mrjj69,You said, "why should 4 people be allowed to overrule the
majority of voters? What is the purpose of voting?"This is very
true! If your vote is not going to be fully respected, you should boycott the
polls from now on! Get all your friends and neighbors who voted for Amendment 3
to also boycott the polls! None of you should stand for such disrespect any
longer. If America won't listen to you, you should refuse to participate
ever again.Only by clearly showing your nonparticipation will
anything change for the better.
@mrjj69;Why should the majority of voters get to vote on the civil
rights of a minority? What is the purpose of liberty?
@mrjj69 1:08 a.m. July 17, 2014why should 4 people be allowed to
overrule the majority of voters? What is the purpose of voting?---------------------A better question would be this -- why should
the voters be allowed to overrule the US Constitution. Answer -- they
can't. If they want to vote for something that complies with the
Constitution, no problem and their votes count. If they want to vote for
something that overrules or violates the Constitution, no number of votes will
allow them to prevail. That's how a Constitutional republic (like the
United States) works.The voters voted to deny some of Utah's
residents their Constitutional rights. The judges rightly overturned the vote.
why should 4 people be allowed to overrule the majority of voters? What is the
purpose of voting?
@Avenue,Satan did not create homosexuality. I assume you are LDS,
but if I am wrong, I apologize. If you are, I think you need to look at the LDS
church's Mormonsandgays website. You will not find anywhere on that website
any current LDS leader claiming what you claimed in your post.Quite
frankly, God is our source of love, and homosexuality is about love. After years
of introspection, study, and prayer, I finally realize that God allowed me to be
gay in this life because of love. I am here to help some people in my life
understand that we love one another even when something about that person may
make us uncomfortable. Our history shows us that we have a difficult time with
that concept, and it's something that I work on becoming better at every
Avenue,Before you start invoking Doomsday revenge prophecies, ask
yourself who has been cast out of what by whom. Who has been despised by
whom?I submit to you that it is conservative religious
"traditionalists" who have despised and cast out their very own LGBT
children, brothers, and sisters, from their churches, their communities, their
very families. A heartlessness I'll never understand, to do that to
another human being, let alone a child. Reread your Alma 33:10 with that
thought in mind.
"Yea, and thou hast also heard me when I have been cast out and have been
despised by mine enemies; yea, thou didst hear my cries, and wast angry with
mine enemies, and thou didst visit them in thine anger with speedy
destruction." Alma 33:10It's only a matter of time.
@wrzYou said, "So, Br. Jones, where's the court ruling that
polygamists can't marry, because they can't? Or children? Or siblings?
Or father/daughter? Or mother/son?" There doesn't have to be a court
ruling because there are existing laws against those unions, and if someone
wanted to overturn them they'd have to go to the legislature or prevail in
the courts. Thing is, there are substantive legal reasons that bar marriage to
children or family members. They've been listed before so it's not
worth listing them again. Polygamy also has some strong legal
reasoning against it, chiefly the complexity of adapting current marriage and
family laws as well as the negative social effects that often arise in
polygamous families. "But the gays can marry!" is not sufficient in
itself for the courts to throw open the gates to polygamous unions, though I
suppose the legislature and Congress could change that if they really felt like
@ Laura Bilington"CONGRATULATIONS" on the wedding of your
daughter. She is very lucky to have a mother and family so supportive.@ Avenue" While God did create all of us, he did not create
homosexuality. That is a temptation from the devil. Like all other temptations,
they need to be overcome if we are to return to our Father in Heaven."Perhaps you are right and God didn't create homosexuality. Some
school of thoughts teach that we are eternal beings un-created and
un-destructible, may be sexuality is also part of the eternal. Temptation? Wine, lust,tobacco, certain things are temptation. Homosexuality
or Heterosexuality are not temptations. If I am sleeping I am still homosexual.
The Devil? Another source of disagreement among Christians. Some
believe that exist others deny it. Judaism traditionally believes in a literary
"adversary" Like in the Book of Job.Overcoming homosexuality
would be denying what we are and all the talents we can bring to the world. A
repressed personality cannot fully multiply his/her talents. Our Father in
Heaven wouldn't want that....actually, I wouldn't be surprised if he
didn't approve of your way of thinking.
@Avenue: In my religion, we believe that all creation, and all love emanates
from a merciful and loving God. Many of our Meetings have discerned the truth
and love of our committed same-sex couples and are pleased to witness their
marriages in our houses of worship.You, in your religion, may
believe what you wish about homosexuality, but homosexuality is not at issue in
the law. There is no law against being a homosexual, nor being a homosexual in
love with another homosexual, nor living in a homosexual relationship. As a
matter of public policy and law, the Supreme Court made that very clear in
Lawrence v. Texas. No law may interfere with the private romantic lives of
unrelated consenting adults.What is at issue is marriage and whether
a lawfully cohabiting (or wishing to cohabit) same-sex couple might make the
same lifetime commitment to each other in the eyes of the law as opposite-sex
couples are free to make.Your wish to force them instead to
"live in sin" is your doing, not theirs.
@Avenue"he did not create homosexuality"Hope you
are not a member of the LDS church because that is in direct contradiction to
what they teach.
I have a question for the wrzs, Avenues, RedWings, of the board. What will you
say once same sex marriage has been the law pf the land for a while and not a
single one of your doomsday predictions comes to pass? When there is no
destruction from on high, no cats trying to marry dogs, no destruction of what
is so laughably called traditional marriage (laughable that is to anyone who has
studied the actual history of marriage), when none of this happens what will be
your reaction?This is the time I'm really looking forward to.
Yes I'm eagerly looking to the time in the near future when our nation
legalizes same sex marriage thus becoming a better and more moral nation. But I
look forward with even more excitment to that the time past the legalization,
when the world keeps on spinning and the country keeps existing. I can't
wait to hear the silence.
May the Gods ( Light & Liberty ) save us.. just wondering who at SCOTUS
will take hear their case with regards to He or She? Liberal
America... just keeps getting better.. True Voice,, I'll take that
@Really???"I was taught that God created all of us--Adam, Eve,
Steve, Matthew, Mary, etc."While God did create all of us, he
did not create homosexuality. That is a temptation from the devil. Like all
other temptations, they need to be overcome if we are to return to our Father in
@USU-Logan:"@wrz, If you want to know why there is no legal basis for
polygamy, incestuous marriage, child marriage, just read the ruling of 10th
circuit court on Kicthen v Herbert, the judges explain it very well."I read the referenced case and I see nothing that identifies why other
types of marriages such as polygamy, etc., should not be authorized just as
readily as SSM. If you see it please elucidate.And the Judge erred
in citing the 14th Amendment as support for his position. The 14th says
'states... will not deny equal protection of the law.' It says
nothing about the validity/legality of state law.The question them
becomes: What law? And since there is no federal law re marriage it must be
state law. And under state law all adults have equal protection re marriage,
i.e., marry one person who's not already married, an adult, not closely
related, and of the opposite sex. This applies equally to all state citizens.
That's equal protection of the law.The logical conclusion is...
if SSM is authorized under the 14th, all other marriage combinations should also
More and more, as you look around the rest of the country, it looks like the
world won't change for those who believe in traditional marriage if
same-sex marriages are recognized and legal in the eyes of the government. Life
will go on, and it doesn't change at all for traditional marriages. In
fact, promoting fidelity among gay couples isn't a bad thing, when you
think about it.
On Saturday our daughter Lisl was married to the woman she loved. 80 people
were there, at least half of whom had flown in from across the US. The judge
performing the ceremony had known Cate back in the 80's, and said that she
never dreamed that Cate would be able to get married, let alone that she, the
judge, would officiate. Our daughter spoke--and we were moved to tears. Cate
spoke--and there wasn't a dry eye to be seen. Our son spoke--and again the
kleenex box was passed. It was the most moving ceremony I have ever
witnessed.Life and Liberty, Wrz, higv, U-tar---I wish you could have
been there. These were real, live people and their love and their joy was
palpable. I would challenge you to attend one wedding of a gay couple and still
write the stuff you write.
@ ExecutorIohOk, so if marriage is not a constitutional right then
why is it that you are allowed to be married and others (of legal age, etc) are
not? If that's your reasoning, then it sounds like we need to get rid of
marriage altogether. Maybe that's the answer; if others are
not willing to "share" in marriage and benefits associated with it, then
it must needs be removed from society so that everyone is afforded the same
treatment under the law.
@ExecutorIoh"First, marriage is more than just love and
commitment."Correct. it is a legal contract administered by the
state between two consenting adults."I know a gay couple with
kids where the children don't know and don't have access to their
mother."And there are thousands of blended heterosexual couples
where the children are in the same position."marriage is NOT a
Constitutional right"It, in fact, is. Read Loving v. Virginia,
388 U.S. 1 (1967)"there have been too many judges recently that
are either serving self interests, or like their names in the news."No, they are ruling based on the law. You just don't like the
You know it really is a shame that we have taken this very dark path .The worst
part is that we have snubbed the commandments of God,and now Federal courts have
stomped upon the expressed will of the people. What a sorry mess!
"I see nowhere in ANY scripture where he created Adam and Steve."I was taught that God created all of us--Adam, Eve, Steve, Matthew,
Mary, etc. Isn't it time to realize that we are all in this together?
People seem to forget that we have the judicial system to rule on our laws and
to make them null and void if they are not found to be constitutionally sound.
It amazes me that everyone clamors about "activist judges" yet one such
judge is an active member of the LDS church, not to mention all 20+ judges that
have ruled are "activist", despite being nominated by republican
presidents. At what point does judicial rulings not become activist? 40
judges? 50 judges? I'm confident there will be those who will
still feel this turn of events has come about because of judicial activism even
if our "activist" Supreme Court judges rules in favor of gay marriage.
I hope that if the Supreme Court finalizes this issue either by
ruling or upholding the current decisions that everyone can move on and see each
other for their similarities and not differences.
"The Judge" says:[It will be more interesting to see what
convoluted legal reasoning the supremes might have to grant that same sex
marriage is a "right."]It's pretty simple.....gay
couples have the same right to equal protection of the law that straight couples
have, and that mixed-race couples have. The state has no legitimate interest
whatsoever in the relative race or relative gender of your spouse.
I understand those with religious objections to gay marriage and I see nothing
wrong with people advocating their point of view, just like those advocating gay
marriage. However, in my opinion, creating laws (amendment 3) that
prevent others from enjoy the benefits you enjoy is pretty selfish and self
centered. I will be the first to defend religions from officiating gay
marriages because there is no reason they should be required to do so. The LDS
church has gone many many years without having to admit unworthy members into
the temple so I don't see why this becomes a threat all of a sudden. I really am curious how someone's marriage is lessened or is
demeaned by a marriage of two gay folks.
First, marriage is more than just love and commitment. I know a gay couple with
kids where the children don't know and don't have access to their
mother. It seemed okay until the daughter started to go through puberty. At
that point, no amount of love could substitute for what that girl needed
emotionally.Second, marriage is NOT a Constitutional right.
Marriage isn't mentioned once in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
So it is clearly not a Constitutional right. Since it isn't mentioned,
then by the 10th Amendment, the power to regulate is delegated to the states.
Which it did through a legal and democratic process. Which rules the 10th
Amendment, which clearly applies or the 14th Amendment which might not apply
since we have already determined that marriage is not a Constitutional right.For whatever the issue, there have been too many judges recently that
are either serving self interests, or like their names in the news. Despicable.
It should be understood that this isn't as clear cut as
liberals would like to think that it is.
@wrz,If you want to know why there is no legal basis for polygamy,
incestuous marriage, child marriage, just read the ruling of 10th circuit court
on Kicthen v Herbert, the judges explain it very well.
@Reasonable thinker;When Odin judges you he's going to feed you
to the Kraken; HE doesn't care about the genders of loving couples.@Utah Businessman;Every black man has the right to marry a
black woman and every white woman has the right to marry a white man.
Didn't work then, still has the ring of bigotry and discrimination to it
today.The only "suffering" we experience for our
"attraction" is due to people like you who tend to do everything you can
think of to make our lives miserable.@birdbath:How many
times do they need to be told "you were wrong, the law is
unconstitutional" before they call it a day?
@Br. Jones:"@Utah Businessman: you know that was the PRECISE reasoning
used by Southern courts against interracial marriage, right?"So,
Br. Jones, where's the court ruling that polygamists can't marry,
because they can't? Or children? Or siblings? Or father/daughter? Or
mother/son?If the court has decided that barring inter-racial
marriage is discriminatory and unconstitutional, shouldn't it also be
ruling that barring any other marriage combination is also discriminatory and
unconstitutional?The court's failure to rule that any
conceivable combination of marriage is legal is discriminatory. In fact a whole
neighborhood should be allowed to marry each other. Remember, Hillary Rodham
Clinton advising 'it takes a village to raise a child?'Who
would have guessed that SCOTUS is about to become guilty of creating massive
discrimination in the institution of marriage when they rule for SSM and not all
other conceivable combinations.
@Confused"If you google the case, it will show you that UTAH did
indeed file a "Stay"..."If you read Kitchen v Herbert on
wikipedia, it will show you that:"Because the state's
lawyers had not filed a motion for a stay in district court by the time of the
ruling, some of Utah's county clerks began issuing marriage licenses
immediately to same-sex couples."
"Everyone indoors! The sky is falling!!!" @wrz, I don't think I
have heard anything but the slippery slope argument from you. Is it possible
that someone is secretly hoping that polygamy or marrying cousins becomes the
law of the land? The slippery slope argument is such a farce, and I'll
tell you why: it could be used for ANY decision that anyone ever makes. If you
give people the right to bear arms, then everyone in the United States will have
20 guns on them at all times. If gay people are given the same rights and
privileges we do, that will be the destruction of society. Never mind the fact
that heteros have done an awesome job preserving the sanctity of marriage with
the 50+ percent divorce rate, spousal abuse, oh and the bachelor.
Utah Business Man says we all have the equal right to marry someone of the
opposite sex. In other words, one group of children have the right to grow up
and find spouses they love romantically and desire sexually and another group of
children have the 'equal' right to grow up and find spouses they are
incapable of loving romantically and will never desire sexually. Obviously,
both groups of children can look forward to marriage, equally, as each marriage
will have one boy part and one girl part. Fair, see?
@BoringGuy:"It's time to stop the hypocrisy. Quit denying our gay
brothers and sisters their God-given Constitutional rights."Is
there a God-given constitutional right re polygamists marriage? What about
marrying your mother, father, sister, brother, aunt, uncle? Seems that's
just as much a God-given right as SSM.@YoungPuppy:"The
whole debate on the legalization of marriage will be coming to an end in the
next few years... adults will be able to legally marry any other adult of their
choosing for whatever reason."Would that include several adults
at a time? And why are you limiting it to adults. Cutting children off from
marriage would be discriminatory."Conservatives and religions
can kick and scream that they don't like it but it will happen."It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules. It can't be the
14th Amendment which says 'states cannot deny its citizens equal protection
of laws.' There is not federal marriage law so it must apply to state law
which says that anyone can marry provided they choose one person of age, not
closely related and of the opposite sex. Couldn't be more clear.
@birdbath: "But isn't it the AG's job (as a voted official) to
uphold that vote until there is another one?"Good question.
Reyes seems to think his job is to uphold the law, no matter what. AGs in other
states seem to think that if the law is not constitutional their job is to let
it be overturned, that defending an unconstitutional law is wrong. I
guess it comes down to perspective. What do you think is more important?
Following the rules or doing the right thing. It isn't always the same
Gay marriage is now legal in 20 states, and at least 22 federal courts
(including the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit) have ruled against
state bans of gay marriage, holding such bans to be violative of the Fourteenth
Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection. Conservatives
are already admitting that they have lost this particular civil rights struggle,
and that they cannot stop gay marriage from eventually becoming legal in all 50
states (probably as the result of one or more US Supreme Court decisions).
Conservatives, including members of the misnamed "National Organization for
Marriage" (NOM), now admit that all they can do is delay this outcome.This leads me to ask -- why would they wish to delay this outcome, given
that it is inevitable? What possible reason exists for delaying an inevitable
victory for civil rights? Do these people honestly wish to be portrayed as
cruel bigots when they have to explain themselves to their children and
Think of it this way. If SCOTUS rules for marriage equality, then Utah will be
known as the place where that monumental change in society took place. Instead
of 'the place where all the Attorneys-General are crooks!'
"I bet if Amendment 3 was offered again for a vote, it wouldn't
pass." But isn't it the AG's job (as a voted official)
to uphold that vote until there is another one? I agree with those who have
shown skepticism at the arguments that will be made in the appeal, but if there
are arguments to be made, shouldn't they be made?
@Utah Businessman: you know that was the PRECISE reasoning used by Southern
courts against interracial marriage, right? "We're not discriminating
against anyone or preventing marriage, everyone is free to marry...as long as
it's to someone of their own race." SCOTUS quite handily called that
reasoning out as racism in the Loving v. Virginia decision. This particular
argument against same-sex marriage is not a convincing one.
Lots of attention for Utah lately.A few years ago, people actually would
say,"Where is Utah, anyway?"
Here's hoping the right thing happens and the marriages are recognised.
What the state is trying to do is embarrassing.
Just a note of clarification. So many are saying that if a same sex union is not
recognized as "marriage", then LGBT people do not have "equal
rights". Yes, they do: ALL people have the right to marry someone of the
opposite gender. You may have many arguments for SS marriage, but "equal
rights" is not a legitimate one--EVERYONE (gay or straight) has the right to
marry someone of the opposite gender. NO-ONE (gay or straight) has the right to
be "married" to someone of the same gender. Thus, we all have equal
rights in that context.That being said, I recognize that SS
attraction is very real and that many (perhaps most) who have those desires
suffer much because of it. The reasons for the suffering are many and varied,
and my personal opinion is that recognizing SS unions as marriage is not the
“panacea”, but I respect many of those who have the opposite
@TheJudge: I'm guessing you haven't read the 10th Circuit's
decision affirming the District Court's ruling. The reasoning, the law,
and the facts, are all clearly laid out in that decision. It's worth a
read, if only to see how they deal with each argument presented for or against
SSM. If for any reason SCOTUS decides to take the case, that's the
reasoning they start out with. They'll either affirm it or explain why
they think it's incorrect.However, unless there's
something in that Circuit Court of Appeals decision that they wish to either
amplify or deconstruct, or put into effect in the entire country at once,
they'll simply refuse to hear the case and leave that as standing law for
the states of the 10th Circuit: Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas and
@Confused;Sorry, you're wrong. Utah did not request a stay
until AFTER marriages were being performed, and then, they thought they could
skip around protocol and just ask for it without making the request properly.
When they finally got around to properly filing the stay request, Judge Shelby,
refused the request (as was his right). Utah then went to the 10th (again not
following correct protocol initially) and were refused. The 2nd request
(correctly filed) was also rejected. Finally, they went to the SCOTUS which,
for whatever reason, granted their request.The marriages performed
between the ruling and the SCOTUS granting the stay are 100% valid marriages.
No no mo, yes, to your sorrow, I do get out of my bubble as you call it. I
actually lived in your very town years ago. I like it here much better. Your
moon beam governor was governing your state the first go-round. You guys can
have your bankruptcy, gangs, and high taxes, along with your moral decay. The
state is beautiful in places, I will grant you that.
another day another article about same sex marriage on Deseret news.
USU- Logan...If you google the case, it will show you that UTAH did
indeed file a "Stay"...
@The Judge"It will be more interesting to see what convoluted legal
reasoning the supremes might have to grant that same sex marriage is a
"right." "Probably a similar one to the ruling for
@ Confused: Amendment 3 is not "in force" right now - Amendment 3 is
unconstitutional right now, but acting on that is on hold pending the Supreme
Court decision. Same-sex marriages in Utah are legal until and unless the
Supreme Court says they are not. During the short time between Amendment 3
being struck down and SCOTUS issuing a stay, legal same-sex marriages took place
in Utah. Even if SCOTUS reverses the decisions of the lower courts, there will
still be the question of the validity of the marriages that were performed.If the state had requested a stay immediately upon the issuing of the
ruling, Shelby may have issued it. The state instead skipped protocol and asked
for a stay from the 10th Circuit (who denied it twice). By time the state got
around to asking Shelby for a stay, marriages were already taking place.@ RedWings: Contrary to your assertions, most judges have issued stays
following the precedent set by SCOTUS issuing a stay. Shelby (the first judge
to rule) did not issue a stay because the state did not request one from him
until after marriages had already started taking place.
@ rik-nell: You seem to misunderstand the polygamy ruling. Bigamy, having more
than one purportedly valid marriage license, is still illegal. What was
challenged and struck down was Utah's unique definition that criminalized
living with one person while being married to another. With this change,
Utah's law is now the same as the law in the other 49 states.@
TheJudge: It will take even greater gymnastics to uphold Amendment 3.@ mauister: Reyes did not miss the deadline - he has until Monday of next
week to file. Yesterday was just the first day a stay request could have been
filed.@ U-tar: This case has national implications which is why so
many from all over the country are interested in it.
@Confused"All this trouble would not have happened if Shelby had
issued a stay when the State asked for it."The problem is, the
state did not ask for a stay when the ruling came down, even the plaintiffs were
surprised. It was the state which did a terrible job in the first place.Judging by the performance of state legal team in this case, I doubt
they have a chance to win before Supreme Court.
@ Reasonable Thinker:You wrote:"God will be the
final judge and I think we all know where he stands on the the issue. "Well, I don't think we all know where God stands on this issue. I
think I do and you think you do, yet, our beliefs are different.Let
think about this reasonably:I'm a Child of God in the
pre-existence.I know I will be genetically born a homosexualI am
happy to be born that wayOf course, there will be trials:What is the trial? To overcome homosexuality or overcome those who refuse to
accept you as a complete and perfect child of God ?If the trial is
to overcome homosexuality...then God is being awfully unfair to a group of his
children, since our sexual orientation (Hetero or Homosexual)is one if not the
strongest forces in our body and is "impossible" to change it.If the trial is to overcome people who rejects you, It would make more sense
since you would have to develop more love, patience, understanding and depend
more on God for strenght to forgive.I think that to LDS philosophy
my second argument makes more sense.
@U-tar"The Guy from Sacramento seems really interested in Utah
politics."People in CA might just say the same thing 6 years ago
to you and Mormon Church during the debate of Prop 8.The guys from Utah
seem really interested in California politics.What goes around comes
@ Confused:Excellent point. Typically, judges issue stays until the
legal process has run its course. For some reason, this is not happening in SSM
cases. The judges not only rule one way, but then deny stays thereby forcing
the results of their opinion on the people.The couples who married
in December really should be blaming Shelby not the State of Utah.We
need to remember that governors, attorneys general, etc. take an oath to uphold
the law, not their version of it. Herbert and Reyes are ultimately doing their
sworn duty, regardless of political opinion. This is the same as a county clerk
authorizing those marriages last December even if he or she did not agree
personally.In reality, CA should have impeached their governor and
attorney general for violating their oaths and not defending the law at the time
(Prop 8).But then, Integrity is a value our secular society
jettisoned long ago...
@Reasonable thinker"God will be the final judge and I think we
all know where he stands on the the issue."And I'll bet a
months pay that "God's" stand is exactly the same as yours. So,
thinker, are you created in "God's" image or is "God"
created in your image? I'm going with the latter.
Here is what bothers me with some of the comments made by the Pro Gay
posters...Reyes is stuck in a hard place....1. Amendment
3 is "in Force" right now because of the Stay issued by SCOTUS.2.
The Lower court ruling said that they must give rights to the gay couple because
they are "legally" married. Which is not correct, because Amendment 3
prohibits gay marriage.So what does Reyes do? from all that I have
read, Reyes just wants the stay to be in place until the final verdict (after
all the appeals)happens. That way if the ruling is in favor of the
State the gay marriages performed would be invalidated. If the final Ruling
favors gay marriage, then Reyes can fulfill his duties and allow all benefits to
these couples as well as new ones.All this trouble would not have
happened if Shelby had issued a stay when the State asked for it. then innocent
couples would not be left in limbo, waiting for our illustrious court system to
figure it all out.
God created Adam and Eve. Not Matthew and Ashley. Sorry, you have to get your
name changed before you get married.
"Reasonable thinker,"I thought God created all people,
including Adam and Steve?If He is so against gay people why does he
allow so many straight couples to produce them?
Reasonable Thinker,For one, there are 21 different Christian
denominations that disagree with you. For two, most of Utah was saying that
exact same thing after Loving v Virginia. However, Islam is staunchly against
homosexuality and there are several countries where the law is based on those
beliefs. Why don't you just move there.
U-tar,This issue is much more than UT politics.The
District Court ruling affects the entire District and heading to The Supreme
Court affects the entire Nation.As a former Idahoan and a gay man,
this issue has a big interest to me.You ever get out of your bubble?
Regardless of how the judges rule of the LGBT community think, God will be the
final judge and I think we all know where he stands on the the issue. God created man and woman and were commanded to cleave to each other. I see
nowhere in ANY scripture where he created Adam and Steve.
mauister,Charles Stormont is running against Sean Reyes. But Reyes
knows that his performance as AG has nothing to do with his reelection. He can
miss deadlines and do his job as poorly as possible. The moneyed interests in
this state will still keep him in office because of that R next to his name.
@U-tar Although I live in Massachusetts with my partner of over 52 years I am
originally from Idaho, a neighbor of Utah. Many of us have been all over the
USA and we like to see our neighbors join us in equality. I am also looking for
Idaho to be joining us soon.
@U-tar, we don't live in a vacuum.
@Furry1993That was one of the most well-thought out and intelligent
comments I've read on this sad excuse of a forum. Thank you for being
someone who understands not only Constitutional Law and Theory, but theology
from a secular point of view as well as religious.
The Guy from Sacramento seems really interested in Utah politics.
Ten days to file a request for a stay with the Supreme Court to hold the course
of no gay marriage for the time being and the Utah Attorney General misses the
deadline. The Utah Attorney General in Utah is an elected position.
Doesn't the guy want to keep his job? Is there some polling that reflects
that more Utahns now favor same-sex marriage than oppose it? I am at a loss why
he missed the deadline.
Jamescmeyer says:"... and support a selfish mockery of the most
beautiful and most difficult promise we make to one another, to complete one
another."Why is it that your straight marriage is "the most
beautiful and most difficult promise we make to one another, to complete one
another", and the marriage of an LGBT couple is "the selfish fulfilling
one's self"?I just don't get it, James. Seriously,
why is it that LGBT couples are selfish for wanting to marry but straight
It will be more interesting to see what convoluted legal reasoning the supremes
might have to grant that same sex marriage is a "right." It may even
exceed Justice Roberts' gymnastics in ruling Obamacare is constitutional.
@LightAndLiberty 8:37 p.m. July 14, 2014Which God should be accepted
as "the" God? The God accepted by Latter-day Saints? Evangelicals?
Catholics? Protestants? Jews? Muslims? Wiccans? Buddhists? Pagans? Satanists?
Deists (like a lot of the Founding Fathers, who accepted a Creator but not any
of the established religions)? By [fill in the blank with every other religion
practiced in the United States]? And what about the people who are agnostic or
atheist?That is the crux of the problem. I know and love God and His
gospel that I know from my faith. Others feel the same way about the God and
gospel they know from THEIR faith (which is different in several ways from what
I believe). And still others don't accept the concept of God, or
aren't sure whether there is a God and, if there is, which one is
correct.That is the wisdom and brilliance of the First Amendment. NO
God or religion can be established as "the" God and religion of the
country. We believe as we deem correct, but don't impose our belief on
everyone else. That is the right, fair and equitable thing to do.
"I bet if Amendment 3 was offered again for a vote, it wouldn't
pass."I'll bet you are correct. However,
Amendment 3 was an illegal construct, as citizens can not "vote upon"
the civil rights of their fellow citizens. Those caught up in the trappings of
magical thinking need to understand that not being able to unjustifiably force
people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your
The whole debate on the legalization of marriage will be coming to an end in the
next few years. It will be legal in all states in the country and adults will
be able to legally marry any other adult of their choosing for whatever reason.
Conservatives and religions can kick and scream that they don't
like it but it will happen. Equality and civil rights in this country move
forward despite those calling to halt progress. There are already many churches
that now recognize that SSM is acceptable and many more will follow. Most
churches in the next few years will do the same. There might be a few that a
decade from now still do not recognize and perform SSM but they will be
considered extreme and irrelevant. The LDS church will probably have a "1978
style" revelation in the next 10 years on SSM and in 30 years they will try
and argue that they were never against it.Equality will move
forward. It is just a matter of time now. The war is mostly over, it is just
time to clean up the battlefield.
At this point Herbert and Reyes are just kicking the can and trying to buy more
time with taxpayer money. Did Utah fight interracial marriage this hard?
If people looked at marriage as the selfless union of families and not the
selfish fulfilling one's self, families wouldn't have many of the
problems they do now. Fewer breakups, less heartache, and not so much pressure
to mandate by word of federally appointed kings that we award and support a
selfish mockery of the most beautiful and most difficult promise we make to one
another, to complete one another.
Be great if we could all accept the validity of the various court rulings on
Same Sex Marriage - which will harm no one - and move on to things that are
really important like taking care of the poor the sick and the afflicted.
Utah gave up any hope of logical legal reasoning to not accept same-sex
marriage, when the Judge Waddoups ruled Utah's criminalization of
cohabitation violated the due process and First Amendment religious freedom
rights and ruled Utah's law criminalizing polygamy is unconstitutional. If
the state allows polygamy marriages, then logically shouldn't the state
allow and recognize same-sex marriages, especially since over 1000 were legally
If you're really pro-marriage, you won't see anything wrong with
same-sex couples who are in love with making the ultimate commitment to one and
other.It's time to stop the hypocrisy. Quit denying our gay
brothers and sisters their God-given Constitutional rights.
@ Light and LibertyThat argument doesn't fly in a court of law
due to the fact that we are a secular nation. SSM should, and will be, legal
@light and liberty While you may believe your version of a God, which just
happens to always agree with you, is the Supreme Court luckily for us mortals
your version of God holds no relevance in our legal system.
"They said allowing the ruling to stand would put Utah at odds with its
voter-approved Amendment 3..."I bet if Amendment 3 was offered
again for a vote, it wouldn't pass.
Interesting. A citation to this article appears in the Twitter stream of EQCF,
which I've been following for some time. EQCF aggregates filings and court
decisions, with links to the full text, usually posted on Scribd. It's a
valuable source for those following legal developments on the subject of
marriage equality.And now, thanks to a retweet of AppellateDaily, it
includes Dennis Romboy as one of the quoted authorities!
The Supreme Court is God and He has already ruled!
Place your trays in the upright and locked position folks, things are about to
I wonder what new and novel objections that the state of Utah will conjure up
when it appeals to the Supreme Court the now confirmed ruling that same sex
couples in Utah have a right to legally wed.The states rights bugle
call isn't working all that well. Arguments about children have been
laughed off by most of the Federal district courts. Can't use religion
(unless you are a corporation seeking to end birth control that is). We all
know that voters can not pass an initiative that violates Constitutional law (
the Supreme Court already decided that part).I doubt the
"icky" argument will work, so I anxiously await the innovative arguments
that will be put to the Justices of our Supreme Court.