To suggest that those with a different point of view have nothing to say is
bigoted. It is ironic that there is so much close-mindedness when
it comes to considering that there may be a case for traditional marriage.
A brief response to those who claim that majorities of voters (even two-thirds
of Utahans) have the right to enact any state constitutional amendment they like
(such as those banning interracial marriage in many states, which the Supreme
Court struck down in Loving v. Virginia in the '70s). The answer is in the
Constitution you profess to worship: The 14th amendment provides that "no
state shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws." Article
VI provides that "this Constitution, and laws enacted pursuant thereto,
shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
contrary notwithstanding." Awkward wording, but the point is clear:
provisions or amendments in any state constitution (including Utah) that deny
equal protection, which Amendment 3 clearly does) are flatly unconstitutional.
Don't like it? Then repeal the 14th amendment. Otherwise, keep religion
out of the laws.
Quantity not quality, I guess.
"Singling out a single class from a field of equally disqualified classes is
irrational and arbitrary. No amount of pages will help Utah explain
otherwise."Excellent point. As it is now, if the paramount
concern is stable child-rearing environments, Amendment 3 includes even the MOST
reprobate opposite sex-couples, but excludes even the MOST exemplary same-sex
@Objectified(Tooele,UT)...... You said "Non-married individuals have been
able to adopt in Utah for many years."Yes, INDIVIDUALS many be
adoptive parents. BUT two unmarried individuals can NOT BOTH be adoptive
parents of the same child in the State of Utah. If Utah refuses to honor the
legal marriage certificates of same sex married couples who migrate to Utah from
another state where Same Sex Marriage is legal, then Utah can also refuse to
honor the adoption paperwork showing two married gay people BOTH as parents of
the same child. I wonder if Utah plans to post highway patrolmen at the borders
to confiscate marriage certificates and adoption papers? Maybe they'll
also have to check the gender of all individuals entering Utah to make certain
they aren't the same sex. Border crossings into Utah could be painfully
slow and awkward.
As @Marco explains, Utah’s basis to appeal is narrow: did Judge Shelby err
-- as a matter of law -- in granting summary judgment? The 10th Cir. will look
at pleadings Shelby had before him and binding precedent to affirm or reverse.
The lowest standard of review of a law that excludes a class of
citizens from exercising a fundamental right (such as marriage, per SCOTUS) is
‘rational basis’ which asks whether the exclusion of that particular
class bears a rational relationship to achieving a legitimate state interest.
Utah may have a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation,
stable child-rearing, etc. But critically, Utah failed to explain how a law
that excludes a single class of citizens (all same sex couples) is rationally
related to achieving those desired outcomes, when the law permits all other
classes of couples that fail to achieve those same desired outcomes, as much if
not worse, as Utah presumes to be case with same-sex couples (ex. opposite sex
couples that are infertile, abusive, addicted, mentally ill (untreated), or
neglectful).Singling out a single class from a field of equally
disqualified classes is irrational and arbitrary. No amount of pages will help
Utah explain otherwise.
"Tell that to the bakery shop owner in New Mexico." The law in New
Mexico was a state law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. In
other words, a states right issue. I find it ironic that many who want to use
states right as an avenue to cu off same sex marriage are not willing to allow
room for other states to make the laws as they see fit. There is no way the
Feds will invalidate these state laws on first amendment grounds. This was
already tried with public accommodation laws based on race. The courts rejected
the idea of being the arbitrators of what services are considered essential or
which business domains could be considered "religious". You
can't allow the wedding vendors to use religion as a basis for
discrimination but not allow the car mechanic or any other business to do so.BTW, the NM case dealt with a photographer. The oft cited cases in OR
and CO dealt with bakeries.
@J.Chang:While you're citing Mormon teachings, why not look at
the Articles of Faith? Your missionaries bring these to our living rooms.11) "...allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how,
where, or what they may."12) "We believe in being subject
to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and
sustaining the law."13) "We believe in ... doing good to
all men; ... If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or
praiseworthy, we seek after these things."Let's look at
these, in reverse order, and what they say to a naive layman like myself on the
issue of allowing homosexuals to marry each other:I see goodness,
praiseworthiness and virtue in every couple that makes a loving, lifetime
commitment to care for each other. Can't you?I see the Circuit
Court, with its training and judicial acumen, and appointment to the bench by
the Executive and Legislature, has ruled on the law of the land. Can't
you?I see how your religious beliefs differ from mine. I'm
willing to forego enshrining my religion in the secular law. Can't you?
@J.Chang The Family A Proclamation to the World "...marriage between a man
and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the
Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."The following religions are blessed with very special access to the CORRECT
moral truth for which your religion is not privy. They all honor and perform
same-sex marriages:Affirming Pentecostal Church InternationalAlliance of Christian ChurchesAnointed Affirming Independent
MinistriesThe Association of Welcoming and Affirming BaptistsChristian Church (Disciples of Christ)Community of ChristConservative JudaismEcumenical Catholic ChurchEcumenical Catholic
CommunionThe Episcopal ChurchEvangelical Anglican Church In
AmericaEvangelical Lutheran Church in AmericaGlobal Alliance of
Affirming Apostolic PentecostalsInclusive Orthodox ChurchMetropolitan Community ChurchOld Catholic ChurchProgressive
Christian AllianceReconciling Pentecostals InternationalReconstructionist JudaismReform JudaismReformed Anglican Catholic
ChurchReligious Society of Friends (Quakers)Unitarian Universalist
ChurchUnited Church of ChristUnity Church@Vanceone"In other news, the 9th Circuit just okayed punishing (religious)
psychologists who disagree with SSM; ....."Tonight try "Praying
YOUR own Sexual Orientation away" then come back in the morning and let us
know how its working.
@iron&clay: Can we please dispense with the ignorant fear-mongering?The "H" in HIV is "Human." It's a disease that
anyone can get, not just from sex, gay or straight, but from improper medical
practices or accidental exposure to someone else's blood. Worldwide, over
95% of all cases, and all deaths have been heterosexuals, which makes it a
"straight" disease. It's epidemic in entire countries.Monogamous gay couples, just like monogamous straight couples, have little
risk of HIV/AIDS, and lesbian couples have less risk than straight couples. If
you're concerned about lowering the incidence of HIV, one of the best ways
of promoting monogamy is to encourage marriage. Right now, the fastest growing
segment of the American population with HIV is heterosexual senior citizens, who
are apparently having a lot more unprotected casual sex than we thought.As for "the innocent children," why don't you worry a bit
more about the innocent children currently rotting in orphanages, unwanted, with
no one to even foster them? Or the 41% (1.6 million) of all American births
@Objectified;"It was a two-thirds majority who approved the
state's current definition of marriage defined as being between a man and a
woman."It doesn't matter how many people "approve"
of a violation of the Constitution, it is still a violation of the Constitution.
You do NOT get to vote on other people's rights.@J.Chang;I don't believe in your prophets. I don't believe in your
"proclamation". I don't have to follow it, as I also have the
freedom to choose which religious beliefs I'll follow. Stop trying to
force us to live by your beliefs.
@Razzle2Same Sex Marriage is illegal in Oregon---Oregon
state government recognized out of state SSM.====@SoCal"Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment, which became law after
ratification by a super majority of states. The right to vote was guaranteed to
women by the 19th Amendment"----and yet, Mississippi
did not ratify 13th amendment by 1995, 19th amendment by 1984. if slaves and
women have to wait for a popular support in their own state, not from federal
intervene, they have to wait long long time.
@ Constitution is King:Your example is full of fallacies. Utah has
never taken away anyone's adoption papers who were received in another
state... especially because of the same-sex marriage issue being different
between states. I would like for you to name even one example when that has
happened. You can't, because it hasn't.Another made-up
scare tactic scenario by ultra-left wing ideologists who can't make there
case with pragmatism. Non-married individuals have been able to
adopt in Utah for many years. Please do a bit more research before making such
The FamilyA Proclamation to the World...marriage between a man
and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the
Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.All
human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each
is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has
a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual
premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.The family is
ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal
plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be
reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the
teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.
@ Hutterite:I've been following arguments on both sides of this
issue. I'm objectively convinced there is more "obfuscation" coming
from the pro-SSM left side than from the pro-traditional side. Open-mindedness
will almost certainly verify that... though both sides participate.@
yarrlydarb:Having lived in Utah and associated with a vast array of
it's citizens in different regions, I can assure you there are more people
in Utah who feel your very liberal stance is considered more
"ridiculous" than those who might agree with what you contrarily feel is
ridiculous in this matter. It was a two-thirds majority who approved
the state's current definition of marriage defined as being between a man
and a woman. Polls since that time vary widely, depending on the wording of any
particular poll, making most somewhat questionable.Though your
non-tolerant approach apparently keeps you from understanding it, there are
definitely social and societal implications with this issue that need to be
thoroughly addressed... much further than your single-purpose opinion is
apparently capable of considering. As such, Utah's money will be well
spent, regardless of the court outcome.
@Vanceone"In other news, the 9th Circuit just okayed punishing
psychologists who disagree with SSM; putting a gag order on them."-------California passed the law to ban conversion therapy because
it is harmful. but that is only for minors, an adult who wants to change his
sexual orientation can still seek for such "treatment", if he believes
it will work (well, good luck with that). And that law only applies to
California.California has a system of direct democracy. voters can
put referendum on ballot and vote down such law if them don’t like it. But
this law's opponents could not even get enough signatures. Didn't that
failure tell you something?
For those of you in favor of banning same-sex marriage, consider this case:One of Utah's large corporations has strong connections with the
state of Iowa where same-sex marriage is fully legal. A legally married same-sex
couple and their two children in Iowa are being transferred to Utah by the
employer of the family's primary breadwinner. If they refuse the transfer,
they will be unemployed. If the couple moves to Utah, Utah officials will greet
them at the border and demand that they hand over their marriage certificate and
become "unmarried". Utah officials will strip the adoption papers from
the hands of the parents, and the children will be no longer considered to have
two parents. This NIGHTMARISH example is what you are supporting when you
support Amendment 3, banning same sex marriage in Utah. The ban against
same-sex marriage is nightmarishly anti-family and DISMANTLES existing families
moving in from other states.
It will obviously take a long, long, long, brief to list all the negative impact
on innocent children, HIV/AIDS, and 1st Amendment rights that 'same sex
marriage will have on society.
For those who are arguing "States Rights" to continue the ban against
same-sex marriage:1. States do have a constitutionally protected
right to make their own laws... BUT, those laws MUST be consistent with ALL
parts of the US Constitution. The ban against same-sex marriage conflicts with
amendment 14 of the US Constitution. States do NOT have the right to override
the US Constitution. 2. Who speaks for the State of Utah today??? Is
it the voters from the distant past? or is it today's voters? A majority
of today's voters now support marriage equality and that majority INCREASES
@MontPugmire: Speaking for myself, as a proponent of marriage equality,
you're entitled to be just as opinionated as you like, and say whatever you
want. We have free speech in this country.But, by their words ye
shall know them.If you consistently say bigoted things, you will
become known as a bigot. This is not incivility. It's merely descriptive.
Meanwhile, you're free to describe yourself as a "religious
traditionalist," a "states rights advocate," or whatever makes you
happy. But, unless you change your tune, you'll remain a bigot in the
eyes, and free speech, of others.--- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- ---Regarding "people of
conscience" being prosecuted for illegal discrimination:Imagine
one of the followers of a Christian Identity Movement church, owning a business
that only served those he considered ideal Aryans. No Hispanics, Asians,
Blacks, Jews, Moslems, First Nations ("Indians"), Gays, Catholics or
Mormons. That's his honest, conscience-driven belief, supported by his
church. Should he be immune from nondescrimination law because of his religion?
The courts say no.--- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- --- ---We don't have mob rule in
America. Not from pulpits, nor the ballot box. Guaranteed individual rights
can't be trumped.
There's a saying among lawyers and judges that "the longer the brief,
the weaker the argument." I know the 10th circuit judges are trying to be
fair to Utah's hired guns, but their prior briefs in this case, including
the stay application to the Supreme Court, are unnecessarily prolix and
convoluted. That's because the state's lawyers keep ditching tired
old justifications for "traditional" marriage and floating new ones.
The "responsible procreation" argument didn't fly, because it would
deny marriage to infertile, elderly, or couples who choose not to procreate.
Besides, lesbians can procreate through various means, so that argument fails.
The brand-new argument against SSM is now called "gender
complementarity" (anybody heard that term before?). In plain English, it
means "it takes a mommy and a daddy to raise a child." The reason the
state needs a longer brief to make this claim is that they will pad their brief
with dozens of citations to dubious and discredited "studies" that are
written by supposed "experts" but which lack scientific rigor, that is,
matched samples of sufficient size and over a fairly long period. There just
aren't any such studies that meet these criteria.
"Tell that to the bakery shop owner in New Mexico."This
sentence represents a confusion some commentators have. The refusal
to bake a cake (or take pictures or do whatever) has nothing to do with the
legality of same-sex marriage - as evidenced by the case in Oregon where
same-sex marriage isn't legal. This also doesn't have
anything to do with employment and housing non-discrimination laws such as the
Utah one currently under debate - the couple was not seeking housing or
employment from the baker. This has to do with public accommodation
laws. If you have a business that serves the public, you must serve all your
products to all the public on an equal basis. No, this does not mean you must
start carrying products you don't already carry or violate the law by
serving alcohol to minors. What it means is that if you make wedding cakes
anyone has a right to buy a wedding cake from you. Public
accommodation laws do not mean clergy has to marry anyone who asks because
clergy don't serve the general public.
@LovelyDeseret;1) What about the religions that think SSM is
okay?2) States may NOT violate the US Consititution3) Denying us
marriage affects OUR economic issue, not yours4) Marriage definition has
change many times5) What about OUR families?6) What about OUR
children7) Why should homosexuals be forced to support heterosexuality8) Yes9) Probably, given the historic discrimination and opprobium10) The 14th amendment says ALL citizens of the us (which includes
homosexuals)11) Again, ALL citizens12) Civil unions are not allowed
in Utah either.
24,000 words is a lot of ammunition to give Father's Rights groups who call
the State "hypocrite".
To 1978 5:33 p.m. Jan. 30, 2014"No one is demanding that mormons
have to participate"Tell that to the bakery shop owner in New
Mexico.---------------------Baking a cake is providing a
product It is NOT participating in a wedding.
The need for civility in the Amendment 3 is made perfectly clear by the angry
words of those from the gay and lesbian community as they comment about this and
other articles. I get the sense the 'civility' to them means they can
say anything they want while those of the overwhelming majority who voted for
the amendment are supposed to stay quiet or just say nice things. Abraham
Lincoln once said that calling a dog's tail a leg does not change the fact
that the dog only has 4 legs. For centuries, both scriptural and will of the
people laws, have correctly stated that a marriage is between a man and a
woman. Oh, and by the way, the first amendment actually has NOTHING to do with
this disagreement nor is it right for a single liberal judge to be able to so
cavalierly disregard the voice of the people. Truth be told: The greatest
danger in this issue is that such judges can so easily undo the will of large
majorities in the general populace.
@AZKID ".....the consequences of redefining it" and educate yourself
.......those who feel that we must fight, argue, and persuade in favor of the
traditional definition of marriage."Marriage is simply not
defined by those who are excluded. Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex
felon child molesters and spousal abusers to civil marry? Interracial couples
wanted to participate in the institution that traditionally did not allow them
to marry. There are no Interracial marriage licenses. There are no Felon
Marriage licenses. There are no infertile marriage licenses. By being allowed to
participate and/or strengthen the existing institution, there is only ONE
marriage license for all. Nothing has been re-defined. Even
"traditional voting" was NOT re-defined by allowing women the right to
vote. Understand better?The "redefinition argument" is
complete nonsense! @Jeff29 "Those of you citing the 14th
Amendment and equal protection clause need to stop repeating things you hear on
TV and read on the internet and go study the history..." Windsor
(DOMA) was decided from the 5th and 14th Amendments (due process and equal
protection). If due process and equal protection are good enough for SCOTUS,
then obviously must be good enough for all.
The LGBT's want everyone to believe this is about hate when in reality
it's about believing you have a right to choose who you are and what you
do, but you don't have a right to make others be the same as you.
@Hospitality...My I ask whose God you are referring too? Do you believe everyone
prays and will answer to your God or "Prophet"? Possibly my God is upset
(so to say) in regard to the treatment of his gay children because after all
EVERY ONE is God's children. Wouldn't you agree with this basic
Christian principle and belief?
Jeff29 says..."my guess is that when this is all said and done, the Court
will rule that it is a States' Rights issue."I disagree.
The court has been maneuvering the chess pieces for years now. They are building
the case for their ultimate decision which will establish the right for same sex
couples to marry everywhere. The fact is that marriage equality exists for
nearly 40% of the population now, nationwide. Our system cannot function under a
patchwork of laws in which a legally married couple from NY with children are
suddenly un-married with questionable parental rights in Pennsylvania or Utah.
The courts have consistently ruled in favor of marriage rights not
restrictions.The constitution trumps states rights. Precedent has always come
down on the side of expanding rights and the same will occur here.
Yes, the Bible is full of patriarchal "traditional marriage," complete
with consorts, incest, slaves, polygamy, and offering your virgin daughters to
bands of strangers. Why, some of the Muslim countries still execute rape
victims as temptresses, with traditional public stonings.But, if you
want to make "traditional marriage" to mean a monogamous male-female
marriage, and to solely reserve the word marriage for that, I offer a
compromise.Adjectives. We have them in English. They modify nouns.
You can make nouns mean almost entirely different things by slapping different
adjectives in front of them. In this way, you can fully display your contempt
for people you disapprove of, or love for those you approve of, with great
specificity, and everybody can still get married.Besides this
neologism (neophraseology?) of "traditional marriage," we also have:Temple marriage.Church marriage.Justice-of-the-peace
marriage.Wedding chapel marriage.Contract marriage.Arranged
marriage.Civil/City Hall marriage.Hollywood/Celebrity marriage.Country-club marriage.Catering-hall marriage.Religious marriage
(various).May-December Marriage.and now,Gay/Lesbian/Same-Sex/Intersex/Trans Marriage.Whatever happened to
Eloping? Can we use that word for something?
@ HospitalityWe have a secular nation, therefore your religious
beliefs are completely irrelevant when arguing in the court of law. You are free
to believe whatever you want, but you do not get to force others to live by
those beliefs.@ SoCalChrisJudge Shelby and dozens of
other judges before him? You act like the 13th and 19th Amendment were easily
passed. Both of those events were met with extreme resistance. The Civil War
speaks for itself, and Women's Suffrage went on for about 70 years before
they finally won out. No those rights weren't discovered, they were fought
for. Unfortunately for the "traditional" crowd, freedom and expansion
and rights always wins out in the end.
Utah exists as a state only by agreeing to a narrow and universally popular
definition of marriage. There was a tortuously protracted struggle on the part
of this territory's citizens to legitimize a more inclusive definition of
marriage. Even the great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, labeled the expanded
definition of marriage as one of the "twin relics of barbarism" polygamy
and slavery). Polygamy offended the moral sensitivities of the nation's
majority.Isn't it ironic that Utah is again the focus of the
nation. Many are invested in forcing Utah to accept a broader definition of
marriage, even though it offends the moral sensitivities of the state's
majority. It is now evident that the "relics of barbarism" are not
twins, but triplets!
The fight against gay marriage is getting awfully desperate. It's come down
to stall tactics.
Leaders of this state many years ago have claimed monogamy led to the downfall
of civilizations like Rome. Turns out marriage views do evolve.
"The Constitution exists so the majority can't force their will upon
the minority. Otherwise slavery would still be a reality and you wouldn't
be able to own land, or vote."Slavery was abolished by the 13th
Amendment, which became law after ratification by a super majority of states.
The right to vote was guaranteed to women by the 19th Amendment, ratified again
not only by a majority but a super majority. These rights weren't
magically discovered in the Constitution (the way Judge Shelby discovered
SSM).Where are these rights supposed to come from if not from the
People? Or from God?
How can it be a states rights issue. Say a gay married couple moves here from
CA...the minute they cross the state line, per Utah are they now not married?
If one gets sick...does the once married spouse no have no say? Waht about the
children...who then are their parents.You see, it CAN't be
states right because people have the freedom in the US to move from state to
state...and in order for that legal marriage to continue, marriage has to
transcend state lines.Not sure how the SC could rule otherwise.
@ Razzle2There is a difference between not supporting something and
discriminating against people....
The state's attempt to re-define marriage is a breach of the understood
"wall" separating church and state in America. Marriage is a religious
institution that has pre-dated and out-lasted all states, even those states
which protected religion. The state lacks the power and authority to re-define
marriage, which it did not create. Churches do not have to recognize any civil
union as marriage, though many have chosen to recognize the civil union of a man
and a woman as marriage, and the state has called it by that name because of
tradition. Anyone is free to invent their own religion, but they cannot force
others to accept it. The state needs to keep to it's own side of the wall,
and remember it's place. All the rest is just quibbling and useless debate.
Leave marriage alone, and call sexual license what it is.
Who on planet earth is so presumptuous as to believe that they have the
authority to put asunder what God has joined together, namely, a man and a woman
in marriage? No lawmaker, nor king, president, ruler, nor magistrate has
authority to change the definition of marriage. God alone has that power.
Before there was a Supreme Court, before there was a Constitution, before there
was a Revolution, before we had a country, before any of us were born, since the
dawn of time, there has been marriage. It has always meant the union of a man
and a woman. Call any other union whatever you will, but do not call it
"marriage". Throughout the ages, sexual license has not required that
the definition of marriage be changed. You can do whatever you want; no one is
stopping you; you have that right. But do not destroy marriage by calling
something "marriage" that is not marriage. Marriage will never go away,
just as God and Religion will never go away. Civilizations come may and go.
Governments may come and go. But no legislature will ever succeed in getting rid
of God and Religion, from which came true marriage. That's why we as a
people, and as individuals, are still here to discuss this. Everyone one of us
was born of a woman united with a man.
"They are not martyrs for the conservative cause."Even if
they weren't planned in advance, they have become martyrs for the cause.
Just think of the organizations and talk show hosts that are using these cases
to fight any proposed laws to promote equality. We have some of those
organizations using these few--and they really are few--cases to scare people
into fighting an anti-discrimination bill here in Utah. It would be interesting
to see if these people who lost their businesses because they made poor business
decisions are receiving money from some of these foundations. What
it really comes down to is the people lost their businesses because they made
poor decisions--they chose to discriminate against somebody, and word got out.
They suffered the consequences of their choices. Perhaps others have learned a
valuable lesson and will treat all of their customers with more dignity and reap
the rewards for their kinder way of doing business.
Florist in Washington, baker in Oregon. I'm not being trivial, it's
just there are more examples of the courts getting into our daily activity. And it is even more bizarre. Same Sex Marriage is illegal in Oregon, yet
it is illegal not to support it. The people and the courts going in
different directions again. "just go along with it, it does not affect
you" you gullible Americans.
To Really- " Personally, I believe these some of these "protests of
conscious" have been planned out in advance to gain publicity for the
anti-marriage-equality folks to have some talking points. It's just a scare
tactic to divert people away from the real issues of equality."Seriously? I hope you're kidding. If not, you better re-think that. These
people lost their business- their livelihood. They didn't plan it out on
purpose. They are not martyrs for the conservative cause. That's a bogus
line of thought. To Laura Bilington- MN is liberal save for a few
pockets of conservatives. It's been carried by the dems in the last 4
elections. Minneapolis and St. Paul are very liberal. I lived there for over a
1. An appeal must by law be focused on an allegation of legal error in the
court below. Requesting added space to present "vast amounts of social
science material to fully... explain how traditional marriage serves Utah's
interests" is inappropriate for an appellate court. UT had a chance to
argue social science at the trial court level, but failed to show how it is
rationally related to the legal issue. 2. "Explain[ing] how
traditional marriage serves Utah's interests" misses the point
entirely. No one says raditional marriage doesn't serve Utah's
interest [in stable families(?)]. UT must argue how restricting a civil
contract from a minority group promotes a legitimate government interest. How
does barring Ann and Beth's civil marriage provide any benefit at all to
anyone else, especially since they're already living together and raising a
family? This is not a zero sum game. We can all win with greater equality
& respect. 3. The outside lawyers are showing a poor quality of
work. I guess politics demands this waste of money and resources. Utah's
taxpayers will thus soon ensure marriage equality for all six states of the 10th
Half of the money being used to pay these bigoted one-sided heavily biased
lawyers is coming from Utah tax payers who support same-sex marriage equality.
The state should have hired an independent attorney who had no biases in the
case (one way or the other), but who had a high level of US Constitutional Law
experience. An unbiased, independent attorney would have said "I have no
biases in this case, one way or the other, I'm just here to make certain
that this case gets a constitutionally fair hearing. It doesn't matter
which side wins as long as the process is constitutionally sound and the judges
are informed as well as possible in order for them to make a fair
decision.".... Shame on Utah leadership for employing a highly biased
attorney using OUR tax dollars.
@Chris B...As a fellow Catholic we both know one cannot cherry pick which
commandments and Gospels we adhere too. "Let he who has not sinned cast the
first stone". Are you ready to cast that first stone my friend? Personally,
I am not.
"And there it goes. It's not really about marriage is it? It's
about forcing your will on others."Actually, the baker,
photographer, or florist who refuses to do business with anyone based on their
convictions are the ones attempting to impose their will on others. I have been
to many LDS temple marriages, and not once did we consider to photographer as
being part of the wedding party. In fact, the photographers, cake decorators,
and florists weren't in any of any wedding pictures that I have seen. They
were contract workers that provided a service for the couples getting
married.I know it's difficult to admit that sometimes we need
to be compelled to treat others better than we are often treated. We don't
have to agree with how other people live, but we cannot deny them a service that
we offer every other customer because of that disagreement. Sometimes we get too
hung up on being right about moral issues that we forget about the basic
principle of treating others with dignity. Let's treat others with kindness
and leave the judgments to God.
@ Mom of Six The Constitution exists so the majority can't
force their will upon the minority. Otherwise slavery would still be a reality
and you wouldn't be able to own land, or vote.SSM does nothing
to you, or your marriage. They deserve the same rights you and I enjoy.
How interesting to see the remarks of those who seem so anxious to inform me
about what I am "welcome" to. It is unfortunate that promoters of
secularism seem not to understand that they are not in charge of granting such
permission, even within the presumptions of a pluralistic society. I believe we
still live under a democratic government where the rule of law prevails. Under
the US Constitution, any laws not specifically circumscribed therein are
rightfully the domain of States, and belong to the people. This principle has
been tested and reaffirmed in the Supreme Court numerous times.
Really??? "If I were a bakery shop owner..."And there it
goes. It's not really about marriage is it? It's about forcing your
will on others. "If you are a bakery owner than you must do business as if I
were bakery shop owner."By the way, the bakery shop owner was in
Washington. It is a photographer in New Mexico that actually WAS forced to
Laura Bilington "And if you read the DOMA arguments, you already know that
civil unions aren’t equal."And if you read the DOMA
arguments, you already know that DOMA was a Federal law over a state issue.
There was no ruling on civil unions being equal.
"Tell that to the bakery shop owner in New Mexico."If I were
a bakery shop owner, I would focus on doing my best work for every customer that
comes through my doors; it's not my business telling others I will not do
business with them because I disagree with their choice of marriage partner. I
would bake and decorate the best cake possible and have it delivered to the
proper place with extra time for the happy couple to enjoy their day.I don't see how the baker is actually participating in the wedding any
more than he/she would participate in any of the birthday parties, baptisms, bar
mitzvahs, showers, bachelor parties, or myriad of other events for which that
they make cakes and other baked goods. Personally, I believe these some of these
"protests of conscious" have been planned out in advance to gain
publicity for the anti-marriage-equality folks to have some talking points.
It's just a scare tactic to divert people away from the real issues of
Laura Bilington "And neither Iowa nor Minnesota (who sent Michelle Bachmann
to Congress--albeit with 51% of the vote) are hotbeds of liberalism."Correct. Michelle Bachmann was elected by the people for the people. SSM
was forced on Iowa by the courts against their own law.
AZKID "I was appalled when I recently saw a graphic showing where gay
"marriage" was fully legal. There was Utah in blue, along with the
liberal states in the Northeast and a few others. Utah was, plainly and simply,
targeted by the gay activists..."What? Do you realize that only
Maine, Maryland, and Washington were voter approved?Six of those
"liberal" states you call out had laws against SSM. It was the courts
that overturned the law. 39 states all with laws for one man & one woman
nearly 4/5 of the country.They want you to think that popular
decision is changing. Don't fall for it.
More words do not mean more truth.
@Mom of SixI believe that moms and dads, once they understand the
inevitability that some of their children will be gay, will stop treating them
differently. What's a parent to do when they hear their teenager's
tearful confession, "Mom and dad, I think I'm gay?" Even though
only five percent or so of any given population is gay - 1:20, a middle of the
road estimate - we are talking about many, many families. The choice here is not
one of substitution i.e. that a straight couple will have a child instead - the
State's intention is that the child is not to be born to or raised by a gay
married couple. The State's enforcement is through discriminatory social
contracts (banning gay marriage) and equally discriminatory economic policies.
If you're child, "comes out" to you, the answer is always, "I
love you just the way you are." It's easy enough to research the
Massachusetts gay-marriage prototype, it's ten years now. Why speculate on
the outcome? It's hard to argue with facts - even with 24000 words.
Lovely Deseret, you don’t need 30 pages to say 1)religious issue--this
isn’t a theocracy. 2) states’ rights--you don’t get to
discriminate against anybody without presenting compelling evidence that this is
necessary (we’ve always done it this way” is not evidence). 3)
Economic issue--huh? 4) how do you define it? A union of two consenting
unrelated adults. 5) what is best for families? To have two parents who love
and are committed to their kids. 8. Forced to support homosexuality--huh?
Nobody’s forcing YOU to do anything. 8. Loving vs Virginia ruled that
marriage to the person you chose could not be abridged because they were of a
different race. 9&10&11-Look, you can’t legally
discriminate--that isn’t rocket science. And if you read the DOMA
arguments, you already know that civil unions aren’t equal.
Those of you citing the 14th Amendment and equal protection clause need to stop
repeating things you hear on TV and read on the internet and go study the
history and intent of the Amendment. I'll give you three little tidbits:
1) It was passed only because all States in the South were required to ratify it
after the Civil War. 2) It is widely recognized as the most poorly written
Amendment to the Constitution. 3) Equal protection under the law referred
primarily to punishments given after people broke the law (if it meant equal
rights, there would have been no need for the 19th Amendment).I
think there is little question that this will eventually reach the Supreme Court
as neither side will accept an adverse ruling from a lower court. I suppose the
Court could refuse to rule on it, but my guess is that when this is all said and
done, the Court will rule that it is a States' Rights issue.
"No one is demanding that mormons have to participate" Tell
that to the bakery shop owner in New Mexico.
AZKID,gay marriage (not "marriage") has been legal in Massachusetts for
ten years. Please tell us how the state has gone to the dogs since all adults
in MA have been able to marry the person they loved. And neither
Iowa nor Minnesota (who sent Michelle Bachmann to Congress--albeit with 51% of
the vote) are hotbeds of liberalism. But please tell me, how are marriage
equality laws "punishing" the people of Utah? If you don't agree
with gay marriage, then marry someone of the opposite sex. End of problem!
Extra long brief....the courts must be familiar with Utah's customs.Gay marriage is coming and its fun to watch everyone fall all over
themselves trying to rationalize their arcane beliefs. Your religion nor any
other can dictate what others can do. No one is demanding that
mormons have to participate but, they also don't get to dictate to others
what they can do. Individual liberty is a central tenet of our history and our
rights, popular vote is secondary...as it should be or there would be no mormon
Mom of six: I would make the argument like this: (leaving out the
hate, btw) We have been taught since we were young that
homosexuality is wrong. We have been taught that you need to repent when you
have sinned. To allow gays to marry (with all the same connotations that temple
marriage has in the law) would not allow gays to repent without breaking up a
family. Also, my prophet has told me to fight against it and I will obey. It
is something that sounds so different to my idea of what life should be like
that it cannot be right nor should it be allowed by law.------------Does that sound better? Now, go read the
constitution. Go read the Iowa Supreme court ruling on gay marriage, go read
Prop8 arguments before the district judge. Think about walking a mile in the
shoes of those two young men in the picture accompanying this article,
especially since they are raising a child.Here are a few
questions: What does the constitution say about equal treatment under the
law? Why would you deny that child_the_most stable environment possible to grow
up in - which is having his parents married?
This is an important case. The Court made the correct decision in allowing the
State to say what it wants to say and present its side of the case.
@Hugh1Come on...come on....that is not what this is about. Please,
you must come up with a little bit more precise argument than that. This is not
about hate. This is about a minority group trying to redefine what has been
marriage for thousands of years. This has never been a right of this minority
group, yet somehow the majority must conform or we will be labeled as bigoted
and silenced because we do not agree with what the minority wants to label as a
new definition of marriage. I think the vast majority of people here in Utah
would be fine with civil unions as long as it is not equated to marriage. Paint
it any way you choose but an apple and an orange are not the same, neither will
gay marriage ever be.
The primary and basic belief in all of Christianity supports mankind's
agency to make personal choices. As soon as mankind begins to exercise control
of personal choice (not including illegal acts that cause harm to one's
fellow man), then mankind, in all effect, endeavors to dictate and make legal
the fallacy that, "All personal choice shall be allowed and protected except
for this, that, and the other, ad infinitum."At that point
mankind eliminates agency to choose altogether as it would be effectively
destroyed.The state of Utah can decide to pursue it's
ridiculous stance, spending countless millions, which will surely end in a
futile battle.How about using the countless millions for public
education where, historically, the state "stacks 'em deep, and teaches
I was appalled when I recently saw a graphic showing where gay
"marriage" was fully legal. There was Utah in blue, along with the
liberal states in the Northeast and a few others. Utah was, plainly and simply,
targeted by the gay activists in an effort to punish the state for the
predominant view of its population and dominant religious group. I find this
to be reprehensible behavior on the part of those activists. Therefore, I
applaud the court in giving this matter a full and complete hearing in the light
of all legal and societal considerations. May truth, right and morality (and
state's rights) prevail! And for those who may not understand
the grave societal implications this issue and think it is merely a matter of
bigotry, or some small group's rights etc., go Google "marriage what it
is why it matters and the consequences of redefining it" and educate
yourself with some scholarly research on the matter. It may not change your
mind, but you might at least be a little bit more tolerant (oh, the irony!) of
those who feel that we must fight, argue, and persuade in favor of the
traditional definition of marriage.
My 24 000 would read like this :Neither evolution, science nor
religion can define what marriage is all about.A daughter that loves her
mother or a son loving his father can be measured in neither words nor in any
family proclamation, but in the very lasting bond for a life long secure and
loving attitude toward others. End of Case.(You want a stable
society trust in a thousand years first, any other union must be on a scientific
test run for some years before being approved)
In other news, the 9th Circuit just okayed punishing psychologists who disagree
with SSM; putting a gag order on them. They stated that speech against
homosexuality is really conduct, not speech, and therefore the state can
criminalize such conduct.All that's left is to shove ministers
into mental health professional category and boom--religious leaders in jail.
Add this to the ever growing list of "how could SSM possibly
hurt you?" lists.
@truth in all its forms"How do you write its against my religion in
24000 words?"Quote large swaths of Isaiah?
The brief needs to be long because 1) there is the religious issue, 2) there is
the states rights issue, 3) there is the economic issue, 4) there is how do you
define marriage now issue, 5) the what is best for families issue, 6) the what
is best for children issue, 7) why should a state be forced to support
homosexuality issue, 8) is marriage a civil right issue, 9) is homosexuality a
protected group via the constitution, 10) does the 14th amendment refer to
homosexuality? 11) when did equal protection refer to homosexuality, 12) does
civil unions give the same protection?Imagine having to put that all
in 30 pages.
"one of the most important and debated legal and policy questions of our
time"...only inasmuch as you feel entitled to an outcome in your favour.
Besides, how many words does it take to say you feel it is an affront?
There's going to have to be a lot of obfuscation around a bare bones
Paid by the word.
Will Schaerr and his team be citing Regnerus?
Brevity is the soul of wit...
Its nice to know that Mormon Prophet Monson(who speaks for God according to
Mormons) and Pope Francis(who speaks for God in my religion) both agree with me
that God only wants a man and woman to be able to marry
How do you write its against my religion in 24000 words?