I still fail to agree with the LGBT community's claims of
"equality" as the driving argument for same-sex marriage. I believe
that the "equality" and "equal rights" were - and are - good
arguments for skin color, race, creed, religion, etc. But to base an equal
rights argument on a behavior that is morally wrong is way too much of a
stretch. I'm all for "equal rights", but I don't see the
justification of using it as an argument in this case. I'm
really glad the 10th circuit court is giving this more time for judicial review
instead of rushing in as judge Shelby did.
Utah should continue to drag their feet...it's the only thing that will
slow the state being thrown into the future.
Everyone knows that the only reasons presented in any court case against
marriage equality are moral disapproval or religious disapproval --- nothing
with a legal basis.I think Utah is stalling, hoping that some other
State's case will be ruled on first by the Supreme Court, so that Utahns
will be saved the embarrassment of having brought the case that led to a 50
State decision that equal marriage rights apply.We all can see where
this is going.Now, I would like to see the lds church get out of the
way on the issue, and I would love to see mormon-born Gay people able to fully
participate in their religion and communities.
The State of Utah has had years to create a legal case for why gay marriage
should not be allowed, beginning with their faulty legal rationale behind the
amendment. Why does anyone think they will be able to pull together a legal
argument in a week that will address this issue when they haven't been able
to come up with one yet that could withstand legal scrutiny? Especially since no
one, anywhere, and been able to do so.
All Utah could do is play hurry up, and now they want delays. Make up your
Dear Bob K:"Mormon-born gay people" (or those who struggle
with SSA) can CURRENTLY fully participate in all LDS Church activities including
temple worship. All they have to do is live the law of chastity the same as any
other member. No blessing is withheld from any child of God, no matter who they
are, as long as they live a righteous life.
It is significant that my state, Virginia, is now joining the fight for
equality.The new Governor, Attorney General and Lieutenant General
the three of them just run and won on a platform supporting Same Sex marriage
and the Affordable Care Act.The state that gave us Virginia vs.
Loving seem headed to the Supreme Court to battle for equality under the law.In 2004 Virginia put a ban on the VA Constitution 57% voted on favor of
bigotry. Now the number has been reduced to 43% with 50% of Virginians in favor
of SSM.Utah, Oklahoma and now Virginia are pressing for the SCOTUS
to rule on the issue.I am surprised that Utah needed an extension
when they have been advising all states in what to do about SSM. Well, I hope
they have a very good NEW argument, the old rationale obviously didn't
HereSandy, UT"But to base an equal rights argument on a behavior
that is morally wrong is way too much of a stretch. I'm all for "equal
rights", but I don't see the justification of using it as an argument
in this case."--- Millions of people swear to you that their
love identification is with the same sex.--- You want to reduce
their love and what God put into their hearts to "behavior"--- And even if it were just behavior, your moral disqualification has nothing
to do with legal rights, or, in my opinion, with how Jesus told us to deal with
Here said:"I still fail to agree with the LGBT community's claims
of "equality" as the driving argument for same-sex marriage. I believe
that the "equality" and "equal rights" were - and are - good
arguments for skin color, race, creed, religion, etc. "Got news
for you, creed and/or religion are choices based on feeling, and are on equal
footing with gay marriage, if you still believe that being gay is a choice (I
personally don't believe such nonsense, since I never decided which sex
I'm attracted to.)
So many of the comments so far are emotional, not taking into account the nature
of the legal system.First, the court expects a brief that is
factual, cogent and well organized. If the state has to "throw
together" something at the last minute it actually wastes the court's
time (Some contend that the whole appeal process is a waste of the court's
time.)Second, although the position of the State of Utah is both
supported and decried on the basis of its "moral" underpinning, the
legal case to be presented isn't about morals at all. It is about a couple
of things: Does a state have a right to maintain laws in the legal arena of
marriage without federal intrusion or intervention, and Do the people of a state
have a right as a majority to pass a state constitutional amendment defining
marriage that can stand in exception to the laws of other states and the federal
government?This decision, after ruled upon by the Supreme Court will
be used in many other areas than just marriage. I expect it to have
ramifications on taxing rules, gun control, voter registration, and a bunch of
It is perfectly normal for the court to grant an extension. If the other side
wanted an extension they would get it, too.
Okay try this one on for a legal argument. Marriage law is and always has been
locally administered. The Feds have thankfully stayed out of this area for
hundreds of years. It is the states and local govt place and right to define
what marriage is and isn't. It has worked and should be allowed to
continue. The founders who understood marriage quite well purposely did not
suggest in any form that marriage was a federally constituted right. It was not
then and is not now. It isn't there folks. It is absolutely clear where
marriage administration is founded. WITH THE STATES. Best legal argument there
has ever been
I don't think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints will "get
out of the way". This is an issue of great importance to The Church. True,
it might make things more difficult for The Church. But the Church cannot, and
I would be sure, will not, change the Lord's commandments. If the Church
acquiesced and "(got) out of the way" on such moral issues, it would
cease to be Jesus' church. The Church is not
“judging” people. It is standing up for one of the most important
moral issues of the day and trying to keep it’s religious freedoms
guaranteed in the constitution. Yes, many of us can see where this could be
headed. But that is no reason to give up.Judges are not infallible. I
suppose they do the best they can. But judges have ruled many things legal that
the Lord still prohibits if one wants to participate fully as a church member.
I think the Swallow scandal is a more than adequate reason for granting an
The problem here is that the State of Utah, at first, wanted the appeal to be
fast-tracked and the 10th Circuit went along with their request. Now
they're dragging their heels. If they really wanted it fast-tracked, as
they claimed, they should be prepared to meet the expedited briefing schedule
set by the court. It's pretty clear that the State knows it ha a loser
case, and is trying to delay the inevitable as long as possible.If
the State wants to be fair and equitable in getting its requested extension, it
should not penalize the people whose lives it is putting in upheaval. It should
agree (1) that all the marriages contracted in the 17 days in which SSM was
operative are legally contracted marriages not subject to challenge or
nullification and, (2) if the State delays much longer, the stay of Judge
Shelby's decision should be lifted during the time the State is dragging
its heels. Fair is fair.
@jefferison As the courts have already indicated In their ruling In
virginia vs loving the states do not have a complete free rein when it comes to
marriage, any laws regardless of the issue cannot violate federal laws or the
feredal constitution at this point the lower courts have said amendment 3 does
we will have to wait and see what happens.
It's only 7 days. Why didn't Shelby stay his own opinion and then the
clock for the appeal would have started that much sooner?
@HereWhat religious freedoms do you or I lose if they are allowed to
The Supreme Court ruled in Windsor that marriage is a state's right, they
don't call it a civil right. That is the legal basis for the 10th Circuit
appeal. The state must also show that they have a compelling interest in
establishing that law. That is the higher burden. That takes time to get all the
data.The 10th Circuit should give Utah all the time it needs to form the
Great comment Bob K! Yes, Utah will be remembered for having brought the case
before the Supreme Court that may lead to a 50-State decision that equal
marriage rights apply. Quite ironic indeed!
@here 2Allow me to clarify. What freedoms does the church lose if they are
allowed to marry? The church can still say it's morally wrong, they can
still deny them access to the temple if they do not live the law of chastity.
I do not understand what rights are being taken from the church or it's
There are many arguments for man/woman marriage that focus solely on the need
for marriage to be in a form that can create children to focus all child rearing
within marriage as much as possible and to connect marriage to child rearing.
The state has a vested interest in seeking to have as many children as possible
be raised by their own biological parents.It would help discussion
on this matter a lot if people accepted that this is a reasonable set of goals.
They may not be goals others hold, but to try and act like these goals do not
exist at all, just leads to needless animosity and hate being shown by those who
oppose man/woman marriage.
The fear is that churches, synagogues, and mosques will have to perform same-sex
marriages if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land. Already, bakers,
florists, photographers, etc. cannot deny a same-sex couple the professional
services requested for a wedding. Already, teachers must be very careful not to
discriminate by saying "Ask your mommies and daddies," or the like.
Already, business executives and celebrities risk their careers by stating that
they do not think same-sex marriage is morally right. If it were a matter of a
legal union that provided equal benefits and privileges with married couples,
few would object. People who believe strongly in religions that stress chastity
can't just abandon their God's commandments. I can totally understand
how gay couples feel. I wish there were a way to make everyone feel loved,
respected, and happy. LDS who are gay can be chaste -- though it might require
almost superhuman effort -- and remain active, but most gay people are not LDS.
We need a new Solomon, and the Supreme Court is as close as we can come before
@Jefferson, Thomas"The Feds have thankfully stayed out of this area
for hundreds of years. "They (via the courts) got involved in
interracial marriage bans. @Here"I don't think The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints will "get out of the way".
This is an issue of great importance to The Church. True, it might make things
more difficult for The Church. But the Church cannot, and I would be sure, will
not, change the Lord's commandments."I assume 'get out
of the way' only meant that the church wouldn't get involved in things
like Prop 8, not that the church would change their rules for who they marry.
@John Pack Lambert of Michigan"There are many arguments
for man/woman marriage that focus solely on the need for marriage to be in a
form that can create children to focus all child rearing within marriage as much
as possible"Utah lets single people adopt, let's parents
divorce, and has no child requirement for marriages. If they use that argument,
they will lose."who oppose man/woman marriage."Nobody opposes man/woman marriage, they merely support additional type(s).
Before everyone gets over excited, it is common for courts to give reasonable
extensions to parties on showing of good cause. It really doesn't mean
that much. The merit of the arguments are what's important. This is going
to be really interesting....
Lets hope this 'extension' gives the AG and Governor Gary a chance to
realize their are fighting a battle that they simply cannot win. Why don't
we spend that money to find out how deep this John Swallow case really goes...
or something meaningful like public education.
@Gibster,There are already individuals suggesting here in the
comments that once gay marriage is the law of the land then 'Gay
Mormons' will be able to exist completely in the LDS church suggesting that
the church will be forced to accept and allow their marriages in spite of its
doctrine. It is this direction (something already ocuring in Europe - primarily
Holland) that the church wishes to avoid.Some may argue that it
isn't likely, but there is a chance that the next item on the agenda will
be to punish any and all religions which refuse to alter their doctrine to allow
the GLBT community any and all of their demands. Already private businesses are
being sued over the issue. I suspect their might be less objections if a 100%
guarantee could be issued that their will not be further encroachment on
@here;A behavior that is morally wrong is discrimination.
"Morally wrong" is subjective. You do not get to define what is moral
and what is not in our society based on your personal religious beliefs, which
are quite likely in opposition to someone elses beliefs about morality.Cats says:"All they have to do is live the law of chastity the
same as any other member."Guess what, Cat? If we are married to
our partners then we ARE living the 'law of chastity'. You're
trying to prevent that.@Walt Nicholes;The 10th amendment
BANS states from violating federal laws. Amendment 3 violates the 5th and the
14th amendments of the US Constitution (i.e., federal laws).@Jefferson, Thomas;The feds intervened in Loving vs. Va. 1967
wasn't 100's of years ago. You are correct about "marriage
administration" being a state issue; however marriage definition is not when
it violates the rights of Americans.@Here;The LDS church
IS judging people. @JPL;None of us "oppose
man-woman marriage"; we're inclusive, not exclusive.@Janet;Bakers and florists and photographers are not churches.
Your god never said "refuse service to sinners", he said "love your
@john pack lambert So it would help the discussion if we just accept
an argument for which the state was unable to defend in a court of law. When
asked how banning SSM increase the likelyhood of a child being raised by their
bio mother and father the state was unable to provide evidance or even a
"readoable" rational for such an argument. Iit further was unable to
present" reasonable" evidance as to a harm caused to children or
society by SSM. So to accept the argument as "reasonable" for the sake
of moving the conversation along seems well unreasonable.
It is interesting that those who support SSM, many of whom are from out of
State, would have Utah just give up accept what one activist judge has ruled.
The State does have an interest in defending it's position. Proposition 8
in CA was ruled against because the Governor and Att. Gen. would not see due
dilligence to the laws of their state.Judge Shelby should have
imposed a stay immediately after his ruling, Justice Sotomayor essentiaally said
that when she ruled the way she did. Now it is completely understandable that
Utah would ask for an extension to have sufficient time to prepare.It was the US Supreme court thaty helped shape Utah's marriage laws well
over 100 years ago, it is now going to take the US Supreme Court to decide this
@JohnPackLambert: You keep insisting that society's interest in marriage
is solely for the raising of children by their biological parents. This is not
true, and is contradicted by all related governmental policies. Here's the
proof:Sperm banks are legal.Egg banks are legal.Surrogates are legal.Having a baby out-of-wedlock is legal.Abortions by single mothers are discouraged.Adoption is a big business,
and subsidized by the state.Divorce is legal and readily available.Further, if the government did have such an interest, certainly they
would have reacted to the extraordinarily high out-of-wedlock birth percentage
(41%) and divorce rate (50%). Yet, if there are any programs in place to
address these, they've been thoroughly ineffective.We can
therefore safely conclude that the state has either no interest in marriage
regarding bearing or raising of the couple's own biological children, or
has already thoroughly abrogated that responsibility in a half-dozen different
ways.The simple fact of the matter is that the state wishes to
suppress homosexuality and seeks to do so by denying rights to the 5% of its own
citizens who grow up gay.
Gibster, just a note as to how religious liberties have been and will be
affected."... religious liberty concerns in particular. After
Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, DC, either passed a civil union law or
redefined marriage, Christian adoption agencies were forced to stop serving some
of the neediest children in America: orphans. These agencies said they had no
problem with same-sex couples adopting from other agencies, but that they wanted
to place the children in their care with a married mom and dad. They had a
religious liberty interest, and they had social science evidence that suggests
that children do best with a married mom and dad. And yet in all three
jurisdictions, they were told they could not do that."testimony
from Ryan T. Anderson, from this appearance Monday, January 13, 2014 to the
Indiana House Judiciary Committee. Ryan Anderson is co-author of the book
"What is Marriage"
@RocketScience: While it is admirable for a church to establish and support the
operation of a social service agency as inspired by their religious leadings,
that agency is not a church. It is a social service agency, and in these cases
received funding by the state for its services. As such, it needed to operate
under the state's rules. If it is not willing to operate under those
rules, then it can't get the funding.Further, those agencies in
question were, I believe, already placing children with single parents, some of
whom may have been known to be gay. Only after SSM was legalized did they take
their fainting-couch, melodramatic position. And the state, like any good
parent said, "Fine, hold your breath until you turn blue." Now that
same state funding just goes to other adoption agencies. Catholic adoption
agencies were still free to operate without state money, but it turns out they
weren't actually that altruistic.
Each State has an interest in seeing successful families. Unfortunately since
the sexual revolution of the 1960's too large a percentage of families have
deteriorated through increasing divorce rates and irresponsible, out of wedlock
sexual relationships resulting in illigitimacy.Rutgers sociologist
Professor David Popenoe writes, "The burden of social science evidence
supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human
development and the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and
irreplaceable." He then concludes: "We should disavow the notion that
mommies can make good daddies, just as we should the popular notion that daddies
can make good mommies. The two sexes are different to the core and each is
necessary;culturally and biologically;for the optimal development of a human
being."While some truly amazing one parent families do a
fantastic job, it is a tremendous struggle and disadvantage to be without a
mother and a father. This is why 34 states continue with the definition of
marriage as the union of a man and a woman, many doing so by amending their
constitutions. This is why Utah is defending Ammendment 3.
Utah will pay the almighty nickel for all of this - Why?
Classic battle between right and wrong! Very clear: follow the prophet, he
knows the way. He knows the end from the beginning...he sees where this is all
@Quaker is correct. Boston Globe Oct 22 2005: Catholic Charities of
Boston knowingly placed children with gay parents starting in 1987 and continued
for nearly two decades. These were "among the most difficult to place,
either because they had physical or emotional problems or they were older."
Peter Meade, then-chairman of Catholic Charities of Boston board: "I see no
evidence that any child is being harmed" through the adoption by same-sex
couples. The VP of Programs: "the 13 children placed with same-sex couples
fared as well as those adopted by heterosexual couples." The President of
CC Boston said it never sought a religious exemption from the MA
anti-discrimination statutes (which tied state funding to non-discrimination and
long pre-dated SSM in MA)Despite a unanimous vote by the Board of
Catholic Charities to continue gay adoptions, four Mass. Catholic Bishops
decided to pull the plug on the 100+ year adoption services, after their
ham-fisted failure in getting a carve-out from the MA statute and the crass
financial decision to ditch the orphans rather than spend a single dollar on
standing up for "religious liberties".The IL and DC agencies
-chose- similar fates, none 'forced' to stop.
CatsSomewhere in Time, UT"Dear Bob K:"Mormon-born gay
people" (or those who struggle with SSA) can CURRENTLY fully participate in
all LDS Church activities including temple worship. All they have to do is live
the law of chastity the same as any other member. No blessing is withheld from
any child of God, no matter who they are, as long as they live a righteous
life."--- I see nothing different between this and statements by
Southerners 50 years ago.--- That "struggling with SSA"
chestnut is from the 1970s. It is hard to see how folks can be so blind in the
face of millions of people testifying that being Gay is innate to them. The only
reason there is a struggle is old thinking and prejudice.--- I do
not think that God really curses all these people-- your friends, neighbors,
relatives and others -- with this struggle.
Gibster denies that SSM will be inflicted on churches and temples by explaining
the argument for requiring churches and temples to perform same sex marriages.
He/she shows us that going after churches is absolutely a next step for the
pro-homosexual lobby. They need to be stopped at this step.Those who
don't believe in God sanctions SSM should not have to provide any services
for a SSM. They are not discriminating against the people. Birthday cakes for
homosexual people are not a problem. We are all sinners. But to provide services
for a ceremony that mocks their religious beliefs is unthinkable. They should
never be forced to choose to close their business so they can live their
[In light of other comments given, and that you listed 12 vague reasons why it
was denied none of which seem to apply, I have no idea what could possible be
wrong with my OPINION in regards to the article other than you simply want to
deny certain views.]Not even science knows if "being" gay is
a choice.Comparing it to race is an unsupportable comparison.But actively living the lifestyle, participating in homosexual sex, and
behaving gay is a choice.Forcing anyone to support your choice by
forcing their labor or service is wrong and fascistic and bullying.And no state should be required to give you rights, privileges, or official
approval or endorsement because of your choices.The appeal and time
for it is a good thing.
They just hired the counsel for this case 4 days ago. When there is new counsel
brought in, there is time given for them to get up to date on everything. It is
not a special favor by the judge. Those who think a week delay for
the sake of justice is too much to ask need to get over themselves. This is the
United States of America, I am happy to say. Due process is guaranteed, and that
includes reasonable time for preparing your defense.
@ the truthWhen did you choose to be heterosexual?Homosexuality has consistently occurred in the human population at a rate of
about 5%. So you're saying that, every generation, 5% of the people -
millions and millions of people - choose to be gay despite knowing that they
stand a good chance of being rejected, shunned, reviled, assaulted, imprisoned,
and/or murdered. That's just absurd.BTW, something that
consistently occurs over time, regardless of the rate, is by definition a
normally occurring variation. Like left-handedness - something we humans also
recently believed was a sign of immorality.
@toosmartforyou 5:54 p.m. Jan. 21, 2014 Why didn't Shelby stay
his own opinion and then the clock for the appeal would have started that much
sooner?--------------------He didn't stay the
decision because the State didn't ask for a stay in its pre-decision
pleadings. When the decision was handed down, the State went to the 10th
Circuit to ask for a stay, rather than requesting one from Judge Shelby. The
10th Circuit rightly refused the request.
@ BadgerbadgerYou wrote:"Birthday cakes for homosexual people
are not a problem. We are all sinners."Your statement clearly
delineates your way of thinking. You equate homosexuality as a spiritual
flaw.You have the right to believe that way and sincerely offended
we are not. But do you really expect that any court of law will accept that
argument to deny privileges to a sector of the citizenry?Those
against SSM will have to do a lot of window dressing to mask the real reason for
your opposition.Imagine Orthodox Jews claiming that Jehovah is their
God and they are the chosen people. Therefore, no others, should be allow to
marry. Gentiles are not among the selected children of God unless they
convert.We know that conversion to Jewish Orthodoxy is extremely hard.Do this sounds absurd to you? Well, is very close to what you and many others
are proposing.The Orthodox Jewish of my example have no chance to
prevail in court and neither those against SSM who base their arguments in
their religious beliefs.By the way, many of us LGBT and our families
feel very much in harmony with our Heavenly Father.
This could prove to be very, very bad for the State of Utah. The
response from the plaintiffs is due well into the 2014 Legislative session - and
they will have access to lots of new, fresh statements on newly proposed
legislation that may show quite the bias against homosexual individuals. This delay could make it a lot easier for the plaintiffs to prove
I am glad the court provided the additional 7 days. This will take away the
argument that the State did not have enough time to prepare a credible defense.
Sure they had years to prepare and if they think 7 days are going help them it
just confirms they are delusional. No matter what they say in their brief
they are going to come across as being religious zealots on a crusade.
@Cats:"Mormon-born gay people" (or those who struggle with SSA) can
CURRENTLY fully participate in all LDS Church activities including temple
worship. All they have to do is live the law of chastity the same as any other
member. No blessing is withheld from any child of God, no matter who they are,
as long as they live a righteous life."Is promoting
discrimination and actively fighting against equal rights as defined by the
constitution of the U.S. considered to be righteous? if yes w,hat does the
definition of leading a righteous life mean to you?
Last night, the local news stations were highlighting a 'gay' couple
with a innocent child on the lap of his father. As a viewer, I
could not help but be concerned for the child's welfare, any concern for
the father's right to 'marry' another man became secondary.Where is the child's mother?Children have a RIGHT to be
raised in a home with their own father and their own mother honoring marriage
vows and providing, protecting and nurturing their own off-spring
No country with half its people supporting gay behavior, has ever prospered.
@Rocket Science"And yet in all three jurisdictions, they were told
they could not do that."Actually they could, they just
couldn't get gov't subsidies for it. Catholic Charities chose to shut
down its adoption services in Massachusetts but LDSFS continues there without
adopting to same-sex couples because they use their own funding.
@LovelyDeseret: You have severely misinterpreted the Winsor ruling.The Winsor ruling indicated that states do indeed have the authority to
regulate marriage within its borders, HOWEVER, all state laws *must* comport
with the US Constitution. Amendment 3 clearly failed to comport with
the US Constitution. That's why it was correctly struck down.Do
you contend that there is demonstrable harm caused by allowing same sex couples
to marry? That there is a compelling state interest in denying marriage that
overwhelms the constitutional mandate to equal protection of the law? NO such argument has yet been produced that is not rooted in animus.This is why marriage equality is winning in case after case, and will continue
@ Quaker from brooklyn NY, Thanks for emoting the intolerance you have for
those who are concerned about children.
@ iron&clay: "Children have a RIGHT to be raised in a home with their
own father and their own mother honoring marriage vows and providing, protecting
and nurturing their own off-spring."What happens if one parent
dies? What happens if there is a divorce? What happens when the parents
don't honor their marriage vows? What happens if the parents can't
support or nurture their off-spring? What happens when an unmarried woman gets
pregnant?Are you willing to apply this "right" universally,
or does it only apply to children being raised in situations you oppose? As A Quaker asks, what are we supposed to do with children whose
"right" to "their own father and their own mother" gets
violated?As Kalindra points out, this delay may prove very harmful
to the State of Utah. With comments like yours and the comments on the story
about the non-discrimination bill, it is going to be extremely easy for the
plaintiffs to prove animus - especially once the members of the Utah Legislature
start making their comments.
@ Quaker in Brooklyn Here in Utah we have a prevalent notion to care
about one another and especially the innocent.The Book of Mormon is
not a Broadway play. It was translated by a young boy from New York state who
said that when taught correct principles, people can govern themselves.The Book of Mormon teaches us to have our hearts knit together in unity and
love one towards another.When a society cannot control themselves by
obeying the above principle, then you would need to suspend liberty and set up a
new world order collectivist government where Cuomo would dictate intervention
and put offenders in detention.
@Karen R.Whether being heterosexual or homosexual is choice or not
(and again science has no conclusive evidence that it is natural and therefor
you cannot argue it is a civil right) is irrelevant.All you do IS
a choice.How you act and behave is a choice. Having sex and how you
have sex is a choice.Forcing anothers labor and service for you is a
choice.Civil unions, Marriage is a choice.Whether you
believe you are born that way, everything after is a choice.Forcing
others to support your choices is wrong.There is nothing in the
federal constitution about marriage. It is left up to the states and the people
according to the tenth amendment.The crux of the matter is gays
argue they need marriage to have certain rights, I do not believe that is
so.Getting government out of marriage period would better for all
and solve all problems.Let the churches do what they want and let
the people do what they want. That is true freedom.And if some one
chooses not support your choices then so be it, live and let live.
@ Here"I believe that the "equality" and "equal
rights" were - and are - good arguments for skin color, race, creed,
religion, etc. But to base an equal rights argument on a behavior that is
morally wrong is way too much of a stretch."The equality has to do
with marrying someone with a compatible sexual orientation, which straights get
to do but not gays...ergo: not equal. If you disagree, I take it you have no
problem offering your daughter to marry a gay man and having a loveless life
(ever after). Or is it that you think gay people should just be expected to
remain celibate and lonely? PS, sexual orientation is not itself a behavior.
Whereas acting ignorant and spiteful, well those are behaviors thare morally
@the truth So how exactly are you "forced to support" their
choice? All you are going to have to do is get out of the way so they can be
free to make thier own choices. Beyond that you are not being "forced to
support" their choices anymore then anyone else is being "forced to
support" any of the many choices you make on a daily bases.
@ the truthReligion is a choice. Some have chosen gay-friendly
versions. Others have chosen versions with less than gay-friendly views. In
Utah and several other states, the less than friendly groups made a choice to
deny some of their fellow citizens the choice to marry whomever they please - a
choice they freely enjoy themselves. Why should gay-friendly religions and gay
people be forced to abide by the choices of the less than friendly's? Live
and let live, right?
They are doomed. Wait til the other side brings up #12 of the Articles of
The State of Utah as no valid legal basis upon which to argue that the SSM ban
passes Federal Constitutional muster. Waiting one week isn't going to help
them at all. It will, however, give a few high-priced lawyers more time to rack
up billable hours on the backs of the taxpayers.