Those who are critical of Vanceone for making a thorough, hypothetical legal
scenario which could occur, and probably will, considering the state of things
on the SSM issue, need to pay close attention. You have more trust in the
"free exercise" clause of the 1st amendment than I do. For nearly the
last half-century, the ACLU and others have been promoting the
"establishment" clause at the near-exclusion of the "free
exercise" clause, building up a plethora of precedent that would make the
argument under the "free exercise" clause extremely difficult. Only time
will tell who is right on this one.
@Vanceone"Look, I can make the attorney's case really easily
here: The LDS church should be forced to marry gay couples in their temple
because now that gays can legally be married, every person licensed by the state
to marry someone has to conduct all eligible weddings. ... Any liberal, leftist
judge will follow this reasoning."This liberal thinks you'd
lose the case because the church already has the right to deny any couple they
want because say one of the two isn't LDS. There has never been any
requirement for churches to marry every type of couple that is eligible under
Article title: "‘Lesbian couple say marriage lawsuit against Utah, LDS
Church was filed without their knowledge’"Gee, imagine
that.....somebody screaming at the top of their lungs (via a lawsuit) against
the LDS church about homosexual "inequality" when those involved want
nothing to do with the screaming.In other words, more lies and
falsehoods involved in the homosexual agenda.What a shocker....I commend the lesbian couple in calling out the falsehoods.
VanceoneProvo, UT"If you think the 1st Amendment is going to
stop some gay judge from forcing religions to marry gay people, your naivety is
showing. ...Just ask any wedding planner/baker/florist what happens when the
gays come demanding you serve them. The state forces you to--you have no freedom
anymore. Except to go out of business, that is." ---Please look
up "public accomodations laws" and remember you are riled up over 3 or 4
cases in the nation."Do you honestly think that the gay judge
who overturned Proposition 8 wouldn't use any theory he could to force a
church to perform a gay ceremony?" ---- SAD, completely
mistrusting of human nature!If I write that judges from "the other
side" will make dishonest rulings, it reveals me as a person to whom
dishonesty is natural."In New Jersey the courts already force
churches to allow gay ceremonies to occur on their property, but as of yet not
conduct them. There's not much difference between forcing them to allow a
ceremony and forcing them to conduct one."---NO, a facility that
a church rents to "anyone" for profit was involved, not a church.
Vanceone:You're comparing apples and oranges when you talk about
religious marriage ceremonies and then bring in businesses and whether they have
the right to withhold services. Any business that offers it's services to
the public is required by the CRA (Civil Rights Act) to provide their services
regardless of race, religion, and now sexual orientation (as SCOTUS has declared
is a civil rights protected minority group). A business can't refuse to
serve someone because they are Mormon and the business doesn't agree with
their lifestyle. A business can't refuse service to an individual because
they're black, Latino, or Asian. The fight you want to bring against gays
is no different than the fight southern states wanted to take against blacks and
segregation. A public business CAN NOT discriminate on who they will provide
services to...this battle was already won and is history (over 50 yrs ago).Religion and religious marriage ceremonies have never had the same
requirement as businesses. They have the right under the 1st amendment to
perform ceremonies to whomever they want according to their religious
views...separation of church and state.
When a New Mexico photographer was told the price of being a US citizen is being
forced to violate her deeply-held religious beliefs, why do we thing other
organizations are far behind.How long until a homosexual sues the
LDS Church for not being allow to hold their wedding reception in an LDS
facility? Probably a while. However, a Bed and Breakfast in Vermont already
stopped hosting weddings rather than schedule a same-gender one, and still was
somehow roced to pay $30,000 although they had totally left the business before
the couple in question planned to get married. A baker in Colorado
has been threatened with jail time if he does not make a cake for a same-sex
wedding. This is a clear violation of freedom.In Kentucy a t-shirt
business has been gone after by the "Human Rights Commission" for
refusing to provide T-shirt to a gay rights parade. This incoherent law suit is
part of a much larger trend.
Actually, supporting same-sex marriage increases government regulation. In Utah
in November 2013 homosexuals could live to gether with no state interference.
There was no law against such action, they faced no criminal penalties. They
were free to stay or to leave, and one party could not bring the state to try to
regulate the actions of the other.A married couple agrees to allow
the state to regulate their actions. If you doubt this, just look at some things
that are required of parents after divorce. The only justification for such
regulation is the state wants to create a situation where as much child rearing
is done by biological parents. This requires marriage in the form of child
producing relations and creating an expectation of sexual exclusivity in
marriage. Both of these will be undermined by same-gender marriage.Why does same0gender marriage undermine the form of sexual exclusivity? The
easy answer is because some non-lesbian single women will enter it while still
being open to finding a male spouse. I have even seen a commentor on this board
advocate such a course.
Sounds to me like a lawyer smelled a big payout... and didn't even think to
stop and ask the people he was going to USE for his lawsuit to see if they
wanted to be part of the suit. Probably figured "who WOULDN'T want
piece of this payout"? Layers like this one are the reason the
profession has such a bad reputation.
If you think the 1st Amendment is going to stop some gay judge from forcing
religions to marry gay people, your naivety is showing. The Constitution also
protects freedom of contract. You have the right to engage, or not, in business
with whomever as you choose. Except for civil rights, and especially in the
case of gays, where they can force you to conduct business with them. Just ask
any wedding planner/baker/florist what happens when the gays come demanding you
serve them. The state forces you to--you have no freedom anymore. Except to go
out of business, that is. Do you honestly think that the gay judge
who overturned Proposition 8 wouldn't use any theory he could to force a
church to perform a gay ceremony? In New Jersey the courts already force
churches to allow gay ceremonies to occur on their property, but as of yet not
conduct them. There's not much difference between forcing them to allow a
ceremony and forcing them to conduct one.
Vanceone, no judge would reach that conclusion. The First Amendment prohibits
it. No civilian religious cleric can be ordered by a court to
conduct any rite or ceremony. I'm not sure how the military regs handle
Army chaplains, who have responsibilities towards all soldiers, but that's
another situation.As a Mormon, Jew, or Quaker, you can't be
married in a Catholic church. You could sue until the cows come home, and it
wouldn't matter. That's how it is. Churches are
independent of each other, and of the State. Each denomination is free to
practice religion according to their own faith.Here's an
interesting tidbit about Quaker marriages. We believe no man or woman has the
power to marry a couple in our religion. Only God does. The approved couple
stands before the assembled body and commits themselves to marriage, speaking
their own vows. The Quaker Meeting's function is only to witness and
record that marriage. There is no officiant as such. The marriage laws of my
state have a special section to accommodate us.
@alfredAnd the difference between the other forms of marriage that
the court has upheld laws against and gay narriage is that the people defending
those laws were able to prove a harm if they were allowed something those that
oppose gay marriage have never been able to do, which bring us to your see one
point, marriage has never been defined by law and is not currently defined by
law as being for the purpose of procreation and there is no evidance that
allowing gay marriage would in anyway negatively affect procreation or the
raising of children. again this argument has been vetted in the courts time and
again and found to be baseless, you are not covering any ground that has not
been worn thin over the years
Au contraire: I was married in the temple and I only got a marriage license--a
license to be married. It was the officiator in the temple who actually
performed the marriage. So, indeed, they DO have a license to marry people.
You are right, though--in England, you have to go through two ceremonies, one
civil and one religious. I was just explaining a path that some
LGBT friendly judge could take to mandate religions being forced to marry gays
against their will. The argument is there, if the judge wants it. And as we
have repeatedly seen, there are a lot of judges willing to ram gay rights down
the populace's throat.
Vanceone, your "argument" is completely false. Firstly, as I understand
it, Temple weddings are religious only. From what I gather from another
commenter, the couple must hold a civil marriage certificate first. If so,
there's no "licensed" officiant involved.Second, and
more importantly, only State officers, such as judges and justices, and by
extension municipal officers such as clerks, are compelled to marry any
qualified couple that presents with a license, relevant fees, etc.Religious clerics are recognized/"licensed" as being ABLE to officiate
weddings as a clerical function of their religion, but are not COMPELLED to, at
all, let alone outside their religious tenets. Try marrying someone outside
your religion and see how quickly your options become limited. A Jew marrying a
Catholic can't marry in either a Church or a Temple.I
haven't seen the suit, so I don't know what it was about, perhaps
illegal political activity, but it's certainly not going to compel
religious marriage. That idea is nonsense.
Class action suits are big bucks for unscrupulous lawyers!
Utah is the first post-DOMA case based on a fundamental right to marry. Judge
Shelby repeatedly quoted Scalia's dissent rants to bolster the argument
that since marriage is Constitutionally protected, and since we can't
discriminate against homosexual marriages just because of the ick factor, then
ALL marriages are Constitutionally protected. If Utah continues to
push this to SCOTUS, it will be the height of irony when SCOTUS has no choice
but to rule for equality, it becomes the law throughout America... all due to
Utah's insistence to codify state-sponsored discrimination into law.
So much publicity to all this hubbub, just what the same sex community wanted to
spark their cause, when if we would just keep things in perspective, we'd
see that this is such a small population trying to get all the attention and
news! And our news people jump on it and make it front page stuff! No balance
funny_guyVacaville, CA"The GLBT agenda has nothing to do
with equality, but rather the destruction of organized religion -- as they
attempted to do to the Boy Scouts years ago. ... COMPLETELY untrue
that there is a Gay agenda to destroy religion. The agenda is to live without
interference from religion and have equal rights, to be the same as everyone
else.... The Boy Scout comparison is utter nonsense.A--Boys
join very young and may realize they are Gay half way through scouting. Would
you turn them away from their friends, unable to finish their scouting?B--If you had 3 straight sons and one Gay, would you want him excluded?C--There have ALWAYS been Gays in scouting, often the best scouts. The issue
was making them violate their oath by lying."Even though I find
you to be repugnant....." Many in California finds mormons repugnant now,
but you have freedom there."My sole objection to same-sex
marriage is their intolerance towards anyone with different values." ... Think what you want, say it politely, don't block rights, live in
harmony. If you need to say Gays are going to hell, you will be invited to go
Look, I can make the attorney's case really easily here: The LDS church
should be forced to marry gay couples in their temple because now that gays can
legally be married, every person licensed by the state to marry someone has to
conduct all eligible weddings. What if you went to a licensed state garbage
dump to dump your garbage and they told you no, because you are gay? Illegal.
LDS temples are there to marry people, so they have to marry all people.
It's equal services. If they don't want to marry people, then get out
of the marriage business.And after all, The LDS church has been told
long ago that they in particular must comply with the law of this country on
marriage.... Reynolds v. US, the 1800's. The 1st amendment doesn't
allow you to refuse to comply with the law.See? The legal argument
is easy. If the LDS church, a state licensee to conduct marriages, wants to
conduct marriages then they must marry anyone that can be married legally.
Otherwise they must lose their license. Any liberal, leftist judge will follow
@spring street:"... seeing your comment is almost verbatim the
arguements (sic) used to oppose interracial marriage and is no less redicoous
(sic) now as then and as was the case then been rejected by the courts."Of course the court ruled on interracial marriage. And the federal
government ruled on polygamy, incestuous marriages, age differing marriages, and
several others. If the court (or government) can rule that these are illegal
marriages, it can also rule that same sex marriages are also illegal... and
should."You also seem to be lacking in understanding the history
of this debate or you would now the arguement (sic) that "marriage has
historically been mostly to produce, raise, and protect children (citizens)
through to adulthood," has been found time and again to be without
historical or legal bases."No historical basis? Marriage has
been around for centuries. Children need to be born or the humans will
disappear forever. And they need to be nurtured lest they die of lack of care.
Marriage is a formal commitment to assure that this transpires as planned. With
same sex marriage, bringing offspring into the world and nurturing to adulthood
is a nonexistent objective... or secondary at best?
Those of you that keep claiming this is evidance of some grand conserecy by the
lgbt community knowing full well this couple did not file this claim only
continue to hurt your own cause. If you want to now why those against gay
marriage are losing look back at these post they undermine your own
That some could be so full of hate, and not even recognize it, just breaks my
heart.These fears and worries about the "agenda" of
advocates for LGBT equality, where are they really from? Is it some fear that
those you've repressed and reviled for many years might somehow revisit
those same sins upon you, that those you've ill-treated will treat you the
same way? Ask yourself, if in fearing that, do you express that as even more
hate and contempt? Because these fears are thoroughly unwarranted.
There is no conspiracy against Christians in this country. Everyone is free to
worship in their own way and their own houses of worship. The fact that no
denomination is entitled to bring Dominion to our secular society is not an
example of oppression.The last time a government in this country
achieved Dominion, the Puritans of Massachusetts Colony, they methodically
slaughtered "savages," accused and burned "witches" and hung
Quakers as heretics. Their abuses, though, are what motivated writing our First
Amendment, to prevent theocratic tyranny.
@ alfred "Who's saying gays don't have the right to marry?
They have the same rights as anyone else (except polygamists, children, etc.),
so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. It's not rocket
science."It would seem for some we need to start with a history
lession not rocket science seeing your comment is almost verbatim the arguements
used to oppose interracial marriage and is no less redicoous now as then and as
was the case then been rejected by the courts . You also seem to be lacking in
understanding the history of this debate or you would now the arguement that
"marriage has historically been mostly to produce, raise, and protect
children (citizens) through to adulthood," has been found time and again to
be without historical or legal bases. Not sure what your argument is in
terms of civil licenses since you seem to be simply proving interventions point.
Wait a minute. If there is a suit out there with twenty-five couples as
plaintiffs, and one couple claimed they weren't consulted and want out (to
their credit), then what about the other 24? Is this real? Is there a lawyer
out there with 24 plaintiff couples suing The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day-Saints and the State of Utah over marriage?
It wasn't that long ago that SSM was even an issue. All the GLBT community
wanted was "civil unions". And it wasn't long before that that SSM
or civil unions were even considered. They weren't even on the radar. In other words, I don't have confidence that some in the GLBT
community will be satisfied with their marriage "rights". I agree (with
other people who have posted here) that churches still have a lot to fight for.
Some opponents of religion would deny religious liberties (as outlined in the
first amendment) in the name of individual "equality" (fourteenth
amendment). I don't think that's what the authors of those amendments
had in mind, using one of them and forgetting the other.
Follow the Prophet, he knows the way: LDS Children' songbook #110.
What a shocker, an unethical lawyer.Must put a lot of miles on his vehicle
chasing ambulancesGood for the couple to come forwardOdds are the
judge will not throw it out.Could be someone misrepresenting the attorney
This lawsuit is just the beginning. How quickly the true intent is revealed of
the gay and lesbian community...What is funny is the lawsuit claimed they were
denied their religious freedom, yet the whole time the gay community has been
screaming the 14th amendment of due process was being violated. By
the way religious communities WANT the religious freedom debate...because
clearly now this is what it is.Kudos to the two individuals who had
I will be honest and say I have some concerns and important questions about
same-sex marriage. At the same time however, we need to be careful about knee
jerks reactions to stories such as this. The fact is, this lawsuit
sounds like a frivolous attempt by some ethically challenged lawyer to try and
profit from the recent rulings on Amendment 3, and the fact that at least one
lesbian who was on the plaintiffs list doesn't want to have anything to do
with it, tells me this lawsuit isn't worth the paper it is written on.Let's all take a step back and calm down for a moment.
@intervention:"The ninth amendment clearly states that simply because
a right is not 'specifically enumerated' does not mean the right does
not exist."Who's saying gays don't have the right to
marry? They have the same rights as anyone else (except polygamists, children,
etc.), so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. It's not rocket
science."Additional(ly), marriage has historically been a civil
contract between parties to manage the orderly transfer of properties, wealth
etc."Managing properties, wealth, assets through marriage is a
recent phenomenon. Historically, marriage has been mostly to produce, raise,
and protect children (citizens) through to adulthood. "Perhaps churches should do what the LDS church does have their members
get a civil marriage license and do their 'temple marriages.'"Everyone who marries has to have a 'civil' marriage license.
That's the law. The 'temple' thing is for another purpose, I
think to do with the hereafter.Father to elderly parishioner: We
need to sit down some day and talk about you and the 'hereafter.'Elderly parishioner: I know what you mean... when I go to the garage
for something, I ask myself 'what am I here after?'
It sounds like the facts of this situation are not fully known.These
women may not be "out to tear religion". But someone will be.Unfortunately, in our legal system, it only takes one.
Please stop with all the fear mongering that gays want to destroy religion.
Marriages performed in church rites and ordinances are protected under the
constitution and always will be. It's the state that has to comply in
issuing licenses to marry that has to recognize civil rights and the
constitution. If you own a business that makes gain from public consumption then
you cannot discriminate against people based on their religion, race, or sexual
orientation...it's called the civil rights act, created to protect
minorities and give them equal treatment in trade, employment, and any other
worthy endeavor.LDS temples will NEVER be required to perform gay
marriages. Marriage in the temple is a religious right, where obtaining a
license to marry is a state and civil right. The fear mongering and false
bravado from religious zealots needs to stop. Take some courses in
constitutional law and actually understand what you're talking about before
spreading fear and hate.
@ Ulvegaard: Christian discrimination is Biblical:”For this is the
way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone
“who believes” in (Jesus)him will not perish but have eternal
life.”(John 3:16) .
I sure agree with those that have contributed that gay people are basically good
just as heterosexuals are. This was certainly an example of what good people can
I don't see anywhere in the article what the complaint is against the LDS
church in the lawsuit. I can't imagine what they would be suing the church
for anyway. Kudos to these ladies for doing the right thing in this
case. It will be interesting to see what's behind all this. Sounds like the
lawsuit was a bucket of hogwash to begin with.
@1obThe ninth amendment clearly states that simply because a right
is not "specifically enumerated" does not mean the right does not exist.
Additional marriage a and has historically been a civil contract between
parties to manage the orderly transfer of properties, wealth etc.. Perhaps
churches should do what the LDS church does have their members get a civil
marriage license and do their "temple marriages."
I've heard of "ambulance chasers" but "gay wedding
chasers?" I would think anyone doing this could get disbarred or
at least suspended.
The attorney should be disbarred as well.
JMT: You are 100% correct in your assessment. The GLBT agenda has
nothing to do with equality, but rather the destruction of organized religion --
as they attempted to do to the Boy Scouts years ago. If you don't like an
organizations "rules" then start your own. People are free to think and
believe as they want in this country. Plenty of churches will see marrying
same-sex couples as a new revenue source and gladly accommodate you. Don't
attempt to legally require others to accept your lifestyle. My sole
objection to same-sex marriage is their intolerance towards anyone with
different values. Even though I find you to be repugnant, I am willing to
tolerate your "alternative" lifestyle as long as you don't mandate
that I embrace it.
Nothing like 15 minutes of fame. Perhaps tolerance is needed, not law suits
@Willem:"Wow great news lets hope the fight for equal rights for all
Americans will be won and rewarded..."Equal rights will not have
been attained until all humans of whatever stripe, persuasion, age, or
relationship can also marry... such as polygamists, pedophiles, juveniles, sibs,
close relatives, and folks with substantial age variances.The
Supreme Court has got to tread carefully, once this case gets to that level, to
ensure that it doesn't make a ruling forcing discrimination on others (as
above). If two sexually oriented groupings can marry, such as heterosexuals and
homosexuals, all other sexual persuasions should also be allowed the same
freedom. It's only fair. Anything less would be discriminatory.Having said that, let me say this... the government has a vested interest in
marriage, that of assuring the continuation of civilization. The institution
that best assures his end is marriage between one man and one women. Thus, the
government has a vested interest in that specific kind of marriage arrangement.
The state has no vested interest in same sex marriage because it does not
further the objective.
@ulvegaard That maybe why this couple did NOT actually file this
claim and why the rhetoric by those that scream their religious freedoms are
going to be violated and churches are going to be forced to perform lgbt
marriages tends to fall on deaf ears.
@ delasalleNot sure if you have read the Constitution but there is
no right to marry specifically enumerated in the document. Courts have
interpreted the Constitution in various rulings that have established a legal
framework that creates the sense of a right, but it is not a
"constitutional" right. More a right by court decree. Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony. What government should
do is get out of the marriage business and start sanctioning and documenting
civil unions and let each Church define its marriage sacrament in the way it
sees fit without legislative or judicial interference. This would create a
bright line between church and state and would allow other, non-traditional
familial relationships to establish civil unions to provide tax benefits,
end-of-life care decisions, simple transfers of property, etc to others in
mutual, care-giving relationships that are essentially a single economic
I guess I don't understand how this might fit under a religious
discrimination complaint.Religious discrimination tradtionally
suggests that a group or individual were denied employment or housing
opportunities, etc., because of their religious beliefs. To my understanding,
people, under the bill of rights, are allowed to join any religion of their
choice and/or believe anything they want. The bill of rights does not allow
people to force religions to alter their doctrines or policies to accommodate
individual beliefs. If I do not like going to midnight mass, I cannot file suit
against the Catholic Church. That is part of their doctrine and it is not up to
me to shape or alter it. By the same token, no one is forced to adhere to LDS
doctrine -- if you don't like it, you go somewhere else and find a church
which matches your belief system, or even start your own religion.
I applaud the couple in standing up for their rights in this case. I also think
the lawyer is way out of line.But I agree that this is a sign of
lawsuits to come. It seems that the 14th amendment has been - and will be -
used at the expense of the 1st.
"Good they are calling out this lawyer on this. On the other hand, how long
are we (Utah and LDS) going to continue to fight a fight that is not winnable or
justified"@Delasalle speak for yourself. The fight is both
winnable AND justified. SSM vs. Blacks and the priesthood are not the same. The
church is on the wrong side of SSM? Please go read the doctrinal, "The
Family: A Proclamation to the World."I tire of Mormons who just
do not get it.
There has to be "rule by law". Even Charles Krauthammer believes that
the country is swinging toward the acceptance of gay marriage. This is
unfortunate but well within the confines of the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless,
the taking of a set of marriage partners and using their name without their
consent as the basis for a class action suit is way beyond the pale. This
lawyer should be disciplined and disbarred. I am quite sure that there was a
couple out there who were aching to sue. He was in a hurry with his
"ambulance chasing" and wanted to be the first one on the merry-go-round
grabbing for the brass ring. This is totally ridiculous.
Without knowing more facts, it's hard to guess whether the attorney
involved might be subject to a reprimand, suspension or disbarment, but a
first-year law student would know that you can't file a suit on
someone's behalf without their consent to representation. This
does not, however, address the merits of the suit or the motivation of those who
were the original plaintiffs, and little of that is discussed in the article. In
any case, filing a suit against a church faces considerable hurdles because of
First Amendment protections. While there are some circumstances in which one can
prevail against a church, the courts will not intervene in matters of doctrine
and polity. In other words, they're not going to force the LDS Church to
conduct Temple weddings for gays any more than they're going to force the
church to allow Temple weddings for Mormons who lack a temple recommend. And
let's be honest here: there are a lot more of the latter who would like a
temple wedding than there are of the former. It remains a non-issue.
It took guts and a great amount of integrity for you to pull your names from
this suit. Well done.
If the DNews was interested in people reading a news article, they should
publish the article in the comments section. People read a headline and jump
right to the comments section with a bucket full of assumptions.That
was never more true than this article where a number of commenters are lashing
out at the couple, when the first sentence clearly states "their names
without their knowledge or permission".
Did I miss something? My understanding from the article is that the two women
did NOT file the suite, but an overly ambitious lawyer filed suite without the
knowledge or permission of the two women. If so, the "lawyer" should be
dis-barred at least.
cjfYou might want to learn about the Constitution of the United States of
America.We do not vote on rights, and under our Republic, the
majority cannot take rights from the majority. That includes your
right to worship as you please.
Shady lawyers never make any situation better.
@delasalle"Let's practice what we preach and allow all to
have the constitutionally guaranteed right to marry."This is the
major error in understanding that everyone seems to be making. Marriage is NOT a
'constitutionally guaranteed right' any more than is holding a
driver's license. Both are regulated by each state. Two people can't
simply get married because they want to. There are limitations. Check Title 30
Chapter 1 of the Utah State Code. There isn't even enough room to list all
the limitations of marriage in this box.I find it highly ironic that
the 'left' is perfectly happy to regulate everything from toilets, to
light bulbs, to the car I drive, to dictating what health insurance plan I must
now purchase all for the 'greater good of society,' however when it
comes to the issue of marriage it's 'all hands off' no regulation
at all. Suddenly died-in-the wool statists turn into Ron Paul libertarians.
So much for claims that Churches will not be attacked. They already have been
attacked. Another lie is exposed.
This just seems a little too weird. I don't know the couple involved, and
I don't know the lawyer.I think there is a decent chance that
the attorney may be the victim of a scam here too. An attorney can not collect
there share of a judgement unless they are legally retained and are the counsel
for record for the plaintiff. It makes no sense that an attorney would make such
a basic error that is sure to be noticed. I think it is much more likely that
someone else filed the suit using the attorney's name (which is not hard to
do) as a way to get some media attention to their cause. I bet the attorney will
be a little surprised when he gets home from the holidays and finds out his name
is mixed up in this mess.
Some things change (obviously) while other things don't. Here is a 14th
century rhyme.St. Yves is from BrittanyA lawyer but not a
thiefSuch a thing is beyond belief!
I don't understand why people keep raising the fear that their churches and
temples would be compelled to sanctify same-sex marriages. That is nonsense.For starters, the very beginning of the First Amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" This so-called "Establishment
Clause" sets out the crystal-clear separation of Church and State.No church has to provide any rites for anyone it doesn't want to. The
proof of this is all around you. Catholics can't even marry in a Catholic
Church if they're divorced. Mormons can't even marry in a Mormon
Temple without a Temple Recommend, if I understand correctly. In my own Quaker
Meeting, which is Equality-minded, open and welcoming, even birthright Quakers
can't marry without the okay of their Clearness Committee. No minister,
priest, imam or rabbi can be compelled to officiate any marriage, not in any
religion, not in this country.
Only question I have is whether those who review this case will have the
backbone to dis-bar Mr. Smay. No-one, regardless of who they are or what their
values or beliefs should have to worry about unethical counsel using them for
personal gain. We already have enough of those types in Washington ruining our
daily lives. I also question whether or not there are adequate
safeguards in place to prevent such things from happening, and, if there
shouldn't be some kind of review process for these types of situations that
involve responsible citizens who are not Attorneys. Something along the lines
of a Grand Jury.
My guess is the majority of gays feel the same way. I have debated two different
activists, one gay and one straight. Both hate religion and one had a particular
zeal for the Mormon church. Both wanted to destroy organized religion.This doesn't end with equality in marriage. The fight for freedom of
thought and religion have just begun!
The whole dislike and discord towards the LGBT community reminds me of the
Jonathon Swift quote, We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not
enough to make us love one another."
He should be dis-barred! Totally corrupting our legal system!
This is one of those lawsuits that will be used as evidence that the Supreme
Court must issue a stay until the legal issues are completely sorted out. Oops.
Another meritless lawsuit filed by an unscrupulous lawyer. Unfortunately for
the unwittingly named plaintiffs the Bar will do little or nothing with their
complaint. For all their talk of ethics the Bar has a woefully lackluster track
record of policing their own ranks. ie - Swallow. On its face the
claim of denial of religious freedom for the individuals against a religious
institution would be akin to a Native American demanding the Catholic Church
erect sweat lodges and provide peyote to their membership at all of their
cathederals. It is such a ridiculous notion that I can only hope the courts
boot this thing in summary judgment after about 5 minutes of argument, or less.
Mr. Smay will get his five minutes of fame, the reputation of the legal industry
(which I generally hold in high regard) will take another hit and somewhere out
there will be a few individuals who might actually agree with his preposterous
argument. Let's hope it's not contagious.
Wow great news lets hope the fight for equal rights for all Americans will be
won and rewarded,congratulations to all the gay and straight couples that got
Good they are calling out this lawyer on this. On the other hand, how long are
we (Utah and LDS) going to continue to fight a fight that is not winnable or
justified. Let's not make the same mistake made with blacks and priesthood
and 30 years after the fact admit error and mistakes. Let's practice what
we preach and allow all to have the constitutionally guaranteed right to marry.
It's very simple yet for some reason we can't see the light on this
@byrDo you have some evidance this lawyer is lgbt, it sound more
like someone out to slander these women and/or make a name for themselves.
I'd say it's time to hold a de-barring hearing. It's amazing
what some attorney's will do for money. They almost make gambling and
prostitution look acceptable.Make this guy get a job serving fast
@ BYR: What makes you think this attorney is part of the LGBT community?
The real story here is it begins, exactly as predicted. Lawsuits to bully the
LDS Church into performing gay marriages. I, for one, am not very shocked.
Not a good thing for a member of the bar to have done. Not good at all.
Now this is a lesbian couple who represent what I believe most of them
represent. They aren't looking to tear religion or society apart they just
want equal protection under the law. I commend them, and hopefully this opens
some people's eyes about the true nature of the LGBT community and what
their desires are...equality. They aren't out to attack traditional
families folks, they just want equal treatment.
Unethical lawyers like these are running rampant in our state and country and
ruining our society. Hats off to the couple to ask to have their names removed
from the suit.
It was good of the couple to call this lawyer out. Even thought I completely
disagree with gay marriage, I do not think all those who participate are bad
people out to ruin what I believe to be right.
What a joke of a lawsuit. Hey counselor go back and read the section on ethics.