It seems Gov. Herbet and AG Reyes made a premature decision to proceed with this
appeal; the SCOTUS just denied a similar request made by the state of Oregon.Is this just totally obvious to everyone but the state of Utah? The
issue of marriage equality is a moot point with most rational thinking people.
Only religious martyrs are carrying the cross to the bitter end on this one.They will lose.
This attempt to hold back the dawn is clearly an exercise in futility.I am neither antigay or antistraight, simply a taxpayer, and this taxpayer
believes we have better uses of dollars and time within the Office of the Utah
Attorney General.A rhetorical question: Isn't it about time to
bring Utah out of the 17th century?
The judges that ratified this whole mess must fully accept blame for disrupting
and causing chaos and pain. For them to pretend to stand outside the fray and
not confess their own part in this havoc is unconscionable. The polilitical
leaders in Utah are doing their jobs. Let the legal process run its course.
The people of Utah and the US will soon enough be able to judge for themselves
where all this is taking us.
There are good reasons for our state to not recognize same-gender marriages. The
state doesn't allow siblings to be married, or even first cousins. Why?
Because of the obvious negative impact that it would have on children and the
future of our society. Same goes for the children raised in same-gender
households. Isn't it much too early to fully understand the long-run impact
on generations of children growing up in a society where they are confused and
experimenting with their own sexuality? The issue of traditional marriage is a
moot point with most rational thinking people. A rhetorical question: Isn't
it about time for Utah to lead the way in showing the world that family
stability is really the hallmark of civilized and progressive societies?
AG Reyes: “Although the state recognizes the deep burden placed on
families who must continue to wait for a final decision regarding their rights
and those of their children..."Let us put that into plain and
clear language: "We know our position and actions are hurting Utah citizens,
Utah families, and Utah children. We know it, and we don't care. In fact,
if we can prevail in court we will make the hurt permanent, not temporary."
This is also about state rights and standing up to federal activist judges. I
have more respect for Gov. Herbert for standing up for the traditional family.
@Tyler McArthur"or even first cousins. "Actually it
does, in cases where they cannot procreate. "Isn't it about
time for Utah to lead the way in showing the world that family stability is
really the hallmark of civilized and progressive societies?"Yes,
so stop getting in the way of same-sex couples marrying and becoming those
@Tyler McArthur, the State of Utah DOES allow 1st cousins to marry if they are
over 65 or if they are older than 55 and the court determines they are
"unable to reproduce".
This is a vindictive waste of resources, and totally unnecessary. I hope the
state is asked to prove what harm has been caused by these 1300 married couples
If the DesNews had any sense of irony, the headline would read:
"Pro-family" Utah Appeals, Seeks to Destroy 1,300 Families
"any decision by the highest courts that results in undoing what the
district court has granted could be more disruptive than awaiting certainty and
finality,” Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes said in a statement." Mr. Reyes, Let me offer you a trade you may like:What about if instead of using the 1,300 SS married couples as scapegoats for
your bigotry, why don't you use them as Guinea Pigs to make a social
experiment? This would be your chance to prove to Utah and the
country that SSM is harmful to society. However, If on the contrary,
after a prudent period of time the sky doesn't fall, the horrors of the
Apocalipsis don't make themselves present. Perhaps a humble apology and a
withdrawl of all your appeals may help you to clean somewhat yours and Governor
Herbert's name in history.The 1,300 couples and their children
deserve better than what the State of Utah is doing to them.The social
contract indicate that citizens give up some freedom and assume responsibilities
in exchange for the protection of society (the state).Are these
citizens not fulfilling their side of the bargain?
Two devout activist LDS judges (one a former stake president) who must know well
the Proclamation To The World regarding the meaning of marriage and the natural
family, have unilaterally decided to re-define traditional marriage. Not only
for Utah but perhaps for the rest of the country. How ironic. Me
thinks folks doth protest too much with all the wailing and self righteous
indignation. With a wink, wink and a nod, these judges have received no
counseling, discipline, disfellowship or excommunication for going against
doctrine and the lords teachings by re-defining traditional marriage from any of
their church leadership. Why not a wink, wink and a nod for
everyone else who supports marriage equality?
At times like this I'm reminded of the famous quote by Joseph N. Welch.
Weary, disbelieving and fed up, he finally said:"You’ve
done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no
sense of decency?"Maybe someone needs to get this message to
Governor Herbert and AG Reyes.
Same sex marriage is a SIN. I am not trying to be mean but if you believe in the
Bible and if it truly is true, then homosexuality is a SIN! You can't blame
people who believe in GOD and his commandments for trying to defend the truth.
John, you are correct in your phrasing "If" the Bible is truly true,
then you should definitely not marry someone of the same sex. In fact, if you do
this, I will not support or attend your wedding (thought I may bake you a
wedding cake). But if you are justified in believing homosexuality is a sin,
then others, who may not believe the Bible is truly true, should have that same
right to exercise and defend their version of truth.
@ John 3:16"Same sex marriage is a SIN. I am not trying to be
mean but if you believe in the Bible and if it truly is true, then homosexuality
is a SIN! You can't blame people who believe in GOD and his commandments
for trying to defend the truth. "According to your beliefs SSM
is a sin: Your belief is welcome, protected and respected.Do you
have the right to impose your religious beliefs in others who perhaps do not
believe as you do? NO! you don'tInteresting your biblical
quote:John 3:16"for God did so love the world, that His Son --
the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not
perish, but may have life age-during."A simple unqualified
statement, no pre-conditions, except believe in him . Did you know that perhaps
"most" of LGBT in our country, according to this scripture, will not
perish but will have aternal life. Since most LGBT in the U.S.A. believe in
Christ. You may find us in the LDS church, Episcopal, Catholic, Unitarian,
Quakers, actually in all Christian Denominations.
@Larry"Defend their version of the truth" There can only be one
version of the truth. All I am saying if the Bible is true then those who
believe in it have a right to defend what they believe in, without being called
homophobes and stuff like that. It does not mean they hate people who are gay,
they are just standing up for what they feel is right and what they believe.
@John 3:16: "Same sex marriage is a SIN."Eating shrimp,
lobster, catfish and pork is a sin.Touching a menstruating woman is a sin.
Traveling more than a short walk from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday
is a sin.Not feeding the hungry or visiting those in prison is a sin.Eating milk and meat at the same meal is a sin.Cutting the corners of
the beard is a sin.Eating fat or blood is a sin.Going to church
within 33 days after giving birth to a boy, 66 days after the birth of a
daughter.Holding back the wages of workers overnight is a sin.Mistreating foreigners is a sin. And finally, "If any of your fellow
Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them
as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you.
Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they
may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell
them food at a profit."
@jcobabe;These judges are doing their jobs. The 'chaos'
was created when the rights of a certain group of citizens was place on the
ballot.@Tyler McArthur;Shouldn't the state, then,
deny marriage licenses to felons? Druggies? Adulterers going onto their *next*
marriages? Abusers, liars, thieves, etc.? Why the hypocrisy?@John
3:16;"Same sex marriage is a SIN." ---- Then DON'T
participate. MYOB, PLEASE!“There can only be one version of
the truth.” --- Who is to say yours is that “one version”?“It does not mean they hate people who are gay, they are just
standing up for what they feel is right and what they believe.” --- No,
it means they are trying to FORCE others to adhere to their beliefs. You
can’t see the difference?
@StormWalker As you may not be aware, there can only be one version
of the truth. If all the other religions you mentioned were called into a room
and read the Book Of Mormon, and prayed in sincerity about its trueness and
being the work of the Lord, all would come away knowing the true church is the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
@Liberty For All: "If all the other religions you mentioned were called into
a room and read the Book Of Mormon, and prayed in sincerity about its trueness
and being the work of the Lord, all would come away knowing the true church
"Um... I didn't actually mention any other religions. All
those quotes were from the Bible, and were part of the code of laws given to the
people who follow God. However, I agree, "Truth is singular. Its
"versions" are mistruths." The problem I have is those
who hold that the Bible is "true" when it talks about Gays and Lesbians,
but then claim the Bible does not apply when it lists rules and laws they find
inconvenient. That version of the truth is actually a mistruth.
Either the laws and codes apply in full today, as lived by Orthodox Jews, or
they don't apply at all. As for the Book of Mormon - been
there, done that for a number of years. Was not persuaded.
Oh how religion poisons the mind.
@anti-Liberty for all;And if those other religions don't get
the answer you expect them to receive, are you going to switch over to
theirs?Didn't think so.
Oh my gosh! Utah, let gay families be!
Thank You AG Reyes and Governor Herbert for following the way of the lord. Utah
is beyond you all the way! The only way to salvation is to follow the gospel
and doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Those who
choose otherwise will not be welcome in his kingdom. Sin can be forgiven for
those that seek righteousness and repent.
equal protection:"Shelby''s court order ruled Utah's
Amendment 3 to be unconstitutional under the US Constitution 5th and 14th
Amendments."The due process of law (5th Amendment) is not
complete yet. There's District, Appellate, and Supreme courts to go
through, first. So, if Shelby ruled using the 5th, he erred.Regarding the 14th, Utah's marriage Amendment 3 applied equally to all
citizens within Utah's borders. So, how did Shelby deduce that it violated
the 14th's Equal Protection Clause?And, by the way, if the 14th
Equal Protection applies to SSM it has to apply to any and all other types and
combinations of marriage such as polygamy, incest, and many others cited in
other prior posts, regardless of how strange or disgusting it may appear. If
SCOTUS rules for SSM and doesn't include all other types of marriage
arrangements, it will have a dilemma on it's hands, introducing
discrimination in marriage."You may find it interesting that
Utah's Constitution is always subordinate to the US Constitution's due
process and equal protection guarantees."The 14th requires equal
protection under state law since there is no federal law re marriage.
Tyler McArthur:"The state doesn't allow siblings to be married,
or even first cousins."That'll have to change. If SSM is
approved all other types of marriage will need to also be approved, lest the
courts will have fostered discrimination. That includes polygamy,
father/daughter, mother/son, as well as siblings and possibly even
adult/child."Isn't it much too early to fully understand
the long-run impact on generations of children growing up in a society where
they are confused and experimenting with their own sexuality?"If
SSM is approved you can count on the government forcing school children to be
taught and required to accept aberrant (and to some abhorrent) behavior. And it
won't matter what parents want for their children.Stalwart
Sentinel:"If the DesNews had any sense of irony, the headline would
read: 'Pro-family' Utah Appeals, Seeks to Destroy 1,300
Families."Actually, it should read something like... "The
courts have just opened the door for the approval of polygamous marriages. And
any other marriage that can be conceived such as father/daughter, mother/son, as
well as siblings and possibly even adult/child."
This isn't a religious issue people. The Supreme Court of the United States
already ruled on this. It's already been decided. We are just watching the
existing legal system that we have in this country in action to strike down
individual States laws that are on the books that are contrary to the Supreme
Court's decision. The politicians in each State are just doing what they
think they should be doing to get re-elected by the majority of the voters. If
they were worried about spending too much tax payer money on useless appeals
they would just accept the inevitable.
Utes11:"The Supreme Court of the United States already ruled on
this."Not so. SCOTUS ruled under DOMA that the federal
government can't withhold benefits for SSM if states have approved same.
It also means that the Federal government has no laws re marriage. Nor does the
US constitution have anything on marriage. Marriage is left to the states to
define. SCOTUS can't make things up outta whole cloth."We
are just watching the existing legal system... to strike down individual States
laws..."We have the Supreme Court as a final authority. It will
be comical to watch the Court's contortions should they rule in favor of
SSM. And it will be tragic to watch the demise of a once a great society when
marriage becomes a thing of the distant past."If they were
worried about spending too much tax payer money on useless appeals they would
just accept the inevitable."They are concerned with preserving
marriage. If/when SSM is approved there will be tacit if not legal authority
for polygamy to reemerge... as well as dozens of other types of marriage
formerly thought to be equally disgusting.