@Willem "the Mormon Church put up millions to defeat us but in the end
freedom always wins" Perhaps you need a reminder of how Prop 8 went down in
California. Remember that the PEOPLE of California OVERWHELMINGLY voted to keep
the traditional definition of marriage. Democracy voted same sex marriage out.
It was a handful of elite judges that decided that the people's voice
didn't count and they over ruled it. That's my only problem with this
whole thing.I honestly could care less if gay people want to have the same
rights as married straight people. I think that all people deserve those rights,
that's why govt should get it's filthy little hands in marriage
period. That being said, when you live in a democracy or republic, the voice of
the people decides these kinds of things. Imagine if the people voted to allow
same-sex marriage and 5 judges decided that the people were wrong and overruled
it, would you be upset then?
I would like to speak on this gay marriage situation, they say that 83% of
Americans believe in God and I realize that a lot of them don't use the
King James version of the scriptures because of all the new scripture that has
come about from ministers that have taken the Holy Bible and put their spin on
it. The king james version of the bible flat out tells you that there is
something wrong with same sex marriage the destruction of Sodom and Gumoraha
should satisfy any that want to say its ok and that God doesn't care. There
are comments in there also about men and women doing unseemly things and being
together which meant they could be put to death just like adultery or
fornication. If there are those precentages of Christians out there speak up
vote on whats right and get off the idea that you should be quiet because of a
very small minority of people are screaming unfair.
Why not spend 2 million on cleaning up our air? We should be worrying more about
how that will affect our children than any supposed threat from SSM.
John Pack Lambert says that marriage must be of a, "form justified by the
governments high interest in seeking to have the highest percentage of children
possible raised by their biological parents."jimhale says,
"This is not about children. It is about sex. Some is inherently natural,
some is not. And it is about choice." He also says, "Many sexual
activities are undertaken out of sexual desire. Many of those activities we have
made illegal because they entail choices society disapproves. "They are both wrong. More than four out of ten births in this country are out
of wedlock. (I'm guessing we can't blame the gays for this one.) The
government's interest couldn't be very compelling, or they would have
addressed this.Marriage is not about sex, either. Witness all those
children being born out of wedlock, for one thing, so straight people are having
lots of sex outside of marriage. As for "illegal" sex? The Supremes, in
"Lawrence," struck down all the sodomy laws, not just for the gays, but
for everyone. All those "special bedroom tricks" in Cosmo are legal
now.Marriage in today's world is about love and commitment.
If The United State Supreme Court rules, as they should, that this is a States
Rights issue, these marriages should be voided, as this is just another attempt
to go around The Constriction of The Unite States of America.
When Utah appeals to the 10th Circuit, one would hope it would do so
carefully.The argument that marriage is based on the production and
guidance of children will not carry the day with the Supreme Court. Too many
heterosexual marriages do not result in children....and many of those couples
never intended to have children.This is not about children. It is about
sex.Some is inherently natural, some is not.And it is about
choice.Anyone can get married now. They just have to find someone of the
opposite sex to agree to put up with them.Many sexual activities are
undertaken out of sexual desire. Many of those activities we have made illegal
because they entail choices society disapproves. Some are given legal
status/protections and economic subsidies because society chooses to encourage
them.Homosexual desire may or may not be immutable. But homosexual
actions are a choice.If Utah chooses to define marriage (i.e protect and
subsidize it) as being between a man and a woman, that is a choice the people as
a whole should be able to make.
64John Pack Lambert of Michigan 10:31 a.m. Jan. 8, 2014The claim
that the Hobby Lobby case is about contraception is a lie. Hobby Lobby has no
objection to funding 16 forms of contraception. Their only objection is to the 4
abortion ppills in the HHS mandate.------------------The
problem with that comment is the fact that there are NO abortion pills in the
HSS mandate. The only abortion pill -- RU-486 -- has to be given in a
doctor's office under the supervision of that doctor. The pills in the HSS
mandate prevent pregnancy, not abort it.
JPLofMI: "There is no law that bans churches in Utah from having
same-gender commitment ceremonies... As long as they do not try to claim they
have the legal force of marriage."Then it is not a marriage. It
is a commitment ceremony. The churches are denied religious their liberty.JPLofMI: " Hobby Lobby has no objection to funding 16 forms of
contraception. Their only objection is to the 4 abortion ppills in the HHS
mandate."Clarification noted. It does not change the gist of my
previous post.JPLofMI: "Available evidence points out that
same-sex attraction is a complex system that arises from multiple
causes..."We actually agree on something for once.JPLofMI: "That said, the cause of same-sex attraction has no bearing on
the issue... justified by the governments high interest in seeking to have the
highest percentage of children possible raised by their biological parents.There are thousands of gay couples with children obtained through
biological means (i.e. not adopted). SSM achieves the government's goal of
maximizing the number of children raised by their biological parents. If that
is the goal, it's an absurd policy that prevents these children from having
"That said, the cause of same-sex attraction has no bearing on the issue of
redefining marriage away from being a man/woman institution in a form justified
by the governments high interest in seeking to have the highest percentage of
children possible raised by their biological parents."----------------Did you look at the pictures of who was marrying?
Some of them were gay couples with children. Gays can adopt in Utah right now!
Gays are having children via adoption, in vitro fertilization, surrogate
mothers, and raising children from other marriages. Keeping gays from the
legality of marriage is NOT keeping them from having and raising children. They
will continue to do so with or without marriage.This is not a viable
I agree with this comment "To paraphrase Lincoln, this nation cannot survive
half allowing same-sex marriage and half rejecting it. Or perhaps to paraphrase
someone else, you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube. It's
not a question of whether same-sex marriages will be recognized in every state;
it's a question of when."And the answer of when should be
when a majority of voters want it.....Not because of a single judges opinion, or
because of a loud squeaky wheel......
@Patriot "Same sex marriage is not a constitutional guarantee and must
therefore be left to the states to rule on this issue as many already
have."The constitutional guarantee is that every state must give
Full Faith and Credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of
every other state. The Supreme Court does not have to order Utah to issue
marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It just has to order Utah to recognize
marriages from other states. Invest wisely: Buy honeymoon resorts with
marriage chapels in California, Hawaii and Iowa. Well, maybe not Iowa.
Available evidence points out that same-sex attraction is a complex system that
arises from multiple causes, many of which are other than genetic, and that
manifests in various levels in various people.That said, the cause
of same-sex attraction has no bearing on the issue of redefining marriage away
from being a man/woman institution in a form justified by the governments high
interest in seeking to have the highest percentage of children possible raised
by their biological parents.
The claim that the Hobby Lobby case is about contraception is a lie. Hobby Lobby
has no objection to funding 16 forms of contraception. Their only objection is
to the 4 abortion ppills in the HHS mandate.
The claim that we "make it illegal for churches to do their own thing
symbolically" is hogwash. There is no law that bans churches in Utah from
having same-gender commitment ceremonies. They can do it all they want. As long
as they do not try to claim they have the legal force of marriage.
Just as judges like Robert Shelby don't want their name enshrined forever
on the wrong side of history, many of the best law firms don't want to be
associated in perpetuity with a losing cause, even if they happen to win one
battle. To paraphrase Lincoln, this nation cannot survive half
allowing same-sex marriage and half rejecting it. Or perhaps to paraphrase
someone else, you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube. It's
not a question of whether same-sex marriages will be recognized in every state;
it's a question of when.
I am glad to hear the nuttiness has ended.From the standpoint of
Utah the ruling should be that the marriages are not legal and have no effect. A
woman who "married" another woman late last month, if she wakes up
tomorrow and decides to get married to a man, should be able to do so with no
legal problems at all in Utah. Her marriage made after Shelby did not stay his
decision has no legal standing at all.
So is Judge Shelby adjudicating to get publicity so he can has a more
legitimately earned salary as a TV Court Judge. Lots of good democrat contacts.
What is a Kangaroo court?
"They were legal when they were performed, they'll remain
legal."Prior Precedence - It was why the 9th circuit stuck down
the law voted on by the citizens of CA.I hope the readers are seeing
these arguments for what they are. There is a reason that the courthouses were
flooded within minutes of Shelby's ruling. The LGBT community is seeking
to accomplish their aims through manipulation of the legal system.SSM is winning the hearts and minds of our country. I don't know why the
supporters of SSM would resort to the legal chicanery at this point. Perhaps
that is all they know and are simply ignorant of their new found acceptance?We need to have a fair fight in the courts (SCOTUS) and put this issue
to rest. If opponents of SSM lose (I am one of those) then we move on to other
issues. If the LGBT community loses will they let it rest? Doubt it.
@CDL"Providing Civil Unions with equal status should not be a problem
and does not provide a second class citizenship." Sorry to
disappoint you but, it will be a big problem because you have to strike down
amendment 3 first, it bans both SSM and civil union.
@carmanCall same-sex unions something else. Domestic Partnership, Domestic
Union, Same-Sex Union, anything.@Meckofahess"...perhaps through
legal civil unions ... " "Let's find a win-win solution for
everyone"Sorry to remind you but, even if it goes your way, you
still have to strike down amendment 3 first, because it bans both SSM and civil
this legal circus and more like it will continue until the US Supreme court
finally gets off its rump and rules once and for all. Same sex marriage is not a
constitutional guarantee and must therefore be left to the states to rule on
this issue as many already have...until activist and rouge federal judges come
in and attempt to strong arm the states into conforming to their ideology.
@Meckofahess: "We want fair and equal laws that recognize all citizens
rights and not just the rights of a "special class" of people."I am reasonably sure the end goal here would be a stage of enlightenment
among citizens where there is no need to have a "special class" of
people whatsoever. The LGBT community does not want "special rights".
The want the *same* rights you enjoy today. Not "special" rights... just
the same "rights" all citizens are afforded. Big difference.The "win-win" solution is when all American citizens are treated
equally under the law of the land, who's authority is derived from the U.S.
Constitution. This is the only document germane to this issue.If you
are honest when you say above that "We want fair and equal laws that
recognize all citizens rights", then you are in agreement with Judge
@Billy BobUtah 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 deliver
Amendments can be changed or redefined if Utah's 3rd amendment is an issue.
Providing Civil Unions with equal status should not be a problem and does not
provide a second class citizenship. That is utterly ridiculous. But is does
protect professional individuals that decline specific services based on
religious beliefs from vindictive law suits from gays when they don't get
their way. Even though the 1st amendment should protect them, activist judges
have been ignoring the 1st amendment in those states that have already legalized
gay marriage. If you want equality and tolerance, the door swings both ways.
For those of the opinion that the LGBT crowd should get their own word and leave
marrage alone, why don't those of us that practice opposite sex marrage get
our own word instead.And guess what: for those of us Mormons, we
already have that seperate word: Sealing. I was sealed to my wife 4 years
ago.Voila! I just fixed the proble and saved the state $2
" I'm sorry folks, but God did not create Adam and Steve." Well it
turns out that God not only created Steve, but He created dinosaurs, duck-billed
platypi, and a whole bunch of other exotic stuff not documented in your tidy
rendition of Genesis. My point is that SMM is about what is best for society,
not about what is doctrinal from a religious perspective. In a way SMM is like
climate change, we won't know the full consequences for many years. Better
minds than mine have to call this one. But few such minds appear here.
God did make Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve, don't twist that fact. He
also commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth. Lets see Adam and
Steven do that......huhThis is a great comment earlier, "I want
equal rights for all. I just want to call the legal union of one man and one
woman "marriage". Call other unions something else. Don't
discriminate. Let the equal protection clause reign. Just reserve the word
marriage for the fundamental building block of society: the biologically
logical, social norm of a man and a woman, committed to each other and legally
bound. Just come up with a different word for other unions.I dont
understand why gays are fighting over the word married. What they (gays) want,
is different then what we (straight) have. Mainly the natural ability to
procreate, a very important aspect of any all societies. We straight people
don't want the gays to share the same word "married" because their
not the same as we are. It is that simple.Oh, by the way. I
wasn't born to like or desire chocolate or mtn dew. It is called an
@TheTrueVoice:You suggest the heterosexual view toward gays can be
reduced to something as simple as "Ewe, it's icky and gives me the
willies" as the basis for our concerns. That is not true at all. I
don't find my gay friends to be "icky" at all - they are good
people, excellent emmployees, etc. Our concerns are well beyond that
oversimplified explanation. We do not want someone (a bilogical male) confused
about his gender identity to have a legal right to enter into the girls locker
room at school for example. We do not want our employers to lay off straights
emmployees simply out of fear of legal prosecution for laying off a gay because
he/she is now in a "protected class". We want fair and equal laws that
recognize all citizens rights and not just the rights of a "special
class" of people. Let's look out for the equal rights of all people
(including the heterosexuals). Let's find a win-win solution for everyone.
Same sex marriage laws will lead to the above examples of inequalities as has
already happened in California and Massechussets.
uh.., Adam and Eve made Steve, its not that complicated, that is how it is
suppose to work :-)
carmanWasatch Front, UTCall same-sex unions something else. Domestic
Partnership, Domestic Union, Same-Sex Union, anything. 8:00 p.m. Jan. 7,
2014Grammy3SOUTH JORDAN, UTWhen they get married in a Church
it is a religious action. When someone gets married in a Courthouse it is a
civil matter. Why can't the Gay and Lesbians have a civil union and have
the same rights as a Married couple but not call it a marriage. 12:50 a.m.
Jan. 8, 2014@Meckofahess:"...perhaps through legal
civil unions ..."======== See an excellent reply by
-- RanchHere, UT6:57 a.m. Jan. 8, 2014In order to
do that, you MUST strike down Amendment 3, which says that NO unions, of any
sort (i.e. "civil unions") will be recognized. Amendment 3 violates the
civil rights of LGBT American citizens.==============
@CDLThat won't work because Utah's Amendment 3 also forbids
civil unions. "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be
recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal
Wrong is wrong and this was wrong from the beginning. Shelby should loose his
bench over this and in the end all the rushing to the alter will have been a big
waste of time. Signs of the times for sure. What is going to happen in this
world when someone wants to marry their dog or cat? They'll be some judge
out there that will say they have a right to do that and allow it. It's
amazing to me that the state of Utah allowed this to happen and then you have
sister wives going on in the same state not that far from the state house and
there are things going on in that compound against women and the state does
nothing about it. Amazing.
Vanceone~ You are exactly right. It was a deliberate political move to flood the
gate before providing a stay. They wanted to insert a new problem into the mix,
hoping to create a situation that could not be turned back just as they did in
Calif. Frankly, I would simply declare them 'Civil Unions,' so they
are still legally coupled. And issue new 'Civil Union' certificates.
Then make sure Civil Unions have all the same legal protections and benefits as
'religious marriage' unions and call it a day. They are equal giving
both side essentially what they want. Gay coupling legal recognition, and the
religious 'rite and ceremony' of marriage left for the religious.
After all, there are plenty of non religious straight people who have
'Civil Unions.' There is a reasonable compromise.
God made Adam and Eve.NOT Adam and Steve. End of
StorySo, who did make Steve?
I'm sorry folks, but God did not create Adam and Steve. If he did, there
would be no offspring. He created Man and Woman, that is the way he wanted it
and commanded it to be. If you don't believe in religion, fine, but
don't expect me to just accept it because it's the politically correct
thing to do. Never.
I personally don't care if a person wants to marry a fence post. I really
don't care for the gay life of two same sex people but I respect peoples
rights and they should have the right to get married if they so desire. It is
small narrow minded people who do not respect other people rights.
@MeckofahessPlease elaborate; which constitutional rights and freedoms
will you be required to abdicate by granting constitutional rights and freedoms
to more people?
It is entirely demoralizing to read some of the hate-filled posts from those who
continue to endorse state-sponsored discrimination.Absent a
compelling state interest, the US Constitution guarantees equal treatment under
civil law to all citizens, including gay citizens. By denying marriage to
law-abiding tax-paying gay citizens, they are depriving gay citizens of the
more than 1100 federal rights, responsibilities and benefits that flow from
marriage via **civil** law. This is *undeniably* unequal treatment under civil
law. What those people fail to grasp is that this case is about
equal treatment under the law. It has nothing to do with a religious position.
The reason Utah will lose when the 10th Appeals hears the case is that there is
no rational basis for treating a minority differently under civil law. "Ewe,
it's icky and gives me the willies" is not a defensible legal basis.Seriously now... just what are you so afraid of? What consequences can
you enumerate that will be so dire as to overwhelm the mandate for equal
treatment and the benefits of gay marriage to gay families, their children and
@Wolf: Wow REALLY? You are actually comparing the love between two people to
@rw123 says: "I believe there MAY be a biological propensity to
homosexuality, but that does not mean its uncontrollable nor good for the
person/society. There are research studies about various biological propensities
that are not good (i.e. alcoholism). That doesn't mean we celebrate those
propensities and give susceptible individuals special rights. But I DO take off
my hat to those who resist these propensities."Your perspective
is incredibly self-centered.Regardless of the "cause," of
course it's easy for you to see "gay" as a controllable behavior:
If *you* were to have "gay" sex, it would be an unnatural action. But
you could do it. You'd be *doing* a gay thing. Now imaging
choosing to *be* gay: to have natural romantic and erotic feelings for a member
of the same sex. You CAN'T choose that--any more than you chose to have
romantic and erotic feelings for the opposite sex. It just happened to you. Same
with gays. Gay people aren't a corrupted version of you. They
are their own thing.Why ask someone gay to *do* straight just
because it happened that way for you?
@Grammy3;Because we don't live in a theocracy and what
"god" wants is irrelevant to civil life and law.@philipcfromnyc;Nice summation. The only thing you left out is
that if the 10th overturns Shelby, an appeal will go to the Supreme Court.
Whether or not they'll take it, regardless of which side the 10th sides
with, is not known. Then, we could look at it legislatively.@concretebo;Agreed.
To dwayne:You are grinding an axe, sir. If you read my comment, I
don't want to control anything. I want equal rights for all. I just want
to call the legal union of one man and one woman "marriage". Call other
unions something else. Don't discriminate. Let the equal protection
clause reign. Just reserve the word marriage for the fundamental building block
of society: the biologically logical, social norm of a man and a woman,
committed to each other and legally bound. Just come up with a different word
for other unions.
As a Utahan, and even though I don't agree with same sex marriage, or
marriage for more than 2 people, I suspect that it would not end up a good thing
for the state of Utah to be granted states rights on this. Consititutionally, I
would normally say it is a state issue. But pragmatically, I see Utah becoming
the center of a vicious hate campaign by the left in America should Utah be one
of the few states to not allow same sex marriage. This campaign would involve
more attacks against the Mormon Church, as well as called for boycotts of Utah
businesses ect. All in all it would be a continuing headache for Utah.
Utahns, think the gay community will be fair to your needs and concerns? Think
again! For example - "The California Association of Marriage and
Family Therapists (CAMFT) published a special issue of their bi-monthly journal
“The Therapist” dedicated to the subject of same-sex marriage. Guest
authors were asked to contribute articles, half of the writers in support and
half opposed to same-sex marriage. A stated goal of the issue was to determine
whether the organization should adopt a formal position on the matter.Subsequent to publication of the May/June 2009 special issue (Volume 21, Issue
3), homosexual activists within and without the organization pressured CAMFT to
not only apologize, but also expunge from their organizational archives those
articles that voiced opposition to same-sex marriage. CAMFT capitulated to those
demands. The Director of CAMFT apologized for publishing articles critical of
same-sex marriage and all the "offending" articles were censored from
the CAMFT website archives. So much for intellectual debate and freedom of
opinion". Yet the gay community in Utah cries out for
understanding and tolerance. Utahns, lend your voice to recognition of
everyone's rights - not just a "special class" of citizens that
oppose your God given rights!
@Grammy3: No. A religious act is the act of a religious denomination in the
course of its practice of its religion. You're free to practice your
religion as you will, as we are to practice ours as we will.A
marriage in the Quaker tradition of our Meeting is the commitment of two people
who see God's Light and love in each other and pledge themselves to each
other in that Light and love and the care of the Meeting. Our Meeting stopped
worrying about gender combinations years ago. God's love is God's
love is God's love. Marriage is marriage. That is our discerned Truth.Now, civil marriage is an act of the State. I don't understand
your inability to accept the concept of "civil marriage." Young couples
have run off for generations, side-stepping family disapproval and church
rejection, and eloped at Justices of the Peace. Your church already considers
civil marriage second-class, so why do you need to create some new, third-class
version which wouldn't meet federal standards for recognition? Just accept
that civil marriage isn't church/temple/meeting/mosque/synagogue marriage
and be done with this nonsense.
As the exchange of argument has been allowed so far,here is the proof to
what it really says.The proof that we are not only made in the image of
one god, as to some would think he could err, but as many gods would be the
standing model for creating us in their image :"So the Gods went
down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the gods to form they
him, male and famle to form they them" Abraham 4The ultimate
return to god will include our own repentance on this matter, to go back as sons
and daughters of god.The social acceptabilty of anything else,
depends on the willingness of the people to tolerate such.God cannot.
@Red Corvett: You are not almost there!. This debate in Utah is just
beginning. The majority of Utahns do not favor changing the definition of
marriage and I believe we are willing to put our money where our mouth is. If
these blogs are any indication, it does not appear that the gay community is
very interested in seeking to work with the straight community to find a win-win
solution. It feels like the gays are saying to the majority of Utahns its their
way or the highway. Well, I think we old fashiion traiditional marriage folk are
not quite ready to abdicate our constitutional rights and freedoms to a minority
of the population who is heck bent on forcing us to accept a host of new laws
that are contrary to our intelligence, little lone our religous convictions. So
no, the debate is not over - it is just beginning. Lets find a solution that
respects EVERYONE'S rights!
@carman says:"Marriage between one man and one woman is biologically
logical, and socially most common. Call same-sex unions something else.... keep
marriage meaningful...it is what is ideal for most human beings."Of course man-woman marriages are biologically logical and common. They may
even be "ideal" for most human beings (though you'd have to ask a
lot of people about that).None of this changes when gay people
marry. "...don't thieve the term "marriage" from
our culture"We are *all* from our culture, and marriage belongs
to everyone. Gay people don't sprout up in outerspace and decide to come
live next door to you.Suggesting "another name for it" might
seem reasonable. But when it comes to the law, there isn't one: a legal
marriage is a legal marriage, and Amendment 3 ensured there would be never be
"another word" for gay people: "No other domestic union, however
denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially
equivalent legal effect."Ask yourself why you think married gay
people "sully" or "diminish" your idea of marriage. You might
find your feelings about gay people are problem.
What is the A.G. Paid for ??? I thought this is Top Cop Attorney at the
Capitol, why does thisoffice get to spend taxpayers money to do their job
? Homeless people in the street and we throw 2 million out the window. The A.G.
is going to lose this and we all know this. While I do not agree with same sex
marriage , I do believe to each their own and under the Law these folks deserve
the same rights as everybody else . Plain and Simple. Let God be the Judge in
the end ....
what's to grapple with? if they were legally married at the time the
marriage occurred then common sense would dictate they are legally married. the
stay of further marriages pending the outcome of the appeals process said
nothing about invalidating any marriages already performed.
Ultimately, this matter will be decided by the US Supreme Court. In California,
after US District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 by using very
similar analysis (violation of Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
14th Amendment), the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld his ruling,
but on narrower grounds. It also issued a stay of Judge Walker's opinion.
The US Supreme Court held that no legal entity had standing to challenge Judge
Walker's decision, thereby lifting the stay and permitting gay marriages to
continue pursuant to Judge Walker's decision. In Utah, the US Supreme
Court has issued a stay until the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit can
hear an appeal of Judge Shelby's decision. If the decision is upheld (my
money is on this), couples will be able to marry immediately. If the decision
is overturned, we simply go back to invoking the democratic process. At least
18 states have legalized gay marriage to date, and this trend can only climb.PHILIP CHANDLER
@Meckofahess:"...perhaps through legal civil unions ..."In order to do that, you MUST strike down Amendment 3, which says that
NO unions, of any sort (i.e. "civil unions") will be recognized.
Amendment 3 violates the civil rights of LGBT American citizens.@rw123;Why do we frighten you so much? Why should I
"control" my desires when you refuse to control yours?@FREDISDEAD;If you believe the bible, literally, then God cloned
Adam to create Eve. She, clearly would have been a 'he'.There is no uncertainty about these marriage. They were legal when they were
performed, they'll remain legal. That is exactly what happened to those
marriages performed in California before the stay was issued and before Prop-H8
@riverofsun:>>Perhaps you wish to backtrack on laws that
have been around for a LONG time?The US Constitution has been around
for longer. When two laws conflict, the Constitution wins, and the other law is
invalid. That is the basis of Judge Shelby's ruling.>>
These Natives, who had ancestors who came here first, have made it very clear
the State of Utah was meant to be a moral sanctuary, very, very different from
the other states.They also made it very clear that the State of
Deseret was meant to be a part of Mexico.
Worf, of Mcallen, TX,If same sex preference is something a person is
born with,,, and all available evidence, evidence, not opinion or morality,
points that it is innate.Born with short legs? Born as a red head?
Born in Texas? Born white? or Black? Male ? Female? Or LGBT? Born that
way.Then by all that is Constitutional, and ALL that is moral and
right, Equality to all.Bigotry and discrimination are both sins,,,,
but those both can be cured by education, or healed with thought and effort.
"Making something legal, doesn't make it right.Can't
legalize murder, lying, or immorality."The exact same was said
when the Constiution defeated states which banned inter-racial marriages,
allowed slavery, and established Jim Crow laws.
There may have been dozens of ways to grant couples who wanted to have equal
protection under the law to be given those protections: the Citizens of Utah
chose to ignore those gaps in equal protection, and instead wrote a knee-jerk
constitutional amendment that simply denies same-sex couples the same rights as
opposite sex couples. This may have been an unintended consequence, but denying
visitation, survivorship and inheritance rights purely on the basis of sexual
orientation seems to be problematic. Imagine the following scenarios: 1. Opposite sex couple that were physically unable to have intimate
relations, and could not procreate: should this couple be given equal
protection under the law?2. Same sex couple that is sexually celibate:
not really participating in any activities that would be biblically
"immoral": why would this couple be denied equal protection and rights
granted to the couple in "1"?3. Same sex couple that engage
activities considered biblically "immoral" (Like eating ham and cheese
sandwiches?): what is the basis for denying them the rights granted in
"1"?4. Oppositie sex couple that actively "swing"
committing serial adultery (Also biblically "immoral"): Should this
couple be treated the same as 2 and 3?Seems like this ain't so
FREDISDEAD,God did create Adam and Steve.Your argument
You're going to lose. Gay marriage will be legal throughout the Union.
It's just a matter of time.
A marriage between a Man and a Woman is a religious action.When they get married
in a Church it is a religious action. When someone gets married in a Courthouse
it is a civil matter. Why can't the Gay and Lesbians have a civil union and
have the same rights as a Married couple but not call it a marriage. In the
beginning God created Adam and Eve so in God we see that a marriage is between a
man and a woman. This is how God wanted it to be. This was his commandment not
our's. We can all tolerate and should tolerate everyone no matter how they
are or what they believe in. What we need to do is make sure that the Marriage
is between a Man and a Woman. But not judge and love all of God's children
no matter what they believe or who they are.
ohn Charity SpringBack Home in Davis County, UT"... the
inevitable result of an activist judge who attempted to set public policy
himself"-- NO, the confusion is because the Utah AG office
completely dropped the ball on preparing the proper motion for stay in advance,
just in case the judge happened to actually do his job and come up with the
obvious verdict, for the plaintiffs.If the AG had been on the ball,
the judge would have granted or not granted it, and the appeal to the 10th
Circuit would have been speedier.All this fantasizing about
"activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" ought to be
saved for an occasion when the judge has not rendered the obvious Constitutional
relief the plaintiffs sued for. The Judge simply followed the LAW --
not the book of mormon or the Bible---As for those married: since
the marriages were perfectly legal and valid on the day they were performed,
they will remain so.Fairly soon, there will be some pressure on
churches from INSIDE, not out, for them to be fair to their Gay members, sons
and daughters, friends, etc.
I have had mixed views of SSM, but it is ABSOLUTELY unreasonable to break up the
marriages which have been performed. Such is unthinkable, period.
@FREDISDEAD "God made Adam and Eve. NOT Adam and Steve." But
how?? I've heard this trite couplet my whole life. In every creation story
in my faith tradition, God or Gods (all male) create Adam by using their power
to command the elements. Maybe gender roles and relationships beyond our limited
existence are beyond our limited understanding.
It is silly to try to blame the state or the AG for this conundrum. If the law
is ultimately upheld you can blame the judge that acted hastily. If the law is
ultimately struck down those that rushed to get married will remain married. It
is in the courts hands. Let the judicial process sort it out.
'God made Adam and Eve.' AND Adam and Steve.
Unless you want to claim your infallible God made a mistake….?
Article: "Gill said the ceremony would violate the state constitution and
state law, which makes it a class A misdemeanor to solemnize a marriage between
same-sex couples."This paper has repeatedly raised a royal
hullabaloo over the alleged infringement of secular Hobby Lobby's religious
liberty for being required to very indirectly support contraception by providing
insurance policies that include contraceptive coverage, yet here we have a case
where the power of the state is directly interfering with the ability of actual
religious institutions to practice the tenets of their faith and we hear
crickets chirping. FREDISDEAD: "NOT Adam and Steve."David Sedaris has the best rejoinder: Of course it's not Adam and
Steve. No self respecting gay couple would be Adam and Steve. It's Adam
and STEVEN.That's the end of that story.
No, Fredisdead....God made Adam and Eve, Adam and Adam, Eve and Eve, and
while you're at it...Steve and Steve.
Worf...you equate being gay with murder, lying and immorality....do you think
that this statement adds quality to this historic debate?
Give them a refund and say, "Sorry but we ain't going to marry
How about a refund?
Not too many top professionals are jumping to be closely associated with a
losing cause? You might be able to get a second-tier firm looking to make a
name for themselves, if you pay them enough.The Supreme Court stay
of Shelby's injunction against the State of Utah only lasts until the Tenth
Circuit finishes with it. If the Circuit confirms the order, there's still
no guarantee that the Supreme Court will grant cert.By the way, that
law you have that makes it a misdemeanor for a religious cleric to solemnize a
same sex marriage? That's unconstitutional, too. I wonder if
there's a minister in Utah brave enough to conduct such a ceremony on the
steps of the AG's office building?Some of us equality-minded
Christian denominations were solemnizing same-sex marriage commitments a decade
before our state legally started recognizing them.
God made Adam and Eve.NOT Adam and Steve. End of Story.
It wasn't long ago that acceptance of glbt behavior became widespread.
Prior to a few decades ago, it was considered - by all but a few - to be
unnatural and unhealthy. Almost all religions rejected it as a sin. IMHO, the
growth of its support is due to A) more people participating in homosexual
behavior, B) political correctness keeping the moral majority in check, and C)
aggressiveness of some homosexual activists who likely won't be happy till
religion is no more. Any religion that doesn't espouse their agenda must
go. I believe there MAY be a biological propensity to homosexuality,
but that does not mean its uncontrollable nor good for the person/society.
There are research studies about various biological propensities that are not
good (i.e. alcoholism). That doesn't mean we celebrate those propensities
and give susceptible individuals special rights. But I DO take off my hat to
those who resist these propensities.I believe God loves all His
children, regardless of what they do. But our actions DO bring consequences.
We all sin. It is only through the atonement of Christ that we can be forgiven,
become like Him, and find happiness.
It appears the only problem is that, for 17 days some sort of equality existed
here, and people who have known for too long how this state operates seized the
opportunity. Now, we're left with the legacy. The problematic part is that
there is no problem. Nearly a thousand couples who were almost all living
together anyway got married. But crime hasn't increased. Straight marriages
remain unaffected, as do children everywhere. The rivers haven't risen, and
the cold weather went mostly east. The sun comes up. No underage brides were
coerced, and no one married their horse or microwave oven. In an argument where
we're going to have to prove the real harm of same sex marriage, there
isn't any, and it gets demonstrated more every day.
What is all the fuss about? Here in California where we believe in equal rights
for all Americans 100000s of gay couples got married last year and nothing much
has changed the sun is still shining ,matter of fact today it was 72. We
had rough time to get this far , the Mormon Church put up millions to defeat us
but in the end freedom always wins and the same is ahead for the lgbt community
in Utah ,the Supremes know which way the wind is blowing. Congratulations to all
you married couples.
The word "marriage" should be reserved for one man, one woman. We
should not discriminate in taxes, medical visitation, or in any other way
against those who deserve equal protection under the Constitution. But
don't thieve the term "marriage" from our culture. It deserves to
stay, as marriage is the fundamental building block of the human race, and of
societies worldwide. Where marriage is not the norm, these cultures struggle to
progress. Marriage between one man and one woman is biologically logical, and
socially most common. Call same-sex unions something else. Domestic
Partnership, Domestic Union, Same-Sex Union, anything. But keep
"marriage" as a meaningful, relevant, important word. It is what is
ideal for most human beings.
The stay should have been granted automatically by Judge Shelby. He wasn't
oblivious to this fact, and allowed the confusion to happen. It is his fault.
The blame for any sadness or heartache that may end up occurring if these
marriages are invalidated lays squarely on his ultra liberal activist shoulders.
Basically, he made the wrong decision and then made it worse by not granting the
stay when the issue obviously wasn't resolved and was clearly going to go
higher in the judicial process. He is a horrible judge, regardless of how you
stand on the issue.
@Meckofahess"concerns and rights of both the gay community as well as
the straight community."Straight community? As a straight person
I'm not affected in any way by same-sex couples getting married too."perhaps through legal civil unions that recognize differences with
marriage between a man and a woman?"You banned them in Amendment
3. Plus you are advocating a "separate but equal" status that would
never be agreed to. You know why? You still oppose gay adoption. You still oppose acknowledging same-sex couples exist in schools.You
still oppose cake makers having to treat all customers the same.The state
still opposes job and housing anti-discrimination laws based on sexual
orientation. You don't even support separate but equal because
I am sure the civil unions you propose are not even equal. 2nd class citizen
status is not an acceptable "compromise".
Hey, Utah don't stop here...Perhaps you wish to backtrack on laws
that have been around for a LONG time?Yes, numerous legislators and others
of influence have made it very clear how they want this state to be represented.
These Natives, who had ancestors who came here first, have made it very
clear the State of Utah was meant to be a moral sanctuary, very, very different
from the other states. They hope that laws that came from the time of Adam and
Eve, other ancient biblical times, and other religious texts will coincide with
2014 society and government.Those who do not fit into their extensive
plan, have always been requested to leave this state.This appears to be
the Utah so many continue hope comes to pass.
It's a misdemeanor to solemnize a same-sex wedding? So... you all say
you're fine with gay people having rights, but you ban civil unions in
Amendment 3 and you make it illegal for churches to do their own thing
symbolically. Wow, so much for even the freedom of religion stuff being said.
worfMcallen, TX"Making something legal, doesn't make it
right.Can't legalize murder, lying, or immorality."---Utah has a dozen strip/topless/gentleman clubs. Liquor is legal, adultery
is not a crime, nor is divorce, lying is pretty common etc---Married
love acts between Gay people seem a lot more moral to most Americans.---I would say "Can't legalize or unlegalize them in the USA if they
are simply about religious choice, contrary to freedoms guaranteed in the
worf:Yes, because murder, lying, and immorality are exactly the same
things as two consenting adults making a commitment to spend their lives
together. Four peas in a pod.You see, this is why your side is
losing: people are seeing arguments that are nothing paranoia and personal
biases and fewer of them are buying your story. If you have a reason to outlaw
gay marriage besides "because God says homosexuality is gross",
let's hear it. You've certainly had plenty of chances to give us
Let both sides of this issue consider the needs, concerns and rights of both the
gay community as well as the straight community. We need to see if there is
some common ground where the needs of the gay community can be met - perhaps
through legal civil unions that recognize differences with marriage between a
man and a woman? This debate has become so emotional that perhaps all of us lose
some objectivity at times - sorry for the times I may have done that! I believe
the citizens of the State of Utah can find some solutions that address the needs
of both sides of the debate. If Amendment 3 doesn't allow for some options
like "civil unions" then lets revisit it. If we don't find a
"win-win" solution, I believe it will only make matters worse for
everyone in the long run.
@John Charity SpringLike those Supreme Court justices who struck
down a federal law--DOMA; struck down a Colorado referendum--amendment 2, Judge
Shelby is just doing his job.Please keep in mind that independent
judiciary is a key part of check and balance, which is established by our
This was the intended outcome from the beginning: Judge Shelby forced open the
floodgates in hopes that a huge surge of people would rush to take advantage and
then be able to cry crocodile tears about the evil hateful people who want to
take away their new "rights." If they lose their rights, I
say, they deserve it. Blatant attempts to game the system. Everyone KNEW the
Supreme's would be the final word; to cry foul when it's totally
possible that this ruling is reversed is stupid. Just remember, O
ye SSM advocates: The Supremes, after the 14th Amendment was ratified, had
absolutely no problem at all with thousands of prior legally married people in
Utah not only losing their marriages but being put in jail and having their
property seized. Be grateful that the worst that is likely going to happen to
you is you have to move to California to get "married." I have no
sympathy at all for those who are attempting to game the system.
Life is made up of millions of choices. These people made a choice to get
married when nothing was completely settled. This was their choice and their
choice only, there were even quotes by some of the couples who ran to the alter
because they didn't know how long it would be until the stay was in place.
There are consequences to that choice. They need to deal with it and not blame
Simply put, the marriages performed before stay will stay legal. Those married
same sex couples already have their legal rights and will keep them. It is shameful that Utah governor and AG attempt to take them away from
legally married couples. But such attempt can not pass constitutional scrutiny
and is not going to succeed.
Making something legal, doesn't make it right.Can't
legalize murder, lying, or immorality.
The stay changes nothing. It simply says no more. But those who were legally
married deserve to remain legally married!How heartless, cruel, and
hateful it would be to take legal action to dissolve these marriages! I would
expect better from people who claim to not be hateful. Prove it! Let these
couples live in peace!If their legal marriages are declared null and
void, I would hope to see a huge outcry and a class-action suit against the
State of Utah and the AG!
This confusion is the inevitable result of an activist judge who attempted to
set public policy himself, rather than the Constitutionally authorized brach of
government do so. Regardless of the correctness of a decision, a judge who
engages in legislating from the bench only manages to create disrespect for the
judicial system as a whole, and disdain for the judicially created law
specifically. Judge Shelby should have taken a lesson from the Founding Fathers
who knew and taught that unless law is created in a legitimate fashion, the law
will never obtain the respect of the people.