Both sides in same-sex marriage recognition case await word from Supreme Court
If Sotomayor goes to the full court, and they decide not to grant a stay, will
the Governor and AG get the hint?
@Mike702: Of course not. You're forgetting the way we do logic
in Utah. One starts with the conclusion, and works backward to the facts.
Appropriately and properly, Utah and Utahns will obey the law. Even stupid, bad
laws.Hoping for the "wise Latina" (Obama's term, not
mine) Justice to grant a stay is a nearly hopeless "Hail Mary Pass"
attempt at this point.Just because something is declared to be legal
does not make it right or moral or good for society. Remember, same
sex marriage is just the first misstep down the slippery slope. How can anyone
object to plural marriages, or marriages between adults and children, or people
and their pets or farm animals. After all, every argument about same sex
marriage "rights" applies equally to all those options. Just because
something will eventually be declared to be legal does not make it right or
moral or good for society. This is just one small fault line (among
many) in the decay and collapse of our country and indeed, western civilization.
Will he be impeached?
So we get Sotomayer as an overseer of the 10th circuit??? Guess we got the short
Shouldn't the state comply with the law "just because"?
@DN Subscriber wrote: "Remember, same sex marriage is just the first misstep
down the slippery slope."Just because the results are inevitable
in your imagination does not make it so.
way go gov...."we will comply if justice sotomayor doesnt grant a stay'
you wont have a choice...another reason why my gov is a huge embarrassment...
Why so many liberal commenters on a clearly conservative paper.
@dn subscriberDo you know why your slippery slope argument has
actually never been made in a court of law with relation to this issue?
So the state is going to survive after all.
Will I be forced to pay taxes to support it? What happens if I refuse to obey
Monarch Shelby and his harmful opinions, and if I continue to support the
Constitution and Government by the People, for the People, and of the People?@ collegestudent25 they're propagandists, some are probably paid,
they work in shifts, and are most active on Conservative papers (and have been
called upon to first "destroy the Utah brand." They are the inheritors
of the Wandervoegel tradition (read about that on defend the family). Those
paying to promote the agenda probably get tax breaks. The IRS probably will
never do anything about any of this, but if you donate money to protect children
and marriage they will post your name on the internet, you will probably be
fired from your job, and when the IRS is caught, they will probably use your tax
dollars to pay their fine.....that's how America is under the regime.
The question over same-sex marriage iS settled. Accepting it in the states
whose governments haven't is a matter of 'when," not
'if." Those states can face reality or continue to drag their feet.
Either way, gay marriage in the U.S. will encompass more and more states.
Ultimately all, one suspects.
Will I be forced to pay taxes to support it? What happens if I refuse to obey
Monarch Shelby and his harmful opinions, and if I continue to support the
Constitution and Government by the People, for the People, and of the People?
@ collegestudent25 they're propagandists, they work in shifts, and are
most active on Conservative papers (and have been called upon to first
"destroy the Utah brand." They are the following a certain tradition
that is not new (read about that on defend the family). I don't know if
those donating to promote the agenda get tax breaks? If they did the IRS
probably will supports it. Speaking hypothetically (can't even tell some
truths here anymore), if you donate money to protect children and marriage the
IRS just might post your name on the internet (not saying this has been done,
guess we can't say that), you just might be fired from your job
("")and if the IRS were caught only a few Conservative talk show people
might have hypothetically reported on it and hypothetically discussed what might
have happened if the IRS used your tax dollars to pay their fine.....that's
how could become, if we were under liberal rule..... ;) hypothetically of
It would be wise for all of us to visit defend the family and read some of the
articles there. There are some good ones by Jewish authors etc. about
what is going on in our Country, and how it has happened before. Try searching for "Crafting Gay Children" or the
"Wandervoegel" etc. May all go well America, may God save
us, and hopefully someone will be able to protect the First Amendment.
@Dn subscriber. You do realize marriage is a legal contract? So a dog can not
enter into a contract. Also I believe children are allowed to marry an adult
with parent consent at the age of 14 in Utah. They might have changed that law.
If so a minor can not legally enter into a contract.
Those who want to experiment with the marriage and the family should take a
lesson from a highly intelligent group: the scientists, engineers, and
management of NASA:On the Space Shuttle Columbia's last flight,
once control problems were observed, and loss of all hydraulic pressure was
noted, pilot McCool tried to restart 2 of the 3 auxiliary power units "as
they worked to attempt to restore orbiter control" at the very end (Columbia
Crew Survival Investigation Report, page 1-20).The Columbia
astronauts never realized what had gone wrong; they ran out of time needed to
troubleshoot the problem - as will we. It will be too late. We ignore the
lessons of history, especially in the vital areas of marriage and family, at our
own peril."As with the O-ring erosions that ultimately doomed
the Challenger, NASA management became accustomed to these phenomena when no
serious consequences resulted from these earlier episodes. This phenomenon was
termed "normalization of deviance" by sociologist Diane Vaughan in her
book on the Challenger launch decision process."Well put, Diane.
Questions for the governor.Do you believe that obeying the law is
more important than protecting Utah against the destruction of society and
massive loss of life brought on by plagues of Biblical proportion.Or
do you not believe in the proclamation of the family?
@DN Subscriber;Bigotry & discrimination is legal; that
doesn't make it right or good for society. I note the way you denigrate J.
Sotomayor by putting quotes around your description. You made quite the attempt
to diminish her; you failed. All you succeeded in doing is demonstrating your
own biases.Your "morals" (promotion of bigotry) isn't
good for society; stop fighting against what is right and good, equality.@collegestudent25;Do you want to live in an echo chamber?
@interventionThe moral majority cares little for substantive
argument and rule of law. When it's convenient or fits the narrative, yes.
But following propositions to natural conclusions, like the equal protection
clause extending to state marriage laws, not a chance. Fortunately one branch of
Federal gov't seems to understand it's role and will act accordingly.
For Dennis. From the article "Should the Supreme Court not extend the stay,
the state Division of Motor Vehicles, the Utah Department of Health and other
agencies could see a rush of couples looking to change names on drivers'
licenses or to amend children's birth certificates."Dennis I
always enjoy your pieces mainly because they seem to have a neutrality to them
that isn't always so in D-News articles. That being said you have a mistake
in the above. The Dept.Of Public Safety is the agency that deals with
driver's licenses. The Division Of Motor Vehicles deal with car
registrations, titles etc. The above implies otherwise.For the D-News in
general. I am so tired of seeing the slippery slope arguments that have been
debunked time and time again still coming up in posts time and time again. They
serve no purpose other than to demonstrate the intellectual level of the
contributor. I think any posts containing arguments of this nature should in the
future be rejected. They are off subject and speculation if nothing else and as
such go against your policies.
Wow!How nice that Gary Herbert decides he'll actually follow the law when
he chooses...what a great example...Not!
Well--- how very accommodating of him.
@ firstamendment"Will I be forced to pay taxes to support
it?" The quick answer is No!However, if we want to be fair ,
perhaps you should. Since LGBT and other single people have paid taxes since the
beginning of the Republic to sustain "traditional Marriage" and all the
benefits you enjoyed and have been denied to the rest of us.The long
answer is still No!...don't worry.@ cjbIs a
requirement for the Governor of Utah to Believe in the Proclamation of the
family or be influenced by it? Just curious.A personal question; Are
you able to sleep at night ? so much conspiracy plots
The moral majority is neither.
@cjb: last I heard, Mr. Herbert was the governor of Utah, which is a secular
state, home to people of different religions and to many with no religion.
Whether or not he believes in a religious proclamation has nothing to do with
the oath he took to uphold the laws of the United States.@first
amendment: Freedom, of speech is alive and well. The evidence is right in
front of you. Anyone has the right to post hateful and hurtful stuff, including
slippery slope speculation, although the DN has a right to censor it.To my fellow "propogandists". My shift at the computer is about up
(my employees start arriving in twenty minutes) but I implore you to be kind to
people who disagree with you. Those who issue shrill warnings about the death
of civilization are afraid that things are going to change and somehow they will
be hurt. Their fear doesn't have to be rational to be real--plenty of
adults are terrified of spiders. Love, compassion, and acceptance are more
powerful than criticism. The younger generation is watching and they are making
up their own minds.
There is no need to disrupt the lives of those who entered into perfectly legal
marriages in good faith. The State suffers no harm but innocent people do by
continuing to recognize them.
Apparently Herbert doesn't believe in the article of faith 12.If he refuses to follow the law then he needs to be impeached immediately. We will not live in anarchy here. Contrary to what repubs desire, we
should live by laws and the democratic process.
So Utah is willing to do what the President (refusing to defend DOMA, among many
other things) and California (refusing to defend Prop 8) were not willing to do
- support the law even if they find it distasteful? Sounds like the White House
and California could take a lesson in honoring the law (which we already knew).
Re: The Real MaverickActually, Gov. Herbert is following the 12th
Article of Faith. The headline: "Gov. says Utah will comply with law if
Sotomayor doesn't grant stay" even makes that clear."If
he refuses to follow the law then he needs to be impeached immediately." I
agree, especially if you hold Pres. Obama and all other politicians to the same
standard (Pres. Obama has broken the law a number of times, even Democrats in
Congress have chastised him for it; I say this as an independent moderate).
@cjb"Do you believe that obeying the law is more important than
protecting Utah against the destruction of society and massive loss of life
brought on by plagues of Biblical proportion.Or do you not believe
in the proclamation of the family?"I don't understand why
people think humans can't influence the climate but gay people cause
plagues. If God was going to smite us he'd have done it when we were
practicing slavery, slaughtering Native Americans, treating women as property...
but he didn't.
The governor is doing what he has sworn to do in his office - defend the laws of
the State of Utah. Right now, Ammendment 3 is the law. Until that is struck
down, it is his and the AG's obligation to defend this ammendment. Those in CA who refused to do that same duty with Prop 8 should be
impeached. I am not basing this on an argument for or against SSM.
I am simply stating the duties a governor is expected to perform in office. To
refues over political opinion (as was done in CA) is grounds for impeachment,
and possible imprisonment.@ Laura B:Thank you for your
post. My fears are based in what I see happening all over the country to those
who believe as I do about homosexuality. Secular rights and religious beliefs
are different, and can co-exist if we work at it, as you implied. I wish more
in the SSM camp had your common sense....
Wait! I thought the new fad in politics was that you could pick and choose what
laws you want to comply with or enforce and which you don't. I think
Governor Herbert should just follow the lead of our prodigious leaders in
Washington. It seems to work for them.
"Why so many liberal commenters on a clearly conservative paper."Does hearing the liberal argument offend you in some way?
I have an anti-homosexual neighbor who said that gay couples already get all the
benefits of heterosexual couples, so they don't need the right to get
married. Well according to this article, I can see that he is completely wrong:
"Married same-sex couples say they and their families are in
legal limbo regarding adoptions, child care and custody, medical decisions,
employment and health benefits, future tax implications, inheritance, and many
other property and fundamental rights associated with marriage."
@Jared & RedWings;The "Law", if you will, is the US
Constititution which supercedes every state law. If Herbert were actually
defending the law, he would accept that Amendment-3 violates the 5th and 14th
Amendment Rights of LGBT couples and cease his opposition immediately. RedWings, you said: "My fears are based in what I see happening all
over the country to those who believe as I do about homosexuality."So, people being criticized for yelling "pervert, sinner, abomination"
at LGBT people in the public square causes you fear? People being criticized
for donating to causes that discriminate against citizens causes you fear?
People being held accountable for their actions, when those actions actually DO
HARM to others causes you fear?You can believe anything you want
about homosexuals. You do not get to use your beliefs to infringe on our rights
Fear of one's chosen unknown is a powerful thing.
Quote: "Married same-sex couples say they and their families are in legal
limbo regarding adoptions, child care and custody, medical decisions, employment
and health benefits, future tax implications, inheritance, and many other
property and fundamental rights associated with marriage."--So
why shouldn't single people who can't marry not also have equality in
these benefits with a close relative? And why not other types of unions (yes,
that same kind that dominates the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia)? This
is more about wanting to join a club of benefits than "equality for
all." I can hardly wait for Sotomayor's "rhetorical flourishes"
on this matter.
I'm utterly petrified at the conservative movement to trample all over our
Constitution. Who knew that actually following that sacred document would be so
difficult?Conservatives seem to think that the bill of rights
shouldn't apply to everyone. They feel like religious people and big
corporations that bribe politicians should have special rights. Special rights
that allow them to take away the rights of others and force their religious
beliefs down our throats.Why should there be a special class of
people, religious and big corp? Why can't we treat everyone equally?If you want to get married, then get married!If you don't
want to get married, then don't!It's that simple. Why
should conservatives have the right to define marriage and force their current
definition of marriage on everyone else?
Ranch-It is not Herbert's job to interpret the law. That is
for the courts. He follows Utah Law until is it overridden by the SC. Your way
is what Obama does - personally interpret and then act. This is not what a
governor's job is.I have never called anyone those names.
Those attacked, villified, or forced to resign from job did not either. All
they said or did was express support of traditional marriage. Yet they were
called "bigots" and worse by LGBT activists.I guess today
being a liberal involves a commitment to hypocrisy and an exclusion of logic or
"Why so many liberal commenters on a clearly conservative paper."The Deseret News has established criteria on what is allowable to post on
these forums. No where in their rules does it state that only conservative
opinions will be accepted. As long as one stays within the confines of the rules
the D-News has set forth, they have the right to express their opinion, be it
conservative or liberal.
@collegestudent25 "Why so many liberal commenters on a clearly conservative
paper?" I contribute to the Deseret News because I appreciate DN's
integrity. The paper reaches out to be respectful of and to listen to others
beliefs and I try to reciprocate when I comment. Dialogue beats pent-up anger.
Additionally, Colorado and Utah are both under the umbrella of the 10th Circuit
Court. I am critical of Governor Herbert and AG Reyes because they are smart
people and have a good idea how gay marriage will be resolved, but they are not
forthcoming. "Gov. says Utah will comply with law if Sotomayor doesn't
grant stay." Does Governor Herbert have another option? The Governor could
do a much better job of reaching out to all parties. I frequently reference
families because I am the product of a very loving family and understand the
challenges and rewards of family life and also of having a gay child. Family
unity is a multi-generational contract and I want to encourage all families to
have this discussion. And no, we don't work in shifts.
@RedWings"All they said or did was express support of traditional
marriage."No, they expressed opposition to same-sex marriage,
since that's the point of what they were working on with Prop 8/Amendment
3/etc, banning same-sex marriage.
Re SchneeI actually agree with you.
@RedWings"Right now, Ammendment 3 is the law."WRONG.
The moment Amendment 3 was struct down in federal court, it ceased to the the
law. That is why marriages were conducted in the state until a stay was issued.
With various stays in place, the law is suspended until further
judicial review. States can choose to continue to appeal as Utah and others
have done. But they are also free to accept the courts' rulings and
discontinue their appeals. In which case any stays are lifted and the state
extends marriage equality. Pennsylvania chose this course. The state is under
no obligation to continue to defend any law.In any case, after the
federal court and the 10th circuit court rulings, the law TODAY in Utah is
marriage equality. Stays are currently in place halting enforcement of the law.
CJB asks:"Do you believe that obeying the law is more important
than protecting Utah against the destruction of society and massive loss of life
brought on by plagues of Biblical proportion.Or do you not believe
in the proclamation of the family?"CJB your question is exactly
what is wrong with this state and it's Government. Governor Herbert was
not sworn in to defend and represent the beliefs of the Mormon Church he was
sworn it to defend and lead by the Constitutions of the US and the State of
Utah. I know it's hard for some folks in Utah to understand
this but as history has taught us Mormon beliefs don't always walk hand and
hand with the constitution.
First Amendment: How would you refuse to obey this law? By not getting married?
And how would your tax dollars be used to fund other people's weddings?
RedWings;"It is not Herbert's job to interpret the law.
That is for the courts."The courts have interpreted the law.
Over and over now. And they've all been saying that amendments that deny
LGBT couples the right to marry the person of their choice is a violation of the
US Constitution. How many such interpretations is enough?"Those
attacked, villified, or forced to resign from job did not either."Yes they did. Go read what Phil Roberson said. The Moz. CEO donated money to
deny civil rights to LGBT couples. You may not have said anything, but as I
pointed out, these people who are being criticized did do those things.It isn't "common civility" (nor logic) to deny the rights you
enjoy to others, Red, that is the hypocrisy. Nor is it "civil" to call
LGBT people "sinners, perverts, abominations" etc., as we see frequently
on the DN's comment pages.
Here in Canada the acceptance of Same Sex Marriage has already led to the
entrenchment of Polygamy groups, grooming of teenage boys by older men (who can
now marry), and just last week in politicians pushing to remove the rights of
birth parents to have a say in child placement.Pandora's box is
wide open here and our brains fell right out. Sigh. It would be nice to see the
US taking the higher ground on this one. Columbia, how you have
@Laura BilingtonPlease clock me in for my mandatory propaganda shift.
I'm definitly not a Utah native, I wasn't born at Utah Valley Regional
Medical Center, I didn't grow up in Davis County and go to Bountiful High
School. I don't own a house in Salt Lake. I mean, if I don't agree
with @firstamendments positions, clearly i'm not from Utah and i'm and
out of state operative heck(there's a Utah word for ya) bent on destroying
the cultural fabric of Utah. @FirstamendmentMy guess is because
40-50% of Utahns(depending on the poll you believe) support SSM, so even if we
are a minority, there are plenty of SSM supporters in Utah. In my age group
20-30, there are even a lot of LDS people who support SSM.
Canadiandy,Have you been hanging out with Rush Limbaugh, king of
@RanchHand: "If Herbert were actually defending the law, he would accept
that Amendment-3 violates the 5th and 14th Amendment Rights of LGBT couples and
cease his opposition immediately."Except that that
interpretation has not been stated by the Supreme Court so as yet is opinion.
@ koseighty-That is my point. The governor is living up to his oath
to uphold and defend the law. The SC is the final say. If they rule against
Ammendment 3, that is what the governor will follow, regardless of his personal
opinion. @ Schnee-So, voicing opposition to SSM means
that one can be ridiculed, called names, forced to give up their livelihood and
means of support, etc.? Those behaviors are bullying - no less. I do not call
anyone names - including homosexuals. That bevavior is childish and does not
help a cause.@ Ranch-Robertson and the Mozilla CEO have
a right to do and say what they did. That you do not like it does not give you
the right to name-call or attack them. Accusing them of name-calling while
calling them "bigots" is the definition of hypocrisy. That is something
the left is getting extremely good at....
@Jared wrote, "Except that that interpretation has not been stated by the
Supreme Court so as yet is opinion."Jared, if the loser in every
court decision took that attitude, SCOTUS would have to rule on every single
court action. It doesn't work that way. There needs to be a reason that
the judge ruled wrongly (e.g. refused to allow you to produce evidence, the
decision clashed with the Constitution or with previous SCOTUS rulings). The State of Utah paid megabucks to appeal this decision to the 10th
Circuit--and presented their argument as to why Judge Shelby was wrong. The
appeal was denied. There is NOTHING in Utah's argument that outweighs the
14th Amendment argument. The lawyer presenting the case knew that and every
legislator with legal expertise knows it, too. But they continue to waste
taxpayers' money, trying to fool their supporters into thinking that they
really have a case.
@canadiandy With all that going on surely you can point us to a credible
source to confirm your claims?
@ Canadiandy - Thank you for the glimpse into our future in the US.
It does not look brigth, but at least it will be
Just to be clear, the Wandervogel movement was not a gay movement at all. There
was one branch of it that was led by a gay man and when parents found out they
demanded that that branch break away from the whole. Crafting gay
children, though, is something every person with any interest in the LGBT
movement should look up and read. It is enlightening to be sure.
@RedWings"So, voicing opposition to SSM means that one can be
ridiculed, called names, forced to give up their livelihood and means of
support, etc.? "I'd recommend stronger labor protections
and workers rights laws but that's a pretty liberal thing to support and
lately unions have been weakened rather than strengthened so I don't see
any help there in the near future. "I do not call anyone names -
including homosexuals."Why do you oppose same-sex marriage?
There's gotta be something insulting in that reasoning, even if you frame
it in a way that leaves it unstated like 'children do best (on average)
with a mother and father' (stereotypes/generalizes same-sex parents as