BadgerbadgerIgnoring the harm done by SSM does not make it go away.KJKYou have yet to show ANY harm.Liberty For AllOk then, let
me ask you what parent you didn't need or could have gone without, your
mother, or perhaps your father? Which one?KJKYou can ask that same
question to kids raised by same-sex couples. Which parent can they do without?
All people have differing backgrounds, education, personalities, talents,
experiences, etc… and having parents with differing traits allows kids to
learn more than having parents who are basically carbon copies outside of
anatomy. If my wife had died, I’m sure I could have raised my daughter
and taught her what it means to be a lady. Sure, when puberty hit, there would
be some things I couldn’t do, but there would be other family, friends,
teachers, etc… that could have made up for it. Same-sex parents do the
same.Your point fails to address those same-sex couples who
won't be raising kids. Why should those relationships be denied when there
is no potential harm to kids?
@ Kevin, showing harms of SSM? Ok then, let me ask you what parent
you didn't need or could have gone without, your mother, or perhaps your
father? Which one?
BadgerbadgerNot only are the SSM proponents redefining marriage, but they
are making new definitions of bullying/name calling. If they say it is free
speech. If a person opposed to SSM says it, it is hate speech. Equality is
supposed to mean the same set of rules of engagement for everyone.KJKAgreed. Both sides have the right to be civil or be crass.BadgerbadgerAren't there children, called orphans, effected when an
orphanage is closed? And going after nuns, like they are scary bashers??? KJKIt wasn’t the gays who went after the nuns. It was the state
of MA. The nuns broke their agreement with the state to treat all equally so
the state quit giving them money and the Catholics decided to close rather than
funnel funds from elsewhere.BadgerbadgerIgnoring the harm done
by SSM does not make it go away.KJKYou have yet to show ANY harm.
2ForYour 2 statements contradict each other. Religious freedoms are
being taken away as religious people and their families are sued to poverty, win
or lose, in court. People are being forced to violate their religious beliefs in
the name of non-discrimination, which is discriminatory against the religious. O
ye hypocrites.Take marriage away from the state and give it back to
the religions where it came from and problem solved. The state can then offer
secular contracts, according to what is best for society.KJKirkhamNot only are the SSM proponents redefining marriage, but
they are making new definitions of bullying/name calling. If they say it is free
speech. If a person opposed to SSM says it, it is hate speech. Equality is
supposed to mean the same set of rules of engagement for everyone.Aren't there children, called orphans, effected when an orphanage is
closed? And going after nuns, like they are scary bashers??? I dare you to find
one case of a nun curbing someone. Catholic or not, you have benefited from
things done by nuns.Ignoring the harm done by SSM does not make it
Red Corvette. People of faith have known for thousands of years that the
"last days" would be filled with men and women who used their God given
freedoms to engage in actions that are contrary to God's laws (sexual
immorality, dishonesty, etc). Paul the apostle saw our day and told us what men
would do. The Almighty God, gives men freedom to choose but consequences follow
actions. God does not shield His children from the natural consequences of
choice. Legalizing same sex marriage does not make it "good" in the
sight of God, it will bring about greater moral decay and eventually America and
society will rip itself apart. Every person has freedom to choose, I hope that
the LGTG community will do what many Americans do; learn God's law, then
use their freedom to change behavior and live God's law. (I want thieves
and murderers do the same) The action of Judge Shelby overrides the voice of the
people who passed amendment3. We the people have right to enact moral laws like
Amendment3 protecting ourselves from moral decay. We the people passed
Amendment3. We the people will act within the law to defend our law-freedom.
Vince Here.Something being outdated is the excuse of Apostates. I
never said anything in regards to the constitutionality of SSM. I could really
care less if they marry or not. But that doesnt mean I have to support it. But
Neal A. Maxwells talk given way back in 1978, was talking about today. If you
dont think they are making an effort to make non religon the state religon then
you are blind. You cant be a fence sitter forever. Your going to have to make a
choice eventually. I chose not to put societal norms ahead of the gospel. If
dping the unpopular thing costs me friends that will never deter me.
Its not the right thing to do and Reyes is overstepping his authority to impose
his views on judicial supreme court opinions he has no business trying to
enforce.We do not have to accept them or honor theses unnatural
conflicts of human misfits. For business they carry on as usual and
do things according to state and federal tax laws in place. All entitlements and
job benefits are not the jurisdiction of the law or courts so these misfits have
no arguments with busienss owners. They are forcing busienss owners to make more
choices by discriminating to deny homosexuals jobs just on the basis of
employees rights and rest room facilities in established busienss. We cannot
expect that the heterosexuals will be forced to accept sexual predation one of
the rights of homosexuals and sharing restrooms where sexual exposure will be
risky for everyone now. This opinion is not law but it will close
many companies who cannot and will not abide by the special interest demands of
homosexual for specail treatment.Closing more factories and business
is all this national uprising by discrimination is causing. This organization
has won nothing but our contempt and dislike for their demands.
Today more than 1000 people tried to protest Governor Herbert and Attorney
General Reyes out of defending Utah's laws. Such pressure tactics were
successful in California, so they are trying to rein in more power and influence
in Utah. So far our leaders are stronger, and will stand with
integrity in defending Utah laws whether they agree with them or not. They are
doing their duty in the office they hold. Too bad other leaders in
our country won't defend and uphold the laws they swore to, when they took
the oath of office. Utah leads the way in integrity, again. Great
job Governor Herbert and new Attorney General Reyes!!! We need to send them our
Why are you quoting the 12, Anti Bush-Obama?Hundreds of quotes could
be cited from the 1800s and into the 20th century regarding many Church policies
were are now gone, no more, extinct, hasta la vista. With all due
respect to the Brethren, this is not a religious issue because mind you,
Amendment 3 says nothing - absolutely nothing about the LDS Church performing
Here is the next issue the state has to figure out. The federal
government recognizes SSM from Utah as well as from other states where it is
legal. Those couples can file joint income tax returns. Those states, like Utah with a state income tax that refuse to recognise SSM,
now have an issue. The state tax is based on the federal AGI and the federal
exemptions. Therefore the state HAS to recognize SSM in order for those citizens
to be able to pay their state income tax. Once a state implicitly
recognizes those marriages, it becomes that much harder for them to justify the
discrimination against them. This is a losing battle. SSM will be
legal whether they like it or not.
continued"We are now entering a period of incredible ironies.
Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: we shall
see in our time a maximum if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the
state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism that uses the carefully
preserved and cultivated freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even
as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.If we let come into being a secular church shorn of traditional and divine
values, where shall we go for inspiration in the crises of tomorrow? Can we
appeal to the rightness of a specific regulation to sustain us in our hours of
need? Will we be able to seek shelter under a First Amendment which by then may
have been twisted to favor irreligion? Will we be able to rely for counterforce
on value education in school systems that are increasingly secularized? And if
our governments and schools were to fail us, would we be able to fall back upon
the institution of the family, when so many secular movements seek to shred
Neal A. Maxwell says it perfectly. "But make no mistake about
it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of
each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First
Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two
opinions.President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he
had "never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church
even though it crossed my social, professional, or political life"This is a
hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is
becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the
gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus
@poyman"it can also be denied if the person is a Yankee fan instead of
a Red Sox fan"Well yeah, gotta raise children with basic morals
after all (heh, as a Red Sox fan I couldn't resist). @MikeyB26"what is the hang-up?"Some people think
"gay" is contagious, I guess. Actually it's kind of the same logic
behind the Utah curtain. The theory is kids seeing alcohol makes them want it,
and kids seeing same-sex couples makes them want that. @TheTrueVoice"It is interesting to see the Federal
government/Department of Justice clearly does not agree with the Utah governor
decision not to recognize their own marriages."The difference is
that federal law post-DOMA requires accepting all marriages, including the
same-sex marriages in Utah that are sorta in limbo, but Utah law currently
prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages thanks to Amendment 3 still being in
effect with the stay. It's kinda weird, but I believe both state and
federal are following the law correctly (even if I don't like it for the
@Macfarren "Marriage is not a constitutional right."Well,
no, that's not what Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in 1967 for a unanimous
Supreme Court in the unanimous Loving decision. You can look it up.
Worf:* cannot make bad into good* wrong cannot become right* evil does not transform into good* a lie does not become truthI whole heartedly disagree with your statement. *Would you
not agree the Crucifixion of Christ was bad in the beginning? Did it not turn
out to be good for all humanity? *Have you ever herd of the
statement "Fiction Becomes Fact"? This happens a lot in the Sciences.*Have you never witnessed an evil wretch who sees none of the light of
Christ turn to him in their hour of need and be transformed into an inspiration
to others?*Have you never witnessed a Mother and Father calm their
dying child by telling them it is going to be OK knowing the child is doomed?
Have you ever seen that very child beat death and become healthy living a full
and happy life and being referred to as a miracle? I have.
It is interesting to see the Federal government/Department of Justice clearly
does not agree with the Utah governor decision not to recognize their own
marriages. The Fed just announced the following:
I have a question for the proponents of Amendment 3. Why do we even have it?
After over a 100 years of the state Constitution not having Marriage defined as
between only one Man and one Woman why all the sudden in 2004 would we think to
change it?To me the answer is obvious but I am curious what the
proponents of Amendment 3 think about the reasons and it's timing. I get
it if it were in the early 1900's and the state felt that it had made a
mistake but 2004? Wasn't 2004 about the time the rumblings of prop 8
started in California not to mention other states who were considering
legalizing Gay Marriage? I am happy for the AG's decision and I
hope it only but one of few more stepping stones on the path to equality.
From the Biblical Christian perspective, any deviation from God's Will and
perfect plan will cause heartache and ultimate conflict. Many here misquote the
words of Jesus re His desire for our "happiness". All are free to
believe and live as they choose; all are not free to impose their
interpretations on others. Quoting all His words on a topic, not just
favorites, is the honest way for a Christian interested in full disclosure.1Timothy states every ban for believers, from sexual impurities to
gossip and gluttony. Obviously the list is long and meant to protect from the
effects of infidelity, "sodomy", out-wedlock/unprotected children, etc.
Post-moderns have only rearranged the deck chairs by removing certain social
stigmas: The world still suffers the effects of leaving God's Will.
Prisons are full of examples.@Quaker: Your honesty in
differentiating your beliefs vis-a-vis traditional Biblical perspective is
refreshing.@Cats: This issue transcends Utah or any state. But I feel
your pain in the reverse: I can't get an active LDS to answer what they
would do if their prophet reversed his marriage stance.@MikeyB26: Reading
scripture makes the difference in what you'll undertstand.
Why is it that one of the biggest conditions put upon Utah in becoming a state
in the Union -- marriage between one man and one wife -- is being turned against
them today? Utah is just being consistent in its original agreement with the
Union.The real issue is that religious marriage ceremonies can
provide intangible marriage benefits that go beyond what the government offers
or even cares about offering. Such an example is marriage for eternity.
Government should protect freedom of religion to define additional benefits of
what marriage can and can't offer. Gay couples should be allowed to have
civil unions with full government benefits, including tax benefits, welfare
benefits, hospital visits, raising children, and more. That shouldn't be
the issue. The Supreme Court should recognize marriage is an ancient practice
beyond any definition of mere benefits government can come up with. Give gay
couples their equal civil rights, but leave religions the freedom to determine
what benefits they can give a couple and who is eligible to receive such a
marriage. Marriage is by definition a religious ordinance. Get government out of
defining and re-defining marriage!!
@Cats said: “I find it very interesting that it seems most of the
pro-gay marriage posters on these articles are from out of state. Why are they
so concerned about what goes on in Utah since they don't live here?
Interesting!”We recognize that Utahns are citizens of the
United States first and of Utah second. Seeing the particular inequities dealt
to all who cross its borders is an insult to fair-minded people everywhere, not
just those in Utah.It's a close contest, but "leave if you
don’t like it here" and "go back where you came from" could
each easily be Utah’s motto. Some day, expressing something
other than a provincial, self-centered point of view won’t automatically
trigger the assumption that the speaker is of some alien origin. Until then,
Utah will have to settle for being "a pretty, great state," but only for
its natural beauty.Utah's signature “family values”
have been running gay people out of their families, jobs, homes, religion and
state for far too long. Lives have been diminished and destroyed.It's time to do better.
To DavidCenterville, UTPagan,Historically
(thousands of years) marriage has been between a man and a woman. The LGBT
community knows this. They know it when they enter into a relationship. It is no
surprise.==For hundreds of years Christians persecuted
Jews and other Christian sects for whom they did not approve. Not to mention the
way certain demographics have been treated historically, even in America.Tradition is no substitute for rectitude.
Is to be kind to each other?Was Judge Shelby a kind man in his legal
actions ?Was this Stay an unkind action ?The legal
interpretation of marriage is as dry and cold as anything could be,but
either way, is it to be kind ?Is nature kind to us, the weather,
sickness, earthquakes and landslides ?It should be a very normal and
natural attitude to be kind to gay and other SSM people,but that is not
the issue!The issue is to secure a lasting future for our children,
and that will be trampled down again as so often, because we are adults and
selfishness is in the interest of adults.The natural man is an enemy to
God, and will it be always, unless man become as little children and humble and
submissive to God.Fools will always mourn.This kind approach to
everybody is misleading us into a new era, where our children will have less
rights, more persecutions and less health.Purity does not come by marriage
alone, it comes by the people to be pure in heart,but that is immpossible
if you deny the divine intent of creation. No end of story.
This is a horrible decision. The only way to respect the law of Utah is to not
give any recognition to these fake marriages. Marriage is between a man and a
woman, nothing else.
I'm a white, conservative, heterosexual, Mormon man... I don't
understand why we're having such a problem with same sex marriage. I have
friends and family members who are gay and I want them to be happy! I want them
to have the same potential for happiness that I have. Why not? I hear a bunch of
talk about historic definitions of marriage etc... but why are some so vehement
against this? Is it because it's a sin? Well... guess what guys... I have
my own stuff to worry about. I don't feel like I have the right to tell
someone else they can't do something because it's a sin. As long as it
doesn't harm me (and let's be honest... it DOESN'T harm me or my
wife and kids), what is the hang-up? Semantics?
Gee 'Pagan gets all tied up because of Plural marriage. Do you not know
that when that was practiced in the LDS Church it was legal and when it became
illegal the church stopped performing such marriages. It was after the
government sent a judge here from the east, (who abandoned his wife and
children and brought his 'mistress' to sit beside him) that members of
the church were imprisoned for continuing to support their wives and
children they had been legally married too, before the law was changed. Anyone
who performed/married plural marriages where disciplined by the church
losing membership or being dis-fellowship.'Midvaliean' if the
gays were content to get married and leave the activism out of it, I would be more than happy to allow them an empty piece of paper. But this is not
their agenda.They want to teach my grandchildren the litany of their
lifestyle, encourage experiment (this I am personally aware of) . Take
away the livelihood of those who do not want to participate in celebrating
their lifestyle and what they might consider as bad behavior. It's their
agendathat I will vote against, not their relationship.
@elisabeth;Civil unions are not allowed right along with marriage in
Amendment 3. @Midvaliean;I don't want to be
married in your temple and I don't care if god recognized my marriage or
not. It isn't any of his business, it is between the US government and the
couple married. I find it extremelely distasteful that the LDS church
doesn't encourage their members with non-member family or
"unworthy" family to have a civil wedding first and then go to the
temple after. That's how they do it in other countries.
I have been impressed with Herbert and Reyes so far in this case. They has been
fair to all,acted in the legal best interest, and stand in stark contrast to the
horrible way Judge Shelby handled things. It is the right (legal) thing to not
recognize same sex marriages in Utah until the case has worked its way all the
way through the judicial system and the Supreme Court decides. It also is the
right (legal) thing to issue certificates to those who were married during the
time it was legal, so that it can be recognized in states where it is legal (and
in Utah if the Supreme ultimately rules that way). It also is the right thing to
defend the voice of the people and Utah's constitution. I think it is clear
that Herbert and Reyes are willing to set aside their personal views on the SSM
issue if that is what the Supreme Court decides, but at the moment they are
doing the right thing in defending the voters in Utah and the Utah constitution.
"Special Rights"? No pagan, Any man can marry any woman and any woman
can marry any man... Such union (marriage) cannot be denied because of skin
color or ethnic origin and it cannot be denied because of one's religion or
faith, and it also can't be denied due to one's age if that individual
is under 40 or younger than the age of the majority (without parental
consent)... But it can be denied if a person wants to marry a close
relative (in some states), or if they want to marry an animal that the person is
particularly fond of, or it can also be denied if the person is a Yankee fan
instead of a Red Sox fan, or if the marriage is between two individuals of the
same sex. In short, it can be denied to anyone who is not in a protected
class... "Choice" does not put one in a protected class and
right now, many parts of the world believe that being Gay is a "Choice"
or a "Behavior"... And Utah is one of those places.
Marriage is a contract and those old enough to enter into a contractual
arrangement, and who do so while not under duress should be allowed to do so.
The difference between same sex marriage and polygamy is that same sex marriage
is not entered into under duress (or it would be void if such were true in a
particular case) while polygamy is entered into under duress (religious and
and/or physical threats) and is void. Same sex marriage involves the human
rights of humans and can not be decided on a state-by-state basis any more so
than can be freedom of speech.
I predict that half to three quarters of those marriages will end in divorce
over the next few years and that the supreme court will recognize Utah's
right to self-govern on this matter. That will put us back to normal in the not
too distant future.
Marriage is not a constitutional right. Nor is it a federally-regulated
institution. As a legal contract it is an entity officially granted and
sanctioned by the state,and as such, is regulated by the state.Check
the Utah Statues. There are numerous restrictions on marriage in addition to
those relating to gender. It is most certainly not open to anyone. Close
relatives may not marry, nor minors among many others. People are free to
'live' anyway they like, they can in fact, even call it a
'marriage' if it makes them feel better, but receiving state sanction
for that relationship is an altogether different matter.It is
sickeningly ironic that Eric Holder refuses to enforce federal immigration laws,
but he feels he has the power to personally over-ride state-established marriage
restrictions.Are we living in an alternate reality?Elections mean things. Make the next one count.
@MeckofahessHere are my responses:1.Ridiculed? No. It's free
speech. Jailed? Yes…but that isn’t happening.2.No, because
they voluntarily opened a business in a jurisdiction that protects gays. They
agreed to obey the law as a condition of getting a business license. 3.The
Catholic orphanage closed because it was taking government money and the
government required them to treat all equally. They CHOSE to close rather than
obey the law.4.This issue affects far more than SSM. Many private and
public organizations forbid members/employees from expressing controversial
opinions in public fora. The courts are filled with such cases by people who
were fired for it. 5.Obviously and the group should be prosecuted.6.Christians need to know the law and should feel free to express and defend
themselves but must be willing to risk the consequences of their choices. If
they choose silence rather than face the legal consequences of their legal
actions, that is their choice. I choose not to tell my wife that her cooking
stinks rather than face the consequences of doing so. Am I being persecuted?7.No, because all people are free to express their opinions.
@Cats"I find it very interesting that it seems most of the
pro-gay marriage posters on these articles are from out of state. Why are they
so concerned about what goes on in Utah since they don't live here?
Interesting!"Because equality is guaranteed under the
constitution to ALL Americans. Even if they live in Utah. Very interesting
Well, unlike our President who chooses to selectively enforce the laws of our
country based on his whim, this individual appears to understand the rule of
law. Can't say I agree with what happened in the first place
regarding the original ruling but at least he is clearly not playing agenda
politics unlike our pathetic excuse for a President and his slimy AG.
DavidEvery single individual in America has the exact same, equal
opportunity to marry someone under the law…in a relationship comprised of
a man and a woman.KJKEvery single individual in 1950s Mississippi
had the exact same, equal opportunity to marry someone under the law…in a
relationship comprised of a man and a woman of the same race. Subjective
restrictions have no place in limiting rights per ancient and modern
scripture.TekakaromatagiIf marriage is not about childbirth,
then why are brother-sister marriages banned? … If marriage is only to
celebrate an important commitment made between two people, why don't we
give tax breaks to roommates? Or if someone moves in with his aunt? Or his best
friend from high school? Or her brother after her divorce?KJKIt's one thing to not allow a marriage that would likely produce kids
that would burden society (though we allow people with congenital diseases to
marry), but another to disallow one that couldn't, otherwise seniors
couldn't remarry. We don’t give tax breaks because the pairings you
list have no legal commitment to each other. Legal commitments benefit society.
Banning SSM therefore objectively hurts society.
@Henelson "The Declaration of Independence..."that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."Words written by Thomas Jefferson, who enjoyed a sexual relationship outside
of marriage with a teen-age slave. Perhaps not surprisingly, he did not write
"pursuit of Money" or "pursuit of Religion." If we could all
remember that the nation's founders endorsed Happiness, maybe we could
agree to let others find their own way to Happiness, as we find ours.
'There has never been a single child born without a mother and a
father.' Octo-mom. 8 children created from invitro
fertilization. i.e. no father. If you are going to have
a reason to be against gay marriage… at least make it a real
The competence of the attorney general is suspect.His reasoning seems to
be: Utah's county clerks should recognize that those unions took place.
And other states should recognize those as valid. But the rest of Utah should
not.A more rational, consistent decision would have been to say to
everyone: we don't know the status of these ceremonies is until the
Supreme Court rules. Therefore no one should do anything but root for their
favorite appeal court lawyers.
DavidCenterville, UT - your family - just like YOUR
Marriage is What YOU MAKE IT! No one else - YOU!!!! why cant you people get it
thru your thick skulls? It's just like life...IT'S WHAT - YOU MAKE
@ BadgerbadgerLegalizing SSM has no effect on your freedom of
religion, speech, or thought. You don't have to participate, but you
can't discriminate just because it's different from what you believe.
'@pagan... Sorry, but you're wrong... Being Gay does not put you in a
"protected class" Neither does being straight. And if you
want marriage to only apply to heterosexauls than you advocate… special rights. 'Lastly, I doubt you really mean to imply
that gay marriage will help solve a perceived over-population problem.
Really?' No. But since we are at 7 billion humans, the claim
that gay marriage will 'stop' procreation is a proven falsehood. Now,
about all those children put up for adoption by 'traditional'
families….? '1. Marriage has been defined differently by
various cultures and has evolved continuously over the 100,000 or so years of
humans existing together in organized communal populations.'
Once again, Utah only starting recognizing marriage involving monogamy (two
people only) in 1890. You are not on the 'right' side of
history… if you have to lie about the numbers.
'...most of the pro-gay marriage posters on these articles are from out of
state.' *'Mormon Church agrees to pay small fine for
mistake that led to late report of contributions in Prop. 8 campaign' - By
Scott Taylor - DSNews - 06/09/10 LDS persons make up less
than 2% in California.
Schnee: Actually, Californians got involved with Prop 8. There are a lot of
California Mormons. They, along with many others, got involved with Prop 8
which they had a perfect right to do. Of course, one gay judge overturned the
will of the people in that case, too. I just find it interesting
that so many out-of-state posters are so emotionally involved with Utah and what
goes on here. One might almost get the impression that they have been assigned.
Gosh, that couldn't happen could it?
In view of the fact that other states and now the federal government recognize
those marriages, it is only fair to make sure the paperwork is completed. A
similar ruling was made in California. Its the right thing to do.
Shorter Pagan: "Don't bring obvious historical facts into this
discussion!" (she cannot respond to them with anything other than circular
reasoning and begging the question).It's not a "lie"
that the institution of marriage is millennia old; the institution predates
recorded history. And Pagan's argument that Utah's polygamous past
negates the requirement of gender complementarianism essential to marriage is a
total non-sequitur. Whether it's Man A with Woman A, Man B with Woman B,
Man C with Woman C, etc., or Man A with Woman A, Man A with Woman B, Man A with
Woman C, etc., we're still talking about a man and a woman.A
side note: It is, however, a lie to say that "traditionally women were
considered property in marriage." In reality, marriage was seen as the
transfer of a person--not "property"--from her father's household
to her husband's household, making her husband responsible for her care and
protection. It's a tradition most still follow in form (if not in
substance) today as they leave their father's last name and take their
husband's when they get married.
@Cats"Why are they so concerned about what goes on in Utah since they
don't live here? Interesting!"Utah got heavily involved in
California during the Prop 8 debate.@MeckofahessFor someone
who is looking for being "fair to all" your support of letting
businesses discriminate in who they serve as customers is completely contrary to
LDS belief is that you must be married in the temple for God to acknowledge this
and to have an eternal marriage. So what do you care if people are married
outside of the temple? Your faith basically nullifies 99% of marriages on this
planet after death anyways. I'm keenly aware of this since I won't be
attending my sisters actually wedding inside the temple. Only the reception
"The Deseret News does do a good job of noting Utah voters’ strong
support for civil unions, pointing out that the BYU poll suggests Utah voters
support civil unions in greater numbers than the general population does. That
being the case, it simply doesn’t make sense to frame Utah as
anti-equality, claiming that “72 percent of Utah voters oppose gay
marriage.” Reporting on poll questions in this way is misleading, and
obscures the push toward greater support for the LGBT community —
including within conservative communities such as BYU — that is evident
across the United States." New Poll Misrepresents Attitudes On Gay Marriage
In Utah think progress
@Cats: Perhaps non-Utahns are interested in this case because Utah will be
responsible for making marriage equality the law of the land.Why?
Because the state wants to push this issue to SCOTUS, which will only prove to
be their complete undoing. It virtually guarantees the upholding of the Shelby
ruling, insofar as the Shelby ruling is based upon ironclad Windsor logic, and
not emotional dogma. This case is about constitutional law only, it has nothing
to do with procreation, 'family unit', 'tradition', or any
other dogmatic deflection that doesn't even begin to pass the rational
basis test. It is little wonder the Utah AG is having trouble
finding an outside state law firm to take on this case... no one want to be
associated with an non-winnable court case of such far-reaching importance.My prediction: the 10th Appeals Court will uphold the Shelby ruling, and
when Utah appeals to SCOTUS, they won't hear the case, and that will be
that. Then states under the 10th District (like Kansas and Oklahoma!) are
immediately subject to the same ruling.And that's why this case
is so closely followed by others.
@David: I do not question your belief in God. You should not question mine.Suffice it to say that Quakers have a much different theology than you
do. I can't get too deep in the weeds without making the moderators
uncomfortable, but you're free to do a little research on the web if
you're interested.There is only one God, though, so no matter
how we approach the subject, we should agree that we're agreed on that, at
least.As for what God condones, I think Quakers at least think
we're in tune with that. As a non-hierarchical denomination, we're
rather "hands on" with the Lord, or in our language, we live "in the
Light." Our beautiful and mature children, high school seniors,
met in retreat in 2005 at Powell House and developed a wonderful Minute on the
subject of sexual relations and sexuality. It includes, "Sexuality is an
outward expression of love that comes from deep within. It includes deep
connections that we have with each other filled with love, trust, respect and
the deepest sense of the Divine." I encourage you to look up the rest.
(Just google the quote.)
Mr. Reyes,You know as well as anyone that the Governor's move
to "freeze" any process for those marriage certificates already issued
is unconstitutional.The state of Utah issued them pursuant a federal
ruling that they are constitutional. While many disagree with either the outcome
or reasoning of that Judge's opinion...it remains the law of our district
until the 10th Circuit or Supreme Court say otherwise.You, as a
member of the bar, and the foremost representative of law in the state, simply
must follow your duty to law and instruct the governor that those licenses
already issued are due the full faith and credit of all state and federal
benefits and rights of a marriage. I would be disappointed if
somebody didn't step in and correct the governor on this. It is unlawful
conduct by the state.
* cannot make bad into good* wrong cannot become right* evil does
not transform into good* a lie does not become truthNo spin,
majority, wishing, judge, or certificate can change these things.After all that's been said, and done-Gay marriage is what it
I find it very interesting that it seems most of the pro-gay marriage posters on
these articles are from out of state. Why are they so concerned about what goes
on in Utah since they don't live here? Interesting!
Inventing something that is dramatically new always seems to involve a fair
amount of uncertainty, even if it happens to be a near-imitation of something
that is old.
@David: 1. Marriage has been defined differently by various cultures and
has evolved continuously over the 100,000 or so years of humans existing
together in organized communal populations.2. Organized human
created monotheistic religions and their definition of marriage evolved well
after the concept of marriage and by no means should be credited with the
absolute definition of marriage.3. You appear to have difficulty
differentiating between marriage and procreation.
@Tekakaromatagi: I hope you realize your argument is specious. I'll take
your points in order:Correct. There is no correlation between
babies and the legal institution of civil marriage. Show me where on your
marriage certificate it includes the number of children you must bear, under
pain of having the marriage dissolved. Show me where in the legal code we force
unmarried women to get abortions or throw them in jail for giving birth. You
can't, so there's no correlation.Incest is banned, period.
Why would you expect legal recognition for a banned thing? As for
marriage, are you certain you understand what it is? It's not just
roommates. It's a loving life commitment to care for another person, in
sickness and in health, to share life and responsibilities, and to bury your
spouse when they die and celebrate their life. The State benefits from such a
bond, in many ways, including stability for childrearing and eldercare, which is
why we recognize marriage of unrelated, loving, committed, consenting adults as
something special.By the way, how goes the proselytizing in Saudi
Arabia? Do you get out much?
quote from liberate"There may be justifiable reasons to oppose
gay marriage but "because that is the way it has always been" is not one
of them. Yet this seems to be the main argument put forth by those opposing gay
marriage, at least on this board. News flash for all of you but that type of
thinking has never led to progress (technology, government, finance, etc) on
anything and shouldn't be relied upon in any discussion of the pros and
cons of gay marriage."Yea But, Right is still Right, and Wrong
is still Wrong. That should never change, and if or when it does, will destroy
Meckofahess-Yes there is great harm!But there is a class
of people here who simply don't care about anyone but themselves. They don't want freedom of religion or freedom of speech or freedom of
thought for everyone. They seek to dictate religion and speech and thought, by
making laws requiring everyone else believe, say and do as they say. They tell
us, "We can have homosexual relations and you have to perform our ceremonies
in your churches, bake our cakes, make our flowers, take our pictures, and call
I am responding to the 7 questions asked by Meckofahess:1. Any
parent can pull their child out of school for any reason in order to home school
them, or send them to a private school. BULLYING has nothing to do with
MARRIAGE.2. Anyone who turns away any customer is losing their
business and the profits thereof. Today's pauper could be tomorrow's
millionaire. This is not a question of MARRIAGE3. Utah authorizes
single people to adopt children. Obviously some parenting is better is better
than no parenting. This is separate from MARRIAGE.4. This has
nothing to do with MARRIAGE.5. ACT-UP focuses on HIV & AIDS,
not on sexuality. This has nothing to do with MARRIAGE.6. That is
coercion, not MARRIAGE.7. This is name calling, not MARRIAGE.No one is forced to REACT that particular way in any of the
questions.None of these examples of rhetoric & hypotheses are
about MARRIAGE!People are legally responsible for their choice of
actions & reactions.If you don't like gay marriage, then
don't marry a gay person.BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO
BLOCK YOUR GAY NEIGHBOR FROM MARRYING A GAY PERSON!
Goll. Another of my freedoms taken away.
@I know it. I Live it. I Love it:You say "Likewise, we believe the
state we're part of should recognize and honor certain relationships. We
believe special recognition will benefit society. We do not believe in taking
things away from people". If you are referring to "special
recognition" to traditional marriage, I agree. If you are referring to
"special recognition" to same-sex marriage, I would ask you to consider
the following:"We all care about fairness, and adding
"sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to Utah's
nondiscrimination law might sound reasonable and fair, but it's not. The
problem is that it would give special rights to some people at the expense of
other people. In fact, it would give special rights to some that conflict with
the first freedoms of others" (from fairtoall.org).We must
protect our first freedoms granted to all citizens by our constitution!
Issuing marriage licenses is a ministerial function of government, sort of like
recording births and deaths.All along the government has recorded
marriages of illegal aliens to citizens without regard to their immigration
status, creating a nightmare for families and society.The clerks are not
validating anything; merely recording an event for the public record.If
they record the deed in a home purchase and the sale itself was illegal, they
will simply void the transaction later.The same will apply if these
marriages are found to be illegal.
If you try to legislate your religious beliefs, you potentially violate the
religious beliefs of others. God has no standing in our legal system.This is the right decision. These people were married and they are still
Questions1.If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and
pulls his child out of school, and because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed, is
he harmed?2.If a self-employed business owner with strong religious
convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes
bankrupt, is he harmed? 3.If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down
because it is against its religious moral code to turn children over to
homosexual couples, is someone hurt?4.If a public school teacher voices
his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook on his own time, away from work, in
his own home, on his own computer, and is fired from his teaching position, is
he harmed?5.If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the
worship service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor,
is the congregation harmed?6.If Christians are forced into silence because
of fear of legal, social, and financial retribution, are they harmed?7.When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality are labeled
as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate mongers,"
"right wing fanatics," "preachers of hatred,"
"intolerant," are they harmed?
We are so lucky to live in a society where so many have complete understanding
of the thoughts and intents of others, even when they have never met them. It
makes complaining and accusations so much more meaningful and valid...These are wonderful, enlightened times, aren't they?
A Quaker,Lastly, I doubt you really mean to imply that gay marriage
will help solve a perceived over-population problem. Really?The
problem with resources and population is probably more related to corrupt
governments, greed, poor systems of distribution, education, technological
@DavidFor thousands of years in many cultures across the world,
homosexual relationships were common and in some cases even encouraged. From the
greeks and spartans in the west, to the japanese samurai in the east who often
had homosexual relationships with their squires, and many cultures in between.
These practices were not frowned on, and were usually openly accepted, if not
commonly discussed. Certainly, nobody was put to death over it, nor even
punished at all. Of course, unfairly, women were usually still expected to
maintain their virtue for their first husbands, but some cultures did not frown
on pre-marital lesbian relationships either as long as the maidenhead remained
intact.Homosexuality only started becoming taboo in Japan when the
early Catholic priests starting opening missions there. It's not as though
the Japanese were an uncivilized, uncultured society before the priests arrived
- anyone who would suggest that is wholly uneducated. This idea that
homosexuality will somehow ruin society is ridiculous and completely without any
rational basis. Allowing homosexuals to enter into committed partnerships,
especially for tax and probate purposes, is simply a modern extension of an
ancient practice, and there is absolutely no rational reason to fear it.
Hey Quaker,Cool Story Bro. Not really related at all.
Quaker,I remember in the 70's and 80's people were arguing
that the world's resources are stretched to capacity and that we must stop
having so many children. I believe what the Lord has said:
Doctrine and Covenants 104:17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to
spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be
agents unto themselves. Though this revelation was given over a century ago, it
also has not been rescinded. We must be wise with resources and I do not
believe we are always wise in this way. But that does not mean we stop having
children. Science makes all sorts of things possible with in-vitro,
etc. But it still requires a mom and a dad. This, in my mind, proves that in
the creation, God did not create us to have children in homosexual
relationships.Now we are commanded to love everyone. We try to do
that. But it still does not make gay marriage right, nor something we feel to
work towards.I do not speak for my church. I am imperfect in my
understandings. I speak only for myself & my current understandings.
A Quaker,Do you believe in God? If so, is sex out of wedlock
acceptable to God and to your religious beliefs? The fact that it happens does
not mean God condones it. But having children still requires a mom and a dad.
God did not create us so that children can be born from homosexual
relationships. It is impossible. You must have a mom and a dad. Homosexuals
can never create children together.The commandment given by God is
to marry and then have children. Now if you don't believe in
God, then any type of relationship is possible. I suspect that there are some
who post on this comment board who do not believe in God. Understanding that
gives me perspective upon why this topic is even a topic. But for those who do
not believe in God, if they understand that there are many more people who do
believe in God, then it will provide them perspective as to why so many of us
believe bearing children out of wedlock is wrong, as are homosexual
relationships.God has not commanded us to stop having children.
@Quaker:"1) Marriage has nothing to do with childbirth.
Zero.". Your evidence only shows that some people have children without
being married and not everyone who gets married has children.If
marriage is not about childbirth, then why are brother-sister marriages banned?
Why do various cultures make symbolic gestures wishing the married couples
fertility?If marriage is only to celebrate an important commitment
made between two people, why don't we give tax breaks to roommates? Or if
someone moves in with his aunt? Or his best friend from high school? Or her
brother after her divorce?
@pagan... Sorry, but you're wrong... Being Gay does not put you in a
"protected class"... A person is still subject to the rule of law in
Utah which states that marriage is exclusively “between a man and a
There may be justifiable reasons to oppose gay marriage but "because that is
the way it has always been" is not one of them. Yet this seems to be the
main argument put forth by those opposing gay marriage, at least on this board.
News flash for all of you but that type of thinking has never led to progress
(technology, government, finance, etc) on anything and shouldn't be relied
upon in any discussion of the pros and cons of gay marriage.
'Pagan, Historically (thousands of years) marriage has been
between a man and a woman.' I am really getting sick of the
Deseret news blocking this. Utah stopped practicing polygamy in
1890. That was marriage between one man and many, many, many women.
Not 'a woman'. If the Deseret news want to stop everyone
from acknowledging factual history, then they are just a partisan rag. Newspapers don't stop the facts. So stop lying that marriage
is 'thousands' of years old… to fit a context that
has only been in Utah for 123.
David,You are working under the assumption that because someone does
not fit into your paradigm of marriage, therefore, the LGBT should also.Gay men have the right to marry a heterosexual woman. True.Lesbians have the right to marry a heterosexual man. Also true.Technically, you David, if you were single, you had to marry a gay man in that
window of time. I am not saying you would or you wanted to. But technically,
you had the point.What am I getting at?You don't
want it! It's not for you.That's the whole argument.
Why would an LGBT person want to marry someone of the opposite gender? They do
not want it!Also, to follow your logic, there have been gays for
thousands of years. Marriage, likewise, has been redefined and
redefined in every society. The more I read, the more I find that in every
culture, marriage customs are different. There were relationships
akin to marriage in antiquity - and granted - in antiquity, heterosexual
marriage is not as we know it today, so we are comparing apples to oranges.
Again, numerous posters on these related forums ask...If SSM is to be the
law in Utah, how will the religious majority deal with this?Will the
environment in Utah, be as it was in the Southern States, where the new law
became the law of the land? The South....a place where the new law was ignored
by those who did not want it put into place?Is this what Utahns should
expect if SSM becomes the law?Many on these related forums have made it
very clear at what non SSM people expect from SSM couples should the law NOT
@David: I have two comments on your little biology lesson.1)
Marriage has nothing to do with childbirth. Zero. Many heterosexual couples
never have children. And many, many, many women bear children out of wedlock.
The last two years of statistics say 41% of all births are NOT products of
marriage. Neither seems to be the cause of the other, so they're clearly
not related.2) The Lord commanded us to "Go forth and replenish
the Earth." Okay. We did that. We number seven billion now, and are
straining the planet's resources. What's next? Maybe we should relax
for bit? Have we missed God's "Stop, already" message, or is that
going to be delivered in spectacular fashion?Sort of related: I
recently read a story about a woman in Provo, 58 years old, who is carrying to
term the product of her daughter's egg and her son-in-law's sperm.
While I commend them all for finding a solution to infertility, and wish them
only good, I have to admit to feeling somehow squeamish about this particular
@ DavidHistorically marriages were also arranged and women were
property of the man... Also, your argument that "everybody has the same
right to marry somebody under the law" is the same argument people used to
try and prevent interracial marriage. It didn't work then and it's not
going to work now.
@Blue AZ Cougar You state "Because those individuals were legally married
under Utah state law as of December 31, 2013" They were never legally
married "under Utah state law". Utah State law makes it ILLEGAL to
marry someone of the same sex. A JUDGE ruled that law unconstitutional. But
until a final decision eventually comes down from SCOTUS, that ruling is up for
scrutiny. So, no, their tax return will have to wait for another year. They
could file an amended return down the road if SCOTUS rules in their favor.
We must not judge anyone for the feelings they experience. Members of the Church
who have same-sex attractions, but don't act on them, can continue to enjoy
full fellowship in the church, which includes holding the priesthood, carrying
out callings, and attending the temple. - From the LDS website
"mormonsandgays"In the LDS Church we believe that feelings
don't define behavior, but we realize that people feel differently about
this. We don't turn people away in exclusion for feeling differently. We
welcome everyone. We simply don't praise and honor relationships which we
believe don't lead us back to our Heavenly Father.Likewise, we
believe the state we're part of should recognize and honor certain
relationships. We believe special recognition will benefit society. We do not
believe in taking things away from people. We struggle ourselves every day so we
very openly recognize other people's struggles and want to help. You may
not want the help. You may hope to come into the savior's loving arms. But
whatever the case may be... our feelings are in love. We may not welcome all
choices or philosophies. But we welcome people with loving arms.
Our nation was founded on basic beliefs. The Declaration of
Independence..."that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments
are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed." Rights come to us from God, not government. Otherwise
government can arbitrarily grant rights or take rights away. We the people have
God given rights. We, the people, delegate a limited number of rights to
government. We the people are accountable individually and collectively to God.
In Utah, we the people passed amendment3 defining Marriage as
“between one man and one woman”. Amendment3, backed by thousands of
years of recorded history and the Bible. How many civilizations self-destructed
through this kind of moral decay - the children in these fallen civilizations
are gone, because parents used their God given freedom to live contrary to
God's laws. We the people should humbly thank God for our rights and must
bring our lives into harmony with God's law, otherwise our civilization
This is exceptionally poor legal reasoning. "Stay" means you stop what
is in process. By issuing marriage certificates after the stay, under the flawed
reasoning that Utah gay couples that receive marriage certificates can have them
honored by other states that recognize gay marriage while an appeal pends,
contradicts Utah's basic legal position. Such basic position, apparently
lost on AG Reyes, is that Utah has the right as a sovereign state government to
determine/define marriage and Utah has determined that marriage is a union
between one man and one woman. Another state recognizing a marriage certificate
issued to a gay couple by Utah presupposes that 1) Utah intended its county
governments to issue such certificates and 2) such certificates are validly
issued under Utah law. Neither is the case according to the AG's own legal
@Pagan"You cannot have 'some' marriages legal, in
'some' states, for 'some' unspecified timeframe. That is
not equal treatment, under the law."What law are you referring
to? Isn't that the "law" they're trying to figure out right
now? Why else would SCOTUS issue a stay?
While I do not personally agree with same-sex marriage, I agree that having all
this legal back-and-forth does create a lot of confusion. Because those
individuals were legally married under Utah state law as of December 31, 2013,
does that mean they can file a 2013 tax return using a married filing joint
status? I'm assuming so, but again, there's a lot of confusion around
how all this will be ironed out. Interesting to think of a scenario where
you're married in a state, then that state invalidates your marriage, but
if you cross over state lines you could be recognized as legally married. Or to
file MFJ on a federal return but not on a state return. What a mess.I'm also kind of surprised that SCOTUS issued a stay given their prior
rulings last summer. Wasn't expecting that. I think this issue needs to
be handled on a state-by-state basis, though, and definitely should not be
handled through judicial activism -- that knife cuts both ways and is too
unstable, as we have seen in Utah.
Pagan,Historically (thousands of years) marriage has been between a
man and a woman. The LGBT community knows this. They know it when they enter
into a relationship. It is no surprise. Every single individual in
America has the exact same, equal opportunity to marry someone under the
law…in a relationship comprised of a man and a woman. The fact that some
choose not to marry under that arrangement is their decision. But that does not
mean the nation, or state, must change the definition of marriage, or the
definition of family.There has never been a single child born
without a mother and a father. Never in the history of the world. There has
always been a man providing the sperm, and a woman providing the egg. A mom and
SAD to think of the county clerks in a few counties who took it upon themselves
to pick over the pending certificates and hold back the same sex ones. The poor
things! As I read in another DN comment, Utah is known for unusual first names
that sometimes can be confusing.Wondering if those clerks kept aside
the same sex paperwork, hoping it would be invalidated, or simply placed a pink
triangle on each.(I am making fun of the few clerks that took the extra
effort to show either disapproval or possible disbelief, rather than processing
all, as the big counties did. The people were entitled to the certificates.)"Gov. Gary Herbert put state recognition of same-sex marriages on
hold Wednesday on advice from the attorney general."--- Meaning
Herbert was glad to find a legal excuse. --- Ignoring the fact that the AG
office totally dropped the ball on being prepared when the perfectly expectable
legal verdict came through.Some folks think there is karma involved
in Utah having all this kerfuffle and upset over the issue, since we saw the
influence of some Utahns' California invasion in 2008, and the completely
callous lack of taking responsibility for it.
'"This would allow, for instance, same-sex couples who solemnized their
marriage prior to the stay to have proper documentation in states that recognize
same-sex marriage," Reyes wrote.' Like Utah.
For those 17 days. It is estimated that 1300 couples married in that
time. You cannot have 'some' marriages legal, in
'some' states, for 'some' unspecified timeframe.
That is not equal treatment, under the law. LGBT Americans pay their
taxes, go to work, and die for this country. They do not deserve,
this treatment… *'Kept From a Dying Partners
Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09'...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living
wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'
And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and
emergency contact information... Janice Langbehn was kept from the
bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond. They were together for 18
So are the marriages for real or not?
Good decision. Utah won't recognize these as valid but other states and
the Federal Government likely will unless SCOTUS rules against State rights.
Mr. Reyes did the right thing.
There's only one word to describe his decision. Legal.
It's the right thing to do.