State officials keep dragging their feet, grasping at any straw to justify their
losing battle. They may have an inkling that they are not on the right side, but
the Great Salt Lake will become a permanent ice rink before Utah elected
officials go against what the church and the older donors want.Every
citizen ought to have an equal vote -- but many who comment here from small, and
often isolated Utah cities might think about walking in the shoes of others for
a minute or two. Think about the old story of the blind hindus feeling different
parts of the elephant, and each being sure he knew the entire elephant.If you believe in America, you have to believe in equality.If you
believe in the right of the mormons to form a State that was friendly to them,
you have to believe in equality.If you believe in Jesus Christ, you
certainly have to believe in equality.And when you are voting to
keep some people down, saying they are not equal to you (whether you like them
or not), you know that Jesus would tell you to do differently.You do
not have to understand them.
@DN News Subscriber...Yet another highly eloquent and well thought out post Sir.
Certain you can sense my sarcasm. Excellent point. However, I noticed your
comment begins with the word "If". As in "If" only those against
SSM would apply logic and intellect to this matter.
@Alfred " They were in violation of the State of Utah's Constitution
which was voted on and approved by the good citizens of Utah." Shelby''s court order ruled Utah's Amendment 3 to be
unconstitutional under the US Constitution 5th and 14th Amendments. You may find
it interesting that Utah's Constitution is always subordinate to the US
Constitution's due process and equal protection guarantees. Regarding the 14th Amendment: right at all. To do otherwise violates their
constitutionally protected liberty interest, a necessary corollary of giving
individuals freedom to choose how to conduct their lives is acceptance of the
fact that different individuals will make different choices. There
are many situations in which the Constitution requires the government to provide
benefits using neutral criteria, even with respect to groups that are unpopular
or that the government finds abhorrent, without any connotation that the
government is endorsing the group. The United States Constitution neither knows
nor tolerates classes among citizens. The Constitution does not permit either a
state legislature or the state’s citizens through a referendum to enact
laws that violate US constitutionally protected rights.
MoNoMo:"When these marriages were performed they were completely
legal, regardless of any ongoing dispute!"No, no. They were
illegal. They were in violation of the State of Utah's Constitution which
was voted on and approved by the good citizens of Utah.We may have
to wait a few years until SCOTUS makes a decision and issues their machinations
on the issue.And what will SCOTUS use for criteria to support a
ruling? Likely the US Constitution's 14th Amendment which covers Equal
Protection. There's nothing else to go on... unless the revert to some
sort of "penumbras and emanations."Regarding the 14th... it
says 'equal protection under the law.' State law that is. And, what
is Utah's state law re marriage? I think it says anyone can marry provided
they: marry someone that is not already married to someone else, is not closely
related, is a consenting adult, and... is of the opposite sex. Not at all
complicated. And applies equally to all. Seems the equal protection
requirement of the 14th has been met.Will be interesting to see what
cockamamie stuff SCOTUS can come up with should the approve SSM.
10CC wrote, "What are we going to tell the grandkids? How will this be
explained & justified?"In 1959, Prince Edward County closed
ALL of its public schools rather than integrate them. A string of whites only
"segregation academies" sprang up, and the state of Virginia gave grants
to white parents to pay the tuition so their kids could go to school. Black
kids had to make do with volunteer teachers in church basements, or live with
relatives in other counties--or do without. It took five years for SCOTUS to
rule this tuition assistance illegal, after which the County reopened its
schools.It would be nice if Mr. Herbert and Mr. Reyes learned
something from this nugget of history. Their reputations will be forever linked
with the immoral actions of trying to use the law to deny equal rights to their
A federal judge overturned Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage today.The Supreme Court turned down an outside group's appeal to issue a stay
for Oregon's overturn of it's marriage ban.Previously the
Supremes having denied the supporters of Proposition 8 in California.It's beginning to appear like perhaps the Utah State Senator who is
suggesting maybe the Supreme Court may not even hear a case on gay marriage
could be right. The Supremes might just let the lower courts decide this issue.
Right now the Windsor case is the precedent that is wiping out marriage bans
all over the country, and there is no conflict in the rulings.
@ DN Subscriber"If "one man, one woman" no longer
constitutes marriage, then the definition is limitless as to numbers, genders or
even species."That is a pretty big "if." Do you have
any evidence of where men and a women are no longer considered married in the
>10 years of same gender marriage equality? If excluding people defined
marriage, we would have long ago excluded spousal, child, drug and alcohol
abusers from marriage. Marriage has evolved from a hierarchical and
gender role model to one where women have achieved equality, and have earned the
right to exit the marriage. Prior racial barriers have been eliminated. Today,
as a matter of law, marriage is a gender neutral institution with regard to
gender roles in marriage. Fear that changes in marriages would be destroyed by
women’s equality, by no –fault divorce and by inter-racial marriages
has been unfounded. The tradition most relevant in marriage is that of being
able to change. Capacity for change has been a core value that has kept
marriage as a viable institution. Allowing same gender couples to
marry does not change the definition of marriage any more than freeing the
slaves changed the definition of freedom.
Looks like all the pro-gay out of staters are posting again.Courts
may make gay marriage legal, but that will never make it right or moral.If "one man, one woman" no longer constitutes marriage, then the
definition is limitless as to numbers, genders or even species.Marriage means one thing in the real world of civilizations extending over
millennia, but it is being twisted to a legalistic term which is harmful to
civilization, even if comforting to those who want it to include whatever
arrangement suits their taste for the moment.
I would like to make a motion for this issue to go to the Supreme Court for the
final decision.Do I hear a second?
I sense the State of Utah's actions will be viewed as being petty and
regressive in the future, a pointless and futile effort to hold back the tide of
equality.What are we going to tell the grandkids? How will this be
explained & justified?
It Is a matter of opinion.
Is there any legal precedent that has nullified legally preformed marriages
performed by the Government?NOT to my knowledge.When
these marriages were performed they were completely legal, regardless of any
Utah needs to let it go! The courts cant hold it back any longer. Utah needs to
realize its OK to be gay.
"That's why we didn't file the day after the decision came because
we wanted to consider whether or not that was the right choice."Wow!! Am I missing something? Is this an acknowledgement that you
don't know if you are doing the right thing?Well, stop wasting
time and money. The State of Utah is displaying animus and has failed to present
prove of harm to the state if recognizes the marriage of these SS couples.If you are not sure on how to proceed after asking for a fast track to
the SCOTUS I think the AG office's staff are not only wrong but also they
are making an spectacle of themselves.
@Hutterite:"A state funded one, no less."They're being forced to pay, via taxes, for the the states legal abuses
against them. Ridiculous!
...and so they should. They've been offered a repugnant indignity. A state
funded one, no less.
Way to go Wisconsin! Marriage Equality, for all, is coming! Thankfully these
(Utah) plaintiffs' lawyers could make a cogent argument against the
delaying tactic of this stay appeal, within mere hours, instead of the
politicized AG's office taking weeks to decide if they had the gumption to
2 bits,There is no guarantee that it will go to the Supreme Court.
Generally the SCOTUS will step in to settle disputes where there is
disagreements and clarity is required. Thus far 15 federal judges have ruled in
favor of equality and zero against. The next level is the Circuit Courts and the
first ruling from them has not come yet. There are five Circuit Court decisions
expected this summer. If they all agree, the same as all the federal judges so
far, then there will be no need for the SCOTUS to step in.
Why doesn't the court just hurry and make a ruling on the appeal?Why does it have to take so long?If it's going to go to the
Supreme Court anyway... why not just get this ruling over so we can move on?
This limbo isn't a good thing. We need a ruling so we can move
to the next court. Regardless of the ruling... It's going to be
appealed... no matter what the decision is...Since so many States
are in the same situation as Utah... it seems like this would get the express
lane to the US Supreme Court... so they can decide it for ALL States (instead of
each State getting their own ruling, since various judges have ruled differently
in the past).
Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage was also struck down today. Keep moving