Marriage, nondiscrimination bills likely on hold this year, GOP leaders say

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Melanna Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 30, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    @ Jenica: The opposition to that bill has been in full force since the end of the legislative session last year. There is no way that bill would have passed this year - it probably wouldn't have even made it out of committee again.

    If you think the only reason that bill isn't going to pass this year is because of Judge Shelby's ruling, you don't know the Legislature very well.

    (Heck, since the State has to prove lack of animus, his ruling briefly increased the chances if the bill being passed.)

  • JenicaJessen Riverton, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    Congratulations, Judge Shelby. You managed to kill any hope of getting a bill passed that would allow gay people to live and work in peace.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    I know it...: "I don't believe it's fair to force the small business owner to hire someone he disagrees with."

    Just out of curiosity, do you also oppose the nondiscrimination laws that apply to other demographic categories, such as race, age, gender, national origin, and religion? They, too, put employers in the position of having to hire people they may disagree with (religion, especially). If your position is that that civil rights protections apply only to immutable characteristics, how does that apply to religion, disability (people can recover from serious illnesses), or (ever since Christine Jorgensen returned from Denmark) gender?

    "Animus" was a key word in the Perry (California Prop 8) and Kitchen (Utah Amendment 3) court decisions. In both cases, the states were unable to provide persuasive rational arguments for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, leaving the courts to conclude that the laws were motivated by irrational animus and thus failed the 14th amendment equal protection test. If animus equals hatred in your book, fine, but in the eyes of two courts it applies to proponents of the status quo.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 28, 2014 8:36 p.m.

    @ I know it. I Live it. I Love it.

    You wrote: "Disagreeing about what makes us free, but calling it "animus" is the same thing as calling us "haters"."

    I think William Shakespeare gave you and answer a long ago:

    "Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
    What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet;"

    The name, the word is irrelevant. If the action, if the effect is the same, who cares how is called?

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 7:22 p.m.


    I believe it's more than fair for a small business owner to hire someone he disagrees with.
    I don't believe it's fair to force the small business owner to hire someone he disagrees with.
    Having that belief doesn't mean I hate people. I don't.

    I believe that we should choose to better ourselves, not that others should choose it for us.
    I believe homosexuality is leads people captive into despair.
    I believe in the right to express that.
    I believe in the right to express it through democratic recognition.
    I don't believe in forcing people apart or making their choices for them.
    I don't believe in forcing people to hire my way by making their choices for them.

    Freedom ends are your own nose.

    Disagreeing about what makes us free, but calling it "animus" is the same thing as calling us "haters". And everyone knows who's really doing the hating here. It's those who use the label to describe those who disagree with them.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Jan. 28, 2014 7:18 p.m.

    That is the problem with the Courts presently, they inhibit the work of a democratically elected government. The Courts should bow to the will of the people instead of the will of the people and their democratically elected officials bowing the appointed will of the Court. This is how democracy dies.

  • Snapdragon Midlothian, VA
    Jan. 28, 2014 6:32 p.m.

    There are freedoms in this country that need to be protected. Laws need to be carefully considered. I am glad that there are people looking at these changes carefully, so to protect everyone's freedom. They will figure it out and everyone will be happy in the end. We just need to be patient. And maybe even kind to each other...respecting each others different point of view.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 6:06 p.m.

    A good way to help show the courts that Amendment 3 was not motivated by anti-gay animus would be to pass SB100 by a definitive margin. On the other hand, delaying a vote on SB100 out of fear that the legislative record would include inflammatory anti-gay testimony from legislators and groups like the First Freedoms Coalition only bolsters the case that Amendment 3 was driven by animus against gays and not by concern for children.

    SB100 is distinct and separate from the marriage question. There is no reason not to consider and pass it this session. Justice delayed is justice denied.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 28, 2014 5:59 p.m.

    "Laura Bunker, president of United Families International, said.... Her group supports those seen as protecting religious liberties but opposes the statewide nondiscrimination measure."

    I don't get it. Please can somebody explain this to me. How can you be for "religious liberties" but be in opposition to "statewide nondiscrimination measure".?

    That sounds like an oxymoron to me. Well, may be is me.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 5:21 p.m.

    Any time the Utah legislature gets together, the result is comedic if not tragic.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 4:38 p.m.

    What's the hold up? The appeal is a fools' errand.