Why is it so hard for so many to understand that civil rights (which would
obviously apply to marriage choice) are not a result of majority vote?The majority vote in Missouri and Illinois (as well as in New York and Ohio)
was that the Mormons had no rights to believe as they did, so they had to be
expelled by force.Now, in today's world, no doubt the majority
of the descendants of those 1830 to 1840 devout Mormons are all for denying
civil (marriage) rights to those who believe differently from what they do. Now, these "modern" Mormons, are saying that since they are in
the majority, they have the right to deny those who have differing beliefs
regarding a civil rights issue.Excuse me, but is that not the exact
opposite of what they believe about their ancestors and the situation those
people had with their "enemies" in MO, IL, OH and NY?What,
pray tell, am I missing?Civil rights are not a matter of majority
vote; they're a matter of God-given freedom to choose.Sounds
like unadulterated doublespeak to me.
There is no rationalization for normalizing gay behavior.It's
been tried in many civilizations, ending in disaster.African
countries, and many past societies as well.Careful for what you wish
@jcobabe: "issue now rests in the arguments of lawyers, the deliberations
of judges, and judicial review, rather than in the rhetoric of the public
square, and the democratic process"Last time I checked, judicial
review is part of the democratic process - just like voting, just like
legislating. Three branches of government, remember?"no good
reason for a hasty verdict"Try putting your life, your family, your
marriage, on hold for ten years of more while someone else determines if you
have it, what you have, or what you can do. Many couples who married in
December have been together for decades - waiting.
Reasons for delay:1-- Maybe another case will come up first, and
Utah will not need to be seen fighting a losing cause, and one that makes the
State look small minded.2-- Maybe, with the added time, the prophet
will receive word from God on how the lds can promote their many thousands of
Gay members and children out of 3rd class status.3-- Maybe someone
will find the golden plates, containing the solutionetc
Has there ever been a prosperous civilization where a large percentage of the
people were gay?Are there other behaviors stemming from this?Let's do some homework.
@ higv: yes.Your question could also apply to race, slavery, gender
equality and just about any other issue where people were not treated fairly.
@InLifeHappiness:"Hopefully Utah will follow the laws of the land as
Joseph Smith counseled in the Articles of Faith."I think Smith
also said something like 'we believe in God...' which many citizens in
Utah also ascribe to the subject of marriage, including SSM.
NoBoxScot said: "For those who have adopted the philosophy of relative
morality there is no reason why the definition of marriage (or anything else)
could not be changed every 5 or 10 years."You mean like the
"relative morality" that changed the definition of marriage on November
2, 2004?or The Traditional Marriage from before statehood, which was
most certainly "relative morality" to anyone looking in.10
days only delays justice that much longer. Like every other right,
it seems the minority needs to tear these rights from the hands of those who
believe in segregation, divine providence and the status quo. Funny thing is,
sharing rights doesn't deplete your rights at all.
More time to change the meaning of the words used to deny marriage.Are the state's hired hands hoping for a new edition of a dictionary in
ten more days "...to complete a 'fulsome, detailed and quality'
brief on the constitutional questions"?Court opinions are from
arguments, not embarrassment.
DEAR HIGV:You ask, "Were gay people hurt for the many millennia
they could not legally marry someone of the same gender?"Suppose
you, as a taxpayer, were forced to subsidize an institution that you were
forbidden from participating in. Certainly you wouldn't consider it fair.
Would you be "HURT" physically? Probably not. Was Rosa Parks hurt when
she was forced to sit in the back of the bus? Were Blacks "HURT" when
they had to use separate drinking fountains. Probably not. But that's not
really the POINT, is it?Perhaps you should ask how you would suffer
if the Gay couple down the street decided to legally tie the knot.
@higv Were gay people hurt for the many millennia they could not legally
marry someone of the same gender? Why are they now claiming for a so called
civil right they have not had for millennia before?--------As
for your comment, not only in the past but in the present gay people are being
killed all around the world when they come out of the closet, even in some more
modern countries even in our hemisphere. I would hope that the United States
could send a message that we are Christians by accepting gay people and allowing
them marriage. Some country has to take the bold step to try and stop the hate.
An extension may not be merited, but I personally want no room for excuses or
cries of unfairness, so I hope it's granted.Also asking for an
extension these days are SSM opponents. They are now calling for compromise,
offering civil unions or domestic partnerships when they once voted for an
Amendment 3 that explicitly prohibits these as well. So minds have
changed. The question is whether compromise should be sought. "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell" was a compromise on the road to where we are now in
the military. It was insulting and still treated a certain group as
second-class citizens, but it was the best this nation was capable of at the
time. Are we capable of better now with respect to SSM?Where does
the greater harm lie? In whatever the fallout might be from a change that a
significant minority of the population is not yet ready for (but that is clearly
moving in the direction of change)? Or in continuing to deny a group of people
their equal rights?
@ higvSo because this change took a long time to come around it
shouldn't happen? Try explaining that to women next time they try to buy
property or go to vote....
Odd choices for Utah’s legal counsel to oppose SSM. Monte Stewart was one
of 4 sponsors for Utah’s Amendment 3 now unconstitutional, delivered
amicus curiae brief in a 2008 in California which outcome approved SSM, and
delivered amicus curiae brief for United Families International in Iowa’s
Varnum v Brien which outcome also approved SSM. Gene Schaerr was counsel at
Winston, a legal firm that boasts of its pro-LGBT affinity and defense. John
Bursch has litigated approximately 6% of his cases, has promised to cap his
earnings, and played the clarinet. Not sure this is the winning legal team that
Utah’s appeal desired.
A decidedly one sided group, but one with some eye-opening documented results of
the lgbt agenda going full speed ahead is an organization in Massachusetts -
look for massresistance.org ,For those who have adopted the philosophy of
relative morality there is no reason why the definition of marriage (or anything
else) could not be changed every 5 or 10 years. As for me I prefer to live in a
more stable society although the prospects don't look very good.
More time needed to allow reality to set in especially here on Planet Utah. Like
it or not equality for all is inevitable. If "family values" are a true
cornerstone then how about allocating this money to public schools and the poor
instead of a complete pipe dream in order to please the masses here in Utah.
Were gay people hurt for the many millennia they could not legally marry
someone of the same gender? Why are they now claiming for a so called civil
right they have not had for millennia before?
That would just be another ten days they could use to delay justice to the
plaintiffs and those similarly situated.Here's a suggestion.
Why doesn't Utah just ask the Supreme Court to withdraw the stay, and then
the State could have as long as they want to file as many truckloads of brief as
they like? Meanwhile those couples who already have their marriage licenses can
have their weddings, and anyone else who wants could apply.
If this issue now rests in the arguments of lawyers, the deliberations of
judges, and judicial review, rather than in the rhetoric of the public square,
and the democratic process, then there is no good reason for a hasty verdict.
This is rather funny since Utah was anxiety-filled to have an
"emergency" stay for Shelby's allowance of SSM found in agreement
with equal constitutional rights. Hopefully Utah will follow the laws of the
land as Joseph Smith counseled in the Articles of Faith. If needed to leave
their beatifications reminiscent of their exodus from their beautiful Nauvoo
occurred for religious polygamist freedom to a new country of Mexico, now Utah.
Of course, their long belief in alternative marriage of polygamy may have led to
their openness to accept SSM. Utah's important role in the SSM equality
plea will always be remembered - perhaps they are more open than thought.
@AmkaProblemkaIf the woman is a consenting and competent adult then why is
that such a different case than SSM? The straw man argument - "It won't
hurt YOUR traditional marriage so why are you making a fuss?"---in both SSM and traditional marriage, spouse and spouse are equal, they have
each other and only each other.in polygamy, one husband has multiple
wives, the man and one of those women are not equal in this configuration.
simple as that.What is the harm? have you ever heard "lost
boys"? polygamy community kicks those poor boys out so the "chosen
men" can have multiple wives. still no harm? gender inequality is not
@ JS If the woman is a consenting and competent adult then why is that such a
different case than SSM? The straw man argument - "It won't hurt YOUR
traditional marriage so why are you making a fuss?" - could be used in
exactly the same way. The polygamous marriage won't hurt YOUR LBGT or
traditional marriage...Individual choices affect the whole society.
Sure, someone else's marriage might not hurt mine, but the overall attitude
of a society might hurt my children's and grandchildren's chances of
having successful marriages. No Fault Divorce is a prime example of
"they're adults, let them do what they want". When
building a society we should put our children well before our romantic lives.
People really hate this argument, but gay and premeditated childless
marriages are an evolutionary dead end. Romanticizing gay relationships can
change how individuals who might have proclivities will decide to live their
lives. This does affect the social attitudes towards family structure.Getting married isn't a club or the "happily ever after" ending
of a romance. It's a commitment to each other to be the foundation of a
family that brings children into the world.
Remind me again, please. How many millions of tax dollars are we going to spend
before our state loses this inane battle?Freedom to choose
one's lifestyle or belief is not a matter majority vote. Just
ask several thousand former religious citizens and inhabitants in the 1830s to
40s of the states of New York, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois!
"... the state says it needs an extension to complete a 'fulsome,
detailed and quality' brief ..."In light of a couple of
senses of "fulsome," I find the choice of the word interesting and
amusing:"2: aesthetically, morally, or generally
offensive""3: exceeding the bounds of good taste"- Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.
Why did the state ask the court to expedite the process only to turn around and
ask for an extension? It makes the AG's office look like they have no clue
what they are doing.
Yes more time to drop this case and get real.
@markmongie"why should Utah allow same-sex marriages and not
polygamous marriages?"Well, if a man has multiple wives, but
each of those wives can only share her husband with other women. that is clearly
against gender equality, Utah government certainly should not endorse that.
I thought the 10th had already granted an expedited appeal at the state's
request. What rational and constitutional argument against same sex marriage
does the state think it will find in 10 extra days?
No more time. Justice delayed is justice denied.
This is the landmark social issue of our time. All rational reporting I have
seen on this issue, whether Pro- or Anti-Gay has cautioned for civility,
restraint, and comprehensive two-way dialog. Asking for a few more days to
prepare a case for the most complex social issue of our day sounds fair to me. I
know there are many LGBT couples anxious to 'get married', but we
first need to define what this marriage they want really is. For example, why
should Utah allow same-sex marriages and not polygamous marriages? Rushing to
grant equal rights needs to be considered in light of all the other issues that
are attached to this one action. And remember, this recent Federal ruling in
Utah went against an overwhelming Utah majority vote, so in this case needs due
diligence before overturning a popular vote. I am all for LGBT couples getting
equal protections under the law, but we first need to define what constitutes a
legal marriage. DOMA was just part of the picture; I hope these comprehensive
court proceedings uncover ALL the issues that require legislative action.
Well they do need to come up with a new plan since the original one didn't
go so well. As long as it's only 10 days and the rest of the process
continues on a fast track I suppose it's fine (though that's totally
my straight privilege talking since I'm not the ones who have to wait for
How long does it take them to say "its our club, and we don't want you
in it." Which is what the anti gay marriage argument boils down to.
More time needed to devise a plan to deny Utah citizens their civil rights.It's just outrageous what the government of Utah is doing.
When, as in this caes, a party is trying to deny the Constitutional rights of a
group of people for no rationally-based reason, they deserve to be on as short a
track as possible. here's hoping Utah loses this request too.
So . . . they want more money and more time. Let's see, these are lawyers,
right? Is anyone surprised?
Look, Utah.YOU wanted the stay and YOU want this to go to the 10th. If you don't already know what your arguments are, one can only ask
"Why?"Do your work. Instead of fiddling and hiring outside
help, why didn't you just prepare your case?OR....is our AG's
office still not qualified?