Did anybody expect any differently? Everyone knew this was coming.
Justice is coming to the Rockies.Utah doesn't know it yet, but
it may become the Zion and the light to other states and eventually the world
regarding families and the rights of individuals. No, I am not being sarcastic,
I really believe that the blindness is being removed , now by legal force, but
eventually will be embraced as the wisest decision.Congratulations
This just makes me proud to be an American. Though it pales in comparison to
what my gay brothers and sisters must be experiencing it feels like a breeze of
fresh air rolling down from the mountain of justice and equality.
"The Time Has Come Today", just as The Chamber's Brothers sang
several decades ago!
I am very delighted that justice and equality has finally come to the state of
Utah. Now all that needs to be done is to lift the ban to marry altogether.
Live and let live. It's a great way to live!
Yet another anti-democratic ruling handed down by yet another
Carter/Clinton/Obama appointee. Funny how that works.The court that
overruled the voters of Michigan who outlawed affirmative action voted along
straight party lines. Seven "justices" appointed by Clinton, Carter or
Obama voted to strip Michigan voters of their right to outlaw affirmative
action, along with one appointee who was forced on Bush by Michigan's two
"Democratic" senators.The word "democrat" is quite a
fiction when it comes to describing the so-called Democratic Party.
Well Baccus0902 might have this partially right. Kind of condescending to say
that "the blindness is being removed" though. That sort of rhetoric goes
a long way toward building bridges that will need to be built when all this is
settled (sarcasm here). He is correct in stating this is by "legal
force" - certainly not by moral authority however. Abortion was
"legally forced" upon the nation in Roe v Wade, but that certainly has
not resulted in acceptance of that practice by hundreds of millions of
Americans!. Abortion continues to divide America and always will. If same-sex
marriage is legally forced upon Americans and it might be, it will result in the
same kind of divisiveness in society and won't necessarily be the kind of
world the gays are hoping for. A better approach would be to stop the gloating
and mean spirited rhetoric and seek to find some common ground with the
@wjalden:Judge Kimball served as a Stake President and as a Regional
Representative. I think it would be hard to paint him as anti-family. And I
don't see how this ruling is anti-democratic. He was just applying the law.
WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or
offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand
accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family
will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by
ancient and modern prophets.It won't be long now.
We are seeing 2 Nephi 26:22 in action: "he leadeth them by the neck with a
flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever". 20 years
ago this would have been an April Fool's joke, but certain powers, some on
this side of the veil, and some on the other have gradually upped the
temperature, and we did not know when to jump. The time to jump and do something
about it is now. We should start with our own families, make sure our house is
in order, make sure our testimonies are firm, our faith is strong - that is the
only way we can win against this.
Unless you are being forced to marry someone of the same sex against your will,
then same-sex marriage is not being forced on you.
Judge Kimball noted the 1892 case of "Tufts v Tufts" in which Utah
Courts ruled that changes to divorce law could not be applied retroactively. He
then states:“Plaintiffs’ marriages were authorized by
law at the time they occurred. The marriages were solemnized and valid under the
existing law so that nothing remained to be done. No separate step can or must
be taken after solemnization for the rights of a marriage to vest. Moreover,
Plaintiffs began to exercise the rights associated with such valid marriages
prior to the entry of the Supreme Court’s Stay Order. As in Tufts,
therefore, the change in the law does not affect the vested rights associated
with those marriages. The vested rights in Plaintiffs’ validly-entered
marriages stand independent of the change in the law. For over a hundred years,
the Tufts decision has never been called into question because it states a
fundamental principle of basic fairness.”
@Sasha Pachev, twenty years ago the idea of a Mormon running for president would
have been an April Fool's joke. But in 2012 we had one. What made the
difference? Mormons "came out", and the "good Christians" who
had demonized them gradually realized that they were ordinary people--just like
them--who went to work, mowed their lawns, raised their children, paid their
bills, served as the sewer commissioner or chaired the Rotary fundraiser--you
get the idea. And although, to this day, there are sects of Christians who say
vicious things about Mormons---kind of like some of the letter writers here
refer to gays---a majority of people in the US have a favorable opinion of their
LDS neighbors. As well they should. You can try your darndest to teach your
prejudices to your children, but most of them will look around, see that gay
families are an asset to the community, and reject the gays-are-evil doctrines.
You can't "win against this". All you can do, all anyone can do, is
take care of yourself. If this isn't for you, don't do it.
If the law should reflect the concept that any persons who love each other can
marry, then why not first cousins, brothers and sisters, or even parents and
children (assuming all are adults and there is no fertility)?If the
concept truly is that ANY adult can marry ANY other then why not? Tradition?
Because we find it personally troubling? Many have forcefully argued that these
do not matter. If they don't matter (and again, if there is no issue of
fertility) then what is to restrain such from marrying if they choose?
The ongoing threat of Fire and Brimstone!Here it comes, again.Deja
vu rhetoric, most recently heard in the civil rights movement of the 1960's
I am sorry that my choice of a marriage companion is being forced upon so many
people who find my love offensive. The last thing I have ever wanted to do is
make other people uncomfortable. In fact, I have always taken extreme
precautions to make sure that my personal life remains private to avoid the
scrutiny of others. This issue, unfortunately, has forced me to
actually speak up and finally be truthful about a most personal and often
painful reality that I felt needed to be hidden for my safety and the comfort of
others. Imagine how stressful this is for us. I am sure I am not the only one
who has lost friends, been shunned at church, and become strangers in their own
families.The reality, my neighbors, is this issue of marriage
equality is not about you. You aren't being forced to do anything other
than accept that some of us love a little differently and want to share that
love with the same legal protections that you have been so fortunate to have for
@ MeckofahessYou wrote:"Well Baccus0902 might have this
partially right. Kind of condescending to say that "the blindness is being
removed" though. That sort of rhetoric goes a long way toward building
bridges that will need to be built when all this is settled (sarcasm
here).""A better approach would be to stop the gloating and mean
spirited rhetoric and seek to find some common ground with the traditionalists
IMO."Definition of Hypocrisy: "Hypocrisy is the claim or
pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions,
behaviors, virtues, motivations, or other characteristics that one does not in
actual fact hold. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or
activity for which one criticizes another" WikipediaBuilding
bridges? Find common ground?You have condemned us as abominations,
sinners, perverts, pedophiles, etc. etc. How can you the righteous find common
ground with us, second class Samaritans?If you can build bridges and
find common ground, please teach us the way, we can try once again. You are our
brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, we would like to be accepted as part of
your community.... as equals. Can you do that?
Let's stop all the dancing around the issue. Christians and Mormons who
oppose same sex marriage do so, not because it is better for children, but
because they believe that their god will cease sustaining the
"god-ordained" USA, and it will be cursed, like Sodom and Gomorrah.There is no better example of the superstitious mindset at work than
this. Rather than point out the absurdity of such thinking, however, let's
go along with t for the sake of argument. Even IF a (vindictive) god was
determined to curse and destroy a nation because it embraced marriage equality
for all it's citizens, remember that the god who allegedly destroyed Sodom
and Gomorrah covenanted repeatedly NOT to destroy it if even TEN good people
could be found there.Now those same religious folks assure us that
they are god's chosen, righteous people, and there are millions of them in
the country!So we are in no danger at all!Relax and
enjoy marriage equality!
This judge represents the true Mormon values taught so long ago in the early
church. He is doing his duty to uphold the law! He is not imposing his beliefs
upon anyone. He is honoring and obeying the law. He represents the best of
Mormon behavior in word and deed! There are those here who will call him all
sorts of names, but I call him honest and brave!
Continuing ...Thirdly, the people of Utah overwhelmingly voted to
define marriage as between one woman and one man. This is the democratic
process. This is what the people want.These judges are ignoring the
express will of the people, and are so full of their own power, that they think
they are above the law, and they feel it is their duty to impose their personal
will on us. Yes, same-sex marriage is being forced on us. If it were not so,
then same-sex marriage would not come to Utah until a majority of Utahns vote
I hope the millennium comes sooner than later. No more problems with this whole
After Kimball made a ruling about the beetles that were killing the spruce
trees. His office was asked if he could take a few hours and see the situation
for himself and then could use some command sense in making his decision. The
reply was "Judges can't use command sense they are bond by the law"
yet most judges are still activist.
It will be recognized in Utah and everywhere else. There is one place that it
won't be recognized which is The Lord's Kingdom.
I don't know why it bothers so many people that gay people want to be
married and legally recognized as equal in society. Who cares?! Who other
people marry and have relations with is of no concern to me and has no effect on
how I raise my children or who I pick to have relations with. Recognizing gay
marriage does not make other people gay or in any way lessen my heterosexual
marriage. This is a civil rights issue in the most simplest form.
Opposition to gay marriage being recognized and their spouses enjoying the same
benefits as they would in a "traditional" marriage is based on people
passing their religious convictions onto others. Law is no place for religion.
Its called "separation of church and state" for a reason - to eliminate
institutionalized prejudices and discriminatory practices.Marriage
and love is for everyone. Equal rights and protection under the law is for
everyone as a citizen of the United States.
Constitutionalist(?)You might really enjoy living in an area of homes
where owners have lots and lots of control and unrealistic rules. This
type of "my way or the highway" governing is frequently seen in a areas
that operate with a governing Home Owners Association. People who like
this sort of thing can feel like they live in a thoroughly "democratic"
place, as you can exclude many types of people for many different reasons.
Voting on "offensive issues" frequently occurs. The association's
policy books are filled with page after page of rules.Just think of the
power!Who cares what the Constitution says about equal rights. Correct?
The judge is "upholding the law?" Well, that was the question to begin
with. Was same sex marriage the law or not? If not, then the marriages that took
place in that brief moment of time--thanks to an activist judge who did not stay
her ruling for appeal--are not legal and therefore, can be annulled as the
"retroactive" argument is moot.
A judge ordered the State to honor legally-signed contracts. Imagine that.
BlackDiamond, I think that all LBGT people were also created in the image of
God. I wonder how many people won't be recognized in the Lord's
Kingdom after this life? We all might be surprised to find out that those who
suffered discrimination at our hands might be the first to be let in? But I'm sure you know who is going the be there better than any of us.
Congratulations to all the Utah couples whose marriages are now recognized!
Great news!@ Meckofahess and your comment on common ground and
bridges...The common ground has always been the American belief in
equality and the right to self-determination/free association. LGBTs have been
building a bridge to this ground for decades now. In the last decade, some
voters in some states decided that this bridge needed to be burned once and for
all. They were wrong to try. Their intentions may have been good, but their
efforts actually served to undermine our Constitutional values, not protect
them. So IMO, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the LGBT activists
that refused to allow the bridge to be burned. They have enabled the nation to
reaffirm its belief that ALL are created equal, not just some.The
common ground is already under our feet. We are not required to approve of ANY
who share this ground with us and they don't have to approve of us. All
that is required is mutual respect of the right to be there.
I think the Koch bros are a greater threat to our country than marriage will
BlackDiamond: "It will be recognized in Utah and everywhere else. There is
one place that it won't be recognized which is The Lord's
Kingdom."Fine. You go right ahead and believe what you want
about the afterlife.Meanwhile, here in the real world, living in a
nation bound by the rule of law and founded upon constitutional protections of
individual rights that cannot be voted away, respecting a same-sex couple's
right to marry and be treated with the same fairness and respect that you take
for granted is the ethical, moral, lawful thing to do.
Why is it when I read posts that begin “WE WARN” (in all caps!) like
sj’s, I have a mini giggle fit?And, note to Sasha: You do
realize, don’t you, that when you start quoting scripture, the only people
who are nodding in solemn agreement are people already firmly entrenched in your
camp?Twin Lights makes the same alarmist nonsense “what
if?” arguments that are so rare in this place called reality that they
aren’t worth talking about. Frankly, if someone wants to marry their dad
(ew) or first cousin (in Alabama, this is called “traditional
marriage”) , knock yourself out. What; are you worried that our children
will soon be bombarded with the message that "it's OK to marry your
sister"?Finally, when did the term "activist judge" come
to mean "a judge who interprets any law in a way that a true-blue
conservative doesn't agree with"?
I learned long ago when discussing this issue to simply move on when someone
offers a response that involves predictions about "the end times." Any
individual who seriously offers responses of the "We WARN" variety, is
not reachable. Much better to concentrate ones efforts at persuasion on
rational, reachable people who are not subject to the pronouncements of some
external authority. Look, over the last decade or so, fully one third of the
American people have changed their minds on this issue. We're winning.
We're winning because we have the better arguments. Its best to be kind to
people who disagree, but not engage seriously with irrational people.
Twin Lights: "If the law should reflect the concept that any persons who
love each other can marry, then why not first cousins, brothers and sisters, or
even parents and children (assuming all are adults and there is no
fertility)?"As for first cousins, that horse left the barn long
ago. First cousin marriages are legal in 25 states plus DC (six states have
fertility restrictions, but the rest don't). Utah legalized marriages by
infertile first cousin couples in 1996.The fact that Utah law
requires that first cousin couples be incapable of bearing children negates the
state's lead argument in court that the primary public policy purpose of
marriage is to encourage procreation. Obviously the legislature understands
that there are other equally valid policy objectives met by marriage, including
encouraging stable, loving, nonprocreative relationships.
SlopJ30,Okay, you think it is alarmist nonsense. But within my
lifetime the concept of same sex marriage was nearly unthinkable. And yes, I am
concerned that soon the message will be that you can marry anyone you want
period. The question then is that good for our society? If not, then some
constraints on marriage are reasonable.
@No Fit in SG:Are you serious? You equate the democratic process of
majority rule with "my way or the highway", yet you equate the act of a
single judge overturning the laws created by the majority as proper governance.
This seems totally backwards from what "my way or the highway" means.I guess that it is easy to accept a dictatorship when the dictator
agrees with you. I would have thought that Americans would champion the rule of
law over the rule of a dictator, even when the dictator agrees with them, and
the majority does not.In the case of this judge ordering the state
of Utah to follow an illegal ruling by another judge who does not believe in the
rule of law, Utah must, of course, push back against the "my way or the
highway" judges, and champion the laws of Utah as created through proper
legislative processes.Hooray for those in Utah government who are
willing to push back rather than allow these dictatorial judges to turn Utah law
on its ear!
@Twin Lights 8:52 a.m. May 20, 2014SlopJ30,Okay, you
think it is alarmist nonsense. But within my lifetime the concept of same sex
marriage was nearly unthinkable. And yes, I am concerned that soon the message
will be that you can marry anyone you want period. The question then is that
good for our society? If not, then some constraints on marriage are
reasonable.-------------------------That same argument
was made when the ban against inter-racial marriage was struck down. In fact,
the agruments against inter-racial marriage are exactly the same as the ones
being made against same-sex marriage now -- SIN!!!, against God's will,
will lead to approval of polygamy, incest, marriage to animals, you can marry
anyone you want period, etc. Funny thing -- it didn't happen then.
there's absolutely no reason to think the "list of horrible
consequences" will happen now.
@ConstitutionalistA dictator that tells you that the state will
issue marriage licenses to people you don't approve of? Same sex marriage
is being forced on you? Has the dictator picked your spouse yet?
Man, I love it when we can talk about gay marriage, Utah, the end of the world,
equality, and a federal judge all in one. Thanks for bringing up those points of
view.So, my question is this: What will happen if Utah told that
judge, "Thanks for bringing that up, but we are going to continue to hold up
the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."? Will
Utah then be "treated as [an enemy] of the state" for not doing that?Just curious...
@Twin Lights wrote: "...some constraints on marriage are reasonable."In this, you are correct. Some constraints on marriage *are* reasonable.
I think it's reasonable that marriage only be entered into by competent
adults, that those adults both currently not be married, and that they not be
closely related.The courts have in the past decided that it is *not*
a reasonable constraint that both partners be of the same race (see Loving v.
Virginia). They are now deciding that the requirement that the partners be
opposite sex is also not a reasonable constraint. If there is a rational
argument to be made against same-sex marriage, it has not as of yet appeared:
all we have seen are appeals to tradition, appeals to religion, slippery slope
arguments, debunked studies, and irrelevant (and incoherent) rantings about
@pickmerg and @gittalopctbiSo the two judges didn't rule the
way you like, but that does not make them activist. they are simply upholding
the federal constitution. Maybe it is time for you to check your understanding
@Constitutionalist 9:23 a.m. May 20, 2014"Majority rules"
only to the extent that it doesn't violate the US Constitution
(acknowledged in the Utah Constitution as being the supreme law of the land).
When the Utah Constitution comes in conflict with the US Constitution, the US
Constitution prevails. That's waht happened here. Judge Shelby compared
Amendment 3 to the Utah Constitution, properly found that Amendment 3 violated
several provisions of the US Constitution (the 9th and 14th Amendments among
others) and, by applying the correct rule of law, negated the unconstitutional
provisions of the Utah constitution. Utah tried a "my way or the
highway" approach to negate the civil rights of some of its residents. The
US Constitution, the appropriate rule of law, did not allow that to happen.
Judge Kimball did the same thing. That is what Judges are suppoed to do.If Utah doesn't want its laws to be 'turned on its ear"
then it needs to be sure that its laws are Constitutional. It didn't do
that in the past with Amendment 3; hopefully it will learn its lesson and do
what is right and Constitutional in the future.
About the ruling:Ex Post Facto played a huge role here. This was
going to happen due to the chaos of the judge that originally ruled in favor and
then denied a stay.I am against Gay Marriage, but Ex Post Facto here
had to be the correct Constitutional ruling here. A ruling that NEVER should
have taken place had Shelby let the stay happen.It doesn't
matter that Kimball was an Ex SP and Regional Representative. So was Mitt
Romney (ex bishop and SP), and I didn't vote for him, because I believed he
was shirking on many things.
Furry 1993,Interracial marriage is as old as the bible. Abraham and
Joseph married Egyptian women. Moses married an Ethiopian woman. The hysteria
over it was also then (seem Miriam and Moses arguing over this).Let's not go to animals. The simple point here is consenting adults.
And please just answer the question. If I were to (heaven forbid) demand to
marry my sibling or child (and infertility was certain) why should society stop
me if the ONLY requirement is love and desire for a marriage relationship?The only reason we have not is because society has said "that is
wrong". But the response is always the same - "that is your opinion but
not mine". Can society have an opinion or what is right and wrong?Understands Math,But why the limitation on near family? Is that
not just your opinion?
@Meckofahess;Your approval and "bridges" are not necessary.
Somehow you think you have "moral authority" when all you have is
bigotry.@sj;Was your warning directed at Utah's
Atty. General and leading church leaders for their efforts to
"disintegrate" the families of LGBT Americans? It certainly looks that
way.@SashaP;Your silly fictional stories are not binding
in real life. Thanks for the laugh though.@Constitutionalist;What you fail to understand is that the "people of Utah" NEVER
had the right to vote on the rights of LGBT Americans in the first place.@Laura Ann;I also hope you and your ilk are raptured away
ASAP. It'll make life so much better for the rest of us.@BlackDiamond;You miss the point; this is NOT the "lord's
kingdom", it's the USA.
@BlackDiamond"It will be recognized in Utah and everywhere else.
There is one place that it won't be recognized which is The Lord's
Kingdom."The Lord's Kingdom sounds like a wicked, horrible
and evil place. I sincerely wish that no one ever ends up there.
Amendment three is the absolute worst form of "democracy," it teeters on
@Constitutionalist - FYI, The US Constitution supersedes all state laws, which
is the entire basis of the legal challenge.
@BobYou are talking as if it is ok to break the rules and still be
rewarded. We live in a country with rules to protect us. It is the same with
God's Kingdom. He gives us rules to follow so that we can prove our love
to him by keeping those rules. Our purpose in life to see if we can align our
lives to what God wants us to do. It is sad to see that people wants to change
the rules so that they can do whatever they want to do. I am not perfect, but i
strive everyday to be a little bit closer to God today than I was yesterday.
@Twin;One of the main purposes of marriage is to create a familial
bond where none previously existed. Your daughter (or son, aunt, uncle, sister,
brother, godzilla, frankenstein, goldylocks, pet rock, tonka truck, etc.)
already has that bond with you, thus marriage isn't required.
A prophet once said: "The leprocies of yesteryear is the conduct code of
today.This is the end of a once moral society. I wonder how long
God will allow this country to violate HIS laws before he brings us down on our
@Twin Lights 11:08 a.m. May 20, 2014When all is said and done, the
purpose of marriage is to establish a legal relationship between people who are
legal strangers. There is already a legal relationship between your sibling and
child. Therefore marriage would accomplish nothing, and is not needed. If you
wish to commit the crime of incest or child abuse, that is something the
government would address with you through other laws.
Yes, and in another time the majority voted to keep blacks from marrying whites
in nearly every state. Eventually, the courts found that was a violation of
civil rights and overturned the majority vote. Why is it so
difficult for some folks to understand that basic constitutional principle that
majority rule is limited by the enumeration of civil rights? The majority cannot
vote away the civil rights of anyone! If there's one thing we
should've learned in the civil rights movement of the last century, it
should be that.
@O'really"Will you get on the band wagon to force pubic schools
to teach that this is "normal"?"Yes. What do you want
elementary schools to do when kids inevitably have a draw your family type
assignment and someone draws multiple moms or dads? Ignore it? Don't let
the other kids know?@Let It Go![What will happen if Utah told
that judge, "Thanks for bringing that up, but we are going to continue to
hold up the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a
woman."?]Contempt of court charges.
@ Karen R:Karen, even though I frequency disagree with some of your
assertions and conclusions, I think you present many thoughtful arguments. No
doubt we already share common ground - I believe that. I also agree with you
that "what is required is mutual respect of the right to be there". I
would hope that our gay friends and neighbors can also respect our
"traditional" point of view too. Even if SSM doesn't become legal,
we will still have members of the gay community in our midst and we need to
strengthen bridges between the two groups because we are all God's
children. One difference is that not all of God's children believe that he
is real and that he has provided eternal laws and principles to guide our lives.
If we take God out of the equation, then it doesn't matter what our
choices and behaviors are. In that world people can with impunity do whatever
It seems we've nearly reached a point in life where being anti-gay is a lot
like a vegan in a BBQ restaurant. Order some BBQ beans sans the
BBQ...you're just going to have to find a way to make it work for you.
Meanwhile, don't try to change the menu for the rest of us. :-)
@Twin Lights wrote: "But why the limitation on near family? Is that not just
your opinion?"Because if a family relationship exists, that
relationship may involve a level of undue influence over what should be a free
and open decision.
@But seriously folks! wrote: "This is the end of a once moral society. I
wonder how long God will allow this country to violate HIS laws before he brings
us down on our knees?"When was the *beginning* of the "once
moral society"? It certainly couldn't have been in the era was slavery
was tolerated. Or institutionalized racism.
. . . and now, Pennsylvania. Fourteenth straight win in federal
court for marriage equality in less than one year.
Furry 1993RanchHandUndestands MathMarriage can be
between legal strangers but not always. If family members (say third cousins)
the marriage realigns the family relationship. In many states there were civil
unions yet folks got married afterward to change the nature of an existing legal
relationship. So the question remains, if for whatever reason folks do wish to
do that with close family members, why not? One of you mentioned the law. Used
to be that was the case for homosexual relationships. One of you mentioned
undue influence. Could be but that can exist in a host of cases. The issue
remains, if allowed for anyone wishing to marry then why not for close family
members?Note I think it would be wrong. But I would say the same
about same sex marriage. So if moralistic views of right and wrong have no
jurisdiction here, why is marriage for close family members a problem (again,
infertility being assured)?
Yesterday the Oregon ban on gay marriage was thrown out. An hour ago the
Pennsylvania ban was thrown out. These activist judges! That pesky
wjalden,This is a movement to uphold the constitution. Not some
Democratic Party conspiracy, to bring hell to earth. The latest overturning was
in Pennsylvania and guess who appointed that Judge? Judge John E. Jones III, a
George W. Bush appointee who was recommended by then-Sen. Rick Santorum ….
gittalopctbi, it sounds like you think every judge who rules in a way that you
don't like should stay his/her decision pending appeal. The appeals
process does not exist because you don't like the ruling--to succeed in an
appeal you need to prove that something about the ruling or the trial was
wrong--the judge wouldn't let you testify, the judge showed clear bias, or
the judge ignored the law. Not too many appeals succeed when they are based on
the religious tracts or "tradition" or the "ick" factor. And I don't know why the DN editors don't restrict letters,
which the same writers send in every time there is an article on gay marriage,
which repeat the same thing (e.g. "I love my sister. Why can't I marry
her?" or "No woman can be a husband and no man can be a wife") or
which use incendiary phrases like "so-called marriage". These do
nothing to foster respectful dialogue.
@Understands MathWhen was the beginning of the great US moral
society? I've often wondered that myself. We can rule out any
date before 1865 because a society that permits the ownership of other human
beings cannot be moral (any society, that includes those in the bible). The years between 1865 and the Civil Rights movement can also be ruled
out because of Jim Crow, lynching, KKK, racism against all non-whites, lack of
women's rights, and so on. So while many people tend to have an idealized
memory of the 1950's it was a brutal time for many people in this country.
Plus when do we mark the end of Jim Crow; 1954, 1957, 1964, 1978?The
1980's all the way up to today also have their own issues. My guess would
be that we were a "moral nation" for about 5 hours in 1982.
Let's not misuse the word equality.Gay lifestyle has never led
to a prosperous nation. Never!
Worf, you need to do some research on the ancient Greeks. They were very
prosperous and homosexuality was a large part of their society.
A federal judge has just struck down the marriage ban in Pennsylvania!!!
We're on a ROLL!! Get with it Mormon friends.
@Furry1993:You claim that the Utah constitution was in violation of
the US constitution, and referred to amendments 9 and 14.What you
fail to realize is that the 14th amendment was written to help Negroes receive
protection in Southern states after the Civil War was concluded. Any judge who
attempts to apply that amendment to same sex couples being allowed to be
'married' is twisting words in the amendment totally away from any
intent. To then exacerbate this with applying the 9th is to turn the entire
constitution on its ear.Every ruling that applies these amendments
to the same-sex marriage issues is to destroy the intent of those who wrote the
amendments. Any judge who loves the constitution and the freedoms we receive as
Americans because of the constitution would not have applied these amendments
the way they have been applied. These judges are dictators who enjoy twisting
words to their own purposes, and in all cases they are thwarting the rule of law
and the will of the people. You approve of these actions because a dictator has
ruled in favor of your position, not because it is the right thing to do.
@worfAnd your assertion never makes any sense. Never!
@constitutionlist"What you fail to realize is that the 14th amendment
was written to help Negroes receive protection in Southern states after the
Civil War was concluded."Did you read the equal protection
clause? Does it say that it applies to racial issues only? Apparently not, it
applies to all Americans, black or white, man or women, gay or straight.
@Constitutionalist 4:09 p.m. May 20, 2014Please point out to me
where in the 14th Amendment it says that this Amendment is only intended to
handle racial issues. I'll give you a quick hint to save you time -- there
isn't anything. You just voiced an argument that we studied in depth when
I was in law school, because my constitutional Law professor knew that people
who are not knowledgeable or well-trained concerning the Constitution often
(erroneously) make it. Let me quote the pertinent part for you (the
same protection against federal action is found in the 5th 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." As
you can see, there is no limitation on the matters to which this Amendment
applies.It's clear you are trying to twist the Constitution to
make it say what you want. Sorry. That doesn't, and won't, work.
Maybe it will be legal in Utah, however In the Bible Leviticus 20:13 "If a
man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed
an abomination." I agree with the Bible, Not the courts. It is an
JUDGE KIMBALL ROCKS!
@The WraithI was in college in 1982 and we were never a moral nation
during the Reagan years!
I tried to post a link to the complete text of judge Kimball's official
decision on this case, but the Deseret News blocked my post because I included
an external link!I then asked the question: "So, is this the
legal opinion of a "rouge judge", or is this a well reasoned opinion
from a well respected member of the Utah bar?"
Leviticus 11:10 "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in
the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in
the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you"Shrimp.
Lobster. Catfish. An abomination. And liberal activists judges are mocking God
by not ordering every Red Lobster padlocked shut.
@DemiurgeI knew it!Then I submit that we have never been
a more moral nation than we are right now. And we will become even MORE of a
moral nation when same sex marriage becomes legal throughout the land!I boldly make this prophecy, once SSM is declared legal in America this nation
will NOT decline, it will not be visited by the wrath of a make believe deity.
Instead America will become a beacon of hope and justice to the world. America
will become stronger and more prosperous. Write it down ye generation of
doubters! There is no greater honor, responsibility, or virtue in this life than
to love our fellow brothers and sisters. After far too many years we
have finally proven beyond any doubt that homosexuality is simply a normal
variation of sexual identity. Science has shown that not only is this variation
normal but it is actually beneficial to our species prosperity (as long as it
only shows it about 2-5% of the population and low and behold it shows up in
about 2-5% of the human population - what a coincidence)! Hallelujah!
@ MeckofahessThank you. I appreciate the genuine concern evident in
your posts and your efforts to seek common ground even while staunchly defending
your position.Re: the remainder of your comment - I hear both,
"I'm concerned they're coming after religion next" and "If
no God, then no meaning and we become rudderless." I'll respond as if
this is an accurate reading, but please correct me if I'm wrong.I think the applicable guiding principle here is The Golden Rule. The more
perfectly we apply it, the more room we create for our respective personal
beliefs. I'm not interested in depriving you of your religion. I'm
interested in creating strong boundaries that limit your ability to impose it
upon me (and vice-versa).Why do I believe my choices matter? I
don't know. Knowledge/experience suggest that we're hardwired to
care. We can argue about the origin of this, but the fact remains that
it's there and provides ample common ground on which to form ethical/moral
communities. So let's take advantage of this. The "why" is out of
our hands regardless. Let's tend to what IS within our grasp.
Get the message,Utah!The times they are a-changin'!
@Twin Lights:Yes, I think it's alarmist nonsense. But, hey, I
could be wrong. Let's agree to meet back here in 20 years. If the
institution of marriage has devolved into a mess of men marrying their siamese
twins and kangaroos marrying houseplants, I'll owe you a Coke.
An excellent ruling. Everyone should have equal rights and opportunities under
Government of the judges, by the judges and for the judges. Isn't it
interesting that the judges cannot find the rights that are expressly set forth
in the constitution (see Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment,
Tenth Amendment) but can, with the stroke of a pen, disregard the will of the
people and impose their own view of how things should be - finding a
constitutional right to something at 20 years ago less than 10% of Americans
would have argued to be a right. The will of 70% of Utahns is overtuned by one
judge and then we cannot even wait to see if that Judge will be overtuned before
forcing Utah to follow his opinion. Look at the bright side - now we have all
three branches of government disregarding the will of the people.
SlopJ30,Twin Lights here. Deal. I drink diet.
@Meckofahess...Apparently now there is a correlation between abortion and SSM?
Was that on last night's episode of Hannity or did you hear it on Limbaugh?
In the future may I suggest including at least some form of facts in your
comments prior to any more nonsensical posting. In closing, once again
"God" and or "Prophet" are not legal arguments in any courtroom.
Care to explain your point without the mentioning of either one? I'll be
anxiously awaiting your response.
This is a false world that they tend to propagate, where judges rule according
to personal bias, particular whims or political philosophies, or respond to the
perceived public will. A larger issue leads to a crisis in judicial
independence. Many judges across the country feel threatened by a public, a
punditry, and a political establishment that tends to launch ad hominem attacks
against individual judges when they disagree. And that gives rise to
an assumption on the part of the public that judges should ‘get with the
program’ and make decisions according to popular will.The
framers of the Constitution, designed the legislative and executive branches
under Articles I and II to be directly responsive to the public will. They
designed the judiciary, under Article III, to be responsive not to the public
will–in effect to be a bulwark against public will at any given
time–but to be responsible to the Constitution and the laws of the United
States.The Rule of Law is not a Republican or Democratic value. The
challenge for our time, is to ensure that threats to judicial
independence–are ratcheted down, and that our independent judiciary is
preserved." Judge Jones
Constitutionalist:"Any judge who attempts to apply that amendment to
same sex couples being allowed to be 'married' is twisting words in
the amendment totally away from any intent."True. And the way I
read the 14th is that the 'equal protection' clause applies to state
law. But, if it applies as well to federal, there is no federal law re
marriage.Regarding State law... Utah's marriage law applies to
all citizens of the State equally. i.e., anyone can marry provided they marry
someone who is not already married, both are of legal age to marry, is not
marrying a close relative like brother or sister, and is not the same sex.If it turns out that 'equal protection' applies to SSM, then
it should apply to any and all other marriage combinations that can be conjured
such as polygamy, father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister, brother/brother,
sister/sister, and perhaps even with a pet or tree in the back yard at which
point the society will be in total chaos.
@WRZYour comment suggests that you might not understand same sex
attraction. Millions of gay people (and billions of straight people) explain
that their sexual and romantic attraction is as fixed, innate, and immutable as
their handedness. The medical/scientific community confirms this.We
can't make laws that favor right handed people over left handed people and
also we can't make laws that favor straight people over gay people. Gay
people have a right to marry someone of the gender they love, just like straight
people.A desire to engage in polygamy or incest is mutable and not innate
and our laws equally apply to all that no one (gay, straight, right handed,
whatever) can marry a sibling or multiple partners.
@USU-Logan...The @Worf retort kept me laughing hysterically throughout the day.
Many thanks and how right you are!
I wonder how many of those claiming Marriage should be left to the States
support Senator Hatch when he tried to pass an amendment to the National
Constitution "defining marriage as between a man and woman."Is this really about States Rights? Or is that a cover to push an agenda?
@Darrel..Excellent post Sir. Can hear the crickets all the way up here in SLC!
It should be pretty clear to all and sundry now that Courts all over the
country, both state and federal, are looking at the law regarding treatment of
homosexuals with fresh eyes. And fresh results, welcoming those former outcasts
into the fold of a righteous nation.It's as if a spell has been
broken, a spell that had everyone convinced that all LGBT were essentially
wanton and immoral, a spell based on unfamiliarity, phobias, misinformation and
certain religious dogma. Like "The Emperor's New Clothes,"
we've had our eyes opened, and realized the foolishness of our old
assumptions and of that evil spell. Now, we can see that they're not all
that different than us, only in who they love, and all they seek is to be
allowed to live unexciting, ordinary lives, like the rest of us.The
comments here by those still under that spell won't change anything. For
the rest of us, that spell will remain broken and we stand ready to put those
old discriminatory laws, in the words of the Pennsylvania decision, "on the
ash-heap of history."
It can be successfully argued that the state has a compelling interest to
prevent marriage between close relatives, to prevent incest, marriage to
animals, poly marriages, and marriage to inanimate objects. The state has failed
to demonstrate a compelling interest in the case of SSM. That's why the
equal protection clause is taking precedence.
Tiago, sexuality is much more complicated than "fixed" or "born
with". Anyone who has worked in a treatment environment for children or
teens knows that this.
CBAX,Would you argue that gay people can change and become straight and
straight people can become fundamentally gay? How is this achieved?View
the Wikipedia article on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts. If you are coming at
this from a faith-based perspective, look at ex-gay ministries like Evergreen
and Exodus and their explanations for closing down.I am talking about
fundamental orientation being fixed. Of course actions and distressing thoughts
can be managed. There are many same-sex oriented people married to women or
living celibately. They are still fundamentally romantically attracted to their
own gender.Just because a left handed person stops using that hand and
starts using the right, does not change his fundamental, innate handedness.
Sexual Orientation is similar though much more complicated.
@wjalden,I agree with you completely, Dale Kimball has been a Law
Partner with my Father for 30 Years before he was appointed to the Bench, He is
a Very active Member of the LDS Church and has held all those positions in the
Church over the years. He is a good man who raised his Family in the LDS Faith.
I'm pretty Certain that Judge Kimball has made this decision based on
principals of Law as opposed to own personal beliefs, this just goes with what
Orrin Hatch has said, Its going to happen, Quit fighting against it and wasting
the states and countries Valuable resources that could be used for education in
this country and State. And the crazies that are attacking him as Being to the
left with Obama, Clinton and Carter are out of their Minds. He is not aligned
with them, its nice to see something ruled on correctly.
I wonder why the Judges have not been called in for a bishops interview for
excommunication proceedings. Certainly a former stake president should know
what the definition of a family is, let alone the importance of a mommy and
daddy to a child.
@ Liberty "I wonder why the Judges have not been called in for a bishops
interview for excommunication proceedings."There is nothing
wrong or sinful about activist LDS judges re-defining marriage in allowing same
gender couples to civil marry. The horrific sin occurs ONLY upon the horrific
abominable act of a legal civil marriage ceremony for same gendered couples,
which becomes grounds for excommunication.
Our society is not ready for polygamy and that is next and then there will be
something after that, and then something after that. Lawlessness. No
ability to choose between good and evil. Loss of freedom and wisdom and light.
Cities, states, and nations that have children, have a future, and places that
don't have children, whither away and decline economically. The numbers
shrink when we don't prepare the next generation. The Bible is more
important than the Constitution and religion is more important than politics.
True happiness is not living a life of complaining.
It makes sense that same gender couples should have the same tax and property
ownership benefits as heterosexual couples....but,it does not
make sense that same gender couples would need a license to breed.