A great example of how people will see what they want to see.
"there is consensus that what Judge Shelby has done concerning the
definition of marriage in Utah is bending the laws and rules to the breaking
point."You must only be looking at sources that are against
same-sex marriage seeing as the other half of the nation considers Shelby's
ruling to be correct.
It's sad that this author thinks a (correct, strongly based, and
well-reased and argued) decision is "bending the laws and rules to the
breaking point". It's not. It's defending an attack against the
rights protected by the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Judge
Shelby did what he was supposed to do, and did it well. Good job, Judge Shelby.
You mean in a newspaper owned by a church who is adamantly opposed to same-sex
marriage there is consensus? Shocking.
Look;The State of Utah set out to "define" marriage, Judge
Shelby simply ruled thumbs up or thumbs down on the Constitutionality of that
"definition".The only one's bending anything are the
one's bending facts and reality.
Shauna, you have NEVER had the right to vote on the rights of other American
Shauna, What you derisively call "Obama's America," the
rest of the country simply regards as "constitutional protections applied
through evidence-based reality."Regarding Shelby:“Whenever we have a judicial vacancy in Utah, no matter who occupies the
White House, I look for a candidate to recommend who is widely respected in the
legal community and who can be widely supported in the Senate. Bob Shelby
certainly meets that test.” - Utah Senator Orrin HatchDuring
the confirmation process, Utah Senator Mike Lee also described Shelby as
"pre-eminently qualified" and predicted he would be "an outstanding
judge."Shelby's own words: "I do not believe it is the
proper role of a judge to seek to protect interests of any parties, irrespective
of whether those parties might be described as 'big guys' or
'little guys.' To the contrary, I believe it is the judge’s
responsibility to reach decisions based exclusively on the application of
established precedent to the specific facts presented."Which is
exactly what he did, and is exactly why Utah's Amendment 3 is not long for
The pro SSM folks are going after the wrong group. The government is
the one who gives legal privileges to married couples that they don't give
to single people. It is called discrimination. Why don't you sue them
instead of a little cake baker, or a photographer? The government is big, and
where the money is. Of course there are also marriage tax penalties too, which
is also discrimination. It is the government that needs to quit discriminating,
and make laws more fair to everyone. Then there is the privilege to
bring children into your family, which God designated to couples comprised of a
man and a woman. He told them to commit in marriage first, for the good of all
society. Marriage and the making of children was God's doing. Who are we to
say he is wrong? How do you expect your fellow man to change what God has done,
and why is it your 'right' to expect society to do so? Isn't it hard to fight against God?Yes, look how war torn and
miserable our society is becoming because of our long war on God.
Shauna, you should diversify your reading list; there is no such consensus.Secondly, no Constitutional amendments were ignored by Judge Shelby. He
basically stated that the State of Utah had no right to ignore the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution.And none of us has the right to vote
on whether or not others have equal rights. Ever.
This consensus of which you speak does not exist. The 'bent laws' are
those that deny same sex couples marriage in the first place.
As a committed, believing LDS I reject the idea that my religious doctrines have
any standing in law. My scripture (DC 134) specifically says that religion
should not be "mingled" in constitutional government. Legal arguments
based on religious belief are NOT VALID.I wish my fellow LDS would read our own
Can same-sex "marriage" be shown to damage society? Clearly it can. If
same-sex "marriage" became the normhuman life would cease to exist.
Would a halt of procreation harm society? Let's look at other
rules that society has put in place where the "rights" of a few were
"denied" to preserve society. Society has dictated that I must wear a
seatbelt when I am in a vehicle. If I choose to disobey the seatbelt law, I
will be fined. If I refuse to protect children in that vehicle, I will face
much more than a fine. Where is the outrage over seatbelt laws?How
about smoking laws? A businessman cannot declare that his business is a smoking
zone, even if 100% of his customers want to smoke. Society has ruled that
smoke, even second-hand smoke, is a danger to society. Where is the outrage?Having childless marriages, by definition, is a much greater danger to
society than are refusing to use seat-belts or smoking. Marriage and families
are more important than seat-belts and smoking. Marriage and families need
Mike,You are confusing the "right" to engage in SSM with a
Mandate allowing only SSM.Do you sincerely think that the allowance
of SSM threatens the population of our planet?Are couples who cannot
have children also "a much greater danger to society" than smoking?Really?Personally, I cannot see how allowing SSM or not
affects me one iota. Looks more to me like wanting to mingle religion into our
Obama didn't 'bother' with DOMA…? 'Judge
Rules Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Is Unconstitutional..' - ABC News - By
Jake Tapper - 01/08/10 'Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th
circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News
02/07/12"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect,
other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in
California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of
Perry v. Brown.' 'Federal judge OVERTURNS Utah Same-sex
marriage Ban' - By Emiley Morgan and Marjorie Cortez KSL - 12/22/13 Welcome to 'Obama's America… I mean,
seriously. I think somewhere along x15 judges have already ruled on
marriage equality. From the 9th circuit on Prop 8, to the Supreme court on DOMA.
But hey! Here in utah, let's blame ONE judge!
And then blame Obama for it! 1, Obama is the President. Not a judge.
2, Senator Orrin Hatch voted for Judge Shelby. 3, as I have pointed
out, Shelby is factually not, the only judge to rule like this in the past. Read a book.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahCan same-sex "marriage" be
shown to damage society? Clearly it can. If same-sex "marriage" became
the normhuman life would cease to exist. Would a halt of procreation harm
society? ========= Clearly it CAN'TWho
said anything about the "halt" of humanity?97-98% of human
reamain heterosexual - always have, always will, you are just crying a
bunch of "what if" crocodile tears.Talk about hyperbole and
quantum leaps in logic...
Could anyone be so callow as to assume any judge of any stripe would rule based
on just his or her personal view? Shauna, Badger and MR see a through a
different lens than many of us do that see this as a non partisan issue. Badger
sees a "war on God" here and ignores that gay people have been serving
in our military for two years now defending his right to make that argument
about war. MR wants to make the line for marriage be procreation but ignore
those heterosexuals who cannot have children or that every day gay women are
being inseminated with donor sperm or by test tube fertilized ova. All of these
views ignore logic to make their point. Can they really hope to persuade anyone
with such thinly veiled personal prejudice cloaked in a Constitutional
@Mike Richards"If same-sex "marriage" became the normhuman
life would cease to exist"Gay people are still gay regardless of
whether or not they marry. Gay marriage effectively increases human life since
they're more likely to consider things like in-vitro or adoption as a
couple than by themselves. "Having childless marriages, by
definition, is a much greater danger to society than are refusing to use
seat-belts or smoking."Bigotry is a much greater danger to
society than any of the things you're talking about. And
besides, you're not pro-marriage, you're pro-sex. Marriage is
completely unnecessary when it comes to making children which you seem to
believe is the most important thing. Are you married? I wouldn't want to be
married to you (for several reasons, one being that I don't swing that way)
since you seem to be obsessed about sex rather than what marriage actually is
based on, love.
Some of you are arguing that something that is far more dangerous to society
than NOT wearing a seatbelt should be allowed because? Because YOU want it that
way. You're telling us that if you and all of your friends could convince
society that same-sex sex was the defacto norm, that you couldn't care less
about the effects YOUR desires had on civilization. You can't say that
you're not trying to convince us that same-sex sex should be taught in your
homes. You're can't say tht you're not trying to convince our
children in our schools to accept same-sex sex. Your history precedes your
rhetoric. It is not in society's interest to harm the families
which are the bedrock of society. Teaching children that God made a mistake
when he put you in the wrong body teaches total disrespect for our Creator and
tells the child that only his "feelings" should be considered, not his
actions and not the effect of his actions on society.The same-sex
"marriage" position is untenable. It is harmful to society. If lived,
there will be no population.
IMO what Judge Shelby did was much less egregious than what's being done by
the White House and the Federal Government daily.Just ignoring the
laws they don't like.-Don't enforce immigration law
(because you need their votes)-Run guns to Mexico and then just deny it
and refuse to investigate when you get caught.-Let the IRS and the NSA
abuse people's rights, and then ignore it when it comes to light.-Push ACA through (before legislators voting on it can read it) and then just
wave parts of the law by Presidential Fiat (no vote of Congress) if you decide
you don't like parts of it after it's the law.-Wave the results
of State Elections (if one of your key support groups got the short end of the
election).-Ignore rights of car company shareholders and just give
ownership to the Union bosses.Selective enforcement of the law is
always distressful to people who accept that the law is the law (for everybody).
But it is normal and just fits the way they run their life for people who
think laws are for everybody else (but not for them).
Mike: "It is not in society's interest to harm the families which are
the bedrock of society."Agreed. So why do you want to harm the
families of same-sex couples?"The same-sex "marriage"
position is untenable. It is harmful to society."That claim has
been made many times in court, and not once has it survived legal scrutiny. As
was noted in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Prop 8) case, "The witness stand
is a lonely place to try to lie.""If lived, there will be no
population."Hyperbole much there, Mike? Seriously? I have two neighbors, a same-sex couple, who've been together for at
least a decade and are now raising their second adopted child. They are both
fantastic, loving, dedicated and effective parents.Please explain to
us exactly how human procreation will grind to a halt if my neighbors are
allowed to have their mutual commitment receive the same state recognition that
you take for granted.
@Mike RichardsNobody is trying to convince society that same-sex sex is
the defacto norm so your concerns really don't mean anything. There's
going to be 90-95% of the population who are attracted to the opposite gender
including yourself and myself. There's no danger of the population going
extinct. It's just an absurd notion and since we have no child requirement
on marriage, then you cannot use this as a reason to ban same-sex marriage
(unless you really do want to require that married couples make kids in which
case I guess I need to give you props for at least being consistent)."Teaching children that God made a mistake when he put you in the wrong
body teaches total disrespect for our Creator "I think you are
confusing trans with gay/lesbian again...And besides, you're
the one who is suggesting that God made a mistake when someone ends up with
these attractions. We're the ones saying it's okay, remember?
Blue,Let's look at your argument from the other side. I think
that you're trying to tell us that unless a lot of people believe just as
you do, that no harm would come to society. Do I have that right? When God
ejected Satan from heaven, was it because critical mass had been reached? Was
it because that until 33% plus one spirit sided with Satan that nothing was
wrong? How about taking a gun to school? What is the critical number of guns
in schools before there is danger? Is it the "idea" or the
"gun" that is dangerous, after all tens of thousands of policemen carry
guns everywhere they go. When God told us that all must be perfected
before entering his kingdom is it because he has no power to handle
imperfection, or is it the attitude that the "kids can make the rules"
that would eventually destroy his kingdom?Marriage and family are
not to be trifled with. God set the rules. Our choice is to obey God or to
rebel against him. There is no other choice, no matter what a judge says.
2nd try:@Mike Richards;Once again, you are using YOUR
religious beliefs to infringe upon the LIVES of non-members to your particular
sect.It's time to MYOB and stop focusing on how other people
are having sex.@2 bits;google: "Study: Children of
Same-Sex Parents Are Healthier Than Peers:"According to an
interim report, children from families with same-sex parents scored higher than
the national average for overall health and family cohesion, while there was no
statistical difference between them and children of heterosexual couples in
areas such as emotional behavior, self-esteem, and time spent with parents."
I believe that those in favor of same-sex marriage have just destroyed their
credibility. They keep telling us that all they want is to be treated equal,
citing the 14th Amendment. But now it looks like they really don't want to
be equal. They find it hard to admit that those who agree with them do not want
equal responsibility to reproduce and repleish the population. They call the
idea that everyone would join their crusade ludicrous, yet isn't that their
goal - to have their chosen way of life to be held equal in every way to
heterosexual "marriage"? If they acknowledge that living their
lifestyle would destroy all humanity, then they would have to admit that there
is something terribly wrong with their position. We learned a long
time ago that some ideas just don't make sense if applied equally to
everyone in society. If their idea only works if a very few people participate,
then they have to admit that their demand for equality would destroy is all.
Ranch,There's more than one study. I'm not going to play
battling studies. Because I'm not saying I'm right, so I don't
need to compete or prove I'm right. I'm just saying IF (that's
a hypothetical) being raised by gay parents puts more stress on the kids in
today's society (similar to the stresses of being raised by unmarried
parents)... then why only worry about one stress impacting the kids... but not
the other?Both put more stress on a family. Why the super concern
(from a different poster) about the parents not being married (becasue some
Utahn won't let their gay parents get married).. and zero concern for the
stress added by having gay parents?Having gay parents does put
children in some uncomfortable situations outside the home. Getting better all
the time, but those uncomfortable situations still exist. Why no concern for
that... just concern that the parents aren't married? That's my
question. Both add stress. Why is only the missing marriage a concern? They
both impact the children.Didn't say children of gay parents
don't turn out right. But there's added stress.
I thought every state is it's own country. That the Government Is only so
we as a nation can protect our borders and settle disputes between
country's. I thought any country had the right to secede from the union.
Polls suggest that a majority of Americans favor tightening up gun restrictions
such as gunshow loopholes. Yet I suspect that the very same commenters
demanding that the will of the people who voted for Amendment 3 be respected
(regardless of the Fourteenth Amendment) would go apoplectic at the suggestion
that the Second Amendment is not absolute and may likewise be limited by the
will of the people.
@Irony guy So you are saying Church leaders are wrong when they speak out on
moral issues? Religions have the right to speak out on moral issues that effect
them. Irreligious people are not the only people with the right to speak out
on moral issues.
@ Mike: "If same-sex "marriage" became the normhuman life would
cease to exist. Would a halt of procreation harm society?"Let's examine this, shall we?First: If no one procreated,
humans would cease to exist. Correct.Second: Homosexuals
don't procreate. Not true - many homosexuals, as well as many infertile
heterosexuals, use assisted reproductive technologies to procreate. Third: Prohibiting same-sex marriage will cause gay people to be straight and
reproduce. Or, conversely, allowing same-sex marriage will cause straight
people to be gay and not reproduce. Far from true. While social acknowledgment
of homosexuality has created an environment where it is safer for individuals to
acknowledge their homosexuality, there is no evidence that people who are not
gay or bisexual "turn gay". And prohibiting same-sex marriage has not
yet made homosexuality go away. Heterosexual marriage and child-bearing in
areas with same-sex marriage follow the same trends as before same-sex marriage
was allowed.Fourth: Homosexual individuals/couples are more likely
to reproduce if not married. Well, this one is iffy. Married couples often
choose not to procreate - but I am not sure you can blame marriage for
preventing procreation.Your argument fails.
@higvWhy does someone from Idaho care so much? It is a Utah issue,
not a Mormon issue, and certainly not an Idaho issue.
@ J: So because LGBT individuals and their allies acknowledge that not everyone
is gay, this is somehow an argument against equality of treatment? How does acknowledging that not every heterosexual couple has children while
some homosexual couples have children destroy credibility in the argument that
all couples should be treated the same regardless of whether or not they have
children?And isn't your failure to demand that all heterosexual
couples reproduce a reduction of your credibility?@ george of the
jungle: I suggest you read the Constitutions of the several States as well as
the Federal Constitution.
Gay Marriage is the result of "Obama's America?"Huh?
Driving a vehicle on your own property is a fundamental right. You don't
need the permission of government in the form of a driver's license. Living
with someone of your choosing is a fundamental right. You don't need the
permission of government in the form of a marriage license.Operating
a vehicle on public property is a privilege regulated by the state. The state
offers the privilege in return for certain obligations imposed on the driver.
The state places restrictions on who may get a driver's license. If a
restriction (e.g. race) isn't germane to the task of operating a motor
vehicle safely, it cannot legally be imposed.The marriage license
offered by the state proposes to give certain benefits to a married couple in
return for placing certain obligations on the couple. The state may place
qualifications on the issuing of the marriage license, but if those
qualifications aren't germane to the benefits the state expects to receive,
they don't pass constitutional muster. The questions are these: what
benefits does the state expect to receive from the marriage contract, and is the
gender of applicants germane?
@2 bits, re: the added stress of being a child with gay parentsIt
isn't the parents' sexual orientation that stresses the child.
It's society's reaction to it. WE are the ones causing the child
stress, not his/her parents.
You or your religion can define marriage all you want. Our constitution, the
document you hypocrites keep nitpicking what you like about it, Says, that ALL
men are created equal. Gays, minorities and even white people. We are endowed by
our creator with certain inaliable rights, among them, life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. Who are you, or your religious beliefs, to deny someone of
their rights? First you did it to womwn, then minorities, and now gay people.
Take your bigotry and leave! If you want a government based upon a holy book,,
Move to Iran. This country is NOT a christian nation, and we Should seperate
church and state. You can believe what ever you want,, but so can we. DONT TREAD
Thanks to Mike Richards for taking the time to defend Christian morality as
described in the Bible and modern scriptures. I have yet to find a
scripture showing God's tolerance for and charity towards unrepentant
adultery, fornication and 'anything like unto it.'