Marriage in Utah previously, had more than two people. Even those
who cite the 'will of the people' only cite Amendment 3 as the
majority in 2004. It's 2013. But not only is the
time a disparity, but even Amendment 3 factually changed the Utah constitution
from 'two people' (Gender neutral) too…. 'one
man and one woman.' So this 'millennium' of
traditional marriage? Try just 9 years ago. Changed, by
the very people who claim they are trying to 'protect' traditional
Judicial tyranny concerns a judge arbitrarily over-riding established law and a
vote of the people. The gay marriage argument maintains that marriage is a civil
right for gays. It does not pretend to be losing any religious liberty.It is
important to note that the Mormon church is in full agreement that gays couple
should have the same civil rights as men and women in a traditional
marriage.However, the key difference of opinion is the extending of those rights
to include gay marriage and thereby changing the definition of the institution
of marriage for all of society.Social norms do change. There is a well
established process to convert a social norm into a law. Aside from that there
is no "slippery slope argument", simply the compelling argument that if
gays have a right to marriage, why shouldn't that right be an inherent
right extended to all human beings, polygamists included? Or should it depend
entirely if the cause is sufficiently popular at the moment?
I get very confused when anyone from Utah talks about "traditional
This well-written, persuasive letter will be roundly ignored by the majority
here. Self-righteousness, while frowned upon, is pervasive in Utah in my
The truth is, it's about control. Whether we are talking about health care
or marriage, repubs have no answer. They have nothing to argue against the
Medicaid expansion. They just desire... Crave, control. Which is
what this is really about. The state knows it has lost. But they want to send a
message to the Feds. And we the people are going to pay for it
@WestGranger;If the Mormon church supports gay couples having the
same civil rights as straight couples, why did the Mormons vote to deny civil
unions to gay couples?If this isn't about religious liberty
being taken away, why have the GA's been so vociferous about the religious
rights being taken away (when, they in fact, take those rights away from other
churches and individuals with Amendment 3)?Please go read the 53
page ruling. It'll explain how your incorrect about the judge not
following the law and arbitrarily over-riding the majority's wishes. BTW;
the majority has never had the right to vote on the rights of the minority.
No, WestGranger, you really are missing the point. Judge Shelby is basing his
argument on equal access to the law. The state of Utah issues marriage licenses,
just like cities issue business licenses. A city could not refuse a business
licence to someone based on their gender, right? That would be illegal and the
courts would rule against a city that tried. Gender, as you know, is a protected
class. The same principle applies to the state. The state cannot refuse a
license that they issue based on gender. As long as the state issues licenses
they have to issue it irrespective of gender of the applicant. The state cannot
legally discriminated based on gender. And you cannot vote that away. That is
what the judge ruled. And, frankly, there is no other way to look at the law, no
matter what the Mormon church believes the definition of marriage should be. So why doesn't this apply to polygamy? The state doesn't issue
polygamy licenses. If it did it would have to issue them regardless of gender.
Just like the state is not forced to issue gambling licenses, it is not forced
to issue polygamy licenses.
People wanting to support tradional marriage would do well to focus on treating
their spouse with kindness and respect and appreciate the fact they have what
they have. Doing this will also set a good example for their children which
will help them.
Any definition of marriage needs to take the well being of children into
account. Children should have a mother and a father. No definition of marriage
should that disallows children this advantage should be promoted by the state.
Children have rights too.
@cjbChildren should have a mother and a father? You all like to say that
gay people can't make kids through sex. Okay, so if the only things they
can do to even get kids are adopt, in-vitro, or have children from a previous
relationship, why is adoption allowed by single people, in-vitro allowed for
single people, and why are children from a previous relationship being denied a
step-parent? You don't use this argument for anything other than when you
need an excuse to stop gay people from marrying.
Polygamy is still a male- female thing. We shouldn't use the term:
traditional marriage. There's just marriage and it involves a man and a
woman. It's funny that the very people who said, just about a decade ago,
that marriage is irrelevant, are the same people who are promoting the idea to
change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals.
Go West, Again, you are missing the point. The judge did not rule on
the definition of marriage. He ruled on equal access. If a state issues a
license for something they have to issue that regardless of the gender of the
applicants. As far as the definition goes you don't get to
define the term as far as rather it applies to a man and woman only, or also to
same sex couples. And neither does a religion, nor a state. All the state can do
if it issues a license for something is to issue it without taking the gender of
a person into account. You might not like it, but that is the law, and that is
what Judge Shelby ruled on. As far as polygamy being a "male-
female thing" -- it does not mater rather it is our not, the state does not
issue polygamy licenses. So the ruling has no bearing on polygamy. It seems that Ranchhand has read the ruling. I haven't, just articles on
it. If I'm wrong in my assessment perhaps Ranchand could correct me.
Interesting how people think they can have it both ways in their attempts to
criticize the LDS Church. They want to criticize the Church for having once
supported a non-traditional form of marriage, yet they also want to criticize
the Church now for supporting traditional marriage. Obviously, since the Church
cannot win no matter what it does, there is no point in listening to these
people.The LDS Church has always believed in traditional marriage
between a man and a woman. It just allowed men to participate in more than one
of them at a time. Since plural marriage has existed before, it cannot be called
non-traditional. Same-sex marriage however, has never occurred before and
redefines marriage for everyone.
@RanchHand When gay activists met with Mormon leaders they were pleased to
discover that Mormons neither hate gays, nor are against civil unions. Mormons
leaders were supportive of Salt Lake city ant-discrimination laws.I suggest you
furhter investigate the actual position of the L.D.S. church and not hearsay.It is about religious liberty being taken away, but its certainly not
being taken away from gays.The ruling ignores the SCOTUS ruling that left
the marriage issue to the gays.The minority have rights, however, they do not
have a right to impose their ideological opinions in a way that imposes their
beliefs on the majority or that limits the rights of others. You, nor any
special interest group does not determine what is a right.There are rules and
laws that allows the people to have a say and the judicial process is just
@mark To me the point is that if the state is forced, because of an inherent
right to marry, to issue marriage license to one special interest group, gays,
then why not another? Why would equal access not include polygamists? So the
state can legally discriminate against certain people? A male or female marrying
a person of the same sex has no federal precedent as being a gender
discrimination issue. ,. Judge Shelby is ignoring the recent Supreme Court
ruling that left the marriage issue to the states. The state of Utah is not a
city. It has a state Constitution that has been invalidated by a sole judge. And
yes, the people of a state can vote concerning this issue. That is what the
SCOTUS ruled. As SCOTUS determined there is another way to look at the law, no
matter what either the Mormon church or pro-gay activists believe,the issue
should be left to the states.So why shouldn't the gay marriage
argument also apply to polygamy? So polygamist don't have rights too?
Strange. The state doesn't issue polygamy licenses, nor did it issue
marriage licenses to gays before this single judges ruling.
WestGranger. Are you intentionally trying to not understand? Shelby's ruling is dealing with equal access to the law. Perhaps you
don't understand what a protected class is. Gender is a protected class,
just like religion and ethnicity. That is what the law says. You might not like
it, nor agree with it, but gender is a protected class in this country. It is
the law. The government cannot, legally, discriminate against people because of
their gender. They have to be blind when it comes to gender. You understand
that, right? That really isn't up for debate. It is federal law that states
must follow. Now, I realize the state isn't a city, I was just
using business licenses as an example. The point is that a government entity
cannot refuse to give someone a license, of any kind, including a marriage
license, based on gender. It would be unconstitutional, just as you can't
refuse a license based on race. Polygamy is a different issue.
Again, the state does not issue polygamy licenses. The license they do issue is
for just two people. Groups of people are not a protected class.
WestGranger: "It is about religious liberty being taken away... The
minority have rights, however, they do not have a right to impose their
ideological opinions in a way that... limits the rights of others."This paper has made religious liberty a paramount virtue and turned secular
corporations like Hobby Lobby into a cause celebre over the very indirect
religious effect of the contraceptive mandate in the ACA (no one is forcing
these companies or their employees to use or even pay for contraceptives, only
to make insurance coverage for them available to employees). However, this
paper has been completely silent on direct government intervention into
religious practice by churches. Many churches in Utah (Quakers, Unitarians,
etc.) have no religious objection to homosexuality and would gladly conduct
same-sex marriages, but they have been prevented by the government from doing so
(until December 20). So whose religious liberties were being taken away by the
majority and whose rights were being limited? Why weren't these churches
allowed the free exercise of their faith?
You are right...polygamy doesn't help people to be more accepting. It is,
in fact, the opposite. They often believe that all other beliefs but their own
are worthy of acceptance. They are known for warning their people that the
outside world is sinful and that their people should avoid it at all costs.
Polygamy is not an example for anyone's equal rights because it does the
opposite for women.
cjbBountiful, UT"Any definition of marriage needs to take the
well being of children into account. Children should have a mother and a father.
No definition of marriage should that disallows children this advantage should
be promoted by the state. Children have rights too."A-- this is
convenient for you, but you ignore the many children needing adoption who
languish in mediocre or poor situations, because they are not young, cute,
white, and healthy. Did the Gay couple who adopted 7 Black boys (most of them
related) offend you too much? It seems that the boys are happy and well
adjusted, even though they got a late start.B-- your "ideal"
precludes divorce. I am going to guess that 10 thousand times more kids live
with divorce than live with one or more Gay parents.C-- every
reputable study shows that 2 mothers is the combination of parents most likely
to raise successful kids, perhaps because Gay men tend to adopt troubled kids
more.The World is not made of candy.