@Danclrksvll...Once again my friend "Holy Scriptures" have absolute no
place in this legal argument and Obama has nothing to do with that aspect
either. It's individuals such as yourself that assume everyone is a
Christian. Separation of Church and State was ruled upon years ago. Welcome to
@MtnDewed"Could they not decide to stay the way God made
them?"No one is born homosexual. God is merciful, and always
provides a way for His children to obey his commandments. He has stated, through
His prophets of the past and present, that sexual relationships are moral only
when employed by a man and a woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. God
does not create homosexuality. That is the devil's doing. Why would God do
that to anyone? Temptations to commit sin can always be successfully resisted,
but as mortal human beings, we sometimes give in to those temptations.
Fortunately, The Atonement was put in place by Jesus Christ, allowing us to
repent of our sins.
neece: "We fought the British to stand up for what we believe at a High
cost. We fought a Civil war and are now fighting for what we believe in again at
a high cost."Yes, but those in favour of restricting rights
through slavery lost, as opponents of equal rights for LGBT will certainly lost
this encounter. It's not too late to get on the humane side of this issue.
Would you force them to change? Could they not decide to stay the way God made
them? Must everyone fit your optimal? And if they do not fit, no rights for
them?If you were serious about only supporting the optimal, you
would be lobbying for law to take all children away from single parents. Yes,
people can have (or adopt) children when they are single - but you are not
working to take away their rights, are you? Just gay people...and it really may
be that they are just wired that way. Even the LDS church admits that maybe
they cannot change their orientation.So all those gays that do not
believe as you do, why should they change? Why not just stay the way god made
them? Enjoy life and find a special someone the share that life with. What is
wrong with that? They are citizens too, you know.
@MtnDwed "Because xxy and xyy and xxx happen - and they are citizens
too." These are surgically and hormonally correctable defects,
that do not diminish the ideal way things were meant to be.
rhappahannockWashington, DCScience says xx + xy is
optimal. What is wrong with supporting what is scientifically optimal?------------Because xxy and xyy and xxx happen - and they are
citizens too.Why not support them too?
Science says xx + xy is optimal. What is wrong with supporting what is
@Dancrksvll1. It is not a State right to trample the individual
rights of its citizens.2. Judicial review is not judicial tyranny.
It is a long established and integral function of the Judicial branch. It is
every bit as American as a bicameral legislature. Also, exactly how is one
terrorized by these rulings? I'd hate to live in such an emotional
condition.3. Nobody is asking you to. But you do have to recognize
the right of others to believe or not believe as they see fit.4.
Again, nobody is asking you to. The State, on the other hand, is required to
honour the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments by making no laws which prohibit the
free association of its citizens (including the association of marriage), making
no laws which shall disparage any right of the people not specifically
enumerated in the U.S. Constitution or its Amendments (which includes the right
to choose who one will marry), and making no laws which violate the right of the
people to equal protection under the law (which includes the legal protections
afforded by legal marriage).Want a solution that works for both
sides? Get government out of marriage.
If gays and lesbians do indeed have equal dignity with other Americans, then
that also includes access to marriage.
Re: Danclrksvll "4.and lastly, NO, we will not endorse gay unions as a
legal entity regardless of the consequences because the will of the people has
already been expressed and it will be honored." But what if SSM is upheld
in the courts? What do you plan to do then?
@Constitutionalistcv "..She therefore was not prepared to earn a decent
living after he died, but laws were written to provide death benefits to her if
he died first. Partners in same-sex couples do not have the same burden, and do
not need the same safety net..."So two working opposite-sex
couples with separate pension and health care benefits should be excluded,
because they do not have the same burden?What about the children of
same-sex couples where one parent stays at home? Are not the spouse and
children entitled to spousal health care, pension and social security benefits
and stability, like any other opposite sex couple? If not, WHY not?What does equal application of the law actually mean to you Mr.
Constitutionalist? It certainly does not mean the similarly situated couples
should be treated less that or their marriages worth any less?
@Tiago:"What arguments are being overlooked?"These rulings take their basis from prior federal rulings about marriage. What
they have overlooked is that the earlier rulings applied to marriages between
one man and one woman. Yet they refer to them as if the rulings were about
marriage between any type of partner.They are equating apples to
oranges to make their point and to rule in favor of same-sex marriage.@Unicorn 2000:You misquote me in saying, "you suggest that
some people "do not deserve to be treated equally"". I said that
same-sex couples do not have the same needs as heterosexual couples, and
same-sex couples should not be entitled to benefits tailored to heterosexual
couples.For example, in traditional marriages, at least in earlier
times when such laws were created, the wife typically stayed home to raise
children while the husband worked to support them. She therefore was not
prepared to earn a decent living after he died, but laws were written to provide
death benefits to her if he died first. Partners in same-sex couples do not have
the same burden, and do not need the same safety net.
@Danclrksvll: "We have Federal judges overturning the expressed will of the
people..."Really?Missouri ex el Gaines v. Canada.
SCOTUS ruled a black had to be admitted to the the all-white University of
Missouri School of Law.Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma
State Regents, the Court struck down segregation in law and graduate schools.Brown v. Board of Education, "...in the field of public education
the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place."Brown v. Board II, SCOTUS held that school systems must abolish racially dual
systems.In 1956 the Court affirmed a lower court ruling declaring
segregation of the Montgomery bus system illegal.Jones v. Alfred H.
Mayer Co., the Court held the Civil Rights Act of 1866 bans racial
discrimination in housing by private, as well as governmental, housing
providers.Milliken v. Bradley, the Court halted school busing at a
city's borders. In Milliken II, the Court ordered Michigan and
Detroit schools to address educational deficits in black children.Missouri v. Jenkins, the Court permitted lower courts to order school
authorities to increase spending on education remedies even when voters rejected
While I respect Judge Dale Kimball, I think he ruled incorrectly. At least his
ruling wasn't as obviously wrong as was Judge Shelby's.
@Lost in DC:"which law should we follow, the state constitution passed
through the legally accepted process, or judcial [sic] activisim [sic]?"Had you paid attention in your civics or history classes in school, you
would understand that the State Constitution is subordinate to the Federal
Constitution, and that it's the duty of the courts to overrule laws,
statutes and State constitutional amendments which violate the Federal
Constitution. Without that judicial review, states could pass laws and amend
their constitutions to forbid interracial marriage, legalize slavery, make the
Catholic church the official religion of that state, and there wouldn't be
anything anyone could do about it.
this is as much about states rights, than anything else. the individual states
AND their citizens should decide what is right for them, not being dictated to
by the feds.
This sort of thing really ought to worry most Americans. We have Federal judges
overturning the expressed will of the people of Utah that is given voice through
their Constitution. I applaud the Governor of Utah for his brave moral stand on
this issue, and quite frankly we need a little rebellion starting with the word
''no''1.No, we will not obey a decree from a Federal
judge that tramples upon the rights of any state.2.No,we will not be quiet
in our moral opposition, when you use judicial tyranny to terrorize us.3.No,we will not under any circumstance change our definition of the family as
outlined by the Holy Scriptures and our church leaders.4.and lastly, NO,
we will not endorse gay unions as a legal entity regardless of the consequences
because the will of the people has already been expressed and it will be
@SLC'guy: There's a big difference between "defending an
impossibly high ideal," and refusing to allow anyone else to have any of it.
Do you refuse to allow disaster relief unless it consists of
lobster thermidor, asparagus with truffle sauce, chablis and espresso?Do you refuse to register births unless the mother is married?Do
you refuse to allow marriages unless both parties are virgins? Do
you refuse to allow college admissions unless the student has 1600 SATs?Shall we ban all clothing except hand-made designer originals from the
Paris couture shows? Should everyone have to drive a Porsche 918
Spyder or nothing at all? (Goodbye traffic, hello open road!)No,
you're not defending an ideal. You're just seeking to punish those
who can't meet this particular one of yours.
@SLC guy wrote: "Thank you Utah for continuing to defend the impossibly high
ideal that families should consist of mothers, fathers, brothers, and
sisters."That's not what they're doing. What
they're doing is trying to deny same-sex married couples their rights as
Thank you Utah for continuing to defend the impossibly high ideal that families
should consist of mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters. Thank you for
"embarrassing" yourself by not accepting the pop culture doctrine that
their is no difference between husband or wife, male or female, brother or
@Constitutionalist South Jordan, UTThat is your opinion but a judge has
more knowledge about this even 10 years ago:Second Quarter 2004by
James W. SkillenA gay-marriage advocate in Boston explained to a
radio reporter that marriage is a civil matter, not a church affair. Those who
want church weddings can have them, but marriage is a matter of civil law. And
since it is unconstitutional to deny equal civil rights to citizens, it is
unconstitutional to deny to homosexual couples the right to marry.
When all is said and done in these cases and the Supreme Court has ruled that
same sex marriage is legal in America, all the adoption cases are done, the
appeals, so on and so forth. I hope someone adds up all the money spent trying
to fight this so we can stand back and marvel at all the good we could have done
with the money.We could have helped millions of Americans escape
poverty or get a better education. We could have given millions of hungry
children better food security. Who knows what we could have accomplished with
all of this money instead of spending it in an effort to harm people, to keep
them second class citizens. What a monumental waste of money, time, and effort.
Conservatives seem to be willing to spend any amount of money to keep anyone
they see as different down but unwilling to spend anything on trying to help
those less fortunate than them. I really can't wait for all of
this to be decided and then watch as all the doomsday warning fail to come true
as the world spins on.
As for the slippery slope arguments warning of inevitable legalization of
polygamy: Shouldn't Utah's Mormon population be thrilled at the
prospect of returning to that true and everlasting Principle of the Gospel?Or, are they just afraid of having their hopes dashed once again. Yeah.
That's probably it. They don't want to get their hopes up too high.
@ ConstitutionalistWhen you suggest that some people "do not
deserve to be treated equally," I am assuming that you mean the people who
do not fit your religious views of opposite sex marriage.In reality,there has
always been people who get married and who by definition, fit your criteria for
same sex marriage. Nature does not draw this distinction in sex, people do! Many
people are born with both male and female attributes of sex and are married,
even when they are chromosomally or even anatomically, the "same sex."
Such assumptions are based on an overly simplistic view of humans and on nothing
more than a false sense of outward appearance.It is time to wake up and embrace
the reality of humans...we are more complex than you seem to understand. Just
look up intersex and see what I am talking about.
Self-proclaimed activists, eager to save I don't know what from I
don't who in light of continuing advances in equality.
@lost in DCright should never succumb to cost============Wow! I never knew you were such a staunch supporter
of the Affordable Health Care Act and SNAP. I fully agree, we should be far
more concerned with doing right by our brothers and sisters than the $ attached.
@ lost in DC" spend whatever it takes to appeal and keep on
appealing. right should never succumb to cost."Lost in DC, if
opponents of SSM are on the side of "right"? Please explain to me why
are you causing so much harm to people you never met and their children?If you are on the side of right, why are you so obsessed with spending
money, which is a scarce resource, that could be used in more immediate needs
i.e. schools, Look at the state of Utah. In what way SSM will cause
harm?Most people in Utah claim to follow the teaching of Jesus.
Please examine your actions and possible impact on people in the State of Utah.
Do you think Christ approves of these action and attitude?At what
point do you stop being righteous and become cruel?
TheLionHeart - Please check the internet for the arguments that people against
inter-racial marriages were proposing in the 1960's. You could not have
parallelled them any better than if you had copied and pasted them, word for
word.Of course, you missed the marrying your dog, brother or rose
bush argument, but maybe polygamy will be allowed, as long as they are adults.
There are many reasons that polygamy is illegal and those reasons would have to
be worked through, but polygamy is actually "traditional marriage!"Why are you so afraid of polygamy?
@neece;What about OUR rights? Oh, right. They don't matter.
You lose nothing when LGBT couples marry. NOTHING. You have lost no rights
(not even religious rights). You are the ones TAKING AWAY the rights of
others.BTW; The Pledge of Allegiance says: "With Liberty and
Justice for ALL" (you're the one who apparently doesn't know the
words).Constitutionalist says:"...all Utahns will be
spending millions of taxpayer dollars to provide benefits to same-sex couples
who do not deserve them. "1) Why do same-sex couples not deserve
the SAME benefits your family enjoys?2) Many of those tax-dollars COME
FROM US and they're supporting your family. Your comment is just too
hypocritical for words.
@ConstitutionalistYou argue that the previous rulings legalizing gay
marriage "overlooked important arguments" which would show that same-sex
couples "do not deserve benefits."What arguments are being
overlooked? Please explain the state's rational basis for allowing straight
people to marry each other but denying that right to gay people.I've
been looking very hard for a rational argument, but so far haven't found
Constitutionalist: When women were allowed to vote, did the federal government
go through every law that used the word "voter" and determine whether
they should be adjusted for women? After all, those laws were written when
"voter" meant "white, property-holding, male."What a
silly thought that you are going to be taxed for SS married couples. Actually,
if you had your way, in your perfect world, all those couples would be married
to an opposite sex partner and you would be paying the exact same amount for
them!Illogical, to the extreme.Also, even though those
who were passing laws with rights pertaining to marriage might have thought of
man-woman marriage, there were no laws stating that marriage was only that - for
that reason Utah passed Amendment 3 - to put that defination into law.
@Constitutionalist wrote: "Meanwhile, I am tapped out about the possibility
that if these law suits do not prevail, all Utahns will be spending millions of
taxpayer dollars to provide benefits to same-sex couples who do not deserve
them."The same-sex couples that are plaintiffs in the suit were
legally married.By definition, they do deserve the rights,
privileges and obligations of marriage due to any married opposite-sex couple in
There are a few major problems that pro Gay Marriage supporters don not want to
face.People who argue for gay marriage insist it is a matter of
civil rights and equality.If Gay Marriage is accepted nationally or
enforced by the courts then ANYONE who supports plural marriage will be able to
use the exact same justifications and arguments. If the courts impose gay
marriage they ABSOLUTELY MUST ALLOW POLYGAMY, POLYAMORY MARRIAGE, and GROUP
MARRIAGE. It is a slippery slope, because if you say denying gay people the
right to marry is denying someone their rights, then you are denying a group of
5 people their rights to be in a marriage, 75 people their rights if they all
want to be in a marriage 750 people their rights if they want to be in a cult
marriage.People are not being given rights by allowing gay marriage,
the only thing that is being done is the meaning of marriage is being utterly
destroyed. If you don not limit marriage to be between a man and a woman then
you can not limit marriage at all.
Give it up already! Let these families be. Stop hurting families and children!
I certainly hope that the tax increases coming, to finance these shenanigans,
are truly painful.
I wonder what is really going on at the state. How are these decisions being
made? Are discussions being held at official venues? Are minutes being taken?
@EstoPerpetua:"learning that marriage is a civil right"Correction. Every court ruling about marriage being a civil right -- at
least until the judges of Massachusetts started the process of redefining
marriage about 10 years ago -- was about a marriage of one man and one woman
being a civil right. In NONE of those earlier rulings did any party to the
ruling believe that they pertained to same-sex couples, but rather to the
traditional institution of marriage as it had been defined for thousands of
years.Some judges have overlooked the obvious in recent rulings,
when they ignore the fact that these earlier rulings were about heterosexual
marriage.Case law has demonstrated that a marriage between one man
and one woman is a civil right. It has done nothing to demonstrate that same-sex
marriage is a civil right.
@ stevo123:You may be tapped out paying for "losing law
suits." But we sincerely hope that some judges will wake up and realize that
some previous rulings overlooked important arguments, thus these will be winning
law suits.Meanwhile, I am tapped out about the possibility that if
these law suits do not prevail, all Utahns will be spending millions of taxpayer
dollars to provide benefits to same-sex couples who do not deserve them. ALL
current laws on the books that give various benefits to married couples were
written with the intent that the benefits go to marriages where one partner is
male and the other partner is female. That is how marriage was defined at the
time these laws were written. NONE of these benefits should go to same-sex
couples unless and until the legislature reviews these laws, one by one, and
determines whether they should be adjusted for same-sex couples.Yet
the courts, in their over-reach, are demanding that the state retroactively
redefine all laws pertaining to marriage as if marriage had always been defined
to include any people who love each other regardless of other considerations.
What is ironic is that Utah was one of the last states to repeal its own laws
forbidding interracial marriage in 1963. That was not so long ago. Today, the
same diatribe is being used to resist the sweeping changes around laws
forbidding same gender marriage that are taking place throughout the U.S. But
this time, it started in Utah. What is funny is that this resistance is coming
from the same state leaders who have been so critical of the federal government
for "wasteful" spending time and time again. Change is here and it is
obvious from the rulings in other state cases that this change is far reaching
and here to stay. What becomes clear is that the opinion on this issue has
changed and that laws forbidding this type of marriage are being defined as
discriminatory. We need leadership that acknowledges this change and need for
fiscal restraint and responsible distribution of our limited state revenue.
Utah = anti-family.
“We deem it a just principle, and it is one the force of which we believe
ought to be duly considered by every individual, that all men are created equal,
and that all have the privilege of thinking for themselves upon all matters
relative to conscience. Consequently, then, we are not disposed, had we the
power, to deprive any one of exercising that free independence of mind which
heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest
gifts.”--Joseph Smith Jr."No power or
influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by
persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love
unfeigned;"--D&C 121:41"When we undertake
to...exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children
of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw
themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved"--D&C 121:37
So, when do the marriages of everyone else get to go to ballot? When do I get
to vote on whether your marriage is valid?
The Utah GOP thinks it can just play with people's lives without
consequences. They're wrong.
Can we have the supporters of this appeal pay for it? I am tapped out paying for
these losing law suits.
@lost in DCYou say that the decision of the courts is "judicial
activism." The case the state is appealing was decided by Judge Dale
Kimball. Have you read his decision? You can find it online if you search for
"Case No. 2:14-cv-55DAK." The decision is solid. He finds no legal basis
to withhold recognition of legal marriages and confirms that withholding
recognition causes injury and harm to families. There is no evidence at all that
Judge Kimball is an activist.Bio on Judge Kimball:- Married with six
children and 24 grandchildren.- Degrees from BYU and University of Utah- Was professor at BYU's law school.- Member of the LDS church and
has served as bishop, high councilor, stake president, and regional
representative of the twelve.- Former member of the Deseret News
Publishing Company Board of Directors.He gave a speech in 2003 that you
can find online titled "Freedom and Independent Courts" where he
demonstrates clear understanding of the role of judicial review and judicial
independence. I'd suggest you review the concepts in that speech.
I am anxiously waiting the day that our great state realizes that it is not good
to create laws that force people to abide by somebody's religious code of
conduct. The only thing such laws accomplish is to force people who believe
differently to live as you would wish them to live. It creates divisions and
resentment. It causes neighbors to be excluded from social circles. The one
thing it rarely does is lead people to want to sincerely know more about a
particular religion. An important gospel principle in most religious
faiths is the value of choice. It's through the freedom of choice that we
grow; we learn from our mistakes and search for better ways. When we don't
have choice, we don't have the desire to search for anything better.
@Lost in DC"which law should we follow, the state constitution
passed through the legally accepted process, or judcial activisim?"How about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights? Specifically, the 1st,
9th, and 14th Amendments?
It was 10 years ago that the Utah citizens voted that marriage was between a man
and a woman. Since that time they have advanced their knowledge with the rest
of us, learning that marriage is a civil right and that same gender marriages do
not change the rights of opposite gender marriages. I am using the word gender
because there is a lot more to marriage than just sex, such as the desire to be
in a relationship because of love commitment.How would Gov. Herbert and AG
Reyes react if the American LGBT community flooded their offices with law suits
claiming the stress they have created is causing a rise in LGBT medical
expenses? :>) Governor Hebert and AG Reyes need to stop wasting tax payers
money and make decisions based on civil, equal rights, not religious beliefs.
Utah is spending taxpayer money on two appeals now? This state claims to be
pro-family. First same-sex partners, many of which are raising children, were
denied status as a legal family under Amendment 3. Then the courts recognized
same-sex marriage. Now the ruling on Amendment 3 is being appealed, and
marriages conducted during a window are being challenged. What effect does all
this destabilization and uncertainty have on both the same-sex parent
relationship and their children?
'Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from
that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire,
"Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished.
Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend
to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be
rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the
face of the earth is a service God will bless.""What
giants?" asked Sancho Panza."Those you see over there,"
replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh
two leagues in length.""Take care, sir," cried Sancho.
"Those over there are not giants but windmills. Those things that seem to be
their arms are sails which, when they are whirled around by the wind, turn the
@lost;I'll take the "judicial activism" any day when
they're upholding the US Constitution - and doing their job.
We fought the British to stand up for what we believe at a High cost. We fought
a Civil war and are now fighting for what we believe in again at a high cost. I
believe it is because people aren't willing to fight for what we truly
believe in. And THAT is why our nation is in the mess we are in. Too many people
are too complacent. One day all our rights and freedoms will be taken away
because no one fought for what they believe in. Utah is no exception. I am proud
that our governor and AG are standing up for what the MAJORITY of Utahns stood
up and voted for. I am tired of the minority "bullying" the rest to back
down. Well they bullied us into taking "God we Trust" our of our lives,
Most don't even know the Pledge of allegiance much less the Star Spangled
Banner as Christina Aguilera showed us. They have pretty much taken away
"Merry christmas" You don't want to participate then DON"T Here
is a concept how about stop being "offended" at my right to freedom of
speech? Yep looks like bullying to me.
Must we persist in throwing state resources at a lost cause? It is a sad
gesture, beyond petty, to go after the rights of these people. And for what? For
politicians to entertain their masters?
No more!Stop spending our money! Stop spending our children's
and grandchildren's money on his case!Enough is enough!
Ahhhhh, Utah Republicans. In my opinion they`re often misinformed, but never
unsure of themselves.
spend whatever it takes to appeal and keep on appealing. right should never
succumb to cost.I M LD_ 2which law should we follow, the state
constitution passed through the legally accepted process, or judcial
activisim?slopJ30,you hate the LDS that much? I am sorry you
are allowing such bitterness to canker you so heavily.
Fifty One years ago George Wallace stood in the door at the University of
Alabama and made a grand speech about segregation and then, as President Kennedy
federalized the Alabama National Guard, Wallace stepped aside and we took
another step into civilization.In years to come I suspect Gov
Herbert and AG Reyes will be seen as standing the door of the marriage clerks
office, making a futile stand based on outdated beliefs.
Bleed Crimson: "Keep fighting Utah! The majority are behind you!"Because... basic civil rights are determined by majority rule? Is that
how you see it?
Near the end of this story a list of the plaintiffs in this case is provided.
Among them are Tony Milner and Matthew Barraza, (who have an adopted son). Mr.
Milner is no stranger to these pages. A search of the DN site returns, among
other items, this news story from 2011 (with photo included)._______By Marjorie Cortez, Deseret NewsPublished: Monday,
Dec. 5 2011"SALT LAKE CITY — For employees of Family
Promise Salt Lake, the economic downturn isn't abstract. Homeless families
who need help show up at the front door of the Salt Lake City nonprofit
organization."Our capacity is four families at a time. We have a
month and a half waiting list, which is terrible because people are showing up
with their suitcases in hand," said executive director Tony Milner."_______Here is someone who has actually helped families in
Utah and look what the state of Utah is doing to him, his husband and his child.
Wow. If ever there was a three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum in a
supermarket...Utah, do you have any idea what you look like to the
rest of the nation?
I have great respect for the legal , political, and judicial processes in
America, and I respect the rights of people to have their own opinions and
beliefs regarding issues such as this. Obviously the political leaders of this
state have the right and the responsibility to decide how to proceed in this
matter and they have done so. However, the decision to continue appealing these
court rulings is beginning to appear to be based on an attitude of exclusion
and a basic lack of compassion for gay and lesbian families in Utah.I certainly
don't believe the Governor nor the Attorney General personally hate me or
other people who happen to be gay, but they clearly do not understand that our
families are every bit as important to us as theirs are to them. In my opinion,
this latest decision is a misguided, futile, and sad reflection on the great
state of Utah.
Wow, how much tax money is Utah willing to throw into something that has an
And Utah continues to throw millions of dollars away on hopeless legal
challenges instead of admitting that this is the 21st century and that time and
social mores do change.
Judge Kimball's decision is legally correct and will be sustained in
appeal. This appeal will serve only as a costly way to delay the inevitable. The
cost includes the financial legal costs and harm to the families being delayed
recognition and their legal rights.
There's no question that Herbert and Reyes will be remembered in history,
but perhaps not in the way they would have liked. The names of Lester Maddox
and George Wallace don't elicit memories of the positive things they
accomplished as governors.
Are we really going to spend more money and spend more time in court on these
issues? Do we really dislike the idea that gay couples deserve to be in happy
legal relationships so much that we will fight them at all costs? It's time
our governor and attorney general focus on more important state issues.
What a waste of taxpayers dollars. This case is over and equality won so friends
lets now get on with our lives and be happy for our gay and lesbian church
members and not allow anyone to denigrate them. Here in California approx.100000
couples got married ,nothing had changed besides more happiness in the lgbt
community and elsewhere. Soon homophobia will be a thing of the past just like
most racism has disappeared.
At one time it was common for some states to not recognize the validity of
quickie marriages or divorces of couples who traveled to Reno or Vegas to get
them. It has become common for drivers licenses from any one state to be
recognized by all. Even CCW permits have become almost universally accepted
across the country (my state, of The People's Republik of Kalifornia,
continues to be one of the remaining exceptions). But, that fact,
that Kalifornia both ignores Constitutional law by denying most of its own
residents the exercise of that right, stated in the 2nd Amendment, while also
refusing to recognize permits from any other states, seems to validate
Utah's legal right to refuse recognition of homosexual marriage!
I think that Sean Reyes is actually pro gay marriage and is running the most
elaborate false flag operation the nation has seen to "defend"
traditional marriage. These legal manuevers are cat nip to the advocates
of traditional marriage crowd, but under the cover, it is secretly designed to
fail spectacularly in every way, shape, and form. For example,
"outside" counsel of the kookiest form to take the fall when the defense
fails. His excuse when this all fails, will be that you the people want we to
take the maximalist position. So I did. I did my job.If there is a
guy that rallies the troops in the opponent camp, it is Sean Reyes.
Unbelievable.So much for this being about protecting families. The
state is actively trying to tear apart these families, which in turn hurts their
children. It is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the State of Utah.
They're married, let them continue to be married.
Enough already! Follow the law!
Keep fighting Utah! The majority are behind you!