Further ...Re: "Raising children help one to be less self centered and
more charitable and loving toward others who are different than
themselves."And LGBTQ folk aren't capable of doing that?I read the following line elsewhere, and it bears repeating here:
"The Stupids act like ejaculation and ovulation are the hard parts of
parenting."Sorry, but merely being heterosexual is NO guarantee
of having good parenting skills.BUT ... the topic is MARRIAGE, not
parenthood. Please stop confusing/conflating the two.
@ The Reader,Re: "Because of the difficulty of same sex married
couples to get pregnant and have children there could in time be a serious
decline in the population ..."Disprovable hyperbolic nonsense.
Allowing same-gender couples to have their relationships recognized equally will
not stop or prevent heterosexuals - married or NOT - from making babies. It
doesn't work that way. I have been legally married for well over a decade,
and in that time, tens upon tens of thousands of heterosexuals have
reproduced.Your assertion also ignores that procreation is not a
requirement of marriage ... for anyone! Heck, the State doesn't even
INQUIRE as to a couple's ability (NOR their intention) to procreate when
they apply for a marriage license.A little LOGIC, please.Re: "It takes two of opposite sex to have children."So? If
having children were a requirement of marriage, you might have a valid point. It
isn't and you don't. You seem to have forgotten about adoption. There
are tens of thousands of LGBTQ citizens (some married, some not) who are raising
children they have adopted because the children were ABANDONED or had them taken
away FROM heterosexuals as unfit parents.
@panamadesnews: "That is how I feel and my feelings will never change, no
matter what you or anyone else says."Newsflash: no one is trying
to change your "feelings". This really isn't about your
"feelings" at all. This issue is concerned with secular law involving
civil rights of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, the ones who have been
subjected to legal discrimination for decades.This legal form of
bigotry and discrimination is coming to an end.Those who want to
codify their dogma-sourced beliefs into civil laws need to come to grips with
the fact that not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you
want them to be, isn't an infringement on your freedoms.
@Born that wayLet's put a different spin on it and see what you
think:"The straight people of Utah just need to continue
throwing good money after bad to protect their "special rights" and deny
equal rights to others they deem all wrong, and their personal vision of
society-framed by their religious dogma-must rule supreme at the expense of the
US Constitution...because freedom is only important if it conforms to our own
personal values and as long as we get exactly what we want."
@the Reader"Because of the difficulty of same sex married
couples to get pregnant and have children there could in time be a serious
decline in the population needed to pay for services such as roads, police, fire
courts hospitals"Well, that's just plain silly. Aside from
the absurd suggestion that SSM will somehow reduce the numbers of heterosexuals
now choosing to reproduce, it implies that gays and lesbians cannot reproduce.
@TheReaderIs same sex marriage going to cause sterility in straight
couples? Even if these same sex couples choose not to adopt or use other means
to have a child, it's not going to stop anyone else from having children.
The people of Utah just need to completely abandon their values and stop wasting
tax payer money, because I know they're all wrong, and my personal vision
of society must rule supreme and any other deviations are not only wrong, but
should be criminalized... because freedom is only important if it conforms to my
own personal values and as long as I get exactly what I want.
@panamadesnewsPet? Really? Once an argument includes a pet, you no
longer have any honor or integrity and any opinions you have become a joke.
Perhaps you are projecting your own fear on something you do not understand or
are completely ignorant about. No one, and I mean no one (from the people I
know who argue marriage equality) have implied, wished, stated, indicated, etc.
that a pet should be considered in the equation. It is a simple right that is
being sought after, marriage equality between two consenting adults, PERIOD.
Worry about polygamists when they decide to wander into the debate about
marriage. Otherwise, what two consenting adults choose to do behind a private
door is frankly private. Gay, straight or otherwise. Unless you personally plan
to stay in Utah or only plan to visit states that ban marriage equality, you too
will have to accept marriage where it is legal, that is the law. The can of
worms is here to stay. Enjoy the bigotry while you can.
Laura Bilington: "Tell me, when you hear the word 'Selma',
what's the first thing people think of?"Is it the ribs at
Lannie's Bar-B-Q Spot?Oh, right, the Edmund Pettus Bridge and
Bloody Sunday.Loved the "pandership" neologism, BTW.@wrz (8/12, 8:57 pm): You miss the point entirely. States have
reciprocity for certain things and not for others (drivers licenses, yes;
hunting licenses, no; professional licenses and gun permits, maybe). If states
have reciprocity for some marriages (e.g. first cousins) then they should have
reciprocity for all. You ask why you would need to tell the state you were in a
first cousin or same sex marriage. Well, it would be fraudulent to file a joint
tax return if you were not in a legal marriage recognized by the state. (I
suspect the reason the tax commission backed down last December on the SSM issue
and joint returns was that they didn't want to have to audit every joint
return filed by couples named Pat and Dana, Lynn and Chris, Terry and Jordan,
etc.) Other state benefits would also be at risk (inheritance, hospital
panamadesnews designating a separate category to apply to gay couples
won't, and hasn't worked. The fact is that anything other than
marriage is not equal treatment. This is something we've known in the US
at least since the 60s. That said, these laws affect only civil marriage.
Churches in the US are not required to perform or sanction marriages for anyone
they choose not to.
@ panamadesnews: Utah's Amendment 3 clearly states, "No other domestic
union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or
substantially equivalent legal effect."As UnderstandsMath
stated, it doesn't matter what you call them, you can't have them in
Utah.Ten years ago, when Amendment 3 was being debated, many in the
LGBT community and their allies specifically asked that the second part of the
amendment not be included - they would have been very happy to settle for and
accept "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" but they were
told they couldn't have those either.Now, they are the ones
winning. Why should they settle for less now?And, just so you know,
there are many with great influence in Utah politics (such as the Eagle Forum)
who still do not think even civil unions or domestic partnerships should be
available for same-sex couples.Again, why should same-sex couples
have to settle when their previous compromise was rejected and those in power
are still showing no willingness to compromise? Marriage equality is winning.
Any chance to slow it down was thrown out the window 10 years ago.
@RoundelRiderYou know, interracial marriage used to be regarded as
ungodly, unnatural. Fortunately, people gradually were "enlightened" and
accepted interracial couples' right to marriage, although it took decades
for that transition.We are on the similar path right now towards
same sex couples' right to marriage. Majority of American people already
support SSM, and among young people, 70-80% support SSM. There are also more and
more church denominations embracing marriage equality. So maybe
there is such thing as good luck.
So xert, what you're saying is that what the less enlightened are being
"enlightened" about is that immorality is the new morality - in the name
of tolerance, and godlessness is the new religion. Good luck with that.
@panamadesnews writes "Let them..use whatever term they would like..other
than marriage. These non-traditional partnerships are not marriages and never
will be."Serious question: What does the term marriage mean to
you?To me it means two unrelated adults who commit to live together
for life, to share the good times and bad times together, to take care of each
other, emotionally and physically, in sickness and in health. They may choose
to have or adopt children, or they may not. I assume you think
that it's OK for a man and woman to get married even if they are unable to
have a sexual relationship, correct? Or if the man becomes impotent after
twenty or forty years, but they want to stay together, this is still OK with
you? Gay people are not "them" or "those people"--
term indicate something distant or alien. They are your siblings, your children
and your neighbors. They want marriage for the same reasons you wanted it. The Lutheran church is a church. The Mormon church is a church, not a
"church". And a same sex marriage is a marriage, not a
"marriage".Fairness demands no less.
The federal government already recognizes those marriages. Utah needs to wake up
and smell the Postum.
In similar news the United Church of Christ has filed a lawsuit against North
Carolina seeking to overturn that state's gay marriage ban. The United
Church of Christ allows and performs same-sex marriages and says that the ban
against it is a violation of their freedom of religion. This is applicable here
in Utah as well, where 21 different religious denominations have come out in
support of marriage equality, but the state still bans it.
to panamadesnewsYou said: "That is how I feel and my feelings
will never change, no matter what you or anyone else says" in reference to
same sex marriage and your opposition to it.Perhaps, then you fully
understand why some people will label you (perhaps unfairly) with an unpleasant
epithet that indicates a fair amount of scorn. They don't "feel"
the same way and will never change "no matter what you or anyone
says".If you would lighten up a bit, and just say that you
don't understand same sex marriage and will never partake of such a
practice, then I think those who have a differing opinion would not be hostile
towards your attitudes. Such are the common courtesies of civilization that
hold us together.
There is leadership, Mr. Herbert, and there is what you might call
"pandership". Do you really want the name "Herbert"
to be remembered in the history books for your dogged dragging out the process
of denying civil rights to those 1300 couples? Don't believe
me? Tell me, when you hear the word "Selma", what's the first
thing people think of? (Hint: It isn't the annual Butterfly Festival).
So Utah only has one month to come up with a NEW argument to justify why it
won't recognize marriages which it lawfully granted, even though no court
in the history of the US has ever reversed a marriage which was lawful at the
time it was granted?Even more awkward for Herbert, Reyes and Schaerr
is the fact that Utah explicitly prohibits retroactive laws. So even though
Amendment 3 was restored due to the stay, it cannot impact those lawfully
granted marriages.I'm glad it's Utah's money being
wasted and not mine.
Just as the names of Mississippii, Alabama and South Carolina will forever be
remembered as the ones who needed to be taken by the hand and led kicking and
screaming into recognition of the basic human rights of their minority
citizens, I will be a little sad to watch as my home state is tagged forever
with being the place where the fight against marriage equality met its Waterloo.
But I will be proud to claim that I was one of many who fought and won
against the intolerance of so many of my, shall we say, less enlightened
family, friends and neighbors and helped my beloved state grow. First Obamacare
and now this. Don't tell me things haven't changed since we elected
Understands Math wrote: Ah, but you forget that Utah's Amendment 3
specifically bans *any* legal recognition of same-sex relationships. So giving
them a 'separate but equal' name would not have changed anything in
UtahBut "union" is a different word than "marriage",
just as a gay/lesbian partnership is different than a heterosexual one. Let them
be called unions or whatever term they would like to use other than marriage.
These non-traditional partnerships are not marriages and never will be. That is
how I feel and my feelings will never change, no matter what you or anyone else
@wrz wrote: "I think you might be right. That August body can't seem to
stay on page. They're acting like politicians... or third graders."I don't know which August body you are referring to (I mentioned
both the courts and the legislature), so I'll just assume you meant the
congress and agree with you that 'third graders' is an apt
comparison.@panamadesnews wrote "I believe this whole can of
worms would go away if the courts were to designate gay & lesbian
partnerships not as "marriages" but as "unions"."Ah, but you forget that Utah's Amendment 3 specifically bans *any* legal
recognition of same-sex relationships. So giving them a 'separate but
equal' name would not have changed anything in Utah."Once
this traditionalism is changed, marriage is opened up to whatever kinds of
partnerships, 4 men and a woman, or vice-versa, or whatever. Think about
it."After thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion
that that's a Slippery Slope fallacy.
I believe this whole can of worms would go away if the courts were to designate
gay & lesbian partnerships not as "marriages" but as
"unions". Many who are heterosexual, myself included, are
traditionalists and do not feel a non-traditional partnership should be
designated a "marriage". We feel that marriage should only denote a
heterosexual relationship, as it has been for thousands of years. We do not feel
it is right for a non-traditional union be designated a "marriage",
whether it be two men, two women, a man or woman and his or her pet, or
whatever. Once this traditionalism is changed, marriage is opened up to whatever
kinds of partnerships, 4 men and a woman, or vice-versa, or whatever. Think
@Understands Math:"I expect that the second section of DOMA will be
dumped in time..."I think you might be right. That August body
can't seem to stay on page. They're acting like politicians... or
@Lagomorph:"A shade off-topic to the question of recognizing marriages
performed legally within the state, maybe, but can anyone speak to how the State
of Utah deals with marriages performed legally outside the state that would not
be valid here?"If you have a fishing or hunting license in
Colorado can you illegally fish or hunt in Utah with them?If you
have a license to practice medicine or law or CPA work in Arizona, can you
legally practice these trades in Utah with those licenses?"Would
the Tax Commission reject a joint tax return filed by a married, fertile first
cousin couple?"How would the tax commission know? They
don't require attaching a copy of a marriage license or genealogy tree to
the return."The state does not recognize as valid same sex
marriages lawfully performed in other states. Why should other categories of
marriages, lawfully performed elsewhere but unlawful here, be any
different?"Why do you have to tell state officials that you are
married to a first cousin? Or even that you are in a SSM, for that matter?
@Intervention & LagomorphIt's worth stating that the second
section of DOMA, which was *not* overturned in the Windsor decision, gives the
states the power to not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other
states.The vast majority of lawsuits challenging DOMA were focuxed
on the third section of the law. I know of only one federal challenge to section
2, and that challenge sustained the law. However, that was ten years ago and
obviously does not reflect the amount of judicial opinion that's occurred
since then.I expect that the second section of DOMA will be dumped
in time, but whether it's through a court decision or a legislative appeal,
who can say?
@The Reader, you believe that if 2% of the people in Utah are married to
same-sex spouses, that none of them will procreate or adopt, and that this will
somehow lead to a "serious decline in the population"? And that if Utah
is successful in its quixotic effort to ban gay marriage, then all of these gays
will marry opposite sex partners and procreate?"Raising children
help one to be less self centered and more charitable and loving toward others
who are different than themselves." Um...if that were the case, then no
straight parent would ever disown his gay child. And no reader who is also a
parent would ever write a letter to the DN advocating the denial of marriage
@LagomorphThat is actually one of the places the state runs into trouble
in this case. They do recognize these other types of marriages when legally
performed in other states.
Because of the difficulty of same sex married couples to get pregnant and have
children there could in time be a serious decline in the population needed to
pay for services such as roads, police, fire courts hospitals . . . . It takes two of opposite sex to have children. Raising children help one to
be less self centered and more charitable and loving toward others who are
different than themselves.
A shade off-topic to the question of recognizing marriages performed legally
within the state, maybe, but can anyone speak to how the State of Utah deals
with marriages performed legally outside the state that would not be valid here?
For instance, Utah allows first cousins to marry, but only if they are
nonreproductive (sterile, postmenopausal). Some other states allow first
cousins to marry without restriction. Does Utah recognize as legally married
fertile first cousins married in a state that allows that? Do state agencies
make any effort to identify such marriages? Would the Tax Commission reject a
joint tax return filed by a married, fertile first cousin couple?The
state does not recognize as valid same sex marriages lawfully performed in other
states. Why should other categories of marriages, lawfully performed elsewhere
but unlawful here, be any different?
This case is a no-brainer. Just think about California. Even if prop 8 was
passed to ban same sex marriage, those gay couples married before the passage of
Prop 8, their marriages were still considered valid, weren't they?Utah AG has even slimmer chance to win this one than Kitchen v Herbert case
(not that I think he can win that case though). Why wasting
taxpayers' money on a case totally not winnable is beyond me.
Its nice to see the courts are not going to allow the state to draw this futile
exercise out forever, hopefully the supreme court will set a similar limit on
the case headed towards them.
Why waste more taxpayer money? These couples were legally married. Denying them
their marital benefits is discriminatory. Utah, abandon this
senseless and doomed crusade.