Let the lawsuits begin. After all, the Utah taxpayer has deep pockets for
Well, that's going to bust a bubble or two... Can't believe this board
hasn't already lit up.
It's the correct decision based on the current standing of the law, but the
law is unconstitutional and should be repealed and it is the fault of Herbert,
Reyes, and their side that equality is being denied.
It is an affront to everyone who got married.
'SALT LAKE CITY — State recognition of Utah's same-sex newlyweds
is on hold based on counsel from the Utah Attorney General's office, Gov.
Gary Herbert's chief of staff said Wednesday in a memo to the
governor's cabinet.' *'Report details inequities for
kids of gay parents' - By David Crary - AP - Published by DSNews -
10/25/11'Carrigan is among a growing multitude of American
children possibly more than 1.2 million of them being raised by gay and lesbian
parents, often WITHOUT all the LEGAL PROTECTIONS afforded to mom-and-dad
households.' *'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' -
By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09'...the couples had
prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and
power-of-attorney documents.' And yet, even with Living Will,
Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information... Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa
Pond. They were together for 18 years. Would anyone
else like to fabricate again… how spending $2 million of my
Utah tax dollars is 'not' bringing any harm to LGBT families?
This decision made by the "Governors Office" is cowardly at best and
quite frankly a purely political move to placate the Eagle Forum Right wing of
the Republican Party.Marriages were performed with legal Marriage
Certificates issued by elected officials in accordance to law. Those marriages
should be recognized under the rule of law followed if someone is arrested for
committing a crime before a change in a law but the actual arrest being made
after the law change.... that person is tried on the basis of the old law, not
the new.By the same standard, the Marriages were performed during a time
of legal standing and should/must be recognized.
That judge, with his determination to enact law and implement his own activist
agenda, has created a real mess. I can't believe he has been so
irresponsible in his actions.
I think the State of Utah is on shaky legal ground here. It was ridiculous
enough when they didn't recognize legal SS marriages from other states, but
how can it not recognize legal SS marriages from Utah itself?! This ruling
exposes the unconstitutionality and animus of Utah's laws through and
through. The State's attorneys themselves, in the first hearing before
Shelby, said Amendment 3 was not based upon animus. Ha!When Utah
recognizes all legal marriages from other states, including those it does not
itself allow (first cousin or young teenagers) and ONLY excludes legal marriages
between SS couples, we can only conclude it is based on animus.
The conservative religious right sing and dance to the Constitution all the
time... but when a Federal Judge makes a ruling they do not agree with, based
on the Constitution they are outraged.@Cats located Somewhere in Time, UT,
the mess is being created by the folks that want the Constitution to be
interpreted by them to serve their purposes. I'm guessing, and I may be
wrong, but I'm thinking you are part of the problem here.
'That judge' '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 Riiiiight.
This was only one, judge. That judge. Not the
other, 15 judges who have also made similar rulings. Just the one,
judge. What I cannot believe is people who continue to make the same
ill-informed claim, and see no issue of being so willfully ignorant.
Let the lawsuits begin. If Utah has no money to kick 1.3 million off
of food stamps, but has $ 2 million dollars to fight against marriage
equality. Then I'm sure they can explain to a judge why they re
denying legal rights and protections. Of legally wed couples in
their own state.
To "QuercusQate" look up the Edmunds Act, and read some history about
how early Utah pioneers were treated when that was passed. The gays are being
treated very well in comparison.
Marriages which were legal are now not being recognized? So if Utah changes its
marriage laws in the future, for example saying that any marriages for people
over 40 years of age won't be recognized even though they were legal at the
time, that would pass muster? No, I think Utah has overreached here. I still think it is a little ironic that Utah is such a stickler for
"traditional" marriage in light of its background and some ongong
sympathy for plural marriage that exists.
Order restored for the time being (let us pray for the other court sees
correctly). This is a win for the Family!
To "RedShirt:" My great-grandparents on both sides of my family
were impacted by the Edmunds Act. They had to move to Mexico as a result.
That's all the more reason for Utah to behave differently in the case of
For those who believe that the marriages should be valid simply because they
came into effect during a small window of time during which they were legal
(between two periods of illegality):Would you also agree that it
would be wrong for the government to confiscate weapons that are deemed illegal
if they were purchased during a time when the weapon was legal?
Hawkeye,I don't whether or not it would be legal to confiscate weapons, but
guns are not families and people. Guns are a purchase, not a contract.
This is the right thing to do regardless of where one stands on SSM.
@Hawkeye79For those who believe that the marriages should be valid
simply because they came into effect during a small window of time during which
they were legal (between two periods of illegality):Would you also
agree that it would be wrong for the government to confiscate weapons that are
deemed illegal if they were purchased during a time when the weapon was
legal?================Yes! Congress is expressly
prohibited from passing an ex post facto law.
Seriously folks,You show up to get married in your pajamas and
"running errands" clothes and you expect the state to recognize that
kind of marriage? Maybe if the gays would take marriage more seriously and get
married the right way the State would have some sympathy.
@RedShirt"To "QuercusQate" look up the Edmunds Act, and
read some history about how early Utah pioneers were treated when that was
passed. The gays are being treated very well in comparison."So....basically what you're saying is that your forefathers were treated
poorly, so therefore as long as we treat other not quite as poorly that it is an
improvement, right? Gives a whole new meaning to "equal treatment."
Congratulations, Judge Shelby. The blame for this confusion and any resulting
heartbreak or pain is squarely on your shoulders. An immediate stay should have
been granted. It has not made it all the way through the judicial process and
quite frankly at the moment we don’t know how the Supreme Court will
ultimately decide. Although I do technically not support homosexual
marriage, homosexual marriage is not the biggest issue for me in this case. I
won't personally be hurt if homosexual marriage is legal as long as it ends
there and doesn't interfere with religious freedom (it seems likely that
homosexual rights activists want to try to interfere with religious freedoms
which is why I oppose homosexual marriage unless it comes with a guarantee that
Churches won't be required to perform homosexual marriages on request). The biggest issues at stake are states rights (if it is upheld they will
be diminished) and if judges should be able to supersede the will of the people
on a constitutionally ambiguous issue. Maybe ambiguous isn't the right word
though, as it is pretty clear that the 14th amendment does not apply to
QuercusQuate,Thank you for your response. Although the comparison
isn't perfect, the matter is a question of law. Can a the effects of a
legal choice be undone with a change in the law? Alternately, can a contract
become unenforceable if laws change at a later time?A great
comparison would be to examine how the federal government treated polygamous
relationships that were established prior to the practice becoming illegal in
the mid-1800s. Were the contracts honored?
@Darrel,Thanks for your response. I assume that you are referring
to the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which applies to the
legislative branches of states and not to court decisions. I'm sure that
you would agree that the fact that it does not apply to court decisions is
particularly relevant given the judicial nature of this issue.
What unbelievably petty vindictiveness, for this governor to demean a segment of
his own citizens is this manner. I doubt the governor is aware of how this makes
the state look in the eyes of the rest of America.It matters not....
next month the 10th Appeals Court will uphold the Shelby decision, and that will
be that. Most reasonable legal firms know this, and that's why the Utah AG
is having trouble finding counsel outside the state to take on this case - law
firms know this is unattainable, they know it's a complete loss. Utah
simple needs to get over this.
No doubt they'll get their "marriages back eventually. But for now,
let's let due process of law play out in a fair and measured way rather
than invalidating in one fail swoop the desires of the majority of Utahns to
define "marriage" a certain way. States should have that right to
define it, as the Supreme Court so said. One activist judge is not the voice of
the state. Yes, Judge Shelby caused this problem and I believe he knew exactly
what he was doing and the chaos that would result. Gay marriage supporters
should go cry on his shoulder. What kind of governor- elected by the
people would do anything else? He has integrity for allowing the voice of the
people prevail at the present until this works it's was through courts and
votes in the proper manner.
BYU NATION, who are you to judge the way someone got married, what they were
wearing, etc.? Your comment truly saddens me, as I suspect that you, like me,
are a member of the LDS church. Who are we to throw stones at people for what
they wear when they get married? I support marriage equality and
think that Utah law will ultimately provide such equality. In the meantime,
however, because the SCOTUS has issued a stay pending the 10th Circuit's
review this is an acceptable move by the state. I don't like how it affects
people and I wish the state would not pursue the appeal, but given the
procedural posture of the case, it's an acceptable position. As an aside, I
am glad to see the DesNews interview Judge Cassell for these articles.
I guess the 10th Amendment does have some merit.
@dwayne When the activist judges rule with your side about 90% of the time
it's easy to not get "riled up." We did override, with super
majority the "will" of 1 man. That's what happened in the original
Marriage is not a right. Marriage according to the courts is a special class
designation with additional benefits. Each State has the power to regulate what
those benefits are and who may enter into a marriage contract with the state.
This is what the state needs to argue. Frankly, I don't know
what all those benefits are as marriage contracts differ from state to state.
Some of those benefits should be universally applied to all individuals. Pagan
describes one episode where someone close to the deceased was denied being there
at the hospital. Should that have happened? No!! If someone wants a close
friend at their deathbed, and has done due diligence filling court documents to
allow their wishes to be known who is unrelated by marriage should that be
denied? No!!! That issue should have nothing to do with marriage. It may be
time to take some benefits of marriage and more liberally apply them to
everybody. Its also time the government gets out of the marriage business.
BYU NATION:The reason people rushed to take advantage of Judge
Shelby's ruling is because they know where they live......Utah. They know
what the powers that be in Utah are like. It's sad that they had to rush
for fear of bigotry winning, which for so long it had. Bigotry is winning again,
but this time temporarily. When the loss finally comes, lets hope the powers
that be are finally humbled as they are taught to be, but rarely are.
To "QuercusQate" yes, that is my point. How many gays are being driven
out of the US or even Utah because of the recent ruling? Even if Utah's
definition of marriage is upheld, will the gays be locked up in jail or fined
large sums of money?The point is that there is a precedence of
government changing marriage laws, in violation of the constitution, and then
the government persecuted those that were affected.The gays, at most
will not have their marriage licenses recognized. Doesn't that sound much
nicer than spending 2 years doing hard labor and paying a large fine?
The central argument of defenders of "traditional" marriage (including
the state's appeal) rests on the idea of gender complementarity; an idea
undercut by very well-respected research showing that gender is dimensional
rather than categorical. If you don't know what this means you
better educate yourselves so that when the state's arguments are rejected
by the 10th circuit, you'll understand why.
Hawkeye, here's the general rule:If a marriage was legal when it was
performed, it's legal thereafter. If it was illegal when it was performed,
it can be nullified.Billy Bob, you're incorrect about it being
Judge Shelby's fault. He didn't immediately put in place a stay
because Utah's lawyers didn't ask for it. In fact, during the stay
hearing a few days later, the Judge asked the State's attorneys why they
hadn't embedded their request into their brief at the initial hearing, like
most attorneys would have done. When they hurriedly asked for a stay a few hours
after the judgment, Shelby couldn't/wouldn't grant the stay because
they used improper procedures. It was completely the fault of Utah's
AG's office. The stay might have been granted by Shelby if it had been part
of their original brief, or at least submitted with it, to be effectuated at the
time of the judgment if the judgment had gone against them.
@ BYU NATION "You show up to get married in your pajamas and
"running errands" clothes and you expect the state to recognize that
kind of marriage? Maybe if the gays would take marriage more seriously and get
married the right way the State would have some sympathy."I
don't know if to laugh or cry with this very insensitive comment.Please explain: What would be the right way for an LGBT person to marry in
Utah?While I was reading about how the couples rush to get married
in their "pajamas" and "running errands" clothes, I thought on
how badly these individuals wanted to get married and the humiliation of the
whole situation. They knew that the governor of Utah wouldn't care for
people but for religious principles, and they knew the window of opportunity
would be short.They value marriage so much that they rush in
"pajamas and errand clothes" to legally seal their relationship. May be after the SCOTUS, thanks to Utah, makes SSM legal in all of the
United States we could make "pajamas and errand clothes" the official
attire for our marriage, so we never forget what we had to go through.
Hawkeye79"For those who believe that the marriages should be valid
simply because they came into effect during a small window of time during which
they were legal (between two periods of illegality):Would you also agree
that it would be wrong for the government to confiscate weapons that are deemed
illegal if they were purchased during a time when the weapon was legal?"You seem to make an argument for the other team. The government can not
confiscate weapons purchased in a window of legality, just like Utah government
can not nullify those marriages happened before stay, in a window of legality.
You example perfectly explains that governor and AG are on shaky
grounds if they pursue annulment.@Billy BobLike those
Supreme Court justices who struck down a federal law--DOMA; struck down a
Colorado referendum—amendment 2, Judge Shelby is just doing his job.And those gay marriages will stay valid, just like those CA gay
marriages happened before prop. 8. If litigation is involved, that decision will
be served as precedent.
"God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of
civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what
marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves
answerable to God.Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex
marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter
of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our
voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We
believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve
traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional
prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."-President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1999 General Conference, "Why
We Do Some of the Things We Do"Amen!
This has just become cruel. I hope these men know they will have to be
explaining their actions to their grandchildren. Grandpa...did you really do
@#UteExpatYou are aware the LDS Church is specifically against gay
The US Supreme Court ordered a stay, which many interpret to mean that a stay
should have been ordered by Shelby in the beginning. The marriage licenses
should have never been issued and ceremonies should never have been performed.
Shelby refused to issue the stay, but obviously he was wrong, as proved by the
US Supreme Court.For those who are complaining that marriages
performed between the time that Shelby issued his ruling, and the US Supreme
Court order to stay, are simply representing their agenda. Obviously, if
licenses and ceremonies were performed erroneously because of a bad decision by
Shelby, then it must be reviewed and corrected. This is what the Supreme Court
BYU NATIONSalt Lake, UTSeriously folks,You show up to
get married in your pajamas and "running errands" clothes and you expect
the state to recognize that kind of marriage? Maybe if the gays would take
marriage more seriously and get married the right way the State would have some
sympathy.12:52 p.m. Jan. 8, 2014=========== In 1930, my grandMother and grandFather got married.She worked at
the cannery bottling peaches, He worked at the local gas station.They met at the Salt Lake County building during their lunch hour and got
married by the Justice of the Peace because it was the only time M-F, 8:00 am -
5:00 pm that they could do it.She was in a kitchen clothes and peach
covered apron, he was in greasy white over-alls [still have their
"wedding" picture.]FYI -- They were later Religously
"Seealed" in the Salt Lake Temple.BTW - That is how Mormons
are doing it to this very day outside of America.Even in Countries with
Gay marriages.The Church is still true, Temples are still
sacred, and Families are still in tack.I don't see what
all the hub-bubb is all about here.
A very expected development.On another website, folks were mad at
Herbert --- my reply was:"He would never be elected dogcatcher
again if he did the right thing"and"You do not understand
that Utah is, effectively, a theocracy."Of course, no one should
be surprised. Utahns and mormons seem happy to risk more dents to their
reputation of repressiveness and conformity, as well as lack of understanding
any points of view but their own.The marriages will be valid again,
eventually, and Herbert can say he did his best.I do not think that
Jesus preached to create 2nd class citizens, nor to go around telling some
people they are sinners, while ignoring the great sins of others.
Good to see that the State of Utah is asserting it own right to define marriage
as between a man and woman.
I think this is interesting that the implication by so many that support SSM is
that they should have this as right so their feelings won't be hurt.
That's so much of what is being implied by all these references to
insensitive comments and emotions, etc. I have news. There is no
constitutional right to not get your feelings hurt. I'm not trying to be
unkind. But, if you make the decision to live a lifestyle that is unhealthy and
unnatural, you are going to get hurt. That is just a fact. The rest of society
is not required to make sure that you don't get your feelings hurt. The
definition of marriage that has been successful for thousands of years
shouldn't have to be changed to make sure that someone doesn't have
hurt feelings. I'm very sympathetic to those who struggle with
SSA and yet don't choose to try to make the rest of society change to
accommodate them. But, I have a hard time being sympathetic to those who the
rest of society has to be upended in order to accommodate their feelings.
Not to put too fine a point on this -- but our governor is evolving into the
Ross Barnett of the marriage equality movement.
Oh, the state should not have done this. I support traditional
marriage and the law. But, if the state does not recognize it's own
license, that puts all state contracts in jeopardy.Utah is going to
have a harder time defending itself.
@UTSU,Notices for the confiscation of certain once-legal weapons
went out in New York City just a couple of months ago. You should look it up.
@Chris A - Prepare to be disappointed. No court has yet held that Utah's
position is just, fair or constitutional. In fact, as well documented by Pagan,
the overwhelming tide of opinions have gone against Utah's opinion. Your
short-term "win for the family" is a process win not on the issue at
hand. The impending over-turn of Utah's arcane law will not end
bigotry but it will provide legal refuge to a community that deserves it.
@BYU NATION"Maybe if the gays would take marriage more seriously and
get married the right way the State would have some sympathy."Any same-sex couples who took more time to plan out a wedding would be blocked
from having it now that your side got it's way with the stay. Any sympathy
Look at all the name calling and bullying the proponents of Same Sex Marriage
are engaging in here. Notice the constant reference to those who
are already married (Worked in CA!) The agenda is so transparent.
The proponents are truly everything some posters have painted them
to be!Sad.To the courts I would say...Straighten this
out and now!
The repeal of marriages already performed is monstrous. The situation is
Good Job Utah! It is good to stand up for the things you believe in.
Peggy Tomsic said it right "has discounted the lives of thousands of Utah
citizens who live, work and raise their families in Utah and pay Utah and
federal taxes, like all other Utah citizens." She is so right that is what
Judge Shelby did when he invalidated the votes of two thirds of Utah voters by
saying that the definition of marriage must be changed.
QuercusQate: Edmund Act dealt the same law as the DOMA. They both defined
marriage as between one man and one woman. When Justice Kennedy asked under
what condition was same-sex marriage disallowed all one had to do was bring up
the Edmund Act. Therefore, this Supreme Court has contradicted itself in all
that it has done. To right that contradiction they must rule in favor of
Utah's State law. Failure to do so destroys the definition of the Edmund
Act.Also, all laws are based on what is good for society. No one
has yet to convince me that the laws as enforced in the majority of the states
are bad for society. In fact, it shows the stupidity of the left and those who
feel liberal actions justify whatever means available.Our Heavenly
Father defined marriage as only between man and woman. The Supreme Court under
the Edmund Act defined marriage as only between man and woman. Therefore, the
law of the land should state that marriage is defined as only between man and
@greenbird38Yes, I am aware the LDS Church is specifically against
gay marriage. I fully understand the law of chastity, believe in it and live by
it. I also don't believe I, a sinner, have any place to judge another.My ancestors were run out of Missouri and Illinois because their beliefs
were not considered mainstream. Their leader, a guy named Joseph Smith, declared
at that time that a central tenet of our faith is a claim to "the privilege
of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience,"
and that we would "allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how,
where, or what they may." I don't see any problem with
believing and living the law of chastity while also allowing those who disagree
with my beliefs the opportunity to have the same protections under the law.
Perhaps someday the pendulum will once again swing against us Mormons. Which
side of the legal precedent would we want to be on then?
Utah is under absolutely no obligation to throw out its Constitution and sweetly
curtsy to the whims of a Federal Judge without an appeal. In Utah, same-sex
marriage is unconstitutional. This whole mess with people getting married in
the interim is Shelby's problem. Ignore it and let the judicial process
work itself out. What's a few months to wait for those who
were "married" in the interim? After all, they've already waited
a quarter of a billion years already. It is not like any of them will be
conceiving their pseudospouse's baby in the next few months.So
take heart and don't worry out there. Utah will one day be forced to give
you your piece of paper against its will. I hope that your legal status, tax
considerations, estate planning, powers of attorney, and other legal
constructions will one day bring you all the joy you ever dreamt of. Just wait
till those babies come--the product of your love.
Definition of Family is a FAther, Mother and Children. While gay marriage do
not support that, therefore it should not be allowed. It has never been allowed
by God from the beginning and he never will.
marxist:"Monstrous", "Explosive"? Get real.
Dear UteExpat:I've got news. The pendulum has already swung
against Mormons. The same-sex marriage movement is a perfect example. It is
becoming harder and harder for those who try to follow the commandments of God
and support the family. You know the scriptural saying that evil will be
thought good and good will be thought evil? That is what's happening. If
you believe and stand up for the traditional family you are portrayed as cruel,
insensitive, bigoted and hateful. Those are the terms that are used to shame
good people and try to get them to shut up. This is persecution and it is
increasing every day.
@catsCalling evil good like hiding behind religion to justify
I love how your governor and AG seem to make up the law and it's
enforcement as they go along. Talk about amateur hour...
It was a pre-trial motion, not typically binding, and beyond what the judge in
California did. For there not to have been an immediate stay was the fault ot
another judge, which has caused a lot of confusion. Anyone on either side of the
SSM issue needs to understand that the judge tried to undermine legal
Constitutional authority to the States. This is huge. He should (at the least)
"For the loser now will be later to win...For the times they are
a-changin’. "Bob Dylan1963
Re: "What do you think he [Shelby] should have done? Declare that a law that
he believes is unconstitutional to be constitutional?Simply put,
yes.It was his duty to follow the law, not to impose his unsupported
beliefs on us. Not to try and guess what he could get away with. Not to attempt
to figure our how he could make a name for himself by being the first liberal
activist in Utah to rule contrary to binding precedent.In other
words, Shelby violated his oath and his ethics. He demonstrated -- yet again --
why doctrinaire, agenda-driven liberals should be excluded from consideration
for positions of public trust.You just can't trust 'em to
do their duty. Their fealty is not to the rule of law, but to the rule of
"I'm very sympathetic to those who struggle with SSA and yet don't
choose to try to make the rest of society change to accommodate them."Exactly who is being asked to change to accommodate their LGBT
neighbors, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, sons, daughters, etc.? The only
thing we are asking you to change is the idea that people can vote away the
rights of a minority through a popular vote. I don't think that's very
When did an alternative lifestyle become the norm or equate as equal to 1 man
and 1 woman? While I am so sorry for those who struggle with same sex
attraction, I am also sorry for those who struggle with other moral issues as
well. This doesn't mean that I am a bigot, or prejudiced because I do not
agree with SSM. On the contrary, I believe that those who want unions between
same sex couples should be allowed a union to go with an alternative lifestyle
that they have chosen. Don't force those who are religious to call this
"marriage". Marriage has typically been reserved for thousands of years
as a religious binding ceremony to unite men and women in marriage before God.
SSM should be called civil unions, same sex unions, civil partnerships etc. What
will those who are "married" in the sight of the law do now? What did
they do before the law was passed? The world will keep on turning one way or
This is the kind of mess that can be created when the federal judiciary feels it
can violate the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution at will. States are
sovereign over the national government and the laws we pass are our laws, not
Washington, DC's. They cannot come here and tell us what we can and cannot
do. The constitutionality of Amendment 3 of our State law was very carefully
considered in passing that law. Because some activist judge, with an agenda,
from somewhere else disagrees with it does not nullify our law. We must stand
our ground and not allow ourselves to be pushed around. I laud the Governor and
the new Attorney General for speaking up! 32 States have laws prohibiting
homosexual marriages. That's nearly 2/3 of our country. And there is a good
reason for that.
CatsSomewhere in Time, UT"I'm very sympathetic to those who
struggle with SSA and yet don't choose to try to make the rest of society
change to accommodate them. But, I have a hard time being sympathetic to those
who the rest of society has to be upended in order to accommodate their
feelings."--- EXACTLY LIKE: "Why did that uppity girl, Rosa,
make such a fuss? I wish she would be like the kind of Negroes I know, who keep
to their place"CatsSomewhere in Time, UT"Dear
UteExpat:If you believe and stand up for the traditional family you are
portrayed as cruel, insensitive, bigoted and hateful. Those are the terms that
are used to shame good people and try to get them to shut up. This is
persecution and it is increasing every day."A-- The shoe seems
to fit quite well, so I suggest you wear it with a smileB--
"Persecution", as described, is a twisted word to describe obstructing
the rights of others and feeling that one is too good to be criticized.-- "Somewhere in Time" obviously refers to the early 20th Century
I'm LDS, conservative, Temple married 25yrs, life long Republican, and I
support marriage equality.I strongly recommend prayerful study of
D&C134:"4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and
that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless
their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties
of others;...9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious
influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and
another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its
members, as citizens, denied".It is way past time for our fellow
citizens to be freed from the mingling of religious influence with civil
government that has long deprived them of their individual rights to equality
before the law!It is long overdue for us to join with our fellow
Americans in supporting their emancipation from discriminatory populist rhetoric
and unconstitutional Amendments such as 3!It is high time we
followed our true Master, who dined with the "unrighteous" and rendered
unto Ceasar what was his, and to God His own, but loved all equally.
@dn moderatorsSo please explain why it is alright for redshirt to
refer people to study the history of LDS persecution but it is not alright for
me to refer him to study the history of persecution of the Lgbt community? Given
the very offensive tone of the comments being allowed to day I cannot see were
some less then pretty historical facts would be refused.Let me try
one more time@redshirtin the past 100 years the LGBT community
has been subjected to forced shock therapy, forced lobotomies, forced
castration, incarceration and forced hospitalization among the nicer and at the
time legal things in the United States in addition we are still subject to
incarceration and even execution in some parts of the world. We were rounded up
by the thousands and killed by the Germans.
Captain Green said "32 States have laws prohibiting homosexual marriages.
That's nearly 2/3 of our country."You missed one; Utah.Actually, 39 states have laws prohibiting same-sex marriages (six of the
states are not enforcing the law due to court decisions.) That is nearly 4/5 of
"It is a blow not only to these married couples, but to all of the children
and adults who love them and depend on them," he said.Let us put
aside the biological and moral components, and ask what else could it be ?My suggestion: Love is being quoted too often, as to be the common
denominator for all.Trying to asign the meaning of love to very
different applications would help to remove some confusion. There is love for
brotherly and sisterly relations, which is charity, the pure love of Christ.
Then there is love for our children and them for their parents, which is a
different type of love, since it involves secure feelings of a home and a strong
sense of belonging to each other. Then there is the love between husband and
wife, which is none of the above, since it is generated by tender feelings
beween a man and a woman, longing for future bond and very tight to be lasting,
and nobody else would be allowed to come in between. Then there is love for
things of nature, talents and the list goes on.Could that be the
disagreeing point ?
The reality is that the judge of the federal court over reached his bounds and
logical limitations. The reality is that it wasn't Utah that made it legal
in the first place... The reality is that a lot of refunds should be issued from
the pockets of that ludicrous judge. The reality is that a lot of people
misinterpreted what the supreme court said in regards to California and prop
8... But, in the land of insanity, you can't expect sanity to reign
supreme. The reality is there are going to be a lot of people who take exception
to what I have said here, and that is their right... It is not a constitutional
requirement to act with intelligence. In fact, the right to remain dumbed down
is well protected and honored.
This is not a letter for or against, this is a letter stating that I find it
kind of funny that the very same people who just used the system to get what
they wanted are cussing the system for doing what they knew it would do. It is
disengenuous for the holders of these marriage license to seem so damaged in
such a short time. Don't act like you didn't know that the state
I am appreciative of the chance the SCOTUS has to more adequately explain what
they meant when they made a ruling in regards to California and Prop 8. It is
obvious that a whole wing of the citizenry misinterpreted what they were in fact
saying. This misunderstanding was further compounded when they made a ruling in
regards to DOMA. They can make right their wrongs if they can somehow find a way
to more thoroughly explain themselves. The state has a fighting chance to win if
they can come with a more fluid way to explain its law than reproductive blah
blah blah. It was obviously a very flawed argument in the first place on the
basis of how many naturally infertile couples there are. On the basis of how
many couples choose as a matter of choice not to have children. What it comes
down to is that the LGBT community can have the heart of what most are truly
seeking by recognizing spouse like benefits with the person of their choosing.
The time is now to be completely honest with what is being sought and protected.
To the best of my memory Governor Herbert ordered the county clerks to issue the
marriage licenses. He invoked the good faith and goodwill on the State of Utah
to FOLLOW the law. Wha happened? Religion MUST be removed from politics. They
just wind up messing everything up and then they use the name of God and blame
Utah has a right and responsibility to defend the vote - whatever the cost.
I'm curious how the state's policy will work in practice. Will the
tax commission audit joint tax returns to see if filers are "legally"
married? Will they target filers with apparent same sex names? Utah is
notorius for unusual names. I know of men named Kay, Sheryl, Carrol, and
Lavern. Is LaDelbert a man or a woman? How about Breckyn? Will they audit the
return, say, of Madison Lee and Jordan Pat Smith? Taking names from another
tragic story in the news recently, would anyone unfamiliar with Thai culture
know whether Hser and Esar were male or female? Will they add a gender checkbox
on the TC-40?Utah law allows first cousins to marry, but only above
a certain age to guarantee they are nonreproductive. Has the tax commission
ever audited joint returns of first cousins to see if they met the age
requirement and were legally married? Many other states do not have the age
restriction for first cousin marriage. Does the state recognize these marriages
as valid? If the state audits joint returns to see if filers are same-sex but
does not audit first cousin returns for age, is there a potential equal
Kind of interesting that people who wrap themselves in the Constitution forget
the prohibition of ex post facto laws by the constitution. In other words
it's unconstitutional to take away something like a right a person has
enjoyed because a new law was passed prohibiting that right. Same sex marriage
was denied Utahans because of Amendment 3 (interesting that it's the only
Amendment that takes away rights instead of granting them) but then it was
overturned by the court for 17 days where over 900 couples were able to enjoy
and participate in their new right. The stay by the Supreme Court effectively
takes away that right for future couples but for the couples that already have
been given the right, even if for only 17 days, they should be able to retain
their right to be married. That's because all citizens have a
constitutional right to be protected from ex post facto laws.
RE: IMLDS 2. The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience is a
manifesto issued by Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical. (Christians united by
the belief in the Tri-une God).Marriage, The man said, “This
is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for
she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and
mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis
2:23-24.However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves
himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33 In Scripture,
the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is
the. crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life
and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the
great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first
institution of human society. The Christian tradition refers to
marriage as “holy matrimony” because it is an institution ordained
by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of
To "I M LDS 2" it is nice that you support what you see as marriage
equality. That is also a nice scripture from the D&C. However, you are
wrong. Modern prophets have also stated documents stating that LDS Church
members should support laws that define marriage as between a man and a
woman.The official church statement, titled "Church Statement on
Definition of Marriage", states that "we encourage all people of
goodwill to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to
consider carefully the far‐ranging impact for religious freedom if
marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good
to support laws that uphold the time‐honoured definition of marriage."
It sure sounds like they want political leaders to retain the definition that
marriage is between a man and woman only.You should also read
"The Divine Institution of Marriage" on the LDSNewsroom. They not only
explain why they supported California's Proposition 8, but also explain why
gay marriage and why just living together is a bad idea for society.
If we called "marriage" between the same sexes a different name such as
Happy Union, Forever united, or whatever, it should help both sides. The term
marriage is between a man and a woman so the description is already in place. I
don't think many have a problem with people of the same sex receiving the
same benefits as the others. If same sex people unite legally with some kind of
ceremony - judge or whatever, but the union is called something different they
could still be entitled to the same benefits.
Many who oppose marriage equality raise The Proclamation on the Family to
support their position.But the Proclamation does not unambiguously
support opposition.First, "the Proclamation on the Family"
is not canonized scripture. The Doctrine & Covenants 134:9 IS scripture.
Scripture trumps everything else. Church leaders have said so.This
quote does not contradict marriage equality:"Further, we warn
that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities,
and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets".There is NO evidence that marriage equality contributes to, causes, or
in any way brings about one iota of "disintegration of the family". In
fact, it creates INTEGRITY in the newly formed families of same sex couples!When the Church Leaders say, "We call upon responsible citizens and
officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain
and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." - I run with
that call to support marriage equality, which explicitly strengthens ALL
families (the Brethren do not single out on "traditional" families) as
the fundamental unit of society!I strongly believe history and
Heavenly Father will vindicate my interpretation, which I feel has been
confirmed by the Spirit.
Legally this is the appropriate action for the state in this situation. The
person who everyone should be mad at is Judge Shelby. He should have issued an
automatic stay. The state is doing the right thing by defending the voice of the
people. End of story.
To "I M LDS 2" you are wrong. If you go to your Gospel Principels book,
chapter 10, it states "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
accepts four books as scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and
Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These books are called the standard
works of the Church. The inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted
as scripture....In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words
of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through
conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local
priesthood leaders."The Family Proclamation should be considered
scripture.You said that if the Prophet said to support marriage
equality, you would run to do so. Well, the Prophet has said that we should
support laws that support traditional marriage of a man and a woman. The
"Church Statement on Definition of Marriage" the church leadership said
that "We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support
laws that uphold the time-honoured definition of marriage." Why do you not
support Utah's ammendment that upholds the time-honored definition of
The stance of the governor is the only logical one. Shelby should have stayed
his ruling from the beginning. The fact that people are now trying to make the
advocates of order and consistency in law out to be the bad guys just shows how
crazy this all is.We should not bow to Shelby's ignoring long
precedents that controversial rulings that will be appealed will be stayed.I just hope voters remember come November that the Democrat party of
Utah cares not at all for what they think. Don't let individual candidates
claim they are not for same-sex marriage. Participating in an organization that
has such an activist pro-same-sex marriage person at the head makes untenable
the claim of any particular Democrat candidate to not support it.I
know my ideas would kill the Democratic Party in Utah. But they seem to want to
kill themselves. All their claims of trying to reach out to the majority of
Utah's population have been thrown out the window by their actions over the
@John Pack Lambert of Michigan;Shelby could not issue a stay
immediately because Utah's AG did NOT request one. It isn't his
responsibility to do the state's job for them.
Gays are free to love and be, this is not about that, I have gay family members
and know that activists are seeking to destroy the First Amendment and take away
the rights of religious persons to be involved. Those Utahns and Americans who
have open eyes realize that powerful activists are currently taking away the
rights of Americans to vote, have a say on laws, speak out on moral issues, and
so on. This is about America's Constitution, and the Family is the backbone
of Civilization. I do hope people will be stirred to action and I want to know
how I might become involved, I can't stand idly by while this happens.