If at first you don't succeed. Try try again.
Considering that article yesterday about the increase in webtraffic on this site
from June 2014 vs June 2013, I wonder how much of that is just from stories this
year about people repeatedly asking the same questions again and again after
being told no. Between Kate Kelly and same-sex marriage, that's gotta be a
lot of it.
This is all such a waste of money. I wish they would just get this all over
with and allow marriage equality everywhere. It's the right thing to do,
and it is inevitable. Let's get on with it.
After discussing this topic with different friends, I have discovered that fear
is the number one reason people are opposed to marriage equality. It seems to me
that the biggest percentage of friends who are against marriage equality
admitted that they will have to face the fact that they in fact have bigoted
attitudes and will be required to actually make an effort to extend true love
towards their gay and lesbian neighbors and family members. Another
group are those of my friends who are still struggling with their own sexual
identities. They fear that marriage equality will force them out of the closet
and possibly lose the love and support of many friends and family membersThere is, of course, a small group that honestly fear that marriage
equality bring upon God's judgment, and we will eventually be destroyed
like ancient civilizations. Personally, I believe God's judgment will be
that we are one step closer to treating more of his children with love and
dignity.Change is difficult, but when we allow it to happen,
beautiful things can happen.
@ SchwaYes, let's get the re-definition of marriage over and
done with. When we are through with redefining marriage of two same
sex people we can start with redefining marriage in all sorts of other ways as
Oh the irony! If it is Utah's plea to the Supreme Court that finally causes
the inevitable ruling declaring null and void all state bans on same sex
marriage, than I can die happy. Knowing that the very people who tried to
influence an election in California's prop 8 through old lies about gays
and children and through tithing and massive organized donations will ultimately
be the undoing of this national disgrace against our gay fellow Americans is
almost too much to bear.This will inevitably set off a religious campaign
in which they claim that it's not "real marriage". But who cares?
As long as our rights are no longer abridged by people who feel that they are
superior and who want to thrust their religious beliefs onto others...Who cares
what they think? As Mayor Newsom of San Francisco said a few years ago regarding
gays marrying in California before prop 8 put and end to those
marriages..."Whether you like it or not...."
I hope the Supreme Court will take the case and give a nationwide ruling for
Seriously, what is the AG suppose to do? He doesn't have much of a choice.
I can't imagine anyone in their right mind would want to write the appeal
but I'm sure someone out their has a mortgage that needs to be paid.
@ Red Corvette...Apparently you don't read national news much.
This issue is an ongoing concern for a large number of states who are currently
taking the same path as Utah and who still support traditional marriage in their
individual state Constitutions.. This issue isn't going to live or die by
the actions of any individual state, since there are significant differences in
the basis of their appeals. Since significant percentages of people
in our country are still supporting each side of the issue, each side should
give respect and credence to the other. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen
often enough. Just reading the comments to each SSM article that comes out will
verify as much. And regardless which side of the issue a person is on, nothing
will be legally determined in any newspaper comment section. It's just a
place for people to vent and show their maturity or lack thereof. Instead of making a federal binding ruling, it's possible the Supreme
Court will allow latitude for each state to make the determination for itself by
considering it an individual state issue. But regardless, hopefully
animosity can and will be kept to a minimum.
Nothing to lose except money.After all, deficits don't
matter.Great forum for lawyers to build PR, for their firms.Utah adds to its Republican resume.Let's do this
thing.BTW,If taxpayers don't pay for all or part of
this Republican pet project... why is there is always enough money
for Republican pet projects?
I am looking forward to reading what Justice Kennedy writes on this subject as
he is the justice that generally decides these issues.
@ Really???It is interesting how you use that word when targeting a
group of people yourself especially LDS people.I haven't heard
the LDS Church condoning members to violence to LGBT people, threatening them,
or encouraging others to do so either.Why all the animosity?
A lost cause---a losing battle. The conservatives all screamed bloody
murder when $4 mil was earmarked for pursuing the criminal activities of John
Swallow. And there was all kinds of probable cause, glimpses of recorded
evidence...that was no witch hunt.Legal same sex marriage IS going
to be the law of the land...this is indisputable.(Just ask your man Hatch)
So how many millions are being wasted battling g a battle that can't
be won?I am as heterosexual as can be, but gay marriage affects me exactly
ZERO. It only bothers those who allow it to.Get with the real world,
Governor Herbert. I know it's hard, but please try.
@ Mike Johnson. I think Kennedy will uphold the 10th Circuit on fairly similar
grounds. Considering the whole question turns on (at the very least) a rational
basis test, I think this is kind of done deal. Faith is not rational - by
definition. What are the AG's arguments going to be, that is my question? I
can't think of any.
This decision is as wise as the decision to invade Iraq: a horrible waste.
@AerilusMaximusPlease explain a little bit more. I am not sure how
you came to the conclusion that have animosity towards anyone. I mentioned the
different types of fear that my friends have expressed, and then I threw in my
thoughts. There is no anger nor animosity here; just a willingness to try and
understand how others feel about the issues while standing firm in my
@ Really:To say you are honestly trying to understand how others
feel about the issue is a huge stretch. Your initial comment comes across as
being very judgmental and even somewhat vindictive.
@AerilusMaximusYou're not paying attention. NO...'violence'-- in and of itself-- is not condoned by the church
towards the LGBT, but what is the difference between violence, and denying
another human being--BY LAW-- basic rights? And since, for better or for
worse, the Governor, AG, and much of our legislature IS LDS, this reflects on
them more than the general population. Our state government is not
sensitive to the rights of ALL people--which is it's premier
responsibility.It's doing the most UN constitutional thing by trying
to make law from religion, and that is completely unacceptable.And our tax
money is being sent to the sewer in their ill-conceived, losing battle.
@ Ernest T. Bass:Why is that you and other like-minded people always
think it's a waste of time and money to pursue anything you don't
agree with? As it so happens, there are still well over a hundred million people
in this country who still disagree with SSM. Therefore, it's still an
important issue that deserves to be pursued until an ultimate decision can be
made. Therefore Utah is doing the right thing in trying to get to that point.
That way, nothing can be left on the table. Is that really so hard to
understand? It shouldn't be. But then again, from reading the
DN comment sections on this issue over the past year, it's become obvious
that SSM advocates are often some of the most judgmental and intolerant people
who often show no inclination toward even trying to understand any other
viewpoints. In fact, they are sometimes extreme to the point of seeming
militant... even trying to ruin the lives and careers of anyone who at anytime
in the past supported anything opposing their viewpoints. Such attitudes can
often be dangerous on multiple levels.
It is sad to see the animus SSM supporters have for those who disagree with
them. I have no bad feelings toward same-sex couples. I have several
co-workers and friends who are gay, and love them just as much as any of my
friends. I have little respect for a movement that resorts to
half-truths and name-calling to shame others to their side. Many have joined
the SSM camp because they don't want to be called "bigots", or have
believe the media lies and one-sided reporting. I will never be one of them. I
know that I am no bigot, and no activist on the other side of the country with a
bully pulpit can tell me otherwise. I only ask that my rights be
respected the same as LGBT rights. Unfortunately, I don't see that
@TatorsRe: "This issue isn't going to live or die by the actions
of any individual state, since there are significant differences in the basis of
their appeals."If the Supreme Court upholds the 10th
Circuit's ruling, it will invalidate all state laws prohibiting marriage
between people of the same gender. It will effectively legalize same-sex
marriage in all states.Re: "Regardless which side of the issue a
person is on, nothing will be legally determined in any newspaper comment
section."Agreed, but I am a big fan of communication and
dialogue. The Supreme Court's decision either way will disappoint millions
of Americans. Engaging in dialogue helps us understand the other side and temper
our expectations and reactions. The trend I've seen is that as we discuss
this issue, people tend to become more understanding of the positive benefits of
allowing gay and lesbian people to marry. Personally I have moved from
opposition to strong support in the last five years as I have learned more about
@ Really???I think I must have read your post too fast perhaps and
accidentally drew wrong conclusions and so I re-read your post.I
think the word bigot is what threw me off. I think this word is used far too
much in LGBT discussions. While I am sure their are some actual
bigots on both sides I don't think it is as common as people how people use
the word.This may be different with LDS in Utah but in my experience
with other LDS I don't see this.Regardless I don't think
labeling people bigots helps to further the discussion on for either side.I know you said "bigoted thinking" but that isn't much
better than just calling someone a big.In the scriptures it states
"As a man thinketh so is he".
"It's doing the most UN constitutional thing by trying to make law from
religion, and that is completely unacceptable."Trying to make
law from religion? Seriously? The law was ratified by the voters in the state
of Utah. The Church itself doesn't engage in politics except to the fact
that they tell members to be engaged in politics by exercising their right to
vote.I never heard the bishop of any of my wards tell the members to
vote for Mitt Romney or any declaration sent down from the 1st Presidency
suggesting the same.The only political thing I ever heard from the
pulpit was regarding prop 8. Besides that there really is nothing specifically
political at church.To suggest the Church is somehow involved in
telling politicians in Utah or anywhere else how to do their job is pretty far
off.There are plenty of states that have marriage amendments that in
a nut shell define a marriage is between a man and a woman.
@CopaceticMaybe my comments come across as judgment to you, but they
are not intended to be. Perhaps you may want to look at it from my
perspective:For most of my life I denied that aspect of my life. I
had to always had to put on an act in front of everyone. You cannot imagine the
countless derogatory comments I would hear my friends and family members would
say about gay people. I secretly thought that if they felt that way about
others, they surely felt the same way about me.After I came out, I
would still hear occasional derogatory comments made. The friend would quickly
add a side comment for me like "don't worry, you are not like those
gays."Finally, imagine overhearing family members talking about
a popular TV show that has some gay characters. Imagine hearing a sister you
love with you entire heart say that such things make her sick. Imagine the
heartache to think that something that I cannot change about myself makes her
sick. I still love that sister and her family, but I feel a little awkward
whenever I am around her now.
Proof positive: Utah loves to beat a dead horse, especially when it costs the
The state of Utah has a valid reason for defining marriage as between one man
and one woman. The AG should continue defending the laws of Utah.I
believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the best scenario for raising
children. I believe that this best case scenario ought to be promoted by our
society. Our laws currently benefit marriage; thereby promoting marriage. This
is right and proper.While I do believe that same-sex couples deserve
rights and protections under the law; I don’t believe that same-sex unions
should be promoted by the law on equal footing with marriage.I
don’t believe that not promoting same-sex unions on equal footing with
marriage constitutes violence or a denial of basic civil rights. I do not
believe that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions is
required to grant civil rights.
This is a lost cause. II think we should just accept the marriages and get on to
something else. Lots of things to legalize in Utah, and lost of things to make
better. This fight will not be won in the highest courts.
I think the State of Utah is doing a good thing. A Supreme Court ruling will put
the rest of the states opposing Same-Sex marriage to rest. It's a 95%
chance that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Same-Sex marriage. Utah is
doing the rest of the country a favor. It will be interesting to see what the
people of Utah do to avoid following the rule of law for our country....
Two federal judges on the 10th circuit ruled that Utah's law was
unconstitutional. The 7th Circuit ruled that States HAVE the right to define
marriage. When two federal courts rule opposite, it is time for the Supreme
Court to rule. No amount of seminar postings from the same-sex marriage crowd
will change the outcome.
I love this state... Its willing to take on issues that are important to
families and the future of this country... Too many people and too many
Government entities worried about Political Correctness.The
Constitution is clear... Sexual Preference does not qualify one to become a
member of a "protected class"...
I am a strong supporter of the Church of Jesus Christ's definition of the
family, as set forth in "Family Proclamation," on September 23, 1995 by
President Gordon B. Hinckley, and which has been supported by Church Authorities
since. Until Heavenly Father reveals another definition, that is the one with
which I am in agreement; so should every other member of the Church who believes
that a Prophet speaks to us today. They raise their hands after a General
Conference to support him and all Church leadership. I will do likewise until
Christ's return to earth.I hold no animosity nor do I bear any
guile towards my fellow man or woman for beliefs they hold, and will always love
my neighbor as myself, as we are taught by Christ, but if their actions (not
their beliefs) are contrary to that which has been revealed, and if they act on
those beliefs, it is up to their Bishop, if they are members of his ward, to
decide what is necessary, and, until then, it is not my place to pass judgment.
Will Utah be the linchpin again? Utah's legislature provided the 36th and
final state vote that was needed for the repeal of Prohibition. Perhaps
Utah's appeal of the same-sex marriage case will make same-sex marriage
legal throughout the United States.I believe the Supreme Court will
merely let the appeals court ruling stand.
In other news, Alito refused today to halt same-sex marriages in Pennsylvania
pending an appeal of the case which struck down the voter approved ban.The Governor decided not to appeal the May decision which declared the ban
unconstitutional, so a county clerk decided to take it up. Two lower courts
have ruled she does not have the legal right to be involved, and she asked to
Supreme Court to stay the marriages while she works on the appeal.Alito said no without making comments.
@Mike Richards: "The 7th Circuit ruled that States HAVE the right to define
marriage."When? The 7th stayed marriage in Indiana pending
appeal but ruled the state must recognize the marriage of a lesbian couple where
one partner is dying of cancer. If they did not expect marriage to be legalized,
why set the precedent by allowing one?And, if it was pre-DOMA, I am
not sure it counts.
@redwingsYou don't hold bad feelings towards LGBT people you just
support thier being treated as second class citizens that do not get all the
same rights and protections you have, how could anyone see that as intolerant?
When the route to appeals was first laid out, it was estimated it would cost the
state 3 mill. Looks now like the cost, even with the Supreme COurt appeal, will
be more like 600k. I think it is well worth the money to put Utah's name on
the case and established a national law.
While the health care needs of many Utahns go unmet due to legislative inaction
the State of Utah proceeds to deny the rights of its LGBT community. This is a
fantastic waste of money (how much health care could these legal expenses pay
for), and in the suffering it engenders is criminal. In the future Utah will be
seen as the Mississippi of the SSM struggle.
In defining or recognizing marriage in a legal sense, the state is free to
define it however it wants. No one has a right to make other people support,
endorse, or reward their lifestyle.
"And regardless which side of the issue a person is on, nothing will be
legally determined in any newspaper comment section. It's just a place for
people to vent..."Yes, this forum has been a place to vent, but
it has also been a place for people to present and debate their arguments. I
believe this has been advantageous to marriage equality proponents. Most human
beings value fairness and aren't inclined to deny it without good reason.
What has been demonstrated on these pages is that the argument against SSM is
neither good nor based in reason.One's loyalty to his/her
religious teachings may suffice for some, but this may be challenged soon as
well. I'm seeing more and more stories of believers taking the debate
directly to their own churches and using their own holy books and theologies to
make their arguments. So I don't know that one's church or temple is
going to be a refuge for these ideas either - at least not for much longer.
Forums such as this one have simply illuminated the subject to clearly and human
nature is kicking in. We value fairness.
@ Tolstoy:Not sure where you got that from my post. Civil unions
provide " all the same rights and protections (I) have". How do you
know that I do you know that I do not support secular legal status for gay
couples? I did not mention this in my post.Intolerance and bigotry
are just as much alive and well among LGBT supporters as they are among
traditional marriage supporters. To deny this is hypoctitical and dishonest....
@RedWingsRE: "Intolerance and bigotry are just as much alive and
well among LGBT supporters as they are among traditional marriage
supporters."The case for legalized same-sex marriage is about
millions of gay and lesbian Americans petitioning the judiciary for remedy of a
fundamental right they are currently denied. “Plaintiffs ask
for nothing more than to exercise a right that is enjoyed by the vast majority
of Virginia's adult citizens. They seek simply the same right that is
currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public
commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner
with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond.”
-Judge Arenda Wright Allen, VirginiaThe organized opposition to
same-sex marriage is based, fundamentally, on a belief that homosexuality is
sinful and wrong. Laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are designed to stigmatize
and marginalize gay people and their families.The courts have
reviewed the arguments against marriage equality and found them lacking rational
basis."These arguments are not those of serious people." -
Judge John G. Heyburn II, Kentucky"Entirely unbelievable and not
worthy of serious consideration." - Judge Bernard A. Friedman, Michigan
Schwa, there you go again, marxistVandals spend money on spray paint to
vandalize highway signs and the state needs to pay money to clean up the mess;
plaintiffs spend money to fight amendment 3, and the state needs to spend money
to fight the mess the plaintiffs create.Really? Florwood, KarenRMarriage equality is a misnomer. Marriage equality exists WITH amendment 3.
Regardless of what twisted logic the SS crowd uses, when the same rules apply to
all, all are being treated the same. Just because a gay does not want to marry
a straight does not mean they do not have the right to marry; I don’t WANT
to smoke, but I still have the right to do so.Tolstoy, marxistWhere do you get off saying LGBT people are being treated as second class or
being denied rights? See the paragraph above.Redwings,Intolerance and bigotry are MORE alive and well among LGBT supporters as they
are among traditional marriage supporters.
@ Azazael - the valid reason you state isn't backed by legitimate research.
And the Proclamation is not legitimate research - it is a document making claims
that one accepts through a process of faith - a process which, by definition is
not rational. The court must decide, at the very least, whether there is a
rational basis to deny SSM couples the right to marry. Your argument
doesn't meet that standard and I think the majority of the US Supreme Court
judges will agree.
"Attorney General Sean Reyes has a sworn duty to defend the laws of the
state, according to his spokeswoman Missy Larsen."Utah’s
Constitutional Amendment 3 is presumed to be constitutional unless the highest
court deems otherwise," the statement said."Now if Judge
Shelby had ruled the other way, would Herbert have urged Kitchen et al to appeal
the decision, because, after all, Shelby's decision should be ignored and
the matter appealed all the way to SCOTUS?
@lost in DC et al: Let's consider another scenario. The state of Oregon
passes a law saying that no marriage in Oregon will be valid unless it takes
place in a setting open to the public. City Halls are fine. Baptist Churches
are fine. LDS meetinghouses are OK.Ceremonies in the Portland
Temple are not.And they say with a straight face, "We're
not discriminating against Mormons. We're only saying that all marriage
ceremonies have to be open to the general public. No secret Lutheran
ceremonies, and no ceremonies in any judge's closed chambers. No one will
keep you from having your ceremony wherever you want; we just won't
recognize it for legal purposes."This is treating everyone
equally, is it not? Would you have a problem with that?
@lost in DC,"Marriage equality exists WITH amendment 3."Okay, I will play along with your argument for a minute. Let's
compare this to the state passing a law stating the we all are now required to
eat a peanut-based diet. Voters approved the law because most enjoy peanuts, and
they value the health benefits of such a diet. The law does not offer any
exemptions for people who are allergic--even though such a diet is dangerous for
them. What options do those who have peanut allergies have? Well, they could go
along with the law and get sick or maybe even die, they could defy the law and
find a diet that fits their needs, or they can move to a state that acknowledges
their needs. My question, however, is why should they have to do any of
these?I hope you think my example is a silly comparison because that
is how your argument comes across to us. Telling us that we have equal rights
because we can choose to marry someone of the opposite gender or live alone is
not completely honest and rather insulting.
@lost in DCre "Where do you get off saying LGBT people are being
treated as second class or being denied rights?"I'd
encourage to review the decisions from the judges who have considered the laws
against gay marriage. They all confirm that the right to marry the person you
love is a fundamental right. There is a long history of legal precedent in the
US confirming this.The state of Utah accepts in its arguments that
Amendment 3 infringes on the rights of gay and lesbian people.There
must be a strong rational basis for the government to violate a fundamental
right of a citizen.The state of Utah tries to argue that they have
sound legal/public benefit reasons for infringing on these rights. The many
problems and inconsistencies with Utah's reasoning are clearly addressed in
the 10th circuit's decision and in the many similar court cases.The argument is not whether or not gay and lesbian's rights are being
infringed upon. The argument is whether or not the government has rational basis
for this infringement. If you believe they do, please explain your case and make
sure the state of Utah gets the message.
Bring it on! Let's make absolutely sure that when the history books read
about Jim Crow laws, the states and people of Alabama and Mississippi led the
charge of segregation now and forever. When denying basic human rights and
marriage equality to our friends in the LGBT--Utah and it's elected leaders
led the charge to the Supreme Court and had their collective noses rubbed in the
decision. Folks, if you didn't learn it through your Prop 8 embarrassment,
you are about to learn it---and learn it well. Hate don't pay!
Some Utahns will be able to take pride in financing the successful effort to
rightfully being same-sex marriage to all states through their tax dollars PLUS
their tithing PLUS their direct contributions to the plaintiffs.Undoubtedly that will include some Mormons Building Bridges and other
@Redwing: "I know that I am no bigot"Well.... your
statements and positions clearly indicate that you are indeed engaging in
bigoted behavior, by their very definition. While I realize it stings to hear
it, it is this *behavior* that indeed makes one a bigot, by definition.Bigotry is the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices,
treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a
person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability,
socioeconomic status, or other characteristics... like homosexuality."I only ask that my rights be respected the same as LGBT rights."In this particular situation, you are not the one having your civil
rights denied to you. And, no, you really DON'T want to have your rights
"respected" the same way the LGBT community does in Utah currently. To
do so would mean you can not marry the one you love. It would mean you could be
denied an apartment or house rental just because of who you are. It would mean
you could be fired from your job just for being who you are.
Go UTAH! I pray daily that they win the case for traditional marriage. Whatever
the outcome, I still believe that gay marriage is wrong, but I guess I'll
just have to live with it if it is allowed. Just don't expect me to be
happy with it. Don't expect me to condone it. If it stays out of my life,
I'll be one happy camper. Once again: GO UTAH!
@Jamescmeyer"In defining or recognizing marriage in a legal sense, the
state is free to define it however it wants. "The Supreme Court
did strike down interracial marriage bans so there are limits to what the state
can do.@RedWings"How do you know that I do you know that I
do not support secular legal status for gay couples?"Well
Amendment 3 bans that so that must mean you oppose Amendment 3 even if you
don't support same-sex marriage itself. @lost in DC"Where do you get off saying LGBT people are being treated as second class
or being denied rights?"When we had bans on interracial marriage
that was a rule that applied to everyone as well. Would you say interracial
couples were being treated as second class citizens or denied rights?"Intolerance and bigotry are MORE alive and well among LGBT supporters as
they are among traditional marriage supporters." One side is
based on affirmation of love, the other is based on opposition.
To those claiming marriage is a "State issue"How does that
jive with the Full Faith and Credit Clause?"Full faith and
credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial
proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe
the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the
effect thereof."Marriage is a public act, record and judicial
proceeding. So how can a marriage performed in one State not be recognized in
another? Even if Utah were to somehow claim they would not marry
same-sex couples, if that couple were to go to Colorado, get married there, Utah
would still have to recognize and honor it.
@ Tiago: Thanks for your comment. While the quotes from judges are very good,
most posting on this board, and comments in general, show just as much hatred
toward people of faith from the LGBT community as the other way around.TrueVoice: I have no hatred, fear or distrust toward gay people in general.
I have mistrust in the activitsts who use lies and name-calling to advance their
position. My mistrust of gay activists is based on their actions, not my
prejudice. The outright bullying used against anyone in the public eye who
supports traditional marriage is shameful, but apparently acceptable.Fractals: That is correct. I do not support the Ammendment 3 ban on civil
unions. Govt is to preserve the rights of all, not erode one groups rights in
favor of another, smaller group.
The Utah AG's office released a statement that reads in part
"Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3 is presumed to be constitutional
unless the highest court deems otherwise."This sort of
misstatement of the law is what has fascinated me about Utah's formal legal
defense and how DN has covered it without scrutiny or correction.Contrary to what Utah AG is representing to the citizens of Utah, there no
longer is a presumption of any sort. Today, as a matter of law,
Amendment 3 is unconstitutional. The federal district court for
Utah held that, and so did the 10th Circuit panel. If the U.S. Supreme Court
chooses to do nothing by denying cert, the current stay expires and all SSM-bans
throughout the 10th Circuit immediately become invalid, and marriage licenses
must be issued to same-sex couples.The legal status quo -- not a
mere presumption -- is that SSM must be permitted across the 10th Cir., and Utah
faces a ticking clock to change that status quo. SCOTUS need not
deem Amendment 3 unconstitutional. It already is. SCOTUS may -- but need not --
first agree to hear the case, and then decide the 10th Cir. erred.
lost in DC says:"Marriage equality is a misnomer. Marriage
equality exists WITH amendment 3."Now there's some real
Orwellian thinking for you. No, lost, Amendment 3 does not promote equality, it
promotes bigotry and discrmination."Where do you get off saying
LGBT people are being treated as second class or being denied rights? See the
paragraph above."See the paragraph above.@As If!;You believe SSM is wrong, don't have one. Easy peasy.
In 1838 Gov Lilburn Boggs signed into law the expressed will of both a majority
of citizens of the state and the dominate religion of the state. The law was
about states right to defend the purity of traditional citizenship - not passing
the law would have devalued citizenship for the majority and caused children to
be confused. The law was challenged a few times, and was defended by
conservative legislators who were defending the expressed will of the people of
the state, and protecting children who would obviously be harmed. The law stood the test of time - one might say it was based in God given
tradition - until1976 when a (probably liberal) Gov. Kit Bond violated the right
of the state to determine who can live in the state, and against the expressed
will of the people who supported the law, decided it was unconstitutional and
overturned it. It would be wrong for Gov. Herbert and AG Reyes to
stop defending an unconstitutional law - only a liberal would do that.
Conservatives know that defending constitutional rights means defending laws
that are unconstitutional. They do it for the children.
Marriage isn't a right by the US Constitution. Some have used Section 1 of
the 14th amendment to say that it is a right. It isn't. The 14th
amendment protects against laws that "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." Marriage isn't
specifically called out and does not fall under 'life, liberty, property or
protection.' The 14th amendment never would have passed if it included
same-sex marriage protections. Likewise, voters should decide, preferably STATE
voters. Utah voted and decided. If you want to change it, lets have another
"Utah voted and decided. If you want to change it, lets have another
vote."As it has been mentioned in these forums a gazillion
times, you can not "vote on" the civil rights of law-abiding citizens.
You don't have to agree with the Supreme Court's 14 distinct, separate
rulings that marriage **is** a fundamentally right of all Americans, but they
are fact, they are on the public record, and they are law.The
Constitution stands for the proposition that some rights cannot be left to the
whims of a democratic majority. Equality before the law is one of those
rights.You can not deny rights to those you have moral objection to,
and you should be glad of this, lest you find yourself in the minority one day
on a civil matter important to you.
No matter what happens I am okay with the result. I have no problem with same
@molecman;Let's have another vote? Only if YOUR marriage is on
the ballot with ours.
@molecman "Marriage isn't a right by the US Constitution. Some
have used Section 1 of the 14th amendment to say that it is a right. It
isn't."False. The definition of liberty: 'the state of
being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on
one's way of life, behavior, or political views.' Therefore the 14th
amendment does indeed apply. "Marriage isn't specifically
called out (in the Constitution)..."In that case, the 9th
Amendment applies. It reads, "The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people."Even if a right is not
specifically listed in the constitution, this does not mean that it is not
retained by the people at large. Marriage, a legal contract between two
consenting, non-consanguineous adults is in fact, a civil right. Voting to remove rights from a minority of citizens is tyrrany, and is plainly
unconstitutional. The democratic process of voting has been abused nationwide,
relegating LGBT citizens to "second class" status. Marriage equality is
coming to all, and rightly so.
Ignoring God's laws has always wrought ill upon a people or a nation.
RikitikitaviCardston, Alberta"Ignoring God's laws has
always wrought ill upon a people or a nation."--- Uh, you are in
Canada, which has marriage equality quite awhile and is doing way better than
the USA. We ignored God's law "Thou shalt not kill" in Iraq, killed
hundreds of thousands, and ruined our economy. You guys also made the right call
on that one.
@ molecmanThe same-sex movement has won 20+ (and counting) court
cases in a row now. That simple fact proves that everything you said is wrong.
Also, voting on civil rights is a ridiculous idea. We have the Constitution to
protect the rights of minorities, so a vote will not be necessary.
It is amazing that an intelligent well educated person - Attorney General Sean
Reyes is unable to separate church and state. Saying that he protects a 10 year
old state law made when the citizens of Utah were less informed about the LGBT
community is just as bad as protecting any old law that is discriminatory
against U.S. Citizens. I suspect another vote on marriage equality would show a
larger percentage of Utah citizens support it. I agree that wasting the tax
payers money is not fair to the citizens of the great state of Utah.
I see that the largest numbers of "Like" counts are for the comments
made by proponents of marriage equality, and many of these comments are from
Utah citizens. God Bless America!
Really, I think your comments are the most balanced of any I've seen on
tis subject. Kudos!
@my_two_cents_worth""It, in fact, is [a constitutional right].
Read Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)"That's good news
to alotta folks... polygamists, those who would marry a sibling, or their son or
daughter, aunt, uncle, or all of them together. Not to mention homosexuals. This
Loving case has opened alotta doors that were heretofore closed to alotta
deserving folks. One such is suffering emotionally and otherwise, as we speak.