy, and a girl can't
"marry" a girl. "700 marriage licenses right there in
Utah say you're wrong.@bc5 --"The Gay Rights
movement tries to make gay marriage a civil rights issue like interracial
marriage... "That's because it IS one."A
person cannot choose his race, it is genetic. "Even the LDS
church admits that one does not choose to be gay."f it is
unconstitutional to discriminate against the chosen gay lifestyle then it must
be unconstitutional to discriminate against polygamy among consenting
adults"No. 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 very simple distinction.
This has been great! We have been able to speak out and make our voices heard.
We do not have to accept the derogatory beliefs that some may have towards us!
We shouldn't have to ask others for the right to live our lives with
dignity! There are enough people, now, that care enough about us to respect us!
Should it be a battle to ask people for respect? Should it? When do we have the
right to decide what is best for our own lives? The Constitution is something
that should protect us all. It should protect us from those who would deny us
our rights! We even had a civil war, remember, to decide whether or not a human
being had the right to be free! I should not lose the opportunity to marry the
person I love, simply because others have the belief that it shouldn't
happen! We have that same right to love and marry according to our beliefs and
what is important to us! We don't have to live our lives with our heads
down! We certainly don't have to apologize to any of you!
Howard W. Hunter remarried later in his life when it was clear that he and his
wife weren't going to be having children. According to a lot of the
posters here, his marriage wasn't valid.
The Gay Rights movement tries to make gay marriage a civil rights issue like
interracial marriage... A person cannot choose his race, it is genetic. There is
no repeatable scientific study that has ever proven that there is a gay gene,
Just look at identical twins; if it was genetic both twins would be gay. If it
is not genetic then it is a lifestyle choice.If it is
unconstitutional to discriminate against the chosen gay lifestyle then it must
be unconstitutional to discriminate against polygamy among consenting adults,
The sky is the limit, we now live in a wide open society where if it
doesn’t harm others its OK.
A boy can't "marry" a boy, and a girl can't "marry" a
girl. How can such persons think those relationships can be called a
"marriage"? For all of the history of mankind, marriage has been
considered to be between a man and a woman. There is no basis in reason for
anyone to redefine what a "marriage" is. None.
The only thing confusing about this ruling is how people are going to reconcile
their religious convictions with marriage equality. Here's my suggestion on
how to get over your personal confusion--pray about it. Don't pray to have
the decision reversed because that will wind up being an unanswered prayer. Pray
for understanding, compassion, empathy, charity. Pray to see how you can be
kinder to all of your neighbors. Pray that this decision will help your gay and
lesbian neighbors, friends, and family who aren't currently out can now be
more open about who they are without fear of rejection. Pray that your
congregations will honestly be more accepting of your gay and lesbian neighbors.
This is what I think all religious-minded people need to do right
'However, this is Utah, not CA not LA. This is a country with big
traditions, and people that know better. (respect might be missing)' Fine. However, this is America. Not just Utah. America is a
country, not just Utah, with traditions that re-evaluate itself. To test those
traditions to see if they are valid, and serve any purpose. Respect is missing
from those who get federal aid…and still want to secede from this country.
While telling everyone else to leave Utah if you 'don't like
it'. 'The key arguments in commetns today in favor are: 1)
homosexual marriage supposedly causes no harm to society (Except we aren't
allowed to discuss any arguments to the contrary)' I
disagree. It's been 2013 years. Where. Is. The.
Harm? *'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts
still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet -
08/24/09 *'TEN YEARS later, 85 Percent of Massachusetts voters
say NO HARM from Marriage Equality' – AlternNet - 09/27/13 'Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, same-sex
families now enjoy full legal protections…' The issue
with biblical arguments is that they project harm. They cannot
prove, harm. Proof. Try it sometime.
Let's all re-read the Deseret News editorial that opposes gay marriage, but
the U.S. Federal Court confirmed as unconstitutional. It is an editorial that
will be used as an example of bigotry for decades. The Constitution is not
"hanging by a threat," it is firmly in place - supporting the rights of
The judges actions are in excusable! With so much confusion and the need for
further litigation, clarity of the law and appeals for him not to stay his
decision, is reprehensible. And he issues his ruling on a Friday at 4:30 pm so
that action by either party is hindered by the timing. To say he is not
activist is denying the obvious.I hope his ruling gets over turned
and all the marriages are deemed null and void. I would go out and celebrate.
The key arguments in commetns today in favor are: 1) homosexual marriage
supposedly causes no harm to society (Except we aren't allowed to discuss
any arguments to the contrary) 2) Preventing homosexual marriage is
discriminatory, and a single judge can nullify constitutional allowance of
lawful discrimination.All right, so whatever a person wants is now
ok, as long as they can say it causes no harm to society, and any discrimination
based on what a person wants is not lawful, doesn't matter if it's in
a constitution or not.We need to apply this line of reasoning to
everything people want from now on. One thing I want is a police car with lights
and siren so I can drive 50 mph and go through traffic lights. I won't harm
anyone and I want it and it's not fair for just the police to have it. I
also want an Abrams tank, and I want to print money. I also want to make a puppy
mill in my downtown apartment.
700 Marriage licenses sound like additional revenue for the state of Utah,all in the name of 2 consenting adults ,that Love each other to have the same
rights as anybody else!!!! Nothing wrong here !! Congratulations to all you
Happy New Married Couples !!!May you all Live long and prosper!! God Bless P.s. Surely all of you homophobes have other things to worry about.
Utah in a leader in this area.
I expected this. If you did not, you were being fooled about it for some
reason. Your dog was being wagged. Your ego stroked. Every day of your life
you have woken up an American Citizen, and a Utah Citizen. If you'd like
to secede, put up or shut up, and see who will take you in, or simply learn. to.
get. along. You know. Deep down, somewhere, you know. The whole entire world
is watching you embarrass yourselves because THEY know that you know. How long
will the charade last? "Inasmuch as you have done it to the least of
It's time to move on. Let each focus on one's own relationship with
God and act accordingly. Luke 6:41.
dell,'Why couldn't the judge just wait a few months to let
the normal legal process work? Why rush to a such an important decision without
even a trial or chance for appeal?"______________________________"Justice too long delayed is justice denied," Martin Luther King
argued in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail. King was not the first to
argue that. It's a legal concept that goes back in our history two
centuries or more.
Where public opinion goes a revelation is sure to follow. It may be about 10
years too late, but it will come.
From my perspective, I see valid arguments from those who support both the
religious and the secular concepts of marriage. Where it get's muddy for me
is when one group (either the secular or the religious) tries to impose their
worldview on the other as being more valid or acceptable and calls the other
intolerant. Instead, I believe both worldviews - the secular worldview that
holds that marriage is a civil right and shouldn't be denied anyone
regardless of sexual orientation, and a theistic worldview that holds that God
matters in marriage, that His laws are immutable and that changing them will
have negative consequences on all parties involved - should be given equal
weight in the public square and assessed for the merits its worldview can offer
society. Instead, what seems to be happening is that traditional marriage is
being evaluated through the lens of a secular worldview and gay marriage through
the lens of a theistic worldview which is just plain unfair as the two
worldviews are entirely incompatible with each other.
"And in about two or so years, we shall also welcome about half of you to
the nightmare of gay divorce."You realize that the majority of
these couples who rushed to get married have already been together for several
years. They were already committed to each other, and they jumped at the chance
to finally make it a legal and formal commitment. Be kind, and let's not
doom their relationships.
@JLFullerAre you saying same-sex marriages are only motivated by spite?
Because, naturally they cannot be motivated by love? What were your motivations
for getting married?
Thanks to everyone who has supported us and especially those hard-working civil
servants out there working hard to ensure that our marriages are being
processed. Thank you so very much.
@canduny "Welcome to the joys of gay marriage! And in about two
or so years, we shall also welcome about half of you to the nightmare of gay
divorce."I fully agree with that comment. I am here in WA state
where gay marriage was legalized about a year ago and my attorney friends tell
they are starting to see a lot of fillings for divorce and separations amount
those that were married. Seems like the only winners here is the legal system
(attorney's), the state (fees) and those companies involved with weddings.
The losers, everyone else.
@christophAre you saying that only gay couples are sinners and no
heterosexual (traditional) marriage partners are sinners? If you are truly
saying that sinners should not be allowed to marry, then my man, there will be
no marriages of any type in the land.
@RedneckLefty,If your church had more people like you, there would
be no need for a missionary program. Unfortunately so many of your brethren have
the complete opposite outlook. But you are the type of Mormon that I try to tell
myself still exists. Thank you.
@The Deuce --"...polygamy is legal...."Nope.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
simple distinction.Look up the harm principle.@Rhonda H.
--"Gays and lesbians cannot be 'married'."More than 700 licenses right there in Utah say you're wrong.@pragmatistferlife --"What happened to the rant of
we're not a democracy we're a republic?"We are both.
We are not a PURE democracy -- we are a CONSTITUTIONAL, representative
democracy. The essential term here is CONSTITUTIONAL. @canduny --"And in about two or so years, we shall also welcome about half of
you to the nightmare of gay divorce."So far, gay marriages
appear to have roughly half the divorce rate of straight marriages. Maybe
straight couples should take some lessons from the gays on that one.----------The county clerks who are refusing to issue marriage
licenses are in contempt of court. I applaud the couple who filed a lawsuit
against one of them -- but they should all be fined, fired, or otherwise
punished for their refusal to obey the law.
The form of marriage needs to link it to child rearing. Thus we need a man/woman
form, the only form that can create children.The religious freedom
rights of many individuals are now threatened by many people. This is scary.
Will all Utah florists, bakers and photographers now live in fear of being
forced to support weddings that they feel are direct violations of God's
commandments. It is a sad day for religious freedom.
Even in California the ruling against Proposition 8 was stayed. The refusal to
stay this ruling is an example of ignoring proper legal proceedings and clearly
a recipe for anarchy and disorder.
Polygamy, polyandry and bestiality next! We wouldn't want to discriminate
against anyone would we?
@K from Mchenry, IlWhy does it matter what is "ordinary?"
This is not an "ordinary" situation. Why does someone from Illinois
even care? HOw does a Utah ruling have any effect on someone from Illinois?
@10CC "Watching the excitement of adults who looked like 5 year old kids
this morning, you'd have to be non-human to not feel good for them."
What about a bunch of people who had had too much to drink, also thinking they
were very very happy - should I feel good for them, knowing their pleasure was
temporary and was to be followed by a hangover?@ Kalindra: women
wearing pants or people eating cheesburgers cannot be compared to gay marriage.
The former things do not deeply affect family/society; gay marriage definitely
does.@ everyone who compares allowing gay marriage to allowing
interracial marriage, and says someday we'll look back and think how
backward we once were before gay marriage was allowed: how many of you support
abortion as a form of birth control? You will also look back someday and realize
how wrong abortion just for birth control was. But when you finally understand
God's plan for families you will realize gay marriage was wrong too.
Woot! What a Christmas present to hundreds of people who probably never thought
this would happen in Utah of all places. Joy to you and yours.
Poorly written headline: The headline says 700 marriage licenses. I wasn't
sure if that is 700 total licenses (gay and straight, since after all straights
need a license too), or 700 gay marriage licenses. I had to read quite deep into
the article to find out the answer.
Give it time and soon all churches will be told we got to preform gay marriages
and allow them in our temple. For those saying this will not happen give it
time. Now rather the LDS church will give into this I do not see that happening
even with a gun pointed at the church head. What I do see happening
when the gays go after the LDS church to allow gay temple marriages is that the
church start paying taxes on the temples.
Congratulations to the 700 happy couples!
@10CC Thanks to your enlightening us, NOW I know what it feels like
to be non-human!
So sad to see so many ignorant people that believe happiness comes from the
government."Now we can be happy", "now I can spend the rest of
my life with the one I love", etc, etcReally? You couldn't do
that before? You wait for The government to allow you to be happy?Good luck finding happiness. If you weren't happy before, you're not
going to be any happier now that you have a piece of paper in your hand. By the way, I have five magic beans to sell you.
Forget for a minute about whether or not same sex couples will ever be sealed in
the Temple. The real challenge for the Church is the question of whether or not
Bishops, who perform civil marriages all the time, will be required by law to
perform same sex weddings, or will be prohibited by the Church leaders from
performing such weddings (or risk being "defrocked")!
@Kalindra:"The lawyers for the State of Utah presented no
evidence that prohibiting same-sex marriage furthers a social goal nor that it
prevents a social harm. They were able to present no socially valid reason why
same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry."I haven't
seen the transcripts for this. Are they out? In any event, I think that it is
fantastic that the attorney defending the position of the state of Utah would
not use the argument that expanding the definition of marriage to include a
class of couples who whose unions would never be able to procreate would not
dilute the definition of the institution. Did their arguments simply consist of
quoting the Bible?I think that your reasoning has the underlying
assumption that some people with certain religious viewpoints should be excluded
from political participation (i.e. disenfranchised) because the their religious
views have poisoned their logic. How far should we extend this reasoning?
Should we have a religious test for public office? Everyone can vote, but only
for candidates that are religiously correct. You know, like in Iran.
Some commenters tend to equate Christians with pro-traditional marriage and
non-religious persons with pro-same-sex-marriage. "You are Christian or
not", said Christoph in a previous comment, to imply that Christians have
only one choice. However, millions of Christians are in favor of SSM, simply
because they feel it is the Christian thing to do. "A majority of Catholics
in the United States who attend Mass weekly support same-sex marriage, according
to a Quinnipiac University survey released October 4, 2013." Moreover,
various Christian churches, including American Episcopals, Presbyterians, and
Evangelical Lutherans support SSM, which they recognize as the loving, committed
relation between two mature and consenting adults. Other churches can, of
course, refuse to do so. But in time, the discrimination will become untenable,
like with interracial marriage.
"After a while the gentiles will gather in Salt Lake City by the thousands,
and this will be among the wicked cities of the world.” Heber C. Kimball,
"you'd have to be non-human to not feel good for them."Yup. That's what this tide is turning on.It's one thing
to think that gay marriage in the abstract is a threat to the family. It's
quite another thing to think that the gay couple down the street, who are such
great people and such great parents, and who just invited you to their wedding,
are a threat to your family.The Mormon Church preaches Family,
Family, Family. So it should come as no surprise when more and more Mormons
refuse to turn their backs on their gay sons and brothers, daughters and
sisters.The Mormon Church also taught me to listen to my heart.
That's what I told people for two years on my mission: read this book and
come to church and pray, and you'll feel its truth. So it should come as no
surprise when more and more Mormons listen to their hearts and their hearts tell
them that MORE love and commitment in this world can't be a bad thing, nor
can the happiness of people who promise that love and commitment through
Welcome to the joys of gay marriage! And in about two or so years, we shall also
welcome about half of you to the nightmare of gay divorce.
This is a mockery of legitimate marriage. Those participating appear to be petty
and mean-spirited people only seeking revenge against those who do not accept
their behavior as equal in the eyes of God.
I see no reason that the Mormon Church should do anything but support
traditional male-female heterosexual marriage. However, it is nice
to see that the church has begun to re-think its views on meddling in other
people's lives.Same direction the Pope has been taking the
Romans 1:27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which
7 supporters quotes included in the article. Why none for the 2/3 of the state
that last week thought they lived in a democracy and this week are disappointed
to find out that they actually don't get a say in defining the laws that
govern their society? Where is the balanced reporting? i.e.
"Meanwhile, John Johnson of Pleasant Grove, reacted in disgust and
frustration saying 'Why couldn't the judge just wait a few months to
let the normal legal process work? Why rush to a such an important decision
without even a trial or chance for appeal?"Shouldn't both
views of controversial events be reported?
Based on this ruling, I would have to conclude that polygamy is legal as well
now in Utah. You can marry who ever you want and have as many others living
together as you want. Doesn't seem like it hurts anyone. Makes perfect
Comments from those who reject SSM often point to the 66% Utahns who voted for
"only traditional marriage" in 2004. They claim the voice of the
majority is being silenced now. But that vote was almost ten years ago. If one
looks at current polls (see the one on Fox13 Utah), a vast majority of Utahns
has become convinced that SSM is the right thing to be allowed. It just takes
time to shed irrational prejudice. In a few years SSM will have become a
non-issue, like interracial marriage.
I can perceive of that joy they have, I understand their troubles went
through.(definitions might vary)However, this is Utah, not CA
not LA. This is a country with big traditions, and people that know better.
(respect might be missing) If the judge could not be stopped, if
offices were run down by applications, then there is a reason for this. I could think of several reasons.One, it might be the fault of LDS
people lacking to share more gospel.Two, lack of teaching skills to
explain the meaning of life.Three, leadership issues at legal levels.Four, not being prepared to meet these new challenges.Five, leaving too
much in the hands of god, things have to be done here by active people....may be you think of other reasons ?Do not blame it on them,
start with yourself.LDS is known for improvement and creative thinking.
Marriage is between man and woman. Gays and lesbians cannot be
'married'. They can have a legal agreement or a personal agreement,
but it will never be marriage. Human rights? Humans have a
natural, inherent right to have a father and mother who love them. There would
be no future humans without both male and female. Our society is so messed up
that it thinks that wants are 'rights' and that true, natural rights
are nothing but wishful, outdated thinking.
I thought the offices are ordinarily closed on sat?
The United States is not a theocracy. The government isn't here to protect
your personal Bronze Age religious beliefs from 21st Century realities.The principle of Judicial Review, including when necessary invalidating laws
found to be unconstitutional, even when they're popular, is central to our
government. There is zero objective evidence that society is harmed
in any way by same-sex marriage, and abundant objective evidence that denying
mutually consenting couples a right to marry based purely on religious dogma is
harmful. Utah's rationale for denying marriage equality has been carefully
scrutinized in multiple courts and found to be lacking as a rational basis to
support Utah's Amendment 3. As was noted during the Perry v. Schwarzenegger
trial of Prop 8, "The witness stand is a lonely place to lie." Please, let this go. It's over. Marriage equality is here to stay.
It's time to get busy resolving other pressing public policy issues.
Amendment 3 passed in 2004. Today, is 2013. I have
already posted various sources, including the Deseret news itself, to show
support for LGBT marriage is now, a clear and solid majority. The 'will of
the people' is for marriage. Not just straight ones. Also, I
have shown the American Pediatric Society showing that children raised under
LGBT parents are NOT any worse off, than straight ones. So the only thing gay
marriage does for children: Is raise they odds they will find a loving home. Your belief in God is great. And has absolutely no bearing on how
another person lives their life. Other courts have struck down doma
and prop eight, along with this judge. So law is on the side of marriage. What is left? 700 marriages, at (roughly) $75 per marriage
certificate… Utah just made $52,500 in just 4 days. NY allowed gay marriage in, I believe June 2011. In december..?
’NYC reaches goal of 50 million tourists’ – By Samantha Gross
– AP – Published by DSnews – 12/20/11 3 words to
save the US economy: Gay. Bridal. Registry.
So now we're a democracy? What happened to the rant of we're not a
democracy we're a republic?
@christophThe first commandment involves not worshiping other gods but we
certainly don't stop people from practicing other faiths in this nation
(well, for the most part, obviously some have gone after mosques and the LDS
were run out of town in Missouri and those are groups worshiping the same
Abrahamic god). We're not a theocracy, it's not our job to legislate
sin.}@oldskool74Many of you wanted Obamacare overturned
because you consider it unconstitutional. I would hope we agree on the premise
that laws that are unconstitutional should be overturned by courts and if we
agree on that then this premise of a judge overturning this isn't a
violation of democracy. The thing is of course we just disagree on which laws
should face that.
can we just let these people be happy. It doesnt effect anyone else besides the
people who are getting married
When the Constitutionality if a law is challenged in Court, those defending the
law must be able to prove that there is a reason for the law - that the law
furthers a social goal or protects against a social harm. We do not
live in a theocracy, so claiming the law is against a "sin" is not a
legally valid reason. (There are many things considered "sins" by
various religions that are perfectly legal - shopping on Saturday, shopping on
Sunday, women wearing pants, haircuts, shaving, consuming alcohol, consuming
pork, cheeseburgers, cheating on your spouse, etc.)The lawyers for
the State of Utah presented no evidence that prohibiting same-sex marriage
furthers a social goal nor that it prevents a social harm. They were able to
present no socially valid reason why same-sex couples should not be allowed to
marry. In view of the inability of the State to defend the law, the
judge had no choice but to strike it down.
Interesting take on Democracythat an unelected judge overides the
common voice of the people in the state of Utah is not democracy nor is it
freedomDefend your democracy Utah!
If you take the time to watch how human rights history has unfolded in America,
from freeing the slaves, granting Native Americans citizenship, granting women
the right to vote, and codifying Civil Rights in the 60s, it's easy to see
this story will be seen in the future as a feel-good Christmas story, and maybe
the message of Jesus will find a voice in the gay and lesbian community.Watching the excitement of adults who looked like 5 year old kids this
morning, you'd have to be non-human to not feel good for them.
One can only hope that this group of people find what they are seeking.Allow me to express my honest skepticism.
This is fantastic. All these happy people making a commitment to marriage. Yet
the stay which would have prevented all this happiness is deemed of an
'emergency' nature. What a fools' errand, trying to continue to
enact an unconstitutional law, just because you agree with it. Thank goodness
for the constitution, and the freedoms it offers individuals before mobs.
Why have elected officials if one person can sign a decree and 2 million people
have to abide? You can follow Peter and Paul or not. You are Christian
or not. You can't say that homosexuals are exempt from repentance but
heterosexuals are not. Are people saying that anything goes now? That there
is no sin? That only heterosexuals are accountable for sin? Thank heavens
for the book of Romans.