@genetics --"The two types of behavior are not biologically
equal.... "How do gay couples behave any differently than any
other infertile couples?And remember -- many straight couples enjoy
the same acts that gay couples do."Homosexual behavior has
little to no fitness value because there is no participation in the gene pool
structure of the next generation and the following.... "Your
interpretation of "fitness" here is very limited. Refer back to my
earlier post, which mentions several possible fitness benefits for
homosexuality."Simply because it is seen in nature does not
indicate that it has some advantage. "It does when more than
half of all sexual activity in a species is same-sex (bonobos). It also does
when one quarter of all pairs in a species are same-sex (black swans). And there
are many other examples. We are not talking about isolated incidents of disease
here.One researcher wrote in 2007: "No species has been found in
which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of
species that never have sex at all..."
@ContrariusierThere are many possible "purposes" for
homosexuality. But we don't need to prove any of them to justify equal
protection under the law.The two types of behavior are not
biologically equal and therefore do not require equal protection under the law.
Homosexual behavior has little to no fitness value because there is
no participation in the gene pool structure of the next generation and the
following.... Simply because it is seen in nature does not indicate
that it has some advantage. There are many heritable conditions that are
unfortunate. For example, there is no advantage to cystic fibrosis. Moreover, understanding the biological basis of this behavior may help
alleviate the suffering of those who may have these inclinations, but do not
wish to emabrace them.
@genetics --I"There is no suitable argument which explains the
biological contradictions..."Many species of nonhuman animals
engage in homosexual behaviors. For instance, more than half of all sexual
activity in bonobo chimps (our closest relatives) occurs between females.We don't need to know "the purpose" of natural things to
know that they do have some purpose. Do you know the purpose of your appendix?
So what? Do you know the purpose of the little divot between your nose and your
lip? So what?In the case of homosexuality, there are many theories
about its purpose or purposes out in nature. Some studies have shown that
relatives of homosexuals may be more attractive to prospective partners; some
postulate that homosexual pairs may be able to defend "adopted"
offspring more aggressively than "straight" pairs; some show that
homosexual behaviors increase social bonding and cohesion. In fact, those
bonobos -- the ones that show so very much same-sex behavior -- are widely known
for the peaceful ways they deal with intragroup conflicts. They are literally
lovers, not fighters.There are many possible "purposes" for
homosexuality. But we don't need to prove any of them to justify equal
protection under the law.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that the legal profession is not required to
understand biology at even a fundamental, novice level. There is no suitable
argument which explains the biological contradictions associated with homosexual
behavior. How does one explain the biological basis of the anatomical
interactions, the lack of corresponding female and male gametes, genetics,
population genetics, etc. Every individual on this planet is the result of an
egg and sperm. No amount of legal maneuvering or secular sophistry can alter
these realities. Marriage is between a male and female. This fact is already
established, pick your own term for same sex relationships-marriage is already
taken and well justified.
@Meckofahess --"First, you miss the whole point. "Nope. I think you missed the fact that this country is not a theocracy. Your
personal interpretation of God's word is not particularly relevant to our
legal system.Many Christian denominations are already happy to
perform gay wedding ceremonies -- and many gay people are devout Christians.
Many people disagree with your views regarding what God actually wants.@joe5 --"Somehow you are able to drudge up evil intent
"I never said a single word about evil intent.Speaking of faux offenses..."As far as your statistics, they
go all the way back to 1993. Not very impressive."Certainly more
impressive than vague claims about "the good old days"."There certainly hasn't bee a significant enough period of time to
really determine what divorce rate will be for SSM. "Gay
marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 10 years; in Canada for 8 years;
and, in several Scandinavian countries, they've had gay marriage and/or
registered partnerships for around 20 years. That's plenty of time.
Contrarius: You must have watched a much different movie than I did. Somehow you
are able to drudge up evil intent where none was offered. If you look for
opportunities to be offended, you will always be able to find them. In fact,
there are people today who (driven by greed) make a livelihood out of stirring
trouble based on faux offenses.As far as your statistics, they go
all the way back to 1993. Not very impressive. That is a virtual snapshot in
time. not substantive period to measure social trends. Further, no significant
event is tied your analysis. Why the change?The panorama of 50
years, along with a definable trigger, provides much more context to the
data.For example, your divorce rate data. There certainly
hasn't bee a significant enough period of time to really determine what
divorce rate will be for SSM. If you only took the first five years of
traditional marriage, the rate would be much lower. Also, many divorces are due
to "repeat offenders." Divorce rate in first-time marriages is much
lower.In short, your data is little more than legerdemain intended
to distract rather than inform.
@Contrariusest:Sorry my friend, I don't find your assertions to
be persuasive. First, you miss the whole point. Sin is not defined by courts
or man, sin was and is defined by God. God's word is the Holy Bible which
condemns homosexual behavior - including sodomy! You think because a few
Christian Pastors have caved to the social pressure of the gay community that
they can change the Holy scriptures and God's word. Rationalization of
truth does not alter it's real meaning. All of us rationalize when our
behavior falls short of what our conscious tells us is right - that is why God
gave us repentance, to learn from our mistakes and change our behavior to be
aligned with His will - not our own will. I have a few gay friends and I
respect them because they are good people. I would not want those friends to
condone any behavior on my part that is contrary to the revealed word of God. I
think "legal unions" would be a better solution that better respects the
point of view of straight folks.
I apologize, I garbled my last sentence about Bedford Falls. I meant a place
where wives who live off the work of their husbands as opposed to a self
sufficient, honest working woman in a job that helps others, is the ideal, I
will pass on such a world. I'm glad to have contributed as much work and
money to our life as my husband.The people devaluing human life are
the ons shutting off benefits to the needy, the ones willing to let children go
hungry so they can save the measly $5 a year they contribute to food stamps.We have given our gay and lesbian siblings one of the greatest gifts
ever: the right to make decisions in the event of an emergency. I have been
there and I never want anyone to feel the humiliation of having a doctor look
you in the face and say "You aren't married to him/her, you are nothing
really to him/her." That is one of the most humiliating and defeating things
you can say to a person in a crisis, it denies them their connection to the
person injured. We need not subject people to it anymore.
@joe5 --Bedford Falls -- where there were no women or minorities in
positions of authority. Where black college kids couldn't eat at the
Walgreens lunch counter. Where gay employees could be fired just for saying
"I'm going to the movies with my boyfriend".No
thanks.Violent crime rates in the US have been falling for the last
20 years.Teen pregnancy rates in the US today is half of what it was
20 years ago. In 1991, the U.S. teen birth rate was 61.8 births for every 1,000
adolescent females, compared with 29.4 births for every 1,000 adolescent females
in 2012.So far, divorce rates among gay couples are roughly half of
divorce rates among straight couples.Gay couples will never have an
"oops" pregnancy. All children raised by gay couples are WANTED
children. Therefore they have little need or desire for abortions.Welcome to the 21st century.
You know dang well that Sotomayor won't issue a stay.
No I get it joe5, we have just granted a significant portion of our population a
civil right long denied them. This is a good thing.The rest of your
post is unverified anecdotes, there isn't a piece of evidence in there.
Show me the stats that back up your claims, please.And Bedford
Falls, where a woman *gasp* was a librarian, an honest, self supporting adult
instead of a leeching, spend her husband's money wife is to be honored. No
thanks, sir, I will continue to pay my way through life.
toshi: You don't get it at all, do you?In 1962, SCOTUS
eliminated prayer in schools. Social data shows a statistical negative trend in
unwed motherhood, divorce, drug abuse, etc since that event. Interestingly,
those statistics had been virtually static before 1962.1n 1973,
SCOTUS legalized abortion on demand. Disregard for human life has contributed to
mass shootings, pornography, and other sub-human activities.In 50
years span, we changed from honoring honesty, virtue, generosity, etc to one
driven by greed and lust. We changed from Bedford Falls to Pottersville so
gradually that you didn't even notice. You even ridicule the concept of
cause and effect.You probably cannot even imagine a real Bedford
Falls existence. You think it's quaint and Rockwell-esque but so far
removed from reality that you have a hard time believing people were ever
honorable.Like the two previous examples, our society will pay a
price for this decision. But you will follow blindly down the primrose path
without even noticing that the scenery is more bleak and the air more foul.
toshi1066 --Congrats! I hope you get to take time out for a
Day three of "gay marriage" in Utah: got up this morning, checked my
email, walked the dogs, husband made breakfast. Check on our son, he was asleep
as normal for a 17 yearold boy on holiday. Cat glared at me as I disturbed the
bed by sitting down.So when does the apocalypse happen that's
supposed to tear our marriage apart? I'd like to have the laundry done by
@rw 123re: "Accommodation law is the lesser of the laws in question. The
voters of the state of Utah thought they had made their will known with an
amendment to Utah's constitution, which would trump other laws, including
accommodation law."But this pesky little thing called the Untied
States Constitution, which trumps Utah's constitution. Due Process and
Equal protection. 5thg and 14th Amendments. Too bad Utah votes have never
heard of it...
Marriage equality. It's a wonderful thing. And
welcome to Utah!
I think I had one of the first legal gay marriages in Salt Lake City in 1986. I
married my best friend, a lesbian. I am a gay man. My boyfriend was my best
man, and her girl friend was her maid of honor. We are now divorced and she
married her current girlfriend in California a few months ago. I think her
current marriage is more natural than what we did on a whim as kids in our
twenties. We divorced about ten years ago and had a wonderful divorce. Our
pagan wedding ribbons are now tied on a tree in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Rock on,
@Henry Drummond, it's hard to assemble a good defense team when the
AG's Office has been effectively leaderless for months and months. Well,
the conservative's loss and marriage equality's gain.
@ricwhite:"... the chances of getting a stay from a liberal Sonia
Sotomayor..."The SCOTUS vote on DOMA was five/four. All DOMA
was about was whether the federal government could make laws re marriage. The
DOMA decision said the feds can't. But states can. Regarding 'equal
protection,' which is about state law, SCOTUS will very likely decide that
Utah's law defining marriage (man/woman) will be upheld. Why? Because it
applies equally to everyone... regardless of sexual orientation. If SCOTUS
decides Utah (man/woman) law fails the 'equal protection' test it will
also have to decide that any combination of marriage, such as polygamy, incest,
etc., is legal.@Schnee:"A lot of these couples have been
together half a dozen to dozens of years unable to marry..."Big
mistake to marry. When they decide they don't wanna be together anymore,
marriage becomes an entanglement of asset distribution and lawyers fees. Better
to stay single and live together, then, when you wanna break up you just...
break up and go your separate ways. Gay people are more prone to wanting to
sleep around... which, of course, is theirs and everyone's prerogative...
called freedom of association.
Read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and you'll know how the Supremes will
vote, if they ever take this up. "By formally declaring anyone
opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well
every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional
definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this court’s
declaration that there is 'no legitimate purpose' served by such a
law, and will claim that the traditional definition has the purpose and effect
to disparage and to injure the 'personhood and dignity' of same-sex
couples. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society's debate
over marriage — a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy
'help' only to a member of this institution."
It is time ladies and gentlemen of Utah to move into the 21st century!
AG spokesman Bruckman said "the office was not giving legal guidance to
clerks' offices."Uh... isn't that the JOB of the
attorney general's office?
Thank you Court of Appeals. Civil Rights and equality under the law has finally
arrived in Utah.Congratulations to all of you married this past
week, gays and straights.
County clerks that are in contempt of court should be jailed like anyone else
who is in contempt of court orders. Whether you agree or disagree
with the issue, laws must be obeyed even if you don't agree with them.
Opening disobeying court orders is not something that should be promoted by
County officials. Lawlessness is good for the public safety, or economy.
I seems a deep seated need for all citizens to be able to address themselves
as: "We the People"! Today ALL the citizens of Utah can call themselves
that inclusive title (naysayers not withstanding). Game. Set. Match and Merry
@equal protectionCedar, UT“Your issue is really with
public accommodation law.”Accommodation law is the lesser of
the laws in question. The voters of the state of Utah thought they had made
their will known with an amendment to Utah's constitution, which would
trump other laws, including accommodation law.
In re Al ThepalSalt Lake City, UTIf Al would take the word and
concept of religion out of his argument then this decision would have never been
handed down. Al confuses the first amendment right to practice one's own
religion with a right for all religions to pass legislation that is to their
likes and religious canons. It is religion that has gotten us in this mess. It
was religion that financed Prop 8 in Ca. There should be no laws which are
designed to give or deny religion a place in the institution of marriage.
Marriage is a civil function. Churches that perform marriages today do not
handle divorces. Nor should they. Our state law should be changed to prevent
priest,rabbis,minister etc from being able to administer the official act of
marriage. This does not prevent any religion from performing their marriage
service with their members. It just rakes their service out of the domain of
being official and keeps it in the domain of being religious.
To: ingleschmingleSalt Lake City, UTYou made the
following comment: "@Here There is no proof that Adam and Eve existed. A
mere childrens tale like Hansel and Gretel. It's time for religion to stay
out of all business." I want to ask you a question in all seriousness. Do
you really want to take that bet? I have long watched individuals making similar
claims that something did not exist only to have to eat their words at a later
time when they were proven wrong. New knowledge is being discovered each year.
You benefit by the modern medicine that was discovered in your life time that
only a hundred years ago was not even comprehensible to the scientific
community. So I ask you again, do you really want to take that bet?
@AL re: "..if a business owner doesn't want to make a wedding cake
because his religion says he should not take part in such weddings, his
religious rights should be protected."Your issue is really with
public accommodation law. If you're in business religious freedom does not
mean you can discriminate against someone of a different faith or race, and even
sexual orientation. What you may want to do is as your state legislator to
modify Utah's public accommodation laws.
@JohnLocke 10:14 a.m. Dec. 25, 2013This case was decided on summary
judgment because BOTH sides wanted it decided on summary judgment. Had there
been any question as to material fact, it would have been very easy to raise
that issue, derail the summary judgment process and send the matter to trial.
The State addressed its position in the pleadings/briefs it submitted for
summary judgment, long prior to the judgment and its implementation. I have no
doubt that both sides of the issue were fully briefed and argued prior to Judge
Shelby's judgment being issued. Judge Shelby's decision fully
analyzed and addressed the arguments from both sides of the issue, and reached a
sound decision based firmly on the Constitution and case law reaching back to
the 1800s (I've read and analyzed the entire decision -- have you?). There
is nothing totalitarian about what happened in this matter.The role
of the courts is not to decide whether a given action can perceived to be moral
or immoral. The role of the courts is to decide whether an issue is
constitutional or unconstitutional, something for which morality has no bearing.
Judge Shelby did his job well. Kudos to him.
' If the Christian child tells a child in a homosexual family that their
two moms or two dads live in sin they will be guilty of hate speech. If the
Christian child continues to stand up for his faith he will probably be
expelled.' My reply… *'Boy, 15,
reprimanded for backing traditional family in school paper' - By Joshua
Bolding, Deseret News - 01/27/12'He (Wegner) also quoted
scriptures like Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he
lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be PUT TO DEATH...' – article When 'standing
up for your faith'? Please do not say that someone you disagree with
should die. Good will, and peace on earth to everyone.
@Here There is no proof that Adam and Eve existed. A mere childrens tale like
Hansel and Gretel. It's time for religion to stay out of all business.
Changes that were long overdue and a victory for equality.
@Instereo: The Constitution was written to create a republican democracy, with
safeguards for the states who formed it. That's why Senator Hatch, who
endorsed Judge Shelby's confirmation, could have blocked him even though
Senators representing a majority of the country's population supported him.
As the system works, Senators representing about a third of Americans can tell
the other third what to do. But it was the Bill of Rights that was
enacted to protect the rights of the minorities. The majority supports freedom
of speech when it involves criticism of racism. It's when the minority of
Klan members want to march through the streets of Salt Lake City, that freedom
of speech protects the minority. In my lifetime, the majority of
voters in many Southern states supported laws against interracial marriage.
Where were the SSM opponents back then? Well, we know how their church felt
about black people back then.
@John Locke --"Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself,
and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own
preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve
the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender,
take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life,
the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."Does that
passage sound familiar?It should. The real John Locke said it.Man may not "take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the
preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of
another."It doesn't make any difference if you think
it's a sin or not. You may not take it away "unless it be to do justice
on an offender". And if you can't prove any harm, then
there is no offender.You should listen to your namesake.And with that, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas! I'm outta here til late
The court seems to be sympathetic about the effects on children when a parent
that is involved in a gay relationship and can’t get married. However,
things are really going to get tough on children in Christian families. Children
will be taught moral values by their parents. When they study the Bible in
Sunday school they will learn about the sin of homosexual sex. They will become
confused when the go to a public school and are taught that is OK to be gay.
When they have to read Heather Has Two Mommies or Daddies New Husband. If the
Christian child tells a child in a homosexual family that their two moms or two
dads live in sin they will be guilty of hate speech. If the Christian child
continues to stand up for his faith he will probably be expelled.On
another note, Judge Shelby should have had the decency to wait until after
Christmas to issue his opinion. I think he wanted to stick Christians in the
I think it's interesting how word games are played with "gay
marriage" vs. "same sex marriage." We end up showing our bias in the
words we frame the discussion. It's also interesting to me how
we love the constitution so much yet fall back to the arguement that that people
voted with an overwhelming majority to justiffy taking away the rights of a
minority. I thought the constitution was written to protect the rights of the
minority. That's why we have freedom of speech or freedom of religion so
the rights of the minority can be protected from the majority. How would we in
Utah feel if an amendment was passed outlawing our version of Christianity
called Mormonism because it wasn't Christian enough.
By the comments I'm reading it seems that the dust is settling down.It is obvious that for many in Utah it will take a while to come to
terms with SSM being legal in your state. Please forgive me, but I think this is
the time for all of you who opposed SSM reflect and prepare for your appeal to
the SCOTUS.I would strongly suggest that you keep notes on how "
your" marriage has been negatively affected since Friday with the advent of
Same Sex Marriage.I sincerely hope that no harm comes to your
relationship. But if this change brings you harm please raise the issue.
However, please I beg you, as the LGBT community doesn't want to harm you.
Please don't inflict harm on your neighbors just because you can.Merry Christmas to all.
The AG's office has been without a rudder and even a sail for 13 years, it
appears. They will have no basis for doing anything with a cause and by law and
order.The Governor has already sold out the $13M to Colorado
interests and there is no way the AG's office can do anything, one way or
another with the Colorado based Court of Appeals. John Swallow did
more for the State of Utah than he knew would happen.
It is a sad commentary when a judge rules quickly on a summary judgment striking
down a provision of the Utah Constitution voted in by 67% of the population,
without even allowing a trial, and then not allowing the State to even address
its position prior to its implementation? That is what totalitarian regimes do.
That kind of "justice" is a slap in the face to the majority who live
here, and the Constitution, which recognizes majority rule. That
which is immoral, remains immoral, you cannot change that with a change in the
law, or striking down the law. If the activity in question is immoral, it
remains immoral. God says the activity in question is immoral. Since he said
it...I side with Him, not Judge Shelby, who definitely is not God....despite
what his mirror might tell him..
@Meckofahess --"Your comment suggests you are taking joy out of
shoving this anti-religious ruling down the throats of religious folks. "Again -- this is NOT a question of religion vs. The Gay.Many
Christian denominations are already happy to perform gay marriages. Heck, just
look at all the pastors who showed up to the SL County courthouse.And many gay people are devout Christians.It's a lie to claim
that the gay marriage issue is anti-religious.And yes, I take great
joy from seeing justice being done. Merry Christmas!"If you can
find joy in sodomy and sin, then it says something about your moral character.
"Sodomy has been legal for years. And, btw, many straight
couples also enjoy those acts.And "sin" is a very relative
term. This is not a theocracy, so your personal definitions of sin don't
get to determine our secular laws. If you want to live under religious law, try
moving to somewhere like Iran."You want straights to be tolerant
of you point of view... "Nobody is forcing you to have a gay
marriage -- just as nobody is forcing you to drink liquor. THAT would be
Where the Church stands:The experience of same-sex attraction is a
complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting
on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they
do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church
reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers
The news out of the 10th Circuit is certainly encouraging, and it indicates the
state will probably not prevail on appeal. This is great news for the hundreds
of couple able to marry since last Friday. And therein lies my point.The people of Utah should be proud of the swift manner in which these
marriages happened. Barely a nanosecond after Judge Shelby issued his ruling,
couples were obtaining marriage licenses—without delay (in most counties
though not all). In other states where marriage equality has occurred, the
delays have ranged from 21 days (here in NJ) to months (we're still
waiting, Illinois). In Utah, it was ZERO delay. You might not see it or realize
it, but that was a remarkable achievement and you should be proud of it.I hope everyone has a great holiday and a wonderful 2014. I hope
everyone sees these weddings as an affirmation of marriage and not a threat to
marriage. Congratulations to all the happy couples (and really, seeing all those
faces filled with love and joy, only the hardest of hearts could not be thrilled
since the term, "marriage" no longer applies to a union between a man
and a woman we need a new term for that.
@Contrariusest: Enjoy your moment in the sun. Your comment suggests you are
taking joy out of shoving this anti-religious ruling down the throats of
religious folks. Killing babies in America is legal too, but that does not
make it right or moral. If you can find joy in sodomy and sin, then it says
something about your moral character. You want straights to be tolerant of you
point of view, but you have no interest in the point of view of religious folks.
That approach will not stand the test of time.
Yeah, the slippery slope.In the beginning, only white men had the
vote. But then women were given the vote, and our inevitable slide down the
slippery slope began. Next it was blacks. And after that we were compelled to
give oxen and iguanas and even cockroaches the vote! Once you start down the
slippery slope, you just can't stop!
Some claim that religion has no business being in the secular marriage arena.
Religion has been in the marriage business since Adam and Eve, whether religious
or secular. Of course religions can have opinions, policies, and procedures
regarding marriage, as it is one of the main stays of our society.
This is what the original tea party was all about. "Taxation without
representation" is totally unacceptable. Rule by judges as czars of a
dictator just like George III is also totally unacceptable.
This is great news, a Christmas gift in itself. It's too bad the state
feels the need to waste time and resources to appeal an unconstitutional law,
but for today good news is good news. Merry Christmas to all.
We should be kind to each other on Christmas, don't you think? Our
constitutional process is working just fine, and we should celebrate that
success. We should all congratulate Judge Shelby, a USU alumnus, for writing an
iron-clad decision based on precedent. Such was his promise and is his duty. To Bubba, Utah historically has a higher than the national average
divorce rate (see the US Census data). I was born in the Midwest where the
divorce rate well below average. So you raise an issue upon which we might focus
to better our community. Focus on our blessings and positive action this
As a fellow Brooklyn native, I would add to "A Quaker" who commented
about "gay lifestyle": From what I've seen, with a gay cousin and
some gay friends, that "gay lifestyle" seems to pretty much go as
follows: Get up in the morning, make the bed and take a shower. Fix breakfast.
Get the kids (if you have kids) up, fed and off to school. Go to work. Come
home and clean house. Fix dinner and then run to the store for groceries. Make
sure the kids do their homework. Read a book or watch TV for a while. Get the
kids in bed and chat with your partner for a while before you're sleepy and
need to go to bed. Bring the dog in so he won't bark all night. Go to bed.
Come to think of it, that sounds an awful lot like the lifestyle my wife and I
follow, as well as that of my straight neighbors. Not very exciting, is it...
@MrBean:"If you're licensed to operate a motor vehicle in
California do you have to re-license when you move to Utah. Yes. What happened
to the 'full faith and credit clause?"It means that
California residents are free to drive in other states with that California
drivers license. If they move to another state, they're no longer
California residents, and are now subject to the laws of their new home state.
Since California does not have the right to issue drivers licenses to
non-residents, you have to get a new license where you now live.
@bc5: The "slippery slope" argument is an imaginary one from your
fevered imagination. Marriage is still restricted to two and only two, mutually
consenting, adult human beings who are unrelated.As for the
essential-essence vs. "lifestyle" argument... Everyone has a lifestyle.
Whether it's the quiver-full, the traditional 2.3 children
white-picket-fence, DINKs (dual-income, no kids), or Bohemian, S&M/DS, or
Swinger, these are all heterosexual lifestyles, and we let them all get married.
Pair-bonding, whether in people or in nature is not a lifestyle. However that
pair chooses to live their lives might be described as a lifestyle, but the
bonding itself is what we created marriage for, to give it a legal status, to
make the two people into one household unit for tax, accounting, inheritance and
social service purposes. There's no such thing as a "gay
lifestyle". There's probably a dozen of them, just as there are with
"straight lifestyles." Pair-bonding is pair-bonding is pair-bonding.
If you don't like who someone is marrying, don't go to the wedding.
End of story.
I have read and been taught that the Constitution will be "hanging by a
threat," but it appears to be on very solid legal ground in protecting the
rights of everyone. Theology is losing to the will of the people. All people!
Being a long-standing member of the church and a mother of nine, my heart (and
my husband's) have changed when we found out that one of our sons came out
to us as gay two years ago. We raised him just like we did with the rest of our
children, but we noticed that his personality and tendencies were different
starting from age 5. To suggest that my son made a conscious choice to become
gay at such a young age is purely ignorant, and the church has now (finally!)
acknowledged that being gay isn't a choice
(http://www.mormonsandgays.org/). To those against this, please set aside your
biases and prejudice, and listen to your gay brothers and sisters.
@wrz --"The Federal Constitution says nothing about marriage...
"Many panels of SCOTUS justices have affirmed and reaffirmed
marriage as a basic civil right." As for equal protection...
all, ALL citizens are protected in selecting someone to marry... "Yet again -- that argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it
won't work now either."the state is obliged to also allow
all other types of marriages that can be conjured."Nope. Yet
again, individual rights are always limited by harm."He did not
rule in favor of polygamists, group marriages, pedophile marriages, sibling
marriages, father/daughter marriages, mother/son marriages, etc. "Of course not. Individual rights are always limited by harm."If you're licensed to operate a motor vehicle in California do you
have to re-license when you move to Utah. Yes. What happened to the 'full
faith and credit clause?"Different kind of license.If someone marries their first cousin in Tennessee and then moves to Utah, he
is still married.If someone marries a 16-year-old in Tennessee and
then moves to Utah, he is still married.It is very well established
that Full Faith and Credit applies to marriage licenses.
Why does the State need to regulate marriage, anyway? For the same reason it
regulates other contracts: Prevent conflicts between parties; resolve them when
they happen. It's certainly not necessary for protection of children.
What privileges do the children of married parents enjoy, that the children of
unmarried parents are denied?Regulation of marriage is a service to
the public, not a service to certain religious groups. Historically, the need
for regulation of same-sex marriages was not obvious, until the Supreme Court
decriminalized what is done by consenting adults in such relationships. Laws are a service provided to citizens. Only in certain Islamic
societies are laws seen as a codification of religious beliefs. Some people are
acting as if there is only a limited number of marriage licenses available.
They want to ration them, because the State might run out. What's next?
Ration birth certificates, only to babies from good homes? Ration death
certificates, only to those who led sinless lives?
No less an authority than the current POTUS has established the precedent that
the executive branch of government has the right of selective enforcement in the
area of same-sex marriage. Selective enforcement has been completely ignored by
the courts. With that precedent established by the lefties, I think Utah County
is on solid legal grounds. However, the lefties won't see it that way. They
only want selective enforcement of laws they don't like. They are an odd
bunch to say the least.
There is no new legal ground to be explored through an appeal. You don't
get to appeal just because you're not happy with the decision, you have to
show that an important legal principal has been misapplied or overlooked. The claims Utah is making as it appeals to the Supreme Court have
already been examined and dismissed. There is simply no legal,
constitutional reason for the court to reverse Judge Shelby, and a mountain of
reasons, both constitutional and practical, to deny Utah's request for an
Christmas has come and we once again celebrate the birth of the Savior of all
mankind. The sun has risen. Perhaps it is time to move
on to other things such as taking care of the poor, the sick and afflicted.
I continue to wait to hear one, just one, valid argument against Marriage
Equality that would hold up in a Court of law. I have asked the naysayers for
this repeatedly. All I hear are crickets.We are talking about
secular, civil marriage, not necessarily religious marriage (unless your
religion supports it), so why does the religious crowd believe they have a dog
in this fight? It makes no sense.The national groups such as NOM
speak of "activist judges" and all that. That's not what I'm
seeing. They are following the strict constructionist view. I guess they are
only "activist judges" if you disagree with them. The anti-SSM crowd
keeps going to court with the same lame arguments and they continue to lose,
which is of little surprise. Either come up with a valid argument (good luck on
that!) or take your ball and go home.SSM will be the law of the land
and guess what? The world will continue to spin. It is a "no big deal"
unless you are in a SSM.
A lot of these couples have been together half a dozen to dozens of years unable
to marry because of the laws here and thinking they shouldn't have to go to
another state to get a marriage license. this is a great .....
The recent developments in allowing gay marriage seem historic. How will the
Mormon church continue to react? In the latest issue of Dialogue: A Journal of
Mormon Thought, the first article analyzes possible paths for both the Catholic
and Mormon churches in light of their respective doctrinal principles. The
present legal developments make the matter more acute than ever.
I thought the conservatives were big fans of the Constitution. Why are they
complaining when the Constitution doesn't give them what they want?Sen. Mike Lee has spoken openly about his desires to repeal the 14th and
17th amendments. So much for loving the Constitution.
From the article… 'The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals rejected the state's request for an emergency stay on a federal
judge's ruling…' Sound familiar?
*’Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by
Michael De Groote – Deseret News – 02/07/12 Just 4 days
ago people were claiming a 'lone, liberal judge' was destroying the
will of the people. Ignoring federal judges that struck down Prop 8
and the Defense of Marriage Act. Today, the 10th circuit court
refused the stay (again) to deny gay marriage. When will some
realize, this is not the work of a few 'activist' judges.
This is the work of the Constitution of the United states of America. You cannot deny the 1,100+ legal rights and protections given to some
Americans.. because of what is between their legs. LGBT
pay their taxes, go to work, raise their kids… and bleed and
die on the fields of war. They should be able, to have life-long
monogamy to one person. And that should be their choice.
'The meaning of the law is not up to the peope anymore, it has been
stopped.' False: *'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.' Amendment 3 passed in 2004. Today, is 2013. When citing the 'will of the
people'? Try something a bit more current than almost a decade ago. 'I think many of these people are caught up in the moment. They
jumped the gun and got married just because a judge overruled…' False: *'Gay Americans pay more taxes for fewer
rights' - By Suze Orman – CNN – 02/25/13 'We
all have 83-year-old Edith Windsor to thank for in pushing the issue of same-sex
marriage equality on to the national front. Edie and her partner Thea were
together for 40 years.' This is really why persons against gay
marriage are loosing. Willfully ignoring LGBT couples together for
40 years. And the fact that Kim Kardashian was married…for
only 7 weeks. Pick a standard. Gay marriage has finally
come to Utah.
I guess the next step for Utah is the US Supreme Court.
It appears to me same gendered's have won. Why though, does it seem a
higher majority of these same gendered's find it necessary to act like the
opposite sex? It seems like a counterfeit act while trying to legitimize the
normalcy of same gendered marriages.
I would be okay with it if the courts would remember that religions and their
members are protected under the first amendment to the Constitution
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". But it is appearing, based on a
few recent examples, that the liberal judges are largely ignoring the 1st phrase
in the 1st amendment to the constitution. For example, if a business owner
doesn't want to make a wedding cake because his religion says he should not
take part in such weddings, his religious rights should be protected. The ironic
thing about the case I am referencing is that both sides admitted that the
business owner would happily serve them for any other occasion. But he did not
want to violated his religion. The courts unconstitutionally violated his
religious rights. Shame on the judges who make such decisions. So if the
approach being taken was a balanced approach, I would not have a problem with
the LGBT rights movement. Something is wrong when someone's rights get
eliminated in order to create rights for someone else. There is a better way.
@iron&clay:"If you are under 18 and you are sexually assaulted by
an adult..."If the adult and 'child' are legally
married (and they should be if gays can marry) it is not sexual assault.
Further, the government has no business being involved in the conduct in
peoples' bedrooms.@Bob K:"With BYU and a VERY
conservative population it provides a buffer from Salt Lake Valley which is
going to deteriorate significantly with this ruling."Salt Lake
is prophesied to be one of the wickedest cities in the world. The Judge's
ruling is a giant step.@sid 6.7:"He did what he was
supposed to do and ruled in favor of ALL man"He did not rule in
favor of polygamists, group marriages, pedophile marriages, sibling marriages,
father/daughter marriages, mother/son marriages, etc. He has more work to
do.@Contrariuser:"States won't be allowed to continue
ignoring the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution for very much
longer."If you're licensed to operate a motor vehicle in
California do you have to re-license when you move to Utah. Yes. What happened
to the 'full faith and credit clause?
@open minded: "Apparently our Constitution is working."Which Constitution, State or Federal? The Federal Constitution says nothing
about marriage... And the repeal of DOMA simply means marriage is to be
determined/defined not by federal by by state governments. And the State of
Utah did define marriage... as between one man and one woman.All the
US Constitution (14th Amendment) says about the issue is: 'No state...
shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.'And what does the State of Utah's laws say about
marriage? That it is to be between one man and one woman. As for equal
protection... all, ALL citizens are protected in selecting someone to marry...
that they select someone of the opposite sex. It does not say that gays can
marry someone of their sex. It does not say polygamists can marry. It does not
say that children can marry. It clearly says that all citizens of the state can
marry by choosing someone of the opposite sex.If it turns out that
Utah's prohibition of gay marriage is incorrect, the state is obliged to
also allow all other types of marriages that can be conjured.
@BigBubba --"Divorce lawyers are going to be busy next
year."So far, the divorce rate for gay couples appears to be
roughly half of the divorce rate for straight couples.Perhaps
straight couples could learn something here."In the states with
available data, dissolution rates for same-sex couples ...ranges from 0% to 1.8%
annually, or 1.1% on average, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples
divorce annually." -- from "Patterns of Relationship Recognition
by Same-Sex Couples in the United States", published in 2011 by the Williams
Institute at UCLA School of Law.
Hey Utah 3rd times a charm.
Traditional civil rights laws and court rulings made sense because it covered
discrimination based on race and sex which are immutable traits. The courts have
now expanded equal protection and due process to cover a lifestyle choice
(homosexuality) that does not affect others. Well we might as well continue down
the slippery slope and declare polygamy between consenting adults a right. After
all, the state can no longer legislate based on moral disapproval.
@Big BubbaA lot of these couples have been together half a dozen to dozens
of years unable to marry because of the laws here and thinking they
shouldn't have to go to another state to get a marriage license.
Section 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.The game is on, what goes around Washington
comes around.The meaning of the law is not up to the peope anymore, it has
been stopped.Next election the last chance to beam out.
Apparently our Constitution is working. Due process has been followed. Utah is
losing this legal battle. Perhaps they should not have tried to be proactive and
outlaw Gay marriage with an additional amendment. If Utah hadn't passed
this amendment they wouldn't even have this as an issue. They knew it would
be fought in court and yet passed it anyway. I'm glad Utah couldn't
leave it alone and now all citizens of Utah have the right to marry.
I've heard some people want to move to Salt Lake City because gay marriage
is now the law. This is definitely a culture shift that a portion of the
State's population will have to digest slowly.
I think many of these people are caught up in the moment. They jumped the gun
and got married just because a judge overruled the voice of the majority in
Utah. Divorce lawyers are going to be busy next year.
@ricwhiteThey keep making the same argument and are disappointed
when they get the same result.The other problem is they failed to
file for a stay before the order came out. By the time they filed the paperwork,
Gay marriages had already taken place. Its pointless to ask for a stay when the
status quo has already changed. This raises serious questions about the defense
team the AG's Office assembled. While I am delighted with the Judge's
ruling, I think its only fair to suggest Utah needs far better representation in
Court than this.
Opponents of marriage equality in particular, and civil rights generally, WILL
be overcome!Congratulations to our fellow citizens for whom equality
has been long sought.
I hope the recalcitrant county clerks get cited for contempt. And I'm
thrilled that at least one couple has already filed suit against a clerk who
refused to give them a license.Gay marriage is now Utah law, people.
Get used to the idea.
Richard Shelby is a US Senator for the state of Alabama.
It would be nice if courts processed other cases just as fast...
After reading the stay request document, I have to admit that the state's
arguments were not very compelling. And if the stay request was rejected by a
conservative 10th Circuit, the chances of getting a stay from a liberal Sonia
Sotomayor (who is the one assigned to the 10th Circuit) is extremely remote.
Honestly? There is no confusion whatsoever. This is nothing but disobedience
of the law. Call it for what it is.
Hey, guess what? 10th Circuit denied the emergency almost an hour ago. And
they've directed an expedited review of the appeal which means another big
The 10th Circuit court says there will not be a stay. Keep calm and marry on.