@LovelyDesert eloquently stated..."I don't think children should be
raised by that which is unnatural". As ridiculous I believe your statements,
comments (including your most recent) and posts "naturally" of course
happen to be on a regular basis, the difference is my realization that this is
@Abinadis friend: "I hope there is a law that if the birth mother and father
does not want a same sex couple to adopt their child that that request will be
honored."There is no such law in an state that I am aware of.
And why would there be? Same sex couples make as good of parents as
opposite sex couples. There is not one legally recognized reason to have such a
law or to let such a law stand.
The State Supreme Court did the right thing. Give the children a chance, give
them either their biological children or the closest thing to it, a Mother and a
Father. I don't think children should be raised by that which is unnatural.
@ Confused: You are right - it is all online for anyone to check...... and a quick check shows that Furry is correct and you are mistaken.The State did not immediately ask for a stay. And when they did, they
did it wrong. Their first stay request was filed with the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals who turned them down for not following proper procedures and asking
Shelby for the stay first. By time the State got around to asking Shelby for a
stay, several marriages had already been performed.Would Shelby have
issued a stay if one had been immediately requested? Who knows - and the
question is irrelevant since the State dropped the ball and didn't ask for
Furry1993They did ask for a stay and the Judge refused to issue
it... It is all on-line, so you don't have to believe me.
@Confused 2:21 p.m. May 19, 2014Please remember why the stay
wasn't immediately granted upon entry of Judge Shelby's decision --
the State didn't ask for a stay. Unless they ask for one, they don't
automatically get one. That was sheer malpractice on the part of the
State's attorneys. They should have gone to the hearing handing down the
decision with a motion for stay in-hand. They didn't. Put the blame where
it belongs -- on the State's attorneys who badly screwed up.
All the mudslinging is unfortunate (and ridiculous). I for one am glad to see
our Supreme Court throw down.
I hope there is a law that if the birth mother and father does not want a same
sex couple to adopt their child that that request will be honored.
Man reading the posts on this article is amusing...Guilty until
proven innocent...Why in the world would any Attorney General
knowing how the "Current" law is written that is in direct violation of
a lower judge ruling, not look for Clarification with the State Supreme
Court?Isn't this how this whole situation started in the first
place when Judge Shelby refused to issue a stay until the state could appeal his
decision? I feel for the couple, because they got caught in the middle... where
if a Judge had used common sense, it would never have happened.
@Jimmytheliberal 12:12 a.m. May 19, 2014@Meckofahess...Sir. As one
that possess a Law Degree I would give ANYTHING to see the look on your face
along with many on this forum that continue to mention "God" concerning
ANY legal argument when the Judge looks at you with absolute utter disbelief.
Hate to bust your Utah County bubble but "God" (even yours) is
completely irrelevant in a courtroom.------------------You're absolutely right. I also have a law degree. When I read some of
these comments, I chuckle a bit thinking what my ConLaw professor would do to
the people making them, and how judges would react if rhose arguments ever were
voiced in their courtrooms. "God's Law" is an argument to be made
in connection with religion; it is not controlling in a court of law.
@Meckofahess...Sir. As one that possess a Law Degree I would give ANYTHING to
see the look on your face along with many on this forum that continue to mention
"God" concerning ANY legal argument when the Judge looks at you with
absolute utter disbelief. Hate to bust your Utah County bubble but "God"
(even yours) is completely irrelevant in a courtroom.
Hold the phone folks (and all you divorce lawyers get ready.) Any day now the
alleged stability of same sex marriages will prove its' proponents wrong
as divorce courts become inundated with same sex marriages falling apart. No,
your same sex marriage does not impact my life in any way whatsoever...the
impact on future generations of children will be devastating.
@Forgiveness is the Answer:The Supreme Court decides if laws are
Constitutional, including state laws and amendments to state constitutions.
George Mason, who helped craft the Constitution, said federal judges "could
declare an unconstitutional law void."Originally the US
Constitution said that blacks counted as 3/5 of a person for representation and
taxation. SCOTUS declared that provision of the US Constitution null and over
many decisions eliminated segregation. Alexander Hamilton, one of
the Founding Fathers and one of the most influential interpreters of the
Constitution: "The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the
national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final
jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in
government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can
proceed."Put this in simple terms. If you are married in Utah
you are still married if you go to California or Virginia. Gays want the exact
same rights and protections for our families. The majority does not
get to vote on the rights of a minority.
@ForgivenessIsTheAnswer 10:29 p.m. May 17, 2014There are serious
misstatements of law in your comment. Let me enlighten you.1.
Article 1 Section 3 of the Utah Constitution specifically provides that "...
the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land." In
other words if there is a conflict between the Utah Constitution and the US
Constitution, the US Constitution prevails and decides the issue.2.
Amendment 9 to the US Constitution provides "The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people." Marriage has long been determine to be a
fundamental right. Therefore it is protected by this Amendment.3.
Amendment 10 states in part that the states' rights do NOT include powers
prohibited by the Constitution to the States. One of the powers prohibited to
the states is to deny or disparage the rights protected by Amendment 9.4. Amendment 14 provides in part "nor shall any State ... deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Denying
the right of marriage to couples without rational basis violates this
Amendment.The Judges' decisions were constitutional and sound.
Gimme a break!A judge cannot override the Constitution. The people voted.
The legislature can pass illegal laws, and judges can issue unconstitutional
rulings. It is one thing for a judge to declare a law unconstitutional, for many
laws are illegal. But, a judge is not above the Constitution, and hopefully the
federal Supreme Court knows its place also--that States have their own
Constitutions the validity of which was guaranteed when the state joined the
Union, including the process by which states are free to amend their
Constitutions. The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it, unless the 14th
trumps the 9th and 10th Amendments found within our Bill of Rights.What I
don't get is, why is the Executive Branch sitting back and allowing a judge
to dictate what happens when the chief Executives of a state swears an oath to
protect and defend its Constitution? The state Constitutions are not
second-class citizens--in fact, except for a very few clauses within the U.S.
Constitution, state Constitutions trump federal law. People need to read
and recognize our State Constitution and its place in the hierarchy of laws.
To continue what MoNoMO stated in #12, the same ABC News/Washington Post poll
had two other significant poll results.On the question: "Regardless of
your own preference on the issue, do you think that the part of the U.S.
Constitution providing Americans with equal protection under the law does or
does not give gays and lesbians the legal right to marry?" The results found
50% of the respondents felt it does give the legal right to marry with 41%
responding negatively.Directly related to this story, on the question:
"Do you favor or oppose allowing gay or lesbian couples to adopt a
child?" On this question 61% felt that gays or lesbians should be allowed to
adopt with 34% responding negatively. MoNoMo's question was actually
59% for and 34% against. In all cases undecided participants made up the balance
of the respondents. Actual survey dates were Feb. 27th through March 2nd, 2014.
Meckofahess,"a small percentage will accept these social
anomalies?"Seems that boat sailed right past: An ABC
News/Washington Post survey conducted two months ago indicated that 59% of
Americans favored allowing gay or lesbian couples to legally wed.Nobody expects you to change your beliefs.
History will look back and wonder why anyone would punish another human being
for the way they were born. And do it in the name of religion. Just like we look
back on the inquisition and wonder how could leaders of a religion be so cruel
The state should also stop letting single people adopt. It's virtually the
same thing. Utah is so anti family.
This is how you protect "family values?"
The birth certificate should show the birth father and mother, if that's
the issue.And where the child has adoptive parents there should be a
slot for those names as well. Called full disclosure.
History will look back at this episode with gratitude that the authorities in
Utah paused to carefully review all the implications of this highly
controversial issue. Over time, a minority percentage of citizens will accept
these social anomalies. The grandchildren of citizens who cherish traditional
families and marriage will appreciate how their grandparents challenged and
questioned the perversion of what our Creator deemed best for his children. Our
grand children will learn to love all of God's children but they will also
learn to recognize choices and lifestyles that are contrary to God's will
and not in the best interest of society.
I feel so sorry for this loving couple. This is a sad and mean spirited lack of
judgment on the part of our Attorney General. Looks more like political
posturing instead of valid concern for the welfare of this child.
And this from a state which based its entire anti-marriage equality argument on
the claim that it was "child centric"!
Dear Kitchen Team,Please forward to the 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals this stay order and the State's objection to the adoption with this
message: "Honorable Justices,Enclosed please find
additional evidence that Amendment 3 places children in jeopardy before the
law."You might also add, "We would like to acknowledge the
kind cooperation of the State in providing this evidence," but that's
your call.Thanks and continued best wishes,Karen R.Houston, TX
Disgusting ... They are married. Let them adopt!
History will look back at this episode with puzzlement. Give it time: equality,
marriage, children and adoption for all couples who want to form a stable and
loving family, whatever their race or gender, will just be standard. Same-gender
parents will remain a small minority, like interracial couples, but just as well
part of enriching diversity. And our grandchildren will wonder what all the fuss