New A.G. says Utah gay couples who recently married are in 'legal limbo'
To "Two For Flinching" read the courts ruling. They state specifically
that the definition of marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue. They
mention the fact that it is a State's rights issue to determint the
definition several times in their ruling.Please read it before you
TriSam..i just can not figure it out? Its my fellow "card
carrying" Mormons who are for same sex marriage, and are supporting this
cause.KJKThe D&C says that the Constitution was established to
maximize individual freedom and agency. The brethren have stated that laws that
punish acts that don't objectively harm others harm agency. If we
didn't want people to sin, we should have sided with someone else in the
Pre-Existance. Will allowing SSM result in more or less promiscuity in the gay
community? Will it promote or dissuade gays from forming stable
families/relationships? Will it promote or hinder the spread of STDs? Will it
result in more or fewer people relying on government for insurance and other
@ Redshirt2013, section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the
supreme court. "...the word 'marriage' means only a legal union
between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband
or a wife." Not only does Amendment 3 violate this, but it also denies
benefits for same-sex civil unions, which was the downfall of Prop 8. Amendment
3 is doomed. Federal > State@ TriSamChrist
isn't ruling, and this country is not a Theocracy. There is not a single
reason SSM should not be legal in this country.
But you know what really confounds me, and i just can not figure it out? Its my
fellow "card carrying" Mormons who are for same sex marriage, and are
supporting this cause. My question is this? If Christ came to America today to
rule.....would he support same sex marriage and allow it to stand under his
rule? This question was only for my fellow Mormons who should know the answer
but seek to justify it against what they have been taught and what the Lord
teaches. Me thinks there are some testimonies in real trouble out there.
Excellent, this is good. It would be great if this sticks, and the people of
Utah who voted for the sanctity of marriage win out. But alas, I think we we
know how it will eventually play out. But we also know how it will in the end
eventually play out, and that gives me hope, be it likely a long time down the
To "Two For Flinching" you are wrong. The Utah Ammendment 3 was enacted
in accordance with the 10th ammendment, and met the requirements set by the
Supreme Court in the recent DOMA case. The 10th ammendment says that if the
constitution does not give the Federal government power to do something, that it
is left up to the states. According to the Supreme Court, the Federal
Government has no authority to define marriage and that it is up to the
individual states to determine that.Now, we have a judge that wants
to use the 14th ammendment to violate the 10th ammendment and a law that meets
the requirements of a recent SCOTUS ruling.
@ ExecutorIohThe 10th Amendment in this case is irrelevant because
state laws can stand so long as they don't clash with the United States
Constitution. Amendment 3 violates the 14th Amendment, and therefor is getting
shredded in court. A large part of the voters in Utah are about to discover
that they can't force everybody to live by their standards just because
they are the big fish in the world's smallest pond.
Lagomorph:Will you please stop perpetuating the tired old distortion
that Blue states are the givers and Red states are the blood suckers of Federal
money simply because they are blue states. First of all, look at the level of
affluence in NY, CT, NJ, and so forth. They have a LOT of weath in those states
and a LOT of single or child-less, rich people who pay a lot in taxes. Many of
them are Republicans, too. They are not all Democrats. Furthermore, MOST of
the Red States that take more federal money than they send in have a LOT of
federal land, roads, bridges and not a lot of people (western states). The
other states are the Southern Red States who all have large percentages of
poorer minorities and poor people in general. Bottom line: more rich people
and not a diporportionate amount of land and roads to people means a surplus of
tax dollars. It's not a virtue of Red State inhabitants being diliberately
taking federal money.
What happen when the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment contradict each
other? You get a stay from the US Supreme Court, so plenty of discovery can be
made for a precedent-setting decision.The argument that a federal
court violated the 10th Amendment by getting involved in a state right is
stronger than the argument that a clause in a state constitution defining
marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Considering the national impact of the USSC's upcoming decision (33 similar
states), I see this going in favor of the state and it's voters in the end.
TellitstraightSome argue that children prosper better when parented by
both a mother and a father.KJKI think that it might be more
important to have parents with diverse personalities/communication styles. I
attended a class that discussed the 4 basic personality/communication styles
– Talkers (fun/outgoing), Doers (direct, results oriented), Controllers
(deliberate, detailed oriented), and Supporters (relationship oriented,
consensus builders). Everybody has some of each and will change styles to some
extent under differing circumstances, but they usually have a dominant style.If both parents have the same style vs. opposite styles
(Talkers/Controllers or Doers/Supporters), then the kids might be harmed (less
well-rounded) more than if they had parents of the same sex but opposite styles.
Many people believe that all men are type A disciplinarians while women are
soft nurturers. That's not always the case. Sometimes, the dad is the
softy. Sure, 2 gay men may have a problem helping a daughter
through the issues of puberty, but good same-sex parents will make sure that
their kids have trusted adults of both sexes in their lives that the kids can
turn to for such occasions.
Of course, because it's not the high divorce rate among heterosexuals that
is the problem, it that more people want to get married that is the problem.
(cont'd) I might reference laws that seek to maintain equitable contact for
both parents and that do not imply a preference for one or the other parent. I
might also give evidence of court practices that frown upon preferences based on
gender, and I would provide examples of cases in which evidence of alienating
behavior on the part of one parent (moving children away without court notice,
repeated protective orders that are dismissed, violating temporary parent-time
orders, introducing a new “mother” or “father” into the
children’s lives, etc.) was met with strong disapproval by the courts. I
might even construct an equivalent term for mothers whose actions mirror those
of a “deadbeat dad.” You get the gist. Then I’d focus research
on how this approach produces better outcomes for children than those of other
One of the many arguments offered in the debate over same-sex marriage relates
to child-rearing. Some say the population will decline so dramatically that
we'll suffer as a species. Some argue that children prosper better when
parented by both a mother and a father. Just for argument's sake,
let's assume that the latter argument has merit and that I'm a citizen
of Utah who wants to maintain the ban against same-sex marriage, for whatever
reasons. Because the research is still inconclusive on the question of what
parental (homo, hetero) arrangements best benefit a child, I might instead just
focus on the advantages of a mother/father arrangement and then press the other
side to show how a mother/mother or father/father situation outdoes mine.One place to start might be the state laws related to child custody and
contact when heterosexual couples divorce. I would need to show how the laws
reflect a genuine interest in children having strong and abiding relationships
with both mom and dad throughout and after the separation.
@ nycut that is right be a good neighbor and concern yourself with your own
neighborhood. The good neighbors in Utah have already spoken by 64% and do not
want this in their neighborhoods
@ Ranch It isn't for you to decide who marries whom. We are NOT a
theocracy; god's will isn't relevant to civil law (you never know
who's god is going to take precedence). Your church doesn't have to
change it's INTERNAL policy. It has no business interfering in the lives of
non-members.You are right but a civilization can determine what are
the standards and norms that they will follow. The citizens in the State of Utah
through a legal election the good people of the State of Utah determined the
stadard that they want for their society. Those who wanted SSM had their chance
@Meckofahesssid 6.7 asked about example of the harm caused by
same-sex marriage laws, and you replied by bringing up a different issue,
transgender students, what is your point?@dwayne, thank you for
clearing up the fact that David Parker was arrested because of committing a
crime of trespassing.@John LockePlease read the posts in
Page 3 by Mcbillary 1:26 pm and J.S. 2:19 pm.Summary: Utah state did
not get stay because AG legal team made unbelievable mistakes that only first
year law student would make. They did not follow the procedural rule to request
stay BEFORE the ruling came down. And later they did not follow the procedural
rule to request stay from Judge Shelby first, but instead surpassed him and
directly asked the 10th circuit. Even attorneys from conservative
corner think AG's team did a terrible job. If you want to blame anyone,
blame those state attorneys who collected paychecks from taxpayers but failed to
Even if the courts say that gay marriage is legal, the state can always copy
Colorado and ignore federal law. Since states are allowed to pick and choose
what Federal laws to obey, Utah could simply say that it doesn't care what
the Federal law says. What is there to prevent Utah from enforcing all federal
laws? There is alread the precedent showing us that federal laws can be
AvenueVernal, UTThe ability to make laws regarding marriage and
divorce are reserved by state governments, so Shelby shouldn't have been
able to make the ruling anyway.6:05 p.m. Jan. 6, 2014========== If you got married in California 22 years ago, is your
marriage recognized in Vernal, Utah?If you got married in Utah, moved and
got divorced in Iowa, is that divorced recognized in Utah?This is
were inter-State recognition of State laws at the Federal level [Constitution]
comes into play.BTW -- One other example.If you got married in
Sweden or Japan, is that marriage recognized in Vernal, Utah?You see
-- you must look outside of the little knock-hole Utah Bubble to see the world
as it really is.
"The LGBT community is dishonest ! Rights are in question, Yes. But their
intentions go far further into changing society to a more non-religious and
less-legal ground to stand on. That might be their long term goal, but why
don't they say so, instead of using the marriage issue as tool to fit their
intent ? They want much more than just get married !"So all gay
people are dishonest, atheistic, against the rule of law, and have an agenda of
anarchy. Wow…. you have really opened peoples eyes… not to the
LGBT agenda…. but to something else. I would not debate there are some
who are reflective of this gross stereotype…. but I would say that it is
exactly that. Just as inferring from the headlines we read after
BYU-Utah football games of boorish behavior by fans - I would hardly castigate
all Utah or BYU fans as against the rule of law as evidenced by the actions of a
subgroup of their fans. But somehow I think you have made up your mind that all
"LGBT" people are a despicable crowd… and for that I feel sorry
Very, very good news… I'm so grateful for our Supreme Court's
decision concerning this matter.
Disappointed, but not surprised. I couldn't shake a slight uneasy feeling
at the lower courts' refusal to grant a stay. This is a big issue in the
country, and things were happening awfully fast. The right to gay marriage
across the land IS coming, but people currently opposed to it need more time to
wrap their minds around it. Hang in there my LGBT family members, friends, and
fellow citizens. It's coming...
Looking at the LDS Articles of Faith, lessons can be learned about respect for
one's country's and state's laws. Number 11 says that We claim
the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own
conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where,
or what they may. And, Number 12 says that We believe in being subject to
kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining
the law. I like allow all men the same privilege, and being subject, obeying,
honoring and sustaining the law. Perhaps it is time to follow this ... obey,
honor and sustain the law as well as allow all the right to worship according to
their own dictates. The LDS moved to another country, Mexico (Utah) in order to
continue their practice of polygamy (an unusual choice of marriage) - perhaps
it's time to move again to another country? If the U.S. and/or State of
Utah judicially allows same-sex marriage as law, perhaps it's time to obey,
honor, and sustain the law.
Let's talk about preserving real family values.Let's talk
about stopping the insane practice of kicking out LGBT youth in Utah, the likes
of which is shameful. 5000 youth experiencing homelessness in Utah
and people instead take to "preserving traditional marriage." Get over
yourselves already and start living the edicts from Moses 7. Let's talk about the real preservation of the family unit - so that
depression is not rampant throughout the state.Let's talk about
why, despite doctrinal teachings, Utah's divorce rate does not fare better
than the nation's. That would be more practical than people
cheering when others lose rights enjoyed by others.
I know it, I live it, I love it.Good for you but for others we have found
true, eternal happiness without it. Respect this and defend our rights, just as
others have for you.
I did not make homosexual sex incapable of producing children. God did that. Those who wish to call the contractual union of two same sex people a
marriage are barking up the wrong tree. Your fellow man can't fix this.
Expecting him/her to is outrageous. This is God's call. I see no reason why
I should try to undo what God has done.And yes, even though God saw
fit to discriminate in this way, I still have the right, in this country, to
exercise my religion and worship Him as I see fit. It is called the First
Those who oppose SSM see the stay by the SCOTUS as a victory to their pursue of
bigotry and discrimination against homosexuality.Father, mother,
brother, sister, cousin, uncle, niece , nephew, grandparent, let me tell you
that we are still part of you, we share your blood, most of your culture and we
still love you. We are homosexuals and we want a life of commitment and monogamy
just like you. Yet, you insult us with your promiscuity comparing our feelings
to bestiality, polygamy, incest and whatever other perversity comes to your
mind.The SCOTUS have declared a stay. Does it mean it agrees with
your bigotry? No! Does it mean it agrees with SSM marriage? No! it just means
the SCOTUS will take Judge Shelby's ruling and listen to the appeal and
decide on the evidence.Let's wait and see what the interpreters
of the U.S. Constitution have to say. We as good American citizens will listen
and accept the dictates of the American constitution. If we don't agree
with the results we can use our check and balance system and change the
constitution if deem necessary.Peace and love to all.
"If you want to make a change do it the right way and get it on the ballot
again". Wow did i get to vote on your marriage?
Let us consider the Polygamy cases in the 1800's. After the 14th
Amendment, thousands of legally married people in the territory of Utah were
arrested, thrown in jail, etc for violating the marriage laws. The Supreme
Court.... came down on the side of throwing people in jail. Polygamy was not
allowed. In fact, in Idaho, Mormons as a class were stripped of their right to
vote, regardless of whether they practiced polygamy or not. The Supreme Court
upheld that action 9-0. All of that was legal under the 14th
Amendment. If existing polygamous marriages could be ended, why should SSM be
allowed? If people could be thrown in jail for breaking the 1 man 1 woman law,
why should SSM be exempt? To this day--if you have one man and 2 women, you can
and will go to jail (except in Utah, thanks to another federal judge). Why
should gays get an exemption? Why should they be granted more rights than
straight people? Or explain why 2 men is okay but 3 men is not.
The laws of the land are becoming unstable,our views to personal rights
are focused on selfishness,contentions among us spread out to include
fundamental issues,that have never been questioned before.What
is going on here ? Are we just not of the same opinion ? Or what ?The LGBT community is dishonest ! Rights are in question, Yes. But their
intentions go far further into changing society to a more non-religious and
less-legal ground to stand on.That might be their long term goal, but why
don't they say so, instead of using the marriage issue as tool to fit their
intent ? They want much more than just get married !In Utah the
majority of people would never question the rights of others to be Atheists or
to represent any other Modern Philosophy.But stepping into their
sacred home with trampling their peace, is just one step ahead of a secret
combination, that they will not like or tolerate.Go study on it, and
you will understand why Utah wants this Appeal to go right.It is not about
the Now and Today, it is about the consequences of our way of life !
I have tried to put this into words to prove myself, to show others what I
understand from my own experiences. No matter how much I try, I cannot.The only thing I have to offer is that I do not hate anyone. I can't
prove my principles sound, my beliefs fair or my understanding true. Perhaps all
men are bound be the same inability. I figure it's more important to treat
people well, love and serve each other. To teach and learn how to be better and
truly happy.I know what has helped me to do that. Returning to my
bishop, a man with an extraordinary love for others, returning to the
scriptures, and kneeling day and night to return to my Heavenly Father. These
things have brought something into my life that no opinion, argument, or
political victory ever can. I'm happy. I've returned to the temple. I
couldn't remove the requirements, I couldn't remove temptations, but I
removed some of my choices. And I'm so happy I did it!I extend
the invitation to return. There is so much waiting for those who do. It's
This is the greatest country on earth, and irrespective of the outcome, this
democracy in action. This what people fought and died for. Hopefully, the
emotions and rhetoric, won't interfere with decisions. Hopefully the
judges will make their decision based on the evidence and argument presented,
and not the tissues and tears.
I am pleasantly surprised at this ruling.To those who say that
Shelby couldn't have issue a stay on his ruling cause he wasn't asked
are forgetting that he was asked to stay his ruling and he didn't. The
lack of stay at that time is what is causing the legal limbo for SSM given the
current stay.Are there any states in the jurisdiction of the 10th
circuit that also have state constitutions that prohibit SSM? If so, I would
expect that they will file Amacus (sp?) briefs supporting Utah's cause.
Nevertheless, this issue will go to the SCOTUS as whichever the 10th circuit
rules, that ruling will be appealed. Once this hits SCOTUS, the many states
whose constitutions prohibit SSM will support Utah in its case as the case will
not only affect SSM, but also the 10th Ammendment to the Constitution which
gives the states all rights and powers not listed in the US Constitution.That shall make for an interesting day in SCOTUS history.
Eliminate marriage laws all together. Just get better estate transfer laws that
allow you to indicate in a will who is your heir.What else do the
silly lgbt activists claim? That they're not allowed to be happy? In half
the cases, marriage actually reduces happiness, so in reality, you are being
protected from making yourself unhappy by not being allowed to wed.I
wish everyone would just tell the truth. Lgbt crowd state that you have an
inferiority complex and opponents state you are scared of lgbt people. I love
all of you, but the arguments are so silly. We should really be more worried by
the federal government overstepping its bounds. There will come a time when you
will be on the other side of a federal case and cry that states rights overrule
federal laws (Mary Jane knows what I'm talking about.)
Steven S Jarvis: "I believe only one state allows first cousins to marry,
and that is only after they reach the age of 65 or older."Actually, half the states allow first cousin marriage, including Utah. Utah
is among those that require first cousin couples to be infertile (age), but many
do not.IMAPatriot2: "How about where this "federal"
dollars came from?"Utah, like many "red" states is a net
importer of federal tax dollars taken predominantly from citizens of the
"blue" states. Those New York and Taxachusetts liberals are subsidizing
the state.Meckofahess: "Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown
signed a new law into effect on Monday afternoon affording students confused
about their 'gender identity' a host of new rights..."You bring this up repeatedly as if it is self-evident, but you have never
demonstrated the alleged harm. Many of us see it as a positive development that
will benefit the lives of transgender youth and reduce suicides and homicides.
I find it funny that the Supreme Court allowed a federal court to overturn prop
8, allowing the federal government to take away a state's right to define
marriage law and now they put a stay on this case, saying they need to explore
further a state's right to define marriage laws. The hypocrisy is
disgusting. Either states can define marriage laws or they can't, but
please stay consistent. Way too many corrupt judges (aka activist
judges). That goes for both the right and the left fringes of the political
re:Meckofahess"Kindergartners were given picture books telling them
that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own
parents." The book "Who's in a family" included
different kinds of families-grandparents, multi-racial families, single-parent
families, animal families, and yes, families with gay or lesbian parents. The
Boston Globe reported parents were given the opportunity to preview books at the
beginning of the year, and it wasn't required reading. David
Parker was arrested because he refused to leave the building at closing time.You are free to teach your children whatever you want about LGBT people
or same-sex marriages. You are also free to teach your child about creation.
And, most likely, your children will adopt your views. But your child may very
well have a classmate(s) with same-sex parents. Actually, the school is doing
you a service. You can even use the book to teach your values. When you get to
the same-sex family you can point out that God doesn't approve of them.
You can teach your child not to associate with children who have same-sex
parents as well. But I wonder:WWJD?
The ability to make laws regarding marriage and divorce are reserved by state
governments, so Shelby shouldn't have been able to make the ruling anyway.
justice has been delayed but we will have full citizenship and full equality.
The eventual judicial resolution will be in favor of same-sex marriage.
Let's hope it's sooner rather than later because justice delayed is
Sid 6.7A few more points-Most couples don't know
they are sterile until after they have been married for a few years. The
government could make all couples test for fertility but that is not very cost
effective. What about those who love each other and want to live as
a couple and care for each other where sex is not part of the relationship.
What if my unmarried sister who is in her 30's lives with my widowed mom.
They obviously love each other. Can they get married so my sister can have
access to my mom's health care benefits? She works for the school district
and has great insurance. Can the government discriminate against this loving,
caring relationship even though it is not based on sex?Most
polygamists in this day and age are Muslims. You are denying them freedom of
their religion and freedom to marry who they want.
Thank Heaven for a US Supreme Court that unanimously recognizes the validity of
State law and the consideration that must be given to activist decisions which
attempt to overturn it. Judge Shelby was wrong in what he did and he will pay a
price for it, potentially damaging his career on the bench. States' rights
are paramount in matters such as this. "32" States have similar laws
prohibiting homosexual marriages, so Utah is not uniquely alone. If the federal
government started violating the 10th Amendment, which grants States the right
to make their own laws, it would be a serious problem for our entire nation.
Fortunately, the level-headed Supreme Court recognizes this.
This may be discouraging, but it's best to let the process play out and
allow this to be settled once and for all. The only argument the anti-equality
crowd has been able to offer is that God thinks homosexuality is gross and that
allowing gays to marry will hurt their feelings. If they had any legal
maneuverings other than that, I think we would have seen them by now.Feel free to gloat right now, guys. Amendment Three is still doomed.
The Supreme Court voted 9-0 to delay the marriage of gay couples allowed by the
actions of Judge Robert Shelby, whose personal political agenda got in the way
of his deliberative judgment. He should have stayed his own decision, but he
chose not to. Four liberal judges agreed that a methodical, legal review is
necessary. That in itself is a judicial slap upside the head of any judge, and
should, at the very least, give rise to a second thought in the future.Whatever the ultimate outcome, the courts, and probably the Supreme Court will
ultimately decide the issue, as it should in what it appears may be a dramatic
reversal of public will, traditions and religious doctrine. Through
education, especially through current religious teachings and a growing
acceptance the Bible's admonition to "...love thy neighbor as
thyself..., many have come to the probably correct conclusion that we should not
be critical or judge a person based on his or her determination of their own
sexual persuasion.Whatever the final ruling, we are now on the
correct path to a rational decision, whether accepted by the majority of
Americans, or not.
The US Supreme Court needs to just rule already. Geez - just rule that states
have the power to control their own and let it be done. So tired of heavy handed
federal judges trying to void states rights.
Yay! Stop Gay Marriage!
Mick:Very good points one and all and I totally agree with you.As I listed above I do not believe closely related people should have
the ability to marry. The STD marriage is a no brainer to me. If both parties
are aware of the contamination and still choose to marry why would you want to
prevent that? Now on to Polygamy. I whole heartedly disagree with
Polygamy. I have numerous issues with it. In fact I believe it to be
detrimental to society. I don't like it all but my belief regarding
Polygamy has no baring on a Polygamists Constitutional rights. In my opinion if
both parties are of CONSENTING age then I believe they should have the right to
Meckofahess:The Elementary School story could certainly work the
other way couldn't it? What if it was offensive to gay parents of children
of the school that there were books showing Heterosexuality in a positive light?
What if they barged in and demanded all pro Heterosexual books be removed
because they deemed them harmful to their children. Do you think they would have
been arrested also? I think so. And if they were arrested would you be as
outraged? No difference none. Please don't get statuesque confused with
interpretation of the Constitution.Also do some research on Gender
Identity Confusion. I'll fill you in on a well known secret, Gender
Identity Confusion has nothing to do with Homosexuality! People who have Gender
Identity Confusion do not see them selves as Homosexual when they have relations
with the same sex. Do you want to know why? They see themselves as opposite of
the sex they were born. That's where the confusion part comes in.So yea, I'm still wondering.
Blaming a judge for not staying his own decision is preposterous. Let a higher
court do that, which is what happened. Too many commenters are more about
politics and not about judicial process.
Historically a marriage that has taken place in one state in the US has always
been recognized as valid in all the other 49 states, even in cases where the
marriage could not have taken place in one of those other states. Examples would
be age restrictions or marriages between cousins. I recently married my
partner in Minnesota. We drove home to Wisconsin where our marriage is not valid
under state law. How did that work, exactly? Are we both now free to go
out and find women willing to marry us here in Wisconsin? Is bigamy a state or
federal crime?14th Amendment:"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."In Wisconsin I am being denied the equal
protection of the laws that I am entitled to in Minnesota.
This is a great decision. We need to sort this out in an orderly fashion. Not
with judicial trickery and prior precedence as has been used in other states.
The lack of principal by the proponents of SSM is astounding.We need
this issue solved and put to rest. We need the SCOTUS to make a decision on
this that will resolve the conflict for good. In order to do this, both sides
need to put their collective best foot forward and make their case!I
personally am on the side of Utah and our present amendment 3. My belief is that
SSM will prevail and we will move on. My hope is that the arguments against SSM
can be articulated and convincing.My opposition is born of my belief
that same sex attraction is a disorder. It was classified as such until
recently. The idea that a disorder making it difficult to participate in a
protected act as foundational as marriage thus requiring a redefinition of the
institution is, to me, absurd. That being said, I grow weary of the
issue and desire the courts to put it to rest.
People opposed to equal legal rights for gay people sure are gluttons for
punishment! Do you really want to go through this process again and again, state
by state? Since it harms no one when same-sex marriage is legal, but merely
ruffles some peoples' feathers by not having the government agree with them
on whom should be allowed to marry, it would seem to me to be less painful to
just get this over with, and legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states!
Sid 6.7Closely related blood relatives including first cousins,
brother/sisters, father/daughters.A man who is already married to one
womanThose with certain venereal disease (hence blood tests before
marriage licenses)All states have regulation on marriages. Now
people want to add only one group to the "definition" and leave these
others out. You cannot be hypocritical if you are basing on your argument on
love. Love doesn't discriminate. The above mentioned groups love each
other and therefore should be able to marry. Right.
To VST and Stephen Jarvis:I had not considered relatives. Thanks
for the "Heads Up". It makes sense as procreation between the two
parties could have an adverse affect on the resulting children. What if they
were both sterile? Without the possibility of having biological children would
they be allowed to marry? Would there be public concern about two relatives
becoming united in Marriage even though they could not pro-create?My
point is this. Short of denial because of age and genetic issues and with out
further evidence of a specific case of denial, it seems every Male/Female couple
is entitled to a Marriage license. In my opinion that would make receiving a
Marriage license a "Right". It may not specifically say that in the
Constitution but that seems to be the practice.Another question for
all of you. Does it specifically state in the COTUS that Marriage is only for a
Man and a Woman or are you arguing that it specifically does not say that
Marriage can be between 2 men or 2 women?Semantics. Aren't
Re: "'If you want to make a change do it the right way . . . .'
No. Because it is a constitutional right which accrues to each of us that does
not require any further consent from anyone."We'll see.In the meantime, LGBT activists may want to start dusting off their
"Plan B."And start looking into more disingenuous ways to
back up and suggest the next adverse ruling was expected, as well.
@sid 6.7 You asked about examplef of the harm caused by same-sex marriage laws,
Here is one alarming example:Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown
signed a new law into effect on Monday afternoon affording students confused
about their “gender identity” a host of new rights, including the
ability to use either a boy’s or girl’s restroom and either locker
room. The legislation, Assembly Bill 1266, authored by Democratic State
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano from San Francisco, allows students in grades as young
as kindergarten to use “facilities consistent with his or her gender
identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s
records.”Ammiano’s spokesman, Carlos Alcala, told TheBlaze on Monday
afternoon the bill would even permit high school males who say they identify as
females, to use a woman’s locker room. Still wondering?
@Alex 1: Homosexuality is not a moral issue.
Florida Boy wrote: "How ironic. This is the same State of Utah that abhors
the federal government's meddling into state affairs, yet NEVER turns down
an opportunity to take federal money - i.e. educational funds, tobacco
settlement funds, preservation funds, Hill AFB funds, etc. Now the
State of Utah is crawling back to that very same federal government (the one
that it abhors) and is seeking its assistance in overturning a ruling on
same-sex marriage. What a piece of work."Aren't you missing
a few facts in your tirade? How about where this "federal" dollars came
from? Although I must admit that the current administration likes to print
money the real money was taken from the citizens and businesses. It does not
originate in Washington. It is disgusting that we even have to ask for this
money to be returned. But the federals want this arrangement because that way
they can control us more easily.
OK. Now lets pray that level heads will prevail. Obviously the one head that
changed everything was not level.
@FlashbackActually, this is how state attorney should have handled
the case: First, Utah state attorneys should have asked judge Shelby
BEFORE the ruling, that if the ruling does not favor the state, it should be
stayed. That is the right way of handling. Judge Shelby did not grant stay
because it was not asked in the first place. That is the first mistake state
attorneys made.Second, after gay marriage started, state attorneys
should first go to Judge Shelby to request stay. But instead, they surpassed
Shelby and directly asked 10th circuit, that is why 10th circuit court rejected
the state for three times, because it was not properly handled on procedural
grounds. Even many lawyers in conservative corner admitted that
the state attorneys made several mistakes that only freshman law student would.
So, they really should not blame their own incompetency on other people.
Joe Carlin,False. Many, many cases have gone before the Supreme
Court where the original intent of the Constitution (and its associated
wording), matters. To say otherwise is an outright lie.That is what
the judicial branch does. They interpret the law.
@ sid 6.7You asked about problems caused by same-sex marriage in
Massachussetts. Here is one of many examples:Anyone who thinks that
same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t
affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts.
It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of
homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so
far is only the beginning.Kindergartners were given picture books
telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their
own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a
kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were
discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him
arrested and put in jail overnight.
Flashback: "Just how does not being married harm them?" Then rescind all
marriage rights and see how that one plays out in Peoria? What's good for
one is good for all, or none.
[For those of you expressing how Marriage is not a right, can any of you tell me
if a Male/Female couple have ever been denied a Marriage license?]Marriage licenses have been denied based on the results of blood tests and
based upon the close relationships of the applying parties. States regulate
marriage. It would be foolhardy if they didn't. If states couldn't
regulate marriage, all kinds of crazy things would begin to happen. For
example: even the LGBT community have not suggested that marriage requires
sexual relations between the parties. So, mothers could marry one of their
offspring, fathers the same; brothers could marry a brother or a sister, sisters
the same; dirty old men could marry six-year-old children, dirty old women the
same. How thankful we all should be that marriage licenses are not issued for
such licentious relationships. How glad we should be for state regulation of
This court is terrified that it will have to be either a Constitutional Court or
a NonConstitutional Court. It keeps this marriage freedom and equality question
stalling until that time in place when it just is going to have to do right --
or do wrong against Constitutional Rights for all. Scalia's sphincter is
trembling with fear before his version of god, and Clarence Thomas is hiding his
public hair on the coke can because he has his freedom and wants to deny it for
anyone else -- unless a fee is paid or a grand cruise is offered for he and his
HutteriteRe: "it is a constitutional right which accrues to each of us
that does not require any further consent from anyone"...You
would be correct IF it were a Constitutional Right. But same-sex marriage is
not in fact a "Constitutional Right". If it was... the Supreme Court
would have struck it down right away (and they have had several chances to do
that already).It may turn out to be indirectly protected by a
Constitutional Right, but it is not itself a Constitutional Right. The court
needs to decide. You can't pontificate it as "a Constitutional
Right" on your own. You're not a Supreme Court justice.I
hope the current Supreme Court justices are not as prejudice as you are and as
prone to rule on emotion. I hope they will actually consider everything in the
Constitution including the original intent of the 14th amendment, and how they
all pertain to this issue (they are not supposed to rule based on emotion, or
popularity, they are supposed to decide based on the law and only the law).I hope we get a true legal opinion (sans emotion) from the Supreme
I find the logic of SSM supporters beyond ridiculous.- They want us
to believe marriage is an implied constitutional right yet many want to restrict
the explicit constitutional right to bear arms.- They want us to
believe each man is an island (their actions don't affect anybody but
themselves) yet they insist we tech our children things we may disagree with,
that we photograph their weddings, and that we pay for their insurance needs
with diseases caused specifically through their behaviors.- They
call SSM opponent people of hate yet they use bullying tactics like targeting
individuals and boycotting business. They ruined lives for no other reason than
opponents disagreed with them. Compare the behavior of the "losers"
after Prop 8 (horrendously hateful) and the "losers" (amazingly benign)
of Shelby's decision. Actions show who the real haters are.It's pathetic, really, to see a group of people so self-contradictory
while proclaiming at the top of their lungs their infallibility in political and
"Was it intended for anything but Slavery?"Irrelevant.
"Intent" is irrelevant because the actual text of the law is what
matter, regardless of why it was intended to be passed.That text is:
"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."Amendment 3 attempts to deny those in same sex relationships equal
protection of its marriage laws. Therefore it is in violation of the 14th
amendment. "Intent" is irrelevant given the actual text of the
IMO this is a sensible decision. It makes no sense for the court to make
same-sex marriage legal in Utah against the expressed will of the majority, and
at the same time leave same-sex marriage illegal in the 30 other states.This is actually a good thing for BOTH sides.The stay adds
urgency, which means the Supreme Court will hear it more quickly. Which means
these marriages that took place on the quick while an appeal was in process
won't hang in limbo for so long. We will probably get a real decision
because of this (which is a good thing). Because the Supreme Court won't
be able to just send it back, or put it on the back burner (because the stay
makes a final decision more urgent).---IMO they should
answer this question for all 30 States at the same time, not just for Utah.
They should bring these cases to the Supreme Court one-by-one. If it's
illegal in Utah.. it's illegal in all 30 States that have laws preventing
same-sex marriage.So in a way it expedites that process as well
(addressing it in all 30 States instead of just Utah).
Amendment Three's purpose was to reaffirm the state's right to
designate who would be eligible to enter into a marriage contract. Currently
the State (and Federal government in most cases) discriminates on who can marry
for a variety of factors including age, how closely related a couple are (ie
family members), mental capacity and even incarceration. The state even
disallows people to have more than one active marriage at a time! No doubt that
Amendment three is discriminatory. Contract law by its nature is.@sid 6.7Many female/male couples have been denied marriage based
on being related and therefore having an increased risk of passing on defective
genes to offspring. I believe only one state allows first cousins to marry, and
that is only after they reach the age of 65 or older. No state allows
biological siblings to marry.
@Jim Dabakis:The children of gay parents are NOT being told that
they are "second-class" citizens at all. The obvious message is that
their family arrangment is different from other families and that the legal
system of the United States needs to weigh the rights and concerns of all of
it's citizens (including the majority point of view). These children are
not stupid, they know that their same sex parents look different from most of
their peers in school and in the neighborhood. Perhaps they already asking
questions about what the historical mores of society are, and about the
diversity of views of the place of morality in society? They might even ask
upon what principles was our country established and what was the role of
religion in the birth of our country? As a parent, I want my children to
understand the history of my county and its early foundational principles.
Let's respectfully discuss both sides of this issue and help our children
learn that fairness to all citizens is important. Let's seek for some
middle ground that respects all citizen's concerns.
@ Hutterite:"so we can finally eliminate the laws that affront
our basic constitutional freedoms". Please understand that the
"Constitutional freedoms" that you refer to for homosexuals are not
specifically mentioned in the Constitution. No where does the Constitution
mention or refer to specific rights based on a persons sexual preference. Gays
have not traditionally been considered to be in the "protected" class
that most equal protection claims have gone through. The Equal Protection Clause
was tailored to help with racial discrimination after the abolition of slavery
to be sure all races were given equal protection under the law with respect to
basic rights. It never was intented to deal with a person's sexual
preference. Plus, marriage is not necessarily a fundamental right. The gay
lobby is pushing hard to make this the case, but please don't go saying
that your sexual preference guarantees you extra protection under the U.S.
Constitution. This notion has been pushed by liberals and homosexual activists
in order to put it in the same bucket as race, sex, religion, etc., but it is
I am quite sure that those in the legal limbo this has all been caused by Judge
Shelby's personal actions to not grant the stay immediately are still
considered legally married for purposes of Federal Government functions and
protections. The State probably has had people married outside of Utah where
the laws allowed it who were able to file Federal taxes as a married couple
since moving or returning to Utah without being allowed to file as a couple for
State taxes.This issue needs to go before the Supreme Court. I
believe both sides of the issue want that to happen so we can all move on.
There are certain arguments I feel BOTH sides have made that have validity. For
example, the right to be with someone who is near death is probably the most
compelling one. That right should be EXTENDED to include more than family if
the person who is ill wishes it to be so. On the other hand, the state should
be able to continue to designate acceptable family situations for foster and
adoptive care for child placement.
@History Freak"Dear Schnee:If you don't think
same-sex marriage harms the rest of us"I don't."Polls showed that, even in liberal Massachussetts, the population
didn't want it."The majority want it now. "It has adversely effected almost all aspects of life including schools,
churches, employment, healthcare, etc."Would you like to provide
examples? I have no idea what you can even be referring to with respect to
employment (since firing someone just because they're gay is bigotry) and
healthcare (I'm going to assume you don't oppose hospital visitation
rights). Having schools acknowledge that some families includes two dads or two
moms isn't a bad thing in my opinion (especially for the kids raised in
those families). And for churches... the only thing I can think of Massachusetts
related that you'd even refer to is Catholic Charities not being allowed to
receive state funding unless they adopt to same-sex couples which is no
intrusion on religion since there's no religious right to gov't
funding. They are able to still adopt to only opposite-sex couples with their
own funds (just like LDSFS). So... I see no issues.
"The state's request to the Supreme Court was filed with Justice Sonia
Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from Utah and the five other states in
the 10th Circuit. Sotomayor turned the matter over to the entire court.The action now shifts to Denver, where the appeals court will consider
arguments from the state against same-sex marriage as well as from the three gay
and lesbian couples who challenged the ban in support of Shelby's ruling.
Shelby and the appeals court had previously rebuffed the state's plea to
stop gay weddings pending appeal.The 10th Circuit has set short
deadlines for both sides to file their written arguments, with the state's
first brief due on January 27. No date for argument has been set yet."(MarkSherman, Associated Press)
Voice of the people vs. one judge!
For those of you expressing how Marriage is not a right, can any of you tell me
if a Male/Female couple have ever been denied a Marriage license? I'm
serious, I honestly don't know. I suspect licenses have been denied based
on the age of the applicants but I can't think of any other reason. What
about atheists? They don't believe in God and marriage is sanctioned by
God and he doesn't believe in SSM, can they get a license? I'm
thinking marrage is a right at least male/female couplesHistory
Freak, I was wondering if YOU can elaborate and give me some of the problems the
people of MA are suffering and why all of them are lamenting their decision to
make Gay Marriage legal? Just remember, the Constitution works both
ways and you never know when your going to be on the wrong side of a
Constitutional issue. Now that there is a stay I hope cooler heads prevail and
the right thing is done. Congrats on the temporary victory same sex couples!
It's a shame really, we all lose on this one.
Dipping my toe into the prediction game -- the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
will uphold the trial court decision supporting same-sex marriage. Period. Full
Stop.This is because the appeals courts must adhere to Supreme Court
precedence. And -- in light of Lawrence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans, U.S. v.
Windsor and a SLEW of other highly relevant cases (Meyer v. Nebraska, Skinner
v. Oklahoma, Brown v. Board of Ed., McLaughlin v. Florida, and many many more --
there is one and only one decision that the appeals court can reach, namely,
that the civil right of marriage cannot be denied to persons merely on account
of their sex because doing so violates the equal protection and/or due process
clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Maybe if the
case gets to the Supreme Court for a decision on the merits, marriage equality
could be shot down. That's unlikely, but possible. Nevertheless, the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals will have no choice but to uphold marriage equality.
“The decision by a single federal judge to redefine marriage in Utah is
lawless, and we are pleased that the Supreme Court has put this decision on hold
to allow the state to appeal it in an orderly fashion," I can't
agree more with this statement. I am very grateful the supreme court ruled the
way they have.
Everyone says "traditional" marriage, as if the fairytale where "boy
meets girl, wedding bells, babies and soon we're a cute old couple rocking
at the sunset" version is ONLY version of "marriage" that is, was,
or ever shall be. Marriage has many more warts than that. We all know marriages
come in many forms and have many meanings.So they must mean
"Idealized" marriage-- but it's only ideal if you happen to think
it is and are lucky enough to get it.It's hardly ideal for gay
people. Their story usually starts out "boy meets boy" or "girl
meets girl." You don't have to relate, but you can if you want to: be
born, grow up, discover who you desire and who you love, meet someone, fall in
love, be together, have kids or don't, build a life. Not that hard."But.. religion?" You have yours. Other people have theirs. How nosy and selfish to think someone else should live the life YOU want
rather than their own. Nobody actually needs anyone else to "believe" in
their marriage, and they don't need your permission. Just try to be a good
Is being Gay a Constitutional Right? I think not, nowhere is it written,, just
interpreted, by many as a religious freedom. It is a choice that is not
recognized by the majority of citizens in the State of Utah. This is
a state issue,, the majority here in Utah do not want it..... This is no more
a Constitutional right than Marijuana, Alcohol,, Otherwise,, Polygamy should
never have been made illegal and should be legalized as a Constitutional
Right... long before Gay's came out of the closet..
Dear Schnee:If you don't think same-sex marriage harms the rest
of us, you'd better take a look at what has happened in Massachussetts over
the last ten years that so-called SSM has existed there. This, again, was
forced on the population by the court and the majority of the state was shocked
and outraged by it. Polls showed that, even in liberal Massachussetts, the
population didn't want it. When they tried to get it on the ballot to
overturn it, the court wouldn't even allow them to vote on it. It has adversely effected almost all aspects of life including schools,
churches, employment, healthcare, etc. EVERYONE needs to take a close look at
Massachussetts to see how much damage it has caused. Gays got what they wanted
at the expense of children, parents and everyone else.
Where did my comment go? Why do i even waste my time posting when you guys
"lose them" . Hard to find good workers these days.
Joe Carlin,"Please, every one detail every way your convention
family and conventional marriage are now being harmed in tangible ways. I'm
waiting. We're all waiting."Many "traditional"
families are reporting being "very sad".Does that count?
The religiously motivated opponents of marriage equality are making this a
State's Rights fight. Their interpretation of "Federalism"
simplistically presumes that The definition and regulation of marriage is solely
and absolutely the legal and Constitutional domain of the State Legislatures. In
short, they argue that such a federalist interpretation of the Tenth Amendment
means that State Legislative and Constitutional authority trumps Federal
authority.But precedent says otherwise, based on the COTUS principle
that individual rights trump both Federal and State authority.Rock,
paper, scissors anyone?Citizens of the United States have inherent
rights that exist and do not need to be "enumerated" in order to be
rights and in order to be guaranteed by the Constitution. This fact is
explicitly and deliberately recognized in the Ninth Amendment:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."In
other words, the right to marry is an un enumerated individual right that must
be afforded equal protection and due process.Shelby's ruling
eloquently articulated this, and will be upheld. Sotomayor's stay is just
to buy time for SCOTUS to prepare to rock the worlds of religious zealots.
How ironic. This is the same State of Utah that abhors the federal
government's meddling into state affairs, yet NEVER turns down an
opportunity to take federal money - i.e. educational funds, tobacco settlement
funds, preservation funds, Hill AFB funds, etc. Now the State of
Utah is crawling back to that very same federal government (the one that it
abhors) and is seeking its assistance in overturning a ruling on same-sex
marriage. What a piece of work.
"Marriage is not a right ...."If ones right to marry
isn't a "right", I am not sure what basic core aspects of humanity
is. Again, not a supporter of gay marriage, but honestly marriage is one of the
most basic aspects of civility. It is one of the things that separates us
humans from other species that inhabit this earth. If having the right to
choose whom you will associate with, and create a committed relationship with,
regardless of the nature of that relationship so long as it is not criminal in
nature, is not a secured right - what is.To me, marriage does have a
certain connotation of a man and woman coming together to create a family...
whether that family includes kids or not. I understand that other groups of
people would like to create "committed" relationships. I really do get
that. But to me, that is something other than a marriage. Should have all the
same legal rights...but it just isn't marriage to me. Call it
semantics.... but words do matter.
Even if marriage between a man and a woman is eventually jettisoned. Even if the
Boy Scouts of America is run roughshod over. We don't have to worry. In the
world we will have tribulation but we can all be of good cheer because their is
one who has overcome the world. All we have to do is keep our eyes on HIM.
Wow!! Thank you SCOTUS!!!!! At least for the time being order is restored.
I'll bet judge Shelby is a little embarrassed this morning.
@History Freak"I'm so tired of all the emotionalism the gay
community always brings into this issue...like "love is a crime," and
"gay families are in limbo.""As opposed to the
emotionalism the other side that brings into the issue laments about the
supposed end of religious freedom and destruction of the family if same-sex
couples were to marry?"States have the right to determine their
marriage laws. Marriage is not a right and is not regulated by the federal
government. If it was a right, you wouldn't have to get a license."Loving vs Virginia wouldn't have gone the way it did if you were
Also Joe, the state attys asked for an immediate stay after the ruling. Shelby
said no. They went back the next monday and asked for another one. He again
For the ruling of prop 8, Judge Walker granted stay because opposing counsels
requested stay instantly, unlike Utah state attorneys, they didn’t wait
AFTER gay marriage resumed in CA and THEN asked the court for a stay. It was
Utah state attorneys who made a big mistake back then. You can not blame their
own incompetency on other people.
Joe go back and read your history. The 14th Amendment passed because the
government held extending reconstruction over the southern states heads. Did
the 14th Amendment need to be passed? Yes it did. Did twisting arms to make it
happen need to be done? Possibly. Was it intended for anything but Slavery?
No.The better question would be, and that is asked of the lawyer.
Just how does not being married harm them?
Lets not forget what this is really about.This is about the 14th
Ammendment vs. the 10th Ammendment, and the order that dictates which law is
supreme.The 10th Ammendment says that if a right isn't listed
in the Constitution, it is up to the states to decide. The 14th Ammendment says
that everybody must be treated equally under the law. So, which is supreme, can
states define marriage, or must any form of marriage be allowed because of equal
The right decision was made to grant the stay, regardless of how you view the
issue. It should have been granted by the judge who made the original ruling.
The decision will be a tough one by the Supreme Court. It is not as clear
constitutionally as either side would want it to be. I think the correct
decision would be to reverse the decision. The Judicial branch should not be
able to erase the voice of the people of a State in the case where the meaning
of a Constitutional amendment has to be stretched and interpreted
"creatively" at best in order to deem the will of the people
unconstitutional. This should be a state issue. The Federal government should
stay out of it.
If activism is where the finger should be pointed at, you need to start with the
anti-gay activists who had this law drafted and put on the ballot in the first
place. The restrictive Utah law virtually begged for Federal Court review. The
predictable result was that a state that many logically thought would be the
last place in the country to legalize SSM is now at the center of the storm.
"As I have said before on these blogs, if SSM endangers the conventional
family and conventional marriage I don't want it. Does SSM pose a danger?
My honest answer would be 'I don't know.'"Then
clearly it does not. Over 1,000 same sex couples are now married in Utah. They
are recognized by the state and federal officials, receiving state and federal
married benefits and filing state and federal taxes as married. They will
continue to be married until another judge says otherwise. We can
now watch to see how these couples supposedly "endanger the conventional
family and conventional marriage." Please, every one detail
every way your convention family and conventional marriage are now being harmed
in tangible ways. I'm waiting. We're all waiting.
"The issue is simple. The citizens of the state of Utah voted overwhelmingly
not to allow same sex marriage. I find it ironic and extremely hypocritical that
those in favor of equal rights for gays and lesbians are so quick to trample the
rights of everyone else. If you want to make a change do it the right way and
get it on the ballot again. If you are right and everyone agrees that same sex
marriage should be allowed then so be it."The issue is simple.
The citizens of the United States of America voted overwhelmingly by 3 to 1
margin of the states to amendment their federal constitution to guarantee equal
protection of the laws. I find it ironic and extremely hypocritical that those
opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians are so quick to trample on the
federal constitution. If you want to make a change to the federal constitution,
do it the right way and amend the federal constitution. If you are right and a 3
to 1 margin of states agree that gay and lesbian couples should not be protected
in the federal constitution the same way straight people are, then so be it.
"Shelby, by not staying it, showed his activist bias. Even the gay judge who
overturned Prop 8 in California immediately stayed it in order to give the case
a chance to work through he judicial process."Shelby was never
asked for a stay, and it would have made him an activist judge to stay the
decision when there was no petition for a stay. The judge (what difference his
sexual orientation makes doesn't matter any more than his gender) was asked
to stay the decision and granted it.Shelby can't unilaterally
stay the decision unless asked to do so and he was asked to do so so he
didn't. He followed procedure to a T. The state, however, did not. You
can't blame Shelby on the state's incompetence.
If this battle is anything like the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruling
that overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a ruling prohibiting "state
sponsored segregation" in education, expect a series of legal maneuvers that
try to stretch this one out - perhaps five or even ten years. The court felt
burned by its Roe v. Wade (1973) abortion ruling for getting too far ahead of
public opinion. Chief Justice Roberts understands the magnitude of this ruling,
and knows that establishing separate and unequal marriage will be overturned
once he, Scalia, Thomas, or Alito are replaced by a centerist. In a perfect
world, anything over two-thirds of states permitting same sex marriage provides
adequate cover for an affirmative Court ruling - and public opinion will be
there before 2020. Chief Justice Roberts must make a ruling during his term, or
risk another "Brown" decision that makes a mockery of his legacy as
Chief Justice. Remember too that the battle is not about a marriage certificate,
or even inheritance rights and Social Security, it is about procreation, those
who are favored and those who are not. There is one likely outcome - it is only
a matter of time.
"If you want to make a change do it the right way and get it on the ballot
again". No. Because it is a constitutional right which accrues to each of us
that does not require any further consent from anyone. It's a republic, not
Rights, rights, rights... I think I am sickening of that word, because it now
means the ability to demand something without being accountable for that which
is demanded. It as though words have little or no meaning any more. I believe
that a clever way of lying is to change the definition of words. "Gay"
no longer means happy. "Marriage" no longer has the meaning of one woman
and one man uniting for a higher purpose. "Right" now means what
"I" want - to the exclusion of everyone else. Society can't
function without understanding the meaning of words. I don't know anyone
that wants to keep someone from loving someone else. Please stop framing
arguments in terms of selfishness and self interest - or civilization will
A stay is sometimes issued in a case that might have implications for the entire
country. I don’t think the lower courts acted in haste. It’s
puzzling that the Supreme Court neither indicated it wants further review in
appellate court nor will review the case itself. It leaves it ambiguous as to
who the next move is up to.
Good Decision,, this is a State Issue / Law.. and more importantly in Utah a
religious belief.. Put it on the Ballot.. Nobody is stopping a Gay couple from
moving to a State that recognizes SSM... Our state does not,, the Majority of
our citizens do not,,, and I am sure that includes NON-Mormon / LDS folk..
I'm so tired of all the emotionalism the gay community always brings into
this issue...like "love is a crime," and "gay families are in
limbo." I think it's pretty clear that all these people ran out and
got "married" immediately because they thought there was a pretty good
chance it would be overturned. Any rights not specifically given to
the federal government are delegated to the states under the U.S. Constitution.
States have the right to determine their marriage laws. Marriage is not a right
and is not regulated by the federal government. If it was a right, you
wouldn't have to get a license. No one has to get a license to exercise
their freedom of speech. That is because it is a constitutional right.If this same-sex so-called "marriage" stands, the state will have no
power to make ANY laws regulating marriage. The door will be opened to all
kinds of craziness.
The issue is simple. The citizens of the state of Utah voted overwhelmingly not
to allow same sex marriage. I find it ironic and extremely hypocritical that
those in favor of equal rights for gays and lesbians are so quick to trample the
rights of everyone else. If you want to make a change do it the right way and
get it on the ballot again. If you are right and everyone agrees that same sex
marriage should be allowed then so be it.
@Cats"If there is any power left in the voice of the people, this
travesty will be overturned by the Supreme Court."The only
travesty is that there's a lot of people who think that the majority should
be able to limit the rights of a minority, especially sad in this state whose
founders faced heavy persecution.
Good call, SCOTUS! Give this case its proper review then, and only then, can I
accept the verdict. Regardless of the outcome, legality cannot trump morality.
[the stay puts same-sex couples in a legal limbo]It would probably
be more relevant to Utah culture to call it a "legal spirit prison". It
also better illustrates the fact that these people are now being denied their
rights and freedoms and being treated like second-class citizens; the same way
we treat prisoners.Utah! This is the place... where love and
commitment are treated like crimes.
This may be a good thing. As I have said before on these blogs, if SSM
endangers the conventional family and conventional marriage I don't want
it. Does SSM pose a danger? My honest answer would be "I don't
know." We have a lot at stake in the family. As the late Karl Polanyi
(needs to be read) pointed out - the family is about the only thing which makes
life in a commercial society remotely tolerable.
ANY good judge would have stayed the decision right after it was entered.
Shelby, by not staying it, showed his activist bias. Even the gay judge who
overturned Prop 8 in California immediately stayed it in order to give the case
a chance to work through he judicial process. Of course, the California case
was not decided on the merits because the governor refused to do his duty to
support the will of the people. he instead refused to fight the case in the
Supreme Court so it lost on the basis that the parties who were fighting it had
no standing.The Supremes have done the right thing and all nine
justices signed on. If there is any power left in the voice of the people, this
travesty will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
As expected. However, it's not a bad thing; we need to go through this to
eliminate all the arguments about process and how it was handled, so we can
finally eliminate the laws that affront our basic constitutional freedoms,
whether we are straight or gay.