@SoCalChris;You never really made a point. You regurgitate
right-wing talking points.Go READ the 14th Amendment. It says ALL
citizens, not just those you agree with or approve of. Sometimes it just takes
people a while to realize that "all" means ALL.
Happy Valley Heretic,Seriously. Did you read the thread? I
didn't "lecture" anyone. I was responding to an ad hominem attack,
the kind your side routinely makes.Your side also loves to accuse
those who disagree with SSM of wanting a theocracy, yet a secular authority
hands down an edict like some newly revealed interpretation from on high and
you're fine with it. There's never been a threat of a Christian
theocracy in this country, but we're seeing an actual threat of a theocracy
of politically correct dogma.The Constitution has always allowed for
distinctions based on gender. Separate restrooms are unconstitutional when it
comes to race not gender.
@SoCalChris"Instead of a condescending comment why not address my
points? I took Constitutional law in law school."Because
I'm sure the Judge is Far better qualified to rule on constitutional law
than a guy who took "Constitutional law in law school" but still thinks
"separate but equal" is a good idea. Others lecture here daily on their
constitutional expertise, I just don't see it. If you read Judge
Shelby's comments he uses logic and the law, Not religious convictions and
scriptures in his statement as he should.
Ranch,Instead of a condescending comment why not address my points?
I took Constitutional law in law school and routinely read cases
involving Constitutional issues as a practicing attorney. I believe I understand
the role of the judiciary quite well.
@SoCalChris;Please go read up on the role of the judiciary in the
United States. It'll explain far better than I ever could why the
judge's ruling is appropriate and why he was performing the role he is
intended, as a judge, to perform.
No matter what your position on SSM you should be disturbed by this kind of
judicial activism. If SSM was in the 14th Amendment all along, why
did it take almost 150 years to figure it out?Why was the 19th
Amendment necessary to give women the right to vote if the right was already
guaranteed in the 14th Am?Why was there a push to ratify the Equal
Rights Amendment during the 70s if the 14th Amendment already meant that gender
makes no difference?Apparently for many judicial activism is just
fine if you like the result.
I guess there is a difference of opinion among people about what
"marriage" is. That is why we have different types of marriage. To most
gay people, I'm assuming that they just want to be together legally and
have the same legal rights that the traditional man and woman marriages have.
And that's what has been legalized. To those that feel that their marriages
are something more that is religious you have your rights too. That has not
Bravo to you Richard. I admire you for having the courage to speak up publicly
to state your well founded views. The majority of the people of Utah should not
stand still and allow their voice to be silenced by a small minority of the
population which does not respect or tolerate the point of view of 66% of the
voters who want to protect traditional family values. The gay community is
fearful that if the majority speaks up that their anti-family stance will be
threatened. As they unsuccessfully try to make us feel like we are bigots for
standing up for our rights, we must not back down. We do not want the legitimate
rights of the gay community to be challenged. We just want our right to have
marriage legally defined the way that the Bible and modern revelation reveal to
us how God wants marriage defined. God's will is older than our
constitution and it must be defended. We want our children to know that there
is a significant difference between gay unions and true marriage. Let us
respectfully stand up for our rights!
Your marriage will not be threatened by gay marriages any more than it was by
the Temple Marriage of two men in Bountiful. Remember Felix Urioste? The man
dressed as a woman who was sealed to 'her' husband?
Does the U.S. Constitution give anyone the right to demand rights because he/she
feels that the face in the mirror is not the face that should be in the mirror?
If that person told his banker that he/she wanted a loan because he would feel
better with some money in the bank, would the U.S. Constitution be used to force
that banker to make that loan because, according to the Judge's ruling,
"feelings" are the basis for Constitutionally guaranteed rights. A banker would look that the person's ability to pay the loan back,
but most of those who have posted would call that discrimination. They would
demand that the banker change the rules because they "feel" that they
should have equal access to every loan just because the "feel" that they
need the money. It doesn't matter that the banker applied all rules
equally to all borrowers, some would demand new rules suited just for them.
They would use the 14th Amendment to prove the "feelings" are a right
and that heaven and earth must be moved so that they can exercise that right.Yes, the parade marches on.
@Richard Nielsen;Since you seem to have forgotten, or possibly never
knew it, the US Constitution take precedence over State Constitutions. The
State may not create laws that violate the US Constitution.Hope this
The painful puritanism of Utahns is excruciating to behold.People...this
is the REAL world...This is reality.The protected, uncultured little
bubble of resistance to global reality that surrounded Utah has popped.Grow up, live your lives in concert with your own values, and let others do
the same.Gay marriage doesn't affect yours for one second.
@the truth --"Name one instance where a marriage license has
even been revoked by the government ever."The legal term is
"invalidation" or "voiding" rather than "revocation".
And yes, it's perfectly legal to invalidate marriage licenses in some
circumstances.-----"Marriage licenses can be
declared invalid for a number of reasons. The most common basis for an invalid
marriage license is probably fraud on behalf of one or both of the parties to
the marriage. For example, the parties might enter into a fake or
sham marriage, such as a fraudulent marriage arrangement for the purposes of
obtaining a certain immigration status. Or, one of the parties might claim to
be divorced, when in fact they are still married. While the laws may
vary locally, in general a marriage license can be invalidated on the following
grounds: Underage...Improper Identification...Prior misrepresentations
(fraud):.....Medical Examinations...Certificates (prior marriages)...Additional
Documents...Waiting periods...Also, the license is usually only valid for around
30-90 days. "-----"Marriage is a
'rite' not a 'right'."Millions of people in
this country alone are quite happily married with no religious rites whatsoever.
"... in spite of the fact that the 2004 law was passed by 66 percent of Utah
voters." If the amendment denies equal protection it doesn't matter if
even 100% voted for the measure.
re:LelandTC"To just jump on a bandwagon that can harm the development
of children is a dangerous move."Poverty is harmful and
dangerous to the development of children but somehow we don't blink an eye
when cutting benefits for families with children or funding education. Divorce
is disruptive and can be harmful to the development of children but it
isn't illegal. We don't want to pay for birth control to reduce the
number of unplanned pregnancies. Finally, we claim to care about children, and
marriage, except we will deny gay parents marriage. Marriage is better for
children UNLESS their parents are gay. How messed up is that?
Here are the stats:How many same-sex marriages are there?MA
22,406 (2004-2012)CA 18,000 (2008)estimatedNY 12,285 (2011-2012)CT 5,759 (2009-2011)IA 4,679 (2009-2011)VT 2,779 (2003-2013)WA 2,500 (2012-2013)NH 2,329 (2010-2013)MA 428 (2012-2013)(Pew Research Center)
@the truth"Marriage is a 'rite' not a
'right'. And exactly where did your legal degree come
from? How many years did you serve on the Supreme Court to make that
determination. I only ask you that because they US Supreme Court does not hold
you same opinion. In fact in the case Loving v. Virginia, they stated exactly
the opposite:"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of
man,""So, again I ask, where exactly did you receive your
legal training in case law?
Lehi and Nephi wrote about the "fools' parade" that we're
watching pass before us. They saw the great and spacious building. They saw
those who mock God and His laws. Lehi and Nephi saw those who know better, but
were so ashamed of Christ that they joined the parade rather than stand as
witnesses at all times and in all places. Some of them have not yet realized
that Christ dispenses the oil that we will need drop by drop to those who stand
with him against the forces who rush towards that spacious building. Isaiah wrote of our day and Moses was only gone for 40 days before the
"children" gave in to their sexual appetites and defiled themselves on
the calf.The constant sorrow of life is that those who will not curb
their appetites and passions will reap the same consequences as all who yielded
before them. There have always been ambitious judges who repay their
appointment by racing to the head of that "parade". They will someday
learn the law as the true Lawgiver overrules their decisions. Nephi
wrote about our day 2,700 years ago but few heed his words.
Marriage is NOT a contract.Name one instance where a marriage
license has even been revoked by the government ever.No where has it
been demonstrated that Utah's law is unconstitutional other than by an
opinion of one man.If one man can change law that is tyranny,His opinion does not make Utah's law unconstitutional, hence the
appeal process. Nor does it make gay marriage legal. Marriage is a
'rite' not a 'right'.Always has been a
'rite'Particularly a religious rite.If you want
government recognition for your relationship then you should be properly
fighting for a 'union'.Government has no business being in
There is still little data to show the affect of homosexual marriages on
society. To just jump on a bandwagon that can harm the development of children
is a dangerous move. It may prove to be a non-issue, but until we know, would it
not be more prudent to study it before jumping to the idea that fairness to a
small group of people is more important than the health of a society? Can a
child consistently be raised by just fathers or just mothers and not have
emotional or mental issues? People who are not willing to take the time to look
at all of the angles are fools, and a danger to society. The traditional purpose
of marriage was to create a stable home environment for the raising of children.
Even some heterosexual couples are not good at this, but are we asking for more
trouble by changing the formula without much testing?
The moral climate of this country is spiraling downward. Morals:
Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.It defines how
things should work according to an individuals' ideals and principles. Where do they come from? Individual - Internal.So maybe sir
granting civil rights to a group formerly denied those rights is against your
personal morals, but you don't get to speak for the "nation". In
fact poll after poll shows that 2/3rds of Americans do not share your
"morals" regarding this subject. The country doesn't
even share your ethics which specifically refer to societal standards. Believe as you will but do not conflate your opinions with those of
"Marriage" is a legal contract, binding people together.In
business, they are called -- Articles of Incorporation;i.e., Corporation,
INC., Co. and LLC.It protects everyone interests, so that one
person can not take over complete control or the assets."Marriage" documents serve the same purpose.Try getting a
divorce, and see for yourself how "Godless" and "legal"
everything quickly becomes!
A lynch mob is a majority rule action as well. Doesn't make it or its
actions right.What is wrong with two people, or even more than two -
who want to get legal recognition of 'marriage' doing so?As long as they are of legal age and can consent freely - no one is harmed.Those who want to impose their 'moral standards' on all others
are no better than the taliban types who do so.
Jury nullification? Really? Of what, exactly?I'd be
interested in your idea of how that would work.Who would be on
trial? What would the charge be? Juries can't arrest people, nor can they
charge people with a crime (Utah doesn't use Grand Juries unless you can
convince five judges to convene one).
"the Constitution that gives the states the power to make laws not
specifically enumerated in the Constitution as being within the jurisdiction of
the federal government."Does the Constitution gives the states
the power to ban inter-racial marriage? the answer is NO.
It's something many in Utah should have learned a long time ago. An
unconstitutional law is no less unconstitutional just because many favour it.
The constitution is starting to work for us here, and those who have held sway
for too long against the dictates of that constitution are going to have to get
used to a new reality.
"in spite of the fact that the 2004 law was passed by 66 percent of Utah
voters."Majority rule doesn't matter with laws that are
unconstitutional. Many of you want Obamacare overturned even though a majority
in Congress voted for it because you think it's unconstitutional. Many of
you were glad the Chicago and DC gun bans were overturned despite a majority
supporting those because you think they were unconstitutional."I’d like to also mention that the states have a right to jury
nullification"No you don't, this isn't 1850.
Richard, how does this affect your marriage? If your marriage was
on shaky ground prior to this "stroke of the pen", it's likely to
be on shaky ground post the "stroke of the pen".
Activist judge = one you disagree with.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God, what is God's.
The problem is what to do when Caesar and God are in conflict.