JasonlivyWe live in such a sexually charged society that people are
getting bored of being heterosexual I completely believe that many are giving up
heterosexuality to jump on the homosexual bandwagon for many reasons. And they
would say, what's wrong with that?LDS4There may be some,
especially women, who may be open to experimenting and some may decide to
"switch teams", but how many of those people would otherwise have happy
long term heterosexual relationships if SSM remained illegal? VERY FEW! My
guess is that they'd remain single and have relationships with both sexes.
It's not worth denying a large group of people their constitutional rights
of equality and equal protection to keep so few from something that is only
Bob Bohey: Where, may I ask, is there any state in the United States of America
where any religion has been established by the state? There is a myth out there,
perpetuated by some that separation of church and state was meant to disallow
religion in the public square. There are far too many citizens who don't
understand the difference between a state established religion that our founders
pledged their honor to keep from happening and allowing religion in the public
square, which they not only wanted, but understood the necessity of in a free
republic, all of which is ironic because of the athiest's position, which
is to allow their opinion in the public square at the expense of everybody
else's opinion! Please do some research (a little is all that is needed) to
know exactly the truth on this matter!
I oppose their opposition to the state's request for more time.
@jasonlevy: Your comment says far more about you than it does about society or
our fellow citizens.Speaking as a certified, card-carrying
heterosexual, who enjoys the love, companionship and intimacy of my wife of 30+
years, and who has only ever had romantic interests in women, I find your
statement impossible to believe as something a heterosexual would say.Some 95% of us men and women are straight, only attracted to the opposite sex,
constitutionally incapable of forming a romantic bond with our own sex. Of the
remaining 5%, some may have found themselves pushed early on towards
"normal" relationships, but those pressured relationships usually fall
apart. With the exception of true bisexuals, and they're probably a
similarly small number, the only people you'll see "switching
sides" are people who were pressured, through guilt, fear, or belief, into a
relationship that could never work for them. I hope and pray your comment is
not because you're personally bitter from a similar experience.
There are already truckloads of briefs against same-sex marriage available. All
the appellant attorneys have to do is cut and paste what they think are the best
parts. This shouldn't be any harder than a college student plagiarizing
wikipedia for a term paper, two days work, tops. I don't know how many
man-years (and woman-years) have already gone into case preparations arguing
against marriage equality before all the various state and federal courts to
date, but this case and these arguments are as mature as they're ever going
to get. Although hope springs eternal, ten more days isn't going to turn
up anything new that the conservative think tanks haven't already tried.
The fact that all the previous cases have lost doesn't mean the
facts were wrong. Perhaps they just weren't presented right. But, the
facts aren't going to change in ten more days, the weight of all those
losses clouds the chances of this appeal, and this is little more than stalling
lds4gaymarriage:One of the natural consequences of promoting
gay/lesbian relationships is that it will inevitably cause many to stumble. We
live in such a sexually charged society that people are getting bored of being
heterosexual. There are more than you think that let their curiosity get the
best of them and without an understanding of sexual morality, what's to
stop them from participating? Society is in the process of normalizing
homosexuality and it is no longer taboo. People who have struggled to find their
place in the world are being welcomed with open arms into the homosexual
community if they subscribe to their way of thinking. This sexual confusion,
especially among our youth, will cause many to make very regrettable life
choices. Thus they are on the path to chaos and misery.The end
result for those who are fighting for the homosexual lifestyle does not end with
gay marriage, but for society to consider homosexuality as a moral and normal
way to live. And, yes, I completely believe that many are giving up
heterosexuality to jump on the homosexual bandwagon for many reasons. And they
would say, what's wrong with that?
@SeriousYour first post: Love is a choice. The law recognizes
heterosexual love-marriage only.The second: Marriage is financial
protection for straight couples, not gay couples because they do not have
children. Gay marriage is immoral.The last: Discrimination is not
immoral. You say you chose, discriminated. Yes, we all do.But then
you say: Marriage is biology, the "make up" of women and men is
"different yet complimentary." (Did you mean complementary, or both
words, but not just the word you used?)Well, you are serious. So am
I. Your posts seem confused about why, or about how other people can be just as
serious for other reasons. That could be why we married different people.Biology - nature - does not have intentions or have to be
"proved" by humans, by marriage. And human nature is as variable as the
number of human beings.Some of those things may be true for you and
your marriage.Some are true for me and mine.Don't we
agree to disagree about some things, seriously? And we both belong to the human
race. Isn't that progress?
aunt lucy: "Why all the litigation. The majority has already spoken. This
issue was decided by a state vote."Dear Lucy, America is a
secular representative democracy. Now, what that means is, if one lives anywhere
in the union, lets say a state,that has a majority of lets say, one particular
religion and that religion wants to create a law based on it's beliefs and
that law is deemed to infringe upon the rights of a minority as judged by the
United States Supreme Court based upon the Constitution of the United States of
America then that law is deemed unconstitutional and invalid. A great example of
this type of democracy is the rulings that struck down prop. 8 in Cal. and DOMA.
These are the types of issues that true fighters for freedom hold out to the
world of examples of a free and great nation that our founding fathers
envisioned and so many have fought and died for.I hope you found
this informative and pass it along any chance you get. Have a great day.
Words such as discrimination, and equality, is for pushing in an unwanted law.
SeriousYou have the same rights as anyone. You, being a male, can marry a
female should you so choose, just like anyone else. The law is the same for
everyone. If you don't want to marry a female, that is your choice.LDS4If you change the words male/female to White/Black, that is what the
voters in the South told the Lovings 60 years ago.SeriousMarriage binds the couple so that his or her income is their income and his or
her retirement is their retirement. A homosexual couple needs no such
protections as they can NEVER have children together.LDS4What do
retirement, Social Security and pension protections/benefits have to do with
having kids? Don’t childless heterosexual couples need & receive
those same benefits/protections?JasonlivyPeople are choosing
this lifestyle over a heterosexual…LDS4Do you REALLY believe
that a guy, who is naturally attracted to women, will simply choose to have
relations with men because it’s fashionable?SeriousDiscrimination isn't immoral. We do it all the time.LDS4It’s one thing for people to do so and another or government to do so
when no harm comes from it.
The states position seems a bit duplicitous to me. They were all for an
expedited appeal until SCOTUS grsnted the stay, and the judge in OK made the
same ruling. Oh, to the lawyers for the state: Look up the word
"fulsome". It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
@lovelydeseret, A couple things. 1) we are not a democracy, we are a
constitutional republic. 2) the 14th amendment takes prescedsnce over the 10th
amendment. Each amendment modifies all previous ones as applicable. The 14th
amendment explicitly bound the states to the provisions of equal protection. 3)
how is assuring that all citizens are treated equally bad for the country?
When, as in this case, a party is trying to deny the Constitutional rights of a
group of people for no rationally-based reason, and especially when that party
first requested that its appeal be fast-tracked and is now trying to renege on
that request, they deserve to be on as short a track as possible. here's
hoping Utah loses this request too.
EDM, Leslie,Yes, I'm serious. Discrimination isn't
immoral. We do it all the time. Colleges discriminate against those with lower
IQs. People who are dating discriminate against less attractive candidates. When
I was dating, I discriminated against those who were much older, younger, family
members, less attractive people, and those of the same gender. The NFL
discriminates against females and less athletic people. In marriage laws, we
discriminate against family members marrying. But I guess that's wrong
because it's discrimination!The make up of a female and a male
is so different yet complimentary, no other combination of people can do and
become what a male and female can. You can't replace a bride with another
groom and possible thing it's in any way equal. The biggest argument
against gay marriage isn't religious, not by a long shot. It's
biology. Our very make-ups that dictate that a man belongs with a woman and
The state of Utah has already decided whether or not we want same-sex marriage.
This matter should be settled.Just because an emboldened and loud,
albeit, small minority are trying to convince us that homosexuality should be
socially acceptable, taught to our kids, and isn't immoral does not mean we
will conform to their wishes. We know it's immoral and is poison to our
society, the same as any immoral act. We should never condone homosexuality as
moral or right.My thoughts are for the children. We need to provide
them with the best upbringing we can and that is with the unique character
traits of a father and a mother. That is natural, that is moral, that is right!
Children deserve to be reared with every advantage we have at our disposal. God
will hold us accountable if we do not.Currently the homosexual
lifestyle is trendy and, in many places, encouraged! People are choosing this
lifestyle over a heterosexual one because of social pressures and trends. Many
are purporting that it's actually better for society! The more we embrace
it the more harm it does the children. Is this to be our legacy?
I logged on this morning to read the news and see what people have to say about
the current issues. While I see increasing calls for love and kindness, I am sad
to see so many people make rash judgments about their LGBT brothers and sisters
based on misinformation. I think it's time many of us listen to one another
so that we can really know the source of our real damage; it's not what you
think it may be.
Serious, You can't be serious! Suggesting that a gay person
marry someone of the opposite sex just because it's allowed? Now let's get really serious: Discrimination is immoral.
@Serious: Are you serious? (
I am not "embracing vice" by supporting the rights of others to do as
they wish with no harm to myself. Whether SSM harms society or not is probably
in the eye of the beholder. I haven't seen any evidence of it.
@banderson: Despite what you write, world wide, humans will continue to have
offspring at an unsustainable rate regardless of any single definition of
@LovelyDeseret: Victim-hood?Claiming a man and woman need marriage
because of "accidentally" children; claiming they will not marry because
another couple - two men or two women - can marry; and claiming an end to the
human race, if same-sex couples marry; that is creating victim-hood.It proclaims, at best, heterosexuals are "victims of biology" and this
meaning and purpose is served by marriage. Or, at worst, most homosexuals marry
for love, but some heterosexuals marry to receive a public "pardon" and
their children are some kind of "punishment."I worry about
those "accidental" children learning of gestation and calendar math.
Despite all the reasons given by their parents, many will develop questions
about why and when parents married, the meaning of sex and love and the purpose
of marriage. I hope the children understand marriage is neither reward, nor
punishment; and wrong-doing was neither cause nor result.Love is
hard to know or teach, harder still to understand in another, and so readily
misunderstood in ourselves. But love, like faith, can withstand all doubt.
Marriage can too.
Why all the litigation. The majority has already spoken. This issue was
decided by a state vote.
I'd love the 10th Cir to suggest a quid pro quo: a delay in the briefing
deadline for the state's withdrawal of its stay of the district
court's ruling. That would show a bit of class by UT.
@SeriousThere are no requirements in marriages regarding producing
children. Homosexuals can adopt (after all, the state allows single people to
“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien. As to be hated needs but to be
seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then
Furthermore, The purpose of marriage is to bind a male and a female so
that their children can have intact families. Often, because of the huge task of
raising and caring for children, one spouse often has to stay home to take care
of the little ones full time which leads to limited opportunities for income or
career advancement for that individual. Marriage binds the couple so that his or
her income is their income and his or her retirement is their retirement. A
homosexual couple needs no such protections as they can NEVER have children
together. All this talk of rights is just a smoke screen so that the
state will endorse a relationship which many view as immoral as moral.
LeslieDF,You have the same rights as anyone. You, being a male, can marry
a female should you so choose, just like anyone else. The law is the same for
everyone. If you don't want to marry a female, that is your choice.
Gay marriage is not only a clear and present danger to marriage, but to a
civilized society! 50 years ago Roe V Wade sent 50 million babies (and
counting) to extinction, and as cultures disintegrate under the pretense of
freedom from the only definition of marriage that guarantees a culture's
survival-marriage between a man and a women, gay marriage will some day be
viewed in a similar context! Children are to be valued and the means by which
they can best flourish is with a mother and a father!
After being made to wait 33 years, my husband and I married in 2008, in San
Francisco. We waited again, another year, to learn, if our marriage was still
valid. Then we waiting another 5 years for federal recognition of our
marriage.Now we are waiting, again, for a decision about pensions -
being surviving spouses, in the event one of us dies. He retired in 2001. I
retired in June 2013, just before the Windsor decision.I guess
people who have never had to wait cannot comprehend what jeopardy means for
seniors, on fixed incomes, who do not have full, equal, rights, yet.Surely the legal team in Utah can decipher in a few days the arguments given
for the passage of Amendment 3, ten years ago. Or do they think the people who
were actually affected just disappeared, or died?
Deseret News, Dec. 2, 2013, "In leaving Monday, Swallow has four years of
service in state government to nearly the day and qualifies for a state pension
when he turns 65. He began working as chief deputy to his predecessor, Attorney
General Mark Shurtleff, on Dec. 1, 2009." So, the last Attorney General
delayed his departure, to the day, to get his pension. Now, "Utah asked for
a 10-day extension Friday. The state pointed to the recent hiring of three new
attorneys ..." But the court said, "Requests for extension of time are
very strongly discouraged and will be considered only under extraordinary
circumstances." The extraordinary circumstances are, after a
"scandal-ridden 11 months as Utah's top cop, "the last Attorney
General resigned in disgrace, stalled to get his pension, now the new Attorney
General is not up to the task of representing the state, but the Governor wants
to win and has two million dollars. Good reasons for a delay, malfeasance,
incompetence, and a lot of taxpayer's money. But how about the rights of
Derek Kitchen and Moudi Sbeity? Anyone have an extra two million?
They have already had a month, even allowing that the State failed miserably to
prepare for a perfectly obvious verdict, thus did not plan the appeal soonerMeanwhile, the Gay couples are singing:First you say you,
then you don'tThen you say you will, but then you won'tYou're undecided now, so what are you gonna do?Not knowing
the outcome, prudent Gay families will have to spend thousands on legal
documents regarding healthcare permissions, inheritance, kids, property, etc.,
as well as separate taxes, health insurance, and so on.--- No one on the
anti-equality side has mentioned that on the DNYou left the door
wide open, Utah, and said it was legal to come in--- Now you want people
to mill about in limbo, possibly for more than a year.
No more delaying equal rights to all.
I can see how democracy suffers irreparably if marriage is allowed to be
redefined in Utah. But how do same-sex couples suffer irreparable harm? You don't hear of one same sex couple from California whose
marriages licenses were annulled by the California Supreme Court after Gavin
Newsome gave them the licenses, you don't hear them saying that their lives
were irreparably harmed. I think we are creating victim-hood in hopes of winning
a court case. I don't think that is honest.
Justice delayed is justice denied, let's get on with it.