I'm not LDS but I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson and Pope Francis on
this. Technically I'm Catholic but don't really identify as a
Catholic.But it is nice knowing I agree with Pope Francis and Mormon
Prophet Monson, both men who according to their religions speak for God.Nice to know that I agree with them!
Remember, the whole reason there was not a stay put in place immediately after
Shelby's ruling was because the Utah Attorney General's office was in
disarray following the Swallow debacle. Shelby called the attorneys in and,
incredibly, the Attorney General's office wasn't ready to go with a
stay request, as it should have been.
Judge Robert J. Shelby is the one that disrupted our lives, not the State of
I think that to have respect you have to be respectable. If you are in a
position of respect doesn't mean you are respected. Respect is earned. It
takes a life time to gain a good reputation i fraction of a second to loose it.
Hold your standards high, your an American. Take pride in it and be proud of it.
This case will be interesting to watch as it plays out. Here in California, once
Prop. 8 was passed, same-sex couples who married during the brief window when it
was legal, were ultimately granted full recognition and not stripped of their
married status, even though no more marriages between same-sex couples could
take place while the appeals process went forward.After a quick
check of Judge Dale Kimball's background, I would be extremely surprised if
he ruled in favor of the couples, and against the state of Utah.
@Values VoterNo, when the AG's office sent the stay request
Shelby denied it.
While I support same-sex marriage, I don't think they have a good case here
since the stay keeps Amendment 3 in force and so the state has the authority to
proceed the way they have in the interim.
@Snapdragon 3:58 p.m. March 12, 2014Judge Robert J. Shelby is the
one that disrupted our lives, not the State of Utah.-------------------Actually not. He ruled in accordance with the
Constitution, the federal law and the precedents. Given the ruling in Windsor,
it was clear to anyone who had a clue about how the law works that he would find
for the plaintiffs. The State should have done what every attorney knows to do
-- have a motion for a stay prepared in case the ruling went against it. when
the State lost, it went to the 10th Circuit or a stay, even though the case
hadn't been appealed yet, instead of going to Judge Shelby for the stay.
The State screwed up big time, and couples were lawfully married in the weeks
between the judgment being entered and the Supreme Court issuing the stay.
Regardless what happens with the appeal, the couples who married during the
hiatus are in fact married and their marriages should be recognized.
Judge Shelby assured this big mess by not issuing an immediate stay as he should
have.The whole SSM action in Utah was very carefully orchestrated.
At one point earlier in the process Judge Shelby said he would rule sometime in
January 2014. Yet the activist Judge couldn't resist the timing,with the
opportunity of an Attorney General's office in chaos due to corruption,
resignation and temporary leadership; issuing his ruling late on Friday and
within a few days of Christmas Holiday; SSM sympathizers in authority poised and
ready to issue licenses, perform marriages and go later into the evening and
some even on Saturday; LGBT couples poised and ready to rush out to get married
in a moments notice; etc.In blocking the will of the people, which
came about in a fair and open election, all knew it would be challenged through
the whole court system, and one mans opinion would have to be ratified by
through the whole court system.
Azazael wrote:"No, when the AG's office sent the stay request
Shelby denied it."I'm not going to belabor this, but I
think Judge Shelby's called it correctly at the time. If
you'll remember, the Utah Attorney General's team failed to make a
stay request in advance of Shelby's ruling, as they could have done (and as
was done in the prop 8 case here in CA with judge Walker) or even in the hours
immediately after the ruling on that Friday.In short, there were
baffling procedural deficiencies on the part of the attorneys representing the
@Furry1993Actually he did NOT rule in accordance with the
Constitution, the federal law and original intent and precedents are just
someone else's later interpretation which may wrong. His ruling
was just his desire on how the constitution should be interpreted, completely
misapplying the 14th amendment while ignoring all other aspects of the
constitution (and what federal law?). Otherwise he would have ruled for the
state forcing the gays to appeal. As should have been proper.
@Values Voter:Judge Kimball is a very highly regarded jurist. I have no
idea how he will rule in this case, but I am confident that he will do so based
on the law. I disagreed with those (including this paper) who criticized Judge
Shelby. I also disagree with your assumption about a perceived bias on the part
of Judge Kimball.
Chris B.Religious sentiments and beliefs are great.However, neither the Pope nor any ecclesiastical leader has a say in a legal
matter.Religious leaders' beliefs are contained to their own
I think we'll find that the marriages contracted during those few days in
December were validly contracted and the state will need to recognize them.
Even if Utah prevails in its appeal to reinstate a ban on same-sex marriage,
there is no way for the state to retroactively undo those 1300 couples'
marriages.It certainly does complicate things for those opponents of
same-sex marriage.Meanwhile, Friday evening should see
Schaerr's second brief being filed. I look forward to reading it. I have
no idea how he's going to rebut all the amicus briefs he claimed he wanted
to address.Speaking of which, one I just got around to reading
tonight, posted as a document on Scribd with the name, "Historians of
Marriage Amicus Brief," might be very enlightening to those of you hoping to
prevail on a "traditional marriage" argument. It's particularly
good at detailing where the authority for marriage lies. It's signed onto
by a couple dozen history professors who study the subject and I would say
you've got one tough hill to climb.
@the truthA bunch of other judges ruled the same way as Shelby and...
honestly when was the last time a judge ruled against same-sex marriage? I
really have no idea.
Does anyone know if similar issues arose in when inter-racial couples married in
the days when such was illegal. I know for a fact that bi-racial couples had a
lot of problems in those days, and humiliating experiences. Anyone care to
@chris B "When have I have supported religion using religion as a
reason to impose restrictions on all Americans." "I'm
not LDS but I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson and Pope Francis on this.
Technically I'm Catholic but don't really identify as a Catholic. But
it is nice knowing I agree with Pope Francis and Mormon Prophet Monson, both men
who according to their religions speak for God."
@Schnee:"While I support same-sex marriage..."If so,
do you also support other types of marriages such as... polygamy, incest, close
relatives, mother/son, father/daughter and a whole lot more?If same
sex marriage is allowed, the door then has to be opened for any and all other
types of marriages. Denial will be discrimination.I don't
think anyone who has concerns for the direction we are headed wants to go there.
Let's hope the courts nip this thing before it gets out of hand.
How will UTahns and LDS members deal with the legalization of same-sex
marriage?It is going to happen. Sooner rather than later.Life will go on, and most people won't even notice a difference--except
those who gain the rights they've long been denied.
Marriages begin and end every day. If the LGBT community wants marriage, get
use to the disappointment that comes along with it. The fact that it could end
at any moment due to a judge is something married people are well aware of>
@alt I think many judges have upheld the will of the people in so called same
gender marriage legalization.
@wrzI think polygamy should be decriminalized. Close relatives (I assume
you mean like cousins) is already legal in around half the states so I guess it
doesn't change much even if I think it's gross. I oppose marriage
between immediate family members.I'm not going to be convinced
to oppose same-sex marriage due to some fearmongering about polygamists. Do you oppose interracial marriage? I'm just wondering because
that's the one setting the precedents for courts intervening in same-sex
marriage bans. And no, courts aren't going to stop this whole
same-sex marriage thing, they've been ruling pretty consistently in various
types of cases in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, Utah, Oklahoma,
A stay should have been issued at the time Shelby released his ruling. The fact
that the stay was not granted at that time was corrected by a higher court
later. In my opinion, because the stay correction was granted, the marriages
should be placed on hold until the Supreme Court decides the issue and the state
should not recognize those marriages yet.
@1aggie:"Life will go on, and most people won't even notice a
difference--except those who gain the rights they've long been
denied."What rights being denied are you talking about? If
it's about marriage... all, ALL people have the right to marry... provided
they marry one person of the opposite set. This means everyone. No one is
@wrzDecriminalizing polygamy seems correct since sleeping around is legal
(the inconsistency is confusing). Half the states already have cousin marriage
legal.Do you oppose interracial marriage? No, of course you
don't (safe assumption). The court decisions overturning those bans are
what's being used as precedent for same-sex marriage, so if you're
worried about me supporting something that might be used as precedent then
should we have opposed interracial marriage to avoid some "what if" down
the road?@higv"I think many judges have upheld the will of
the people in so called same gender marriage legalization."Well
if many have then it should be easy to name one, particularly one that has done
so since the Windsor case. Same-sex marriage advocates have Utah, Virginia,
Oklahoma, Texas, Kentucky, and Ohio rulings. I have no doubt that one did so
long ago but now... the tide has turned on the legal front hasn't it?
1aggie,When our lives pass, every one of us must return to God and
face judgement. It is going to happen. Sooner than anyone realizes. You may
certainly choose to believe or not, but all of us know that the truth is
something we cannot rewrite.You can either worry about how
you'll reconcile yourselves with the world or with God.How will
I deal with any of this? Well, I'd rather be right with God than any court.
God will not be stayed. The courts will.
"If same sex marriage is allowed, the door then has to be opened . ."Ah, the "slippery slope" logical fallacy. It always rears its
silly head in these debates. It translates to "My religious leaders say this
is wrong, but since we, unfortunately, don't live in a theocracy, I must
use some other argument to impose my religious views on others." If anyone
here can tell me they buy into this type of logic and doesn't also object
for religious reasons, I will be surprised.You can apply the same
"logic" to pretty much any law or ruling and it would make as much sense
as it does here. Try it; I'll bet you can easily do it whether you agree
with me on SSM or not. In short, the position that "If we allow A to happen,
then B, C, and eventually X will happen!" is just not convincing to
adults.But then it really doesn't matter. SSM will be legal
soon across the country, and in 20 years your grandkids will wonder what all the
fuss was about.
Religious people and churches have as much right to speak out on moral issues as
those that disagree with those morals. Hypocritical there. Can't refute
so tell them to be quiet. The tide turned on Pilate and Herod when they put
people to death. Was that the right side of the Tide. God will not change his
laws even if man does.
You're right, I do perceive a likelihood of bias on the part of Judge
Kimball, but I would absolutely love to be proven wrong.After
reading the opinions of Judge N. Randy Smith -- the dissenter in the 3-judge
panel hearing in Perry v. Brown, (9th circuit appeal) -- and Judge Robert C.
Jones, ruling against the plaintiff couples in Nevada's Sevcik v. Sandoval,
I've learned to be guarded in my expectations when it comes to judges, who
are also Mormons. Of course, both of those relatively recent decisions were
pre-Windsor and now the legal landscape is quite different.In any
case, which ever way Judge Kimball rules, I look forward to reading his opinion.
@higv: God's laws have indeed changed. Christians live under the New
Covenant. In Romans 14, Paul clearly explains to us the difference between Law
of the Old Covenant and the New.Leviticus banned in no uncertain
terms pork, clam chowder, shrimp cocktail, catfish, escargot, rabbit, and most
game birds. Eating them was Abomination. Why is it now not?Paul
explains, "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing
unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it
is unclean....For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness,
and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth
Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. ... For meat destroy not the
work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth
with offence. ... Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he
that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."
Tolstoy,Interesting you didn't post my whole comment.Like I said before, just because I agree with something a religious group does
doesn't mean my support is based on religion.It is not.Want to try again?
Chris B: "Like I said before, just because I agree with something a
religious group does doesn't mean my support is based on religion.It is not."----------------What is it based on
then? Can you define what your position is and support that position with facts
and legal arguments that would stand up in court without any religious idea
mentioned? I would love to hear this.
These couples were and are legally married in the state of Utah. The arguments
put forward by the state are embarrassing to anyone with more than a cursory
knowledge of the law. Utahns, you knew when you joined the Union
that your laws would be subject to federal judicial review. We told you not to
pass the blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional Amendment 3. You
wouldn't listen. Are you listening now?
"Utah recognition of same-sex marriage in judge's hands"-------------------------------Since Shelby's ruling that
overturned the voter-approved Utah constitution amendment, it's clear that
this has been the case all along. At least in a strictly legal sense.However, as I've noted previously, all REAL power lies with the people.
If enough people value marriage enough to insist on defining it as they wish to,
**that** is what it will be.The fact that the definition of marriage
can be so muddied in the span of just a few years shows what power there was in
the initially subtle but increasingly overt and heavy marketing campaign by the
gay lobby during the last couple decades. We haven't arrived at this
dismal state of marriage by accident. It's been a long time in the making
and a lot of strategic planning went into this.If the reverence for
marriage between men and women is ever going to be regained, it will only come
from an equally dedicated plan of action. The forces arrayed against it are
very formidable and determined.
For debate sake:Imagine that the Federal and State governments
decided that home ownership was beneficial to communities and society. Suppose
that both governments decided to grant tax deductions to homeowners. Suppose
that States had the duty to define homeownership.Now suppose that
renters declared that this was unconstitutional to grant homeowners benefits
while denying them the same. Suppose that renters wanted the State’s
definition of homeownership changed to include renters. Also suppose that
renters were being discriminated against and other rights were being
violated.What is the most logical solution? To address the
discrimination and other rights of the renters directly? Or to redefine
Lane,Lets use a very simple analogy in hopes a very simple concept
can be understood.Imagine your mom says that eating vegetables are
good.Then imagine that I also say eating vegetables are good.That does NOT prove that my belief that eating vegetables is good is
based on the fact your mom said that eating vegetables are good.My
reason for believing eating vegetables is good could be based on what my new
doctor has said, what my childhood doctor said, what I read in a medical book,
what I read in a study about vegetables, my personal experience of eating
vegetables....See how simple that is?The fact your mom
and I agree doesn't mean my support is based on your mom's statement,
even if I agree with her.Hopefully that clears things up!If not, let me know. Always happy to help.
"the state is disrupting their lives because it doesn't recognize their
unions.""The fact is these people are legally
married,"Well, no, they're not. A single person made an
overreaching and misguided decision to ignore the core law of the State of Utah,
and these people rushed in to exploit it. This not only makes it hard on them,
but forever sours the chance of others accepting such a union in any good
faith.If I wanted to establish a reliable and valid
"marriage" with someone, that's certainly not how I'd go about
As a secondary considering, because it has been brought up, is to note that
interracial marriage has nothing to do with this. Interracial marriage
isn't about marriage, it's about race.This is about
marriage, something that is independent of race, religion, nationality, and
Hi Chris,I was speaking specifically about gay marriage. WHY do you
believe as you do. I do not care if you agree with my mother or Pres.
Monson.I am asking for your reasons why you believe as you do. Do
you have any facts or an argument that might persuade others to your point of
view, or is it merely a personal belief? Is there any logical reason for you
agreeing with the Pope? Is there a legal reason (per our constitution) that
makes you feel that your anti-gay marriage side should prevail?Thanks for your reply.
@ Azazeal: You have a very interesting analogy - but it is not quite correct.
See, most anyone can buy a home - provided they meet the basic
requirement of being able to pay for it. People who rent have usually either
chosen that voluntarily, or are doing it as a mid-step on their way to
qualifying for homeownership.in your scenario, it would be more
correct to compare renting to cohabiting.So, we have renters
(cohabiting couples) and owners (married couples). Yes, there may be some
inequalities in benefits (tax credits for instance) but most people consider
those when making the choice to rent or own - and as time goes on they can
re-evaluate that choice and make a new one.Now, let's add in
same-sex couples. These are couples who would dearly love to buy a home and
they are well able to afford it, but they have been told that they do not have
the option to buy but must always rent. Your suggestion is that
instead of allowing same-sex couples to buy, we should eliminate all differences
between renting and owning. Why change the whole system instead of
allowing them to buy?
@Miss Piggie 11:43 p.m. March 12, 2014@1aggie:"Life will
go on, and most people won't even notice a difference--except those who
gain the rights they've long been denied."What rights being
denied are you talking about? If it's about marriage... all, ALL people
have the right to marry... provided they marry one person of the opposite set.
This means everyone. No one is excluded.-------------------I've heard that argument before, in the 1960s, Only then it said
"all, ALL people have the right to marry... provided they marry one person
of the same race. This means everyone. No one is excluded." The US Supreme
Court struck it down as unconstitutional in a unanimous decision -- see Loving
v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). It wasn't a valid argument then, and it
isn't a valid argument now.
@MaudineMany people that are renting have either income or credit that
makes homeownership not an option for them. Let same-sex couples be analogous
to renters that cannot afford to own a home. I am not suggesting
that we eliminate all differences. That would be redefining homeownership.
That would defeat the purpose of the legislators in promoting homeownership;
which they determined was for the good of communities and society.I
am suggesting that we address the rights and discrimination issues of the
renters without redefining homeownership.
To "SlopJ30" actually the slippery slope argument is not a fallacy. The
Netherlands was the first nation to recognize SSM. They are now following the
same path for legalizing plural marriage. See "First Trio
'Married' in The Netherlands" in the Brussles Journal. A man
married 2 bisexual women. They call is a civil union, but it didn't take
that long for them to go from calling sex unions to SSM.
they could be same sex domestic partners. That gives them all the legal rights
@mrjj69 11:51 a.m. March 13, 2014they could be same sex domestic
partners. That gives them all the legal rights of marriage.------------------Unfortunately that is not accurate. The United
States Code speaks specifically of marriage as the determiner of whether
benefits are available. Under Amendment 3 to the Utah Constitution (and other
Utah Code), nothing even "looking" like a same-sex marriage is legal or
recognized.A same-sex domestic partnership does NOT give 'all the legal
rights of marriage."
This article is quite misleading when it says Utah's Amendment 3 case
"could work its way to the Supreme Court in the next couple of
years."Uh, no.... not even close. First of all, the
Supreme Court can elect not to hear the case at all, until/unless two lower
courts reach difference conclusions on marriage equality issue.So
let's look at the chances of that happening... since the Windsor Ruling
last summer, there has been a total of 36 federal courts cases involving
marriage equality.And the courts have found 36-0 in favor of
marriage equality. Not a single instance where a case against SSM has prevailed.
None. Zero. Nada. These loathsome bans have been struck down in
brutally conservative states such as Oklahoma, Texas, and Kentucky... and Utah.
Given the current 36-0 win rate for marriage equality, does anyone really think
it looks good for the state to prevail?When the 10th Appeals finds
for the plaintiff next month, I'm sure the state will try to appeal. But
unless a lower court finds different (remember, it's 36-0 now), SCOTUS
doesn't have to hear the case.
&chris b"both men who according to their religions speak for
God."I don't feel any need to try again but thanks
Tolstoy,Glad I could help you understand that just because one
person may support something that a religious group supports doesn't mean
that person's support is based on the same reasoning as the religious
group. Its quite a simple concept really. If you're still not
clear, go read my example about Lane's mom and vegetables. If you'd
like another analogy, I'm happy to provide one. Just let me know, I like
to help out.And my belief is still not based in religion. Have a
great day Toystory.
I don't understand the confusion. The Utah Constitution forbids recognition
of same sex marriage by any name. A judge declared it unconstitutional, and
people some same sex marriages were performed. The US Supreme Court issued a
stay on the ruling. This means that the ruling is no longer in effect, and so
the Constitutional prohibition against recognition of same sex marriage is in
effect. Those 1,000 or so same sex marriages that were performed cannot be
recognized, unless the US Supreme Court orders that our Constitution violates
the Federal Constitution.
From the 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws."This hardly seems ambiguous.States that
have banned same sex marriage continue to have their laws overturned by the
various Federal courts, Texas being the latest. Smart AGs, like Kentucky's,
see the writing on the wall and choose to not fight the inevitability of this
movement. The overwhelming judicial opinion is that any such law, regardless of
whether it is "the will of the people," violates rights guaranteed by
the 14th amendment. It will be very difficult for any state to make the case
that they have the legal power to deny a legal marriage contract to a particular
demographic - comprised of consenting adults with legal standing - based solely
on a behavior some percentage of the population doesn't like. The pathetic
case put forward by Utah being a perfect example.
The same U.S. government that took away from Utah women their right to vote
after granting it to them is now saying rights can't be taken away? It must
be nice to think you can have it both ways.The bottom line is either
Amendment 3 is law or it isn't. This is a mess that Robert
Shelby committed and he should be held accountable for it.
@chris b@chrisb "When have I have supported religion using
religion as a reason to impose restrictions on all Americans."sorry
but this sentence very clearly states that your claim that you have never
supported religions using religious reasoning, not anything to do with you how
justify your reasoning.But it is nice knowing I agree with Pope Francis
and Mormon Prophet Monson, both men who according to their religions speak for
God."clearly supporting their religious views, again nothing to do
with your personal justifications.twist it how you like Chris but you
clearly contradicted yourself. but since you do keep trying to make
it about your justifications, Why not answer the questions posed by others?
LovelyDesert - Utah was wrong when we took away women's right to vote (that
decision was repealed by the Federal Government), it was wrong when we passed an
anti-mixed race marriage amendment (that decision was repealed by the Federal
Government), and it is wrong now when we passed an amendment banning same-sex
marriage (that decision is now being repealed by the Federal Government.)There seems to be a pattern here...
GOD created Man and gave him the ability to produce Human seed. GOD created
Woman, and gave her the ability to produce Human eggs, and when fertilized by
the seed of Man, can produce a Human body to house the Spirit of a child of GOD.
There has not been equality between the SEXES, since then. The most choice
assignment, nurturing his Spirit children, within their own bodies. God gave Man
the assignment of caring for the Mother of his Spirit children, and given Man
the Priesthood to preform this duty. There is NO way any two members, of the
same Sex can be equal to this.
@ Chris B: You have stated several times on this thread that, although you
agree with the Catholic and Mormon churches, your opposition to same-sex
marriage is not based on religious reasons.And you have provided us
with a very nice analogy of agreeing with Lane's mom that vegetables are
good for you and that, probably much like Lane's mom, this is based on
sound science.What you have not explained - although you have been
asked at least three times - is what you do base your opposition to same-sex
marriage on (since, according to you, it is not based on religion).Are you or are you not able to provide a non-religious reason for your
opposition to same-sex marriage?
donquixote84721,You've adequately described mating, fertility
and childbirth. Now, considering that for the last few years, at least 40% of
all children are being born out of wedlock, one must wonder what your Cliff
Notes sex-ed class has to do with marriage. Especially as marriage is
fertility-neutral. Post-menopausal women, men with vasectomies, and people with
all manner of other causes of infertility are allowed to enter into heterosexual
marriage. Companionship marriage is allowed, too. No one forces a couple to
sexually consummate a marriage. Couples get married for all sorts of reasons,
sometimes not including wanting kids. Or sex.However, since you
brought up God, I'd like to quote you a scripture... Gen 1:7 "So God
created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and
female He created them."So, God is male and female, both,
together? Let me ask you this, who is more male and female together than a gay
man or a lesbian woman? (Native Americans revered their "two-spirit"
tribesmen, and often made them shamans.)
@ Azazael: The only way to address/remove the inequalities same-sex couples
face by being denied marriage is to eliminate all differences between cohabiting
and marrying.Why would you want to do this? Why not just allow
same-sex couples to marry?@ first2third: Usually when a marriage is
ended by a judge it is at the request of the parties involved. Would you like a
judge to just arbitrarily decide you are no longer married to the person you
love?@ Redshirt1701: It is interesting that you bring up civil
unions and how, since they are not the same as marriage, things that would not
be allowed under marriage laws are being allowed under civil union laws. Civil union laws create very interesting slippery slopes because they
are not marriage and do not have the same legal effect as marriage. The best
way to prevent the situation that occurred in the Netherlands is to only have
marriage and have it available to all couples.(As a side note, other
than being open and very public, how does what this man did differ from having
an affair or multiple partners - situations that occur thousands of times here
in the US?)
To "Maudine" the point is that it took about 10 years for the
Netherlands to go from civil unions for gays to SSM. If they are at civil
unions for polygamists, that means we are just a few years away from legalized
polygamy there. Since a lot of world leaders like to think of themselves as the
"cool" leaders, they will jump on the polygamy bandwagon. My guess is
that within 20 years polygamy will be legal in the US.
I'm going to go back to school and become a divorce lawyer specializing in
Homosexual marriages. I'll become rich beyond the dreams of averice.
Azazael, the Supreme Court threw out this argument in 1954 in Brown vs Board of
Education. They ruled that separate but equal laws were inherently unequal.
And the courts have repeatedly backed this up--including the NJ Supreme Court
which ruled that civil unions were not equal to marriage and restricting gay
couples to civil unions violated their rights.
wrz, the state is free to make laws which discriminate against certain classes
of citizens if--and only if---it has a legitimate reason. Marriage law, with a
few age-related exceptions, denies /discriminates against children and anyone
who is a close blood relative. Marriage is a serious step; it is restricted to
adults both to protect the exploitation of children and because teens are
neurologically not as able to understand the significance of long-term contracts
as adults. The consanguinity restriction was put in the law to prevent
inherited defects in children that might be borne of the union; please note that
Utah permits first cousins to marry when there is no chance of a biological
child being conceived. Polygamy has been restricted because of serious concerns
about exploitation of women as well as the obvious fact that unions of more than
two people do not make for as stable a society as do pairs who are committed to
each other. Legalizing marriage between people of different races
did not open the door to incest or to people to demand the right to marry cocker
spaniels. And neither will the legitimization of same sex marriage.
To "Laura Bilington" but 2 gays will never be equal to the marriage of a
man and a woman. What this movement does is redefine marriage. Essentially
renaming an Orange and Apple so that it can be sold as an Apple. Changing the
name does not fix the differences.
@MaudineIn my mind state-recognized marriage includes benefits, rights and
protections. Regarding benefits:If you redefine homeownership to
include renters you defeat the intent of the laws that promote homeownership.
The legislature created benefits to promote a behavior that they determined was
for beneficial to communities and society. By allowing same-sex
couples to marry, redefining marriage, you promote same-sex marriage on equal
footing with opposite-sex marriage; essentially defeating the purpose of the
legislature in promoting its ideal definition of marriage. The legislature
decided that it wanted to promote its ideal definition of marriage. Imo the
legislature should have the ability to define marriage to promote what it
determines is beneficial to communities and society.I am in favor of
laws granting same-sex couples rights and protections. But, I am not in favor
of redefining marriage to promote same-sex marriage with the benefits that the
legislature designed for opposite-sex couples.
@ Redshirt: When the trio in the Netherlands entered into their agreement, a
judge refused to strike it down because it was not a marriage and
“contracts that settle the cohabitation of more than two persons can have
a useful ordering function.”If legal issues such as
inheritance rights, medical decision making, division of property, insurance
coverage, taxes, etc., can be worked out, why shouldn't polygamy be
legalized?Many of those who oppose same-sex marriage accuse
supporters of being hypocrites for not also supporting polygamy. Many
supporters of same-sex marriage would support the legalization of polygamy if
there were a way to address the issues that naturally arise when discussing a
union of three or more when compared to a union of two. This group solved those
problems. Considering the long, storied, and continuing tradition of polygamy,
why should it not be legalized?
@ Redshirt:@ Azazael:You both state that same-sex marriages
are not equal to heterosexual marriages.Other than the gender of the
parties involved, how are they different from other marriages? Utah, Oklahoma, Texas, and other states have tried using the argument that
marriage is for the rearing of children to support their prohibitions on
same-sex marriage - but none of them have been able to provide a legally valid
reason why old or infertile couples are allowed marriage without children while
same-sex couples with or without children are denied marriage.The
only reasoning offered by the states basically amounts to animus: we don't
deny it to these other couples because we are comfortable with them but we are
not comfortable with same-sex relationships so we don't want to recognize
them.Animus is not a legally valid reason for a law, so if you can
come up with a better one, do so quickly and pass it on to the lawyers -
otherwise same-sex marriage is going to be legalized whether you like it or not.
Meanwhile, back on the farm...I note with some interest that
State's counsel for the appeal of the Amendment 3 decision has just filed
his third expansion request for his reply brief. The 7,000 word
brief was originally due March 4. Schaerr filed for, and was granted, an
extension to March 11 and an additional 5,000 words. He then almost immediately
filed for a 3-day extension to March 14 (today!), which the Court also granted.
Then, on March 11, he filed a request to expand his reply to 20,000 words,
citing the ways the Amicus briefs completely shredded his opening brief and
their strong support of the Plaintiff's response. (I'm not sure if
the Court approved his request, but they've been very accommodating thus
far, so they probably did.)So... do you think it's maybe
possible that the State is realizing it has a weak case and is desperately
trying to find a way to bolster it?In any event, we'll all be
able to read it for ourselves tonight or tomorrow. I hope DN posts a link to
it, and the leading Amicus briefs, too.
RedShirt, The marriage of "2 gays" can be every bit the equivalent of a
"traditional" marriage. The proof is in the longevity of the
relationship. Two men (or two women) happily together for over 25 years easily
trumps the marriage of two unhappy "traditional" 18-year-olds who
don't last five years together. Or all those Hollywood marriages we fuss
over all the time. (Zsa Zsa, Liz, and Mickey Rooney were married 25 times
between them.) You want to use them for a benchmark?Marriage is
best measured in commitment, mutual support, and how the whole is greater than
its parts. That is society's goal, and the reason we recognize marriage in
the first place. A loving couple, committed to a life together is the only
requirement. If they're gay, so what? It's no skin off my nose,
doesn't affect my straight marriage, or my open and welcoming church, and
our married gay neighbors are perfectly nice people.Learn how to
live your own life well, and let your neighbors do the same, and the world will
be a happier place.
To "Testimony" if you want to go to Hollywood as examples, how about
using Richard Simmons as an example of what the gay community is like. Is that
a valid example?The problem is that marriage is not just about a
relationship between 2 people. Marriage is a contract with socity, and with the
statistics of the bad things that the children of gays get into, compounded with
the average gay marriage lasting 2.25 years (Dutch study).You even
admit that there is a difference, and that is just the superficial biological
difference. The fact is that the studies all point to marriage between a man
and woman being best for the long term of society. While it may not alter your
relationship, it will alter the relationships that your children, grand
children, and great grand children have will be influenced by gay marriage.
"compounded with the average gay marriage lasting 2.25 years (Dutch
study)."-------that Dutch study occurred before the
Dutch allowed gay marriage, so your statement is a half truth - meaning that it
studied gay relationship without marriage. Please be more careful of what you
are saying.xxxxxxx"The fact is that the studies all
point to marriage between a man and woman being best for the long term of
society. "And studies show that an older Jewish couple is the
very best for raising children. So? We do not legislate for the ideal. We
legislate for the greater good and freedom. Gay marriage does not harm children
- they will have the same children whether or not they are married, and not
allow gay marriage actually DOES harm the children.If you can show
how freedom is being abused, not just that people are being offended because a
word that they assume belongs to them is being used in a way that they do not
approve of, but an actual liberty taken away because of gay marriage, I will
listen. No one has been able to do that so far. That is why gay marriage is
becoming the law of the land.
"Decriminalizing polygamy seems correct since sleeping around is
legal..."Dang! Now you tell me."Half the states
already have cousin marriage legal."There's a whole raft of
other combinations that will need to be addressed as well as cousins."Do you oppose interracial marriage?"For me, yes. For
others, they can do as the please."The court decisions
overturning those bans are what's being used as precedent for same-sex
marriage..."And it could be used to legitimize any other
combination of marriages."...so if you're worried about me
supporting something that might be used as precedent then should we have opposed
interracial marriage to avoid some "what if" down the road?"Interracial marriage is hard, almost impossible to define, since almost
everyone in the US has a variety of backgrounds.
"Lawyers for the couples told U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball the
state's move to undo the marriages deprives them of rights, strips them of
dignity and leaves them humiliated."Well, I can't marry
people that I have strong emotional feelings for like my sister, or my parents.
I feel so humiliated and I feel so lacking in dignity. It is terrible. Why are
my emotional bonds to them, less valuable to society than the emotional bonds
that two unrelated people of the same gender have to one another?A
whole new class of second class citizens will be created if this goes
through.I can understand a heterosexual couple who have strong
emotional feelings for one another. They may bear children or they may have
born children. But if we expand marriage to non-procreative unions then
we've fundamentally changed the meaning of the institution.
@TekakaromatagiI agree with your last sentence. To redefine something is
to attack it's fundamental definition. To redefine marriage will inevitably
redefine the family. The family is the basic unit of society, so SSM is
attacking society and will eventually lead to the destruction of this great
country and civilization as we know it. This WILL happen if we keep going down
the path we are heading.
Values VoterLONG BEACH, CA"After a quick check of Judge Dale
Kimball's background, I would be extremely surprised if he ruled in favor
of the couples, and against the state of Utah."--- Oh, goodness!
This comment shows a shocking lack of faith in the judiciary!Judge
Kimball is older, apparently a mormon. I would guess that his PERSONAL view
would be against same-sex marriage. However, if we start assuming that judges
will bring their religion into Constitutional cases, we are lost.Kimball was formerlyChairman of Utah State Bar Judicial Performance
Evaluation CommitteeChairman of Utah State Bar Ethics and Discipline
"Other than the gender of the parties involved, how are they different from
other marriages? "Because no union of the same gender has ever
conceived a child. I am not purple and I am not a dinosaur. But other than
that, how am I different than Barney the Dinosau?
@ Tekakaronatagi "Because no union of the same gender has ever conceived a
child."Adoption and assisted reproductive law applies to both
opposite sex and same-sex couples. Many homosexuals do indeed have the capacity
to procreate. Are you aware that there is no procreative requirement in civil
marriage law? Are you aware that there is no parental fitness test in
civil marriage law? Did you know that educational and income levels are
the best predictors of child outcomes? Did you know that people convicted
of harm and abuse can legally marry and this does not re-define the institution
of marriage to mean something awful?Did you know that traditional voting
not re-defined by allowing women the right to vote, even though we now have
"genderless voting?" The re-definition argument is at best a logical
TekakaromatagiBecause no union of the same gender has ever conceived a
child.Marriage is a government regulated contract between two
adults. It brings some 1,400 legal benefits and protections to the couple. While
those laws extend legal benefits to children the couple have or legally adopt,
marriage in and of itself is the relationship between two adults and has nothing
to do with whether or not they have "conceived a child."In
the case of a gay or lesbian couple who have or adopt children, marriage of the
parents extends exactly the same legal benefits to those kids as the marriage of
a hetero-couple extends to their conceived or adopted children. You
are different from Barney the Dinosaur because you are a human being, not an
imaginary character designed to amuse children and annoy adults. Comparing gay
and lesbian relationships to something imaginary and annoying is an insult to
those relationships and the people in them.