Is there an ethical issue created when the state gets outside, private funding
to support this appeal?
I said it before and I'll say it again, this is a complete waste of the
taxpayers money. Glad that this is not my bill to pay.
@Gibster, in Utah they won't raise taxes to pay for these misadventures.
It is the teachers and school kids who bear the burden of the costs.
@HutteriteEven though I am an advocate for Marriage Equality, I
think this issue deserves to be debated in a competent and dignified way in the
courts. I would be very concerned about the Institute's demand for "the
right counsel and the right strategy." I think there is a strong possibility
that somebody will simply use the notoriety of this case for their own purposes.
I'm fine with the tax money being spent. As far as I'm concerned
it's charitable giving to the other 32 states without same-sex marriage
when we get it to the Supreme Court if it gets made legal nationwide.
If you are opposed to gay marriage, then don't marry someone your own
gender. Problem solved. Otherwise, mind your own business, please. Keep
government as small as possible by keeping it out of private adult lives.
If our legislature is so bent on wasting millions of our dollars, couldn't
they at least "waste" it on our schools or our parks or meals-on-wheels
for elderly shut-ins?How much dental care for the children of
low-income families could these millions provide?Infuriating.
As an outside observer, I wonder if the AG of Utah is really representing the
Utah interest.California didn't defend Prop. 8. Not because of
caprice but because :1.-it was undefendable from a constitutional
perspective and2.- The understanding of the people had increased and
changed their position.My apologies, I don't recall the name of
the poster here. But somebody reported yesterday that Utah was declaring 48% pro
and 48% against Same Sex Marriage. It seems that Utah is evolving faster than
California.As an LDS myself, many times in my life (almost everyday)
I have to examine and re-examine my life, ideas, perspective in social and
personal issues. I think this is a great skill that the LDS church is able to
transmit to its members.I love the LDS Church and wish the best to
the Saints in Utah and the world. I hope the Utah AG office doesn't just
have a knee jerk reaction, but a well thought out action, whatever that may
be.I don't mind to be in opposite sides in the flow of ideas as
long as both sides are able to present themselves with dignity, respect and
intelligence.Peace to all.
When Rights Are Wrong A wise man said : "At this point
Christians have to think very carefully. We do not want to deny anyone his or
her civil rights. To do so would not only violate the Constitution but also deny
the rights that are granted, not by the government, but by the Creator. But is
same-sex marriage such a right? The answer to that question must be no.Discrimination on the basis of an unchangeable characteristic such as skin
color would be wrong. But Christians cannot accept the argument that
homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. While recognizing the complexity
of issues related to sexual orientation, we cannot define a behavior as an
intrinsic characteristic. On that basis, why not grant theft or other sinful
behavior the same civil rights protection?Those pushing for the
legalization of same-sex marriage have been tremendously successful in
convincing many people—and several courts—of their argument that
same-sex marriage is a civil right. But this is a confusion of categories that
Christians cannot accept".You cannot legislate immorality any
more than you can legislate morality.
"We would be willing to foot the entire bill if we had the right counsel and
the right strategy," Mero said. "At this point, I can tell you the
Sutherland Institute is involved in conversations about the right counsel and
the right strategy."OK, this hired counsel is supposed to be
representing the citizens of Utah, right? But if Sutherland funds the counsel
in full or in part how can said counsel be said to represent the people of Utah.
In fact it would be representing Sutherland. This is another example of the
requisite lines in Utah being extremely and disturbingly fuzzy, like mixing
church and state. Moreover, bully Mero acts like he can run rough shod over any
of the citizenry who don't like the Sutherland focus.
This case is lost ,glbt are the winners,so sorry.
I'd love the State of Utah to lose this case, but I only want them to lose
after putting the best possible case forward. That's the only way to
demonstrate that there really is no good case in law for prohibiting same-sex
couples from applying for the same civil marriage benefits as
"traditional" couples.I hope the firm they hire is brilliant
and creative and has the resources to pull together enough expert testimony to
support whatever case they present, so everyone can see them lose fair and
square.The same sex couples who are going to get married are most
likely already living together as committed life partners, perhaps in your very
neighborhood. In every boring way, they're like any of your other married
neighbors. If you could only avoid obsessing over other people's sex lives
(is that possibly covered under "not covet thy neighbor's wife?"),
this would be a non-issue.
It is interesting that so many folks that live out of state are so concerned
about the expenditure of Utah tax dollars.It is also strange that
folks say it will be a waste of money to fight this issue. Then they complain
when some one wants to supply funding.I believe this is an issue
that we should fight in the courts. Heaven knows state monies have been spent in
many more wasteful ways than this.
The court should recognize that same-sex marriage is a biological issue. The
purpose for sex is reproduction: 1) to unite the sperm and egg; and 2) to help
the zygote to develop into a mature adult individual. In the human species
permanent heterosexual pair bonds have evolved because it takes a long time to
train human children into mature, responsible, productive adults. Humans who
grow up in a home where there is a strong heterosexual pair bond are more likely
to mature into well-adjusted adults than if the heterosexual pair bond is
damaged, corrupted or missing. In the past this heterosexual pair-bonding has
been called marriage. Changing the definition of marriage will not change the
biological reality of the need for strong, heterosexual pair bonds if we want
well-adjusted children and a strong, healthy society. (continued)
Ultimate evil/destruction, is created in steps as people become desensitized.Evidence of this can be found in today's world, and through out
history.I would recommend intense independent research.
JSB.....There are retirees who have come to Southern Utah from
states all across the USA. A good number of them, for one reason or another,
chose not to have children. These are well educated, well traveled, good people,
and good citizens. Here in St. George you could find many to converse with
concerning your post.Many of these are gay couples who have been together
for many years. They are just as committed as your "Strong Heterosexual
pair". These couples have good educations, good jobs, and our good people
and good neighbors and good citizens. Some have children, some do not. Their
children are successful and well adjusted, just as the children are that you are
discussing.Do you have any gay friends? Do you have any childless friends?
Have you ever spent any time with them and their families?You sound like
you may only have information from a book, not real life experience with your
fellow men and women.
Any dollars spent on defense of this should be re-allocated from the
Governor's economic-development budget. After establishing ourselves as the
anti-equality state, we can wave goodbye to companies considering locating in
@Meckofahess "we cannot define a behavior as an intrinsic
characteristic."With respect, I don't believe anyone is
arguing that.Behavior and orientation are distinct. Gay people,
like all people, make choices about their lives and who they spend their lives
with.What they don't get to choose is their basic orientation.
Questions1.If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and
pulls hischild out of school, and because of it is ridiculed and/or
jailed, is heharmed?2.If a self-employed business owner with strong
religious convictionsrefuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he
is sued and goesbankrupt, is he harmed? 3.If a Catholic orphanage is
forced to shut down because it is against itsreligious moral code to turn
children over to homosexual couples, is someonehurt?4.If a public
school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality onFacebook on his
own time, away from work, in his own home, on his owncomputer, and is
fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?5.If a group of
pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worshipservice of a
Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, isthe
congregation harmed?6.If Christians are forced into silence because of
fear of legal, social,and financial retribution, are they harmed?7.When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality arelabeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate
mongers," "right wingfanatics," "preachers of hatred,"
"intolerant," are they harmed?
Dear Mr. Reyes;How much money is Utah going to spend defending the
14th Amendment's Constitutional Rights of LGBT citizens to equal
protection?$0.00? So much for "equal protection".
@Meckofahess: Without getting into another circular argument with an anti-equal
rights proponent, you could not be more off base or flat out wrong in your
exertions and time will prove this, you'll see.
Utah has a long history of wasting money on preserving the right to force their
moral beliefs on others. I am glad it is not my money they are wasting. Just
imagine what 2 million dollars could do for the schools or parks.
The state's annual budget is in the billions. This is a big issue with
long-term implications for both social issues and with regards to state vs
federal authority. It is money well spent. It is also Utah money, not CA or WA
or AZ etc.
Why doesn't the state either join with Oklahoma or just let them carry the
ball forward? It seems that a non mormon state would have a better chance of
getting a fair shot with the supreme court.
@JSBYour comments are the basis of this entire discussion. The
definition of marriage, one man and one woman, is biological and should be
recognized on biological design (anatomical function, sperm, ovum, behavior,
etc). Heterosexuality and homosexuality are not biologically equal and,
therefore, do not merit the same definition (i.e. "marriage") under the
law. However, this basic foundational fact is always obscured by misdirecting
the issue to the misnomers of "human rights",
"bigotry","hate", "religion" and the ever present
"wrong side of history." Biology has no interest in these labels.
Unfortunately, biology is obviously not required study at law schools.
Wealth transfer to downtown firm. Mavbe the church would spend another 30
million like they did in California.
The institution of marriage will be further eroded by diluting its meaning and
redefining it. That means that the state of Utah could be building more prisons
to incarcerate the offenders who will be growing up in broken homes.I applaud the state of Utah. This is money well-spent. An ounce of prevention
is worth a pound of cure.
The fact that Utah's Attorney General in supposedly representing the people
of Utah will spend millions of dollars trying to deny certain of its citizens
their constitutional rights is deplorable. The government and law enforcement
agencies of Utah represent all of the people, even the non Mormon ones. Am I the
only person whe sees an abrogation of the tenets of separation of church and
@GailFitches: Perhaps you're confused. Schools don't teach
"pro-homosexuality." At most, they teach tolerance to all children, and
then only at an age-appropriate level. For example, a grade-school might want
to teach that while some girls act more like boys and some boys act more like
girls, most will grow out of it on their own, everyone has their good points,
and it's very, very bad to be mean to anybody or call them names or hit
them. And if it's a religious school, you might want to add that God tells
us to be nice to everyone.As for all your other points, homophobic
speech is protected speech. Homophobic action should not be. Everyone should
be able to sit at the lunch counter. Criticism of homophobic speech
and the people who make it, is also protected speech. If you're going to
speak ill of others, you'd better have at least as thick a skin as them.And, being an equality-minded Christian, I boycott homophobic
businesses.By the way, your message says nothing about civil
marriage.Suggested reading: Romans 14
Whether you are for or against this issue, this should be an area of grave
concern. We are a government "of the people, by the people, for the
people". The conservative columnist, Charles Krauthammer, has stated that
the country appears to be moving toward acceptance of gay marriage. However,
that is the decision of the people and not of the executive branch of the
government nor one judge who serves in the judicial branch. On this issue,
Justice Anthony Kennedy appears to be the "swing vote" for common sense.
However, he appeared to "duck" a similar issue in California when the
Supreme Court refused to act sending the issue back to the lower appeals court
without comment which upheld the overthrow of a similar referendum. Without a
doubt, the appeals court has to rule and the interference by Eric Holder was, to
say the least, on the rude side.
@Linguist: "What they don't get to choose is their basic
orientation."Many disagree. The SSA activists want to crystalize
their concept that people are born heterosexual or homosexual. So far, this
cannot be demonstrated biologically (although there are some correllating gene
combinations worth study). I have observed that humans are born with
a total versatility in this area. Nearly everyone is exposed to influences that
lead in either direction. We make choices that lead to actions. If the actions
are repeated often enough, they form emotional and physical habits. One day,
they realize that their habits have carried them into a certain direction.Many different choices and actions make up the habits that lead us to
discover a sexual orientation. It is both simplistic and dangerous to assume
that it was an inborn thing, and that the habits are at that point beyond our
Will and Ariel Durrant said: “…sex is a river of fire that must be
banked and cooled by a hundred restraints if it is not to consume in chaos both
the individual and the group." If same sex marriage is legalized, what will
happen when these restraints are no longer banked and cooled but are legalized
instead? Since there are no long term (multigenerational) studies that show the
effects of gay marriage on a human society, before we move in that direction we
should try to anticipate what will likely happen. "Families" with
multiple partners (e.g. 3 men and 2 women or polyamory) are anxiously looking
forward to legalization of gay marriage because it will open the door to
legalization of their relationships. There are several hundred thousands of
these "families" in the US today. And we could also see 3 or more gay
men or 3 or more lesbian women wanting legalization of their "families."
After all, they claim to love each other. This of course will lead to even more
venereal disease, divorce, child abuse and neglect, poverty, crime and social
chaos—just what the Durrants warned us about.
Churches do not govern states, state governments do. State governments are
supposed to separate church and state. Equal rights is a civil issue, not a
religious one. To those who believe sexual orientation is a choice, I suggest
that you search deeply within your souls to discover whom you are. Do not let
others force their opinions on you. I was born gay and how do I know? I
remember when I was born and I have not changed. I was brought up by
heterosexual parents as a heterosexual which did not work for me. I followed
the teachings, "Know thyself" and "Be true to thine self".I translate that to "Know who you are and be that person". I
have been with my lifetime partner for 52 years, married 10 years, we are both
retired, and I am also a Navy Vet.We live a wonderful life and have many
friends, gay and straight. We worked, paid/still pay our taxes, and follow the
civil rules, and God bless the United States of America.
@Tekakaromatagi: That's some pretty bigoted statement about kids from
broken homes.In the last 90 years alone, we've had four U.S.
Presidents who were from broken homes: Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Bill
Clinton, and Barack Obama. Two Republicans and two Democrats. Death or divorce
of parents, growing up with one parent or none, is no bar to great achievement
in life. It's just another impediment to be overcome, and an intelligent
society willing to invest in its citizens' welfare and education can lessen
@gmlewisI'm curious about your observation that fundamental sexual
orientation can be chosen or is fluid and that there is "total versatility
in this area."I'm a Mormon, great family, six straight siblings,
never abused, never seduced by a man, never fooled around, have tried multiple
relationships with women--yet despite all of that, my fundamental orientation
has been fixed and constant toward other guys. I'm not perverted or sick or
dangerous. I am perfectly chaste, but I still recognize who I find charming,
interesting, and attractive and it's other guys. I know many other people
who have the same experience--even those who have married women. They are still
oriented toward men.The LDS church agrees SSA is not a choice. Christian
ex-gay organizations including LDS Evergreen and Christian Exodus have recently
closed and been replaced by organizations that help gay people live chastely
WITH their same-sex attraction.What choice or habit do you think we all
made to do this to ourselves? Why would you discount actual lived experiences of
real people over your observations?
@Gail FitchesThose questions were asked before, but not by you. If you
read farther you'd have seen responses to it.1. Pro-homosexuality
teaching? You mean teaching that families with two parents of the same gender
exist? Nobody's getting arrested from that unless the parent is making a
disturbance.2. It'd be the business-owners fault for violating public
law when it comes to business practice.3. Catholic Charities was not
forced to shut down, they voluntarily chose to shut down once they stopped
receiving gov't grants since gov't grants were only going to groups
that'd adopt to all couples. LDSFS still operates while not adopting to
same-sex couples.4. This isn't something that'd be a result of
same-sex marriage becoming legal.5. Also not related to marriage
(that's an AIDS activism group) and those protestors could be arrested for
trespassing or something like that if they refuse to leave.6. That's
vague.7. Are those supporting same-sex marriage harmed when they're
branded as supporters of Satan or evil?
Years ago, Colorado voters tried to deny the rights of full citizenship for its
homosexual/transsexual citizens, even going so far as to deny them the 1st
amendment right to petition their government for redress of grievances. It was
approved as a part of the Colorado constitution because the measure was
presented as not giving "special rights" to some of their citizens, and
the voters fell for that particularly silly argument. In a 6 to 3 Supreme Court
opinion the court answered in part: "If the constitutional conception of
'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very
least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot
constitute a legitimate governmental interest." Romer v Evans. I don't
think the citizens of Utah desire to harm those who have chosen SSM, but the
actions of the AG indeed do. Live and let live. Colorado has civil unions - many
understandably don't want to call it marriage. but Utah's constitution
forbids civil unions as well. Maybe if an amendment to recognize civil unions
were in place, the courts could reasonably back off, or maybe it has now gone
too far for reasonable compromise.
The attorney general's office is perfectly capable of handling the appeal
itself. They have talent there.If we do not trust that, why do we
trust them to jeopardize people's liberties with criminal charges?This is a waste of money.
@Tiago - I am not saying that SSA is a choice, but I am also saying that
it isn't scientifically proven to be inborn. There certainly could be
another governing influence that has not yet been discovered or explored.I suggest that it is possibly formed by seemingly unrelated choices and
actions as a very young child. For example, it is well known that children go
through a series of transitions regarding which is their "favorite"
parent. If something arrested that transition so that early on it stuck with a
particular parent, that could be one of the contributing emotional habits that
would enter the equation.This is certainly an untested hypothesis,
and is poorly defined. I simply give it as an example of the kinds of
complicated factors that could be involved rather than genetics.
@gmlewis - Thanks. Yes, similar to autism, direct cause is not known but it
seems to be immutable, which is the important thing to remember when deciding
what choices we think people with SSA should make.Related to other
comments, an analogy that I think is parallel, but might be weak:As a
Mormon, I disagree with the Catholic idea of priesthood and that a priest must
take a vow of celibacy. I would not become a Catholic priest.However,- I am not opposed to a school acknowledging that celibate Catholic priests
exist and teaching honestly about the good and bad things priests have done in
the world. I have no fear that this will lead my nephews to join the Catholic
priesthood. - I would support a faithful Catholic friend who decides to
join the priesthood and attend his ordination.- Once he made the vow of
celibacy, I would not try to set him up with women and get him to break the
vow.- I would serve a Catholic priest in my business and otherwise welcome
him in society.- I would oppose laws designed to limit a Catholic's
right to become priests and make vows of celibacy.
@Hutterite and @Marxist - Sutherland funding outside counsel shouldn't be
an issue in terms of ethical representation. Whichever law firm is selected,
their duty, loyalty, and confidentiality is to the State (and citizens) of Utah
and its interests, no matter who pays the bill. What will really be the
interesting issue here is how it will work between Mero speaking of "the
right counsel and the right strategy" (which would understandably be a
concern and a priority if your organization is willing to pay all legal fees)
with the fact that there may be a public bidding process which has to be
followed. I am eager to see who wins the draw, but I pity the attorneys. January
27th is an insanely short amount of time to put together a submission to the
court.This is always an intricate topic for me. I am LDS and, at one
point, I was a progressive civil rights attorney in liberal New Jersey. For
years now, one hemisphere of my brain has been arguing against the other. It
will be interesting to see how this Utah case unfolds, especially if it goes all
the way up to the Supremes.
@gmlewis;Even if homosexuality were a choice, it doesn't
matter. The 14th Amendment applies to ALL US citizens, not just heterosexual
ones.Religious preference is 100% not biological, yet it is
protected. Choice or not, that isn't the issue. Equality
under the law is the issue.
If Utah is the "anti-equality state" and companies are so reluctant to
come here, then why is the next article on the website describing a projected 8%
expansion of airport operations by Delta? So much for that little fantasy.
As has become predictable with this issue, liberal pro-homosexual marriage
advocates jumped on this article like flies on sewage... dominating the early
comments. One the first page alone, a majority of the comments came from
out-of-state, even though defending our state constitution is purely an in-state
issue.Something that is almost humorous is that those critics are
trying to make a big deal about the amount of money used to defend this. The
article stated that a worst case scenario would cost the state no more than $2M.
It also stated that private contributions would likely make the cost much lower,
if anything at all. So let's split the difference and use a $1M cost
estimate.Let's put it into context. The state budget for this
year is approximately $13 billion. So a $1 million cost would be 1/13,000 (or
1/130th of 1%) of the state annual budget. That is literally a miniscule
percentage. In fact, the rounding errors of the overall budget are higher than
that. So to make a big deal of that amount of state money is
actually silly when put into comparative context.
Tiago said "I'm a Mormon, great family, six straight siblings, never
abused, never seduced by a man, never fooled around, have tried multiple
relationships with women--yet despite all of that, my fundamental orientation
has been fixed and constant toward other guys. I'm not perverted or sick or
dangerous. I am perfectly chaste, but I still recognize who I find charming,
interesting, and attractive and it's other guys. I know many other people
who have the same experience--even those who have married. "I am
wondering if you would also share, as a gay chaste celibate man, and tell us
your position on SSM and why.I would love to hear your thoughts. Thank you.
@ Owen:I can guarantee that almost all companies considering
relocating to Utah are much more concerned about their bottom line profit
numbers than any political posturing on this issue. You and other
like-minded people need to keep 2 other facts in mind. 1) A majority of
this country still favor traditional marriage on this issue.2) Utah has
always been a conservative state with conservative values and stances on almost
all political issues. And that hasn't been much of a hindrance (and
sometimes even a benefit) when it comes to whether companies will or won't
relocate to Utah. So your contention doesn't carry much weight,
if any at all. It's just another example of pro-gay advocates trying to
push their liberal opinions as fact. And most objective and reasonable people
don't buy into such things.
@ Ranch:If equality under the law is the only issue at stake here,
then shouldn't we allow young teenagers to vote and/or to marry... since
they aren't being treated equal to older people?And if allowing
everyone the right of pursuit of happiness, then shouldn't we allow people
to marry their dogs if it would make them happy?And if everyone
needs to be treated equally by law in every circumstance, then why can't
Caucasians compete against African Americans in the Miss Black America pageant
and compete for NAACP scholarships?And why are credit card companies
allowed to charge some people higher interest rates than others, just because of
credit ratings? That's certainly not treating everyone equally.And why doesn't our government allow convicts to vote? That's
another example of government inequality in how they treat people. And why does our government allow some people to immigrate into our country
and not others... just because they're felons? That's certainly not
treating everyone equally. And yet I don't see you ever
commenting on any of the above mentioned inequalities or trying to get them
corrected. Why is that, Ranch?
@ Gail Fitches Those are excellent points and I agree with you 100%. The SSM
advocates are only concerned with their own selfish interests. They don’t
care how those points impacts people, business, and the society at large. They
will go after bakers, photographers, pastors and anyone who opposes them until
everyone will cower to their lifestyle in fear of retaliation.
@Breathe Deep:So let me get this straight (no pun intended), you say SSM
advocates are selfish because they won't conduct business with people who
oppose SSM? You do see the irony in this, right? The fact that LGBT have been
singled out and suffered from horrible discrimination for thousands of years
hasn't triggered your empathy for people being wronged, but when a few SSM
advocates decide not to purchase products from those who oppose equal rights,
then suddenly you feel bad for those being picked on? That makes
absolutely no sense.
Waist of tax payer money? You have got to be kidding me! this is about state
rights, and standing up to activist judges! There is no price to large to pay
for freedom from tyranny! I am glad that Utah is standing up for the people of
the great state. If I still lived in utah I would gladly pay more money to fight
for this important cause.
@Ernest T. Bass, Gail Fitches Wrote "If a self-employed business owner
with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals
and he is sued and goesbankrupt is he harmed? Does the
business owner not have rights? I know the anti-discrimination laws say NO. But
now who is being discriminated against?My question is why cant the
SSM couple just go somewhere else and get that service. My answer is because
they want to shove it down our throats and make us except their lifesyle. Or in
other words you WILL serve us or we will sue you, organize a boycot against you
and run you out of business.
@Objectified:"One the first page alone, a majority of the comments
came from out-of-state, even though defending our state constitution is purely
an in-state issue."If defending your state constitution is
strictly "an in-state issue", then why has the state obtained counsel
from a non-Utah law firm to continue its push for legal discrimination?"A majority of this country still favor traditional marriage on this
issue."This is patently incorrect. A simply Google inquiry will
show that the majority of Americans approve of marriage equality dating back to
the Gallup polls in 2011."If equality under the law is the only
issue at stake here, then shouldn't we allow young teenagers to vote and/or
to marry"This logical fallacy is an example of a False
Equivalency: teenagers are minors, not adults. They lack recognized legal
capacity to consent to a contract. "And if allowing everyone the
right of pursuit of happiness, then shouldn't we allow people to marry
their dogs if it would make them happy?"Sorry, but that is
another example of a False Equivalency fallacy. Dogs, animals, inanimate
objects, etc all lack recognized legal capacity to consent to a contract.
"Physician, heal thyself!"I don't quite understand
this. Why do attorneys sometimes need attorneys? (In other words, what happened
to the word "attorney" from the term "ATTORNEY general"?)In this case, is it all just because of this (from the last paragraph):
"When you're looking at a Supreme Court case, you really have to have
somebody who understands the 10th Circuit Court system but also the Supreme
Court system. It's an unusual qualification that you're looking
for"? The state's own attorney really isn't versed enough in *that
kind of stuff* to just be the state's counsel himself?Mike
@Tiago - If it isn't inborn genetically, how do we know that SSM is
immutable? It would take a miracle, but miracles do occur. I
appreciate your determination to obey the commandments in face of a lifetime of
sacrifice. I know the Lord is proud of you, and you deserve our admiration.
Those posting here are obviously not Citizens in the State of Utah or are in the
minority. The State has an obligation to fight to protect the rights of those
that voted for this, win or lose. And obviously, if you read the article it
appears that tax payers are not going to foot the bill.
@gmlewis "The SSA activists want to crystalize their concept that people are
born heterosexual or homosexual."With respect, I am gay, married
to my very longterm partner, but I have never, ever claimed that I know what
determines sexual orientation.I can, however, state categorically
that I did not choose to be gay. I was there. The whole time. I spent decades
of my life in an often desperate effort to change my sexual orientation. That
effort included heartfelt prayer and counseling. I was, just for the record,
celibate-- indeed, a "virgin", the entire time.Sexual
orientation isn't a "habit." I did not so much as hold another
man's hand until I was 30.I knew I was gay by the time I was
12.That doesn't mean its origin is genetic. It does mean that,
despite conscious effort, sexual orientation is pretty well fixed for me and, it
appears, for most people, by the time they are sexually aware. Not sure how one
could argue otherwise. Again, I was "there" the entire time. Peace.
@pleblian - I'm sure that the AG's office has great talent. They may
have been directed by the Governor to bring in outside counsel as an extra set
of eyes and hands. As it is, an additional law firm could probably work around
the clock for a good many months on research, writing, strategy, and formulating
the oral arguments. If the AG's office were to do that, no other work would
be accomplished, including criminal prosecutions. Also, on something this
important, you want experts on the procedural nuances and the routine of
appealing both for the 10th Circuit and for the U.S. Supreme Court. A lot of
attorneys that practice at the federal appellate level do so as their sole
practice area. The procedural rules and details are so specific, to screw up one
little thing can get your case thrown out. You need experts who already know it
like the back of their hands and already have the resources, rather than a very
talented attorney on your staff, who has done it once before (or a state appeal,
but not federal - or maybe this is their first), but has to look everything up.
@Linguist - Peace in return. I spoke concerning SSA activists. This is a
relatively small group.I clarified in a subsequent comment that
I'm not saying that SSA resulted from a single, conscious choice. I'm
merely suggesting that there could be other factors involved rather than
genetics. If so, then SSA may not be immutable. Of course, not knowing the
cause leaves us bereft of understanding how SSA could be modified.
@Breathe Deep wrote: "They will go after bakers..." (and in later post)
"Gail Fitches Wrote 'If a self-employed business owner with strong
religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is
sued and goes bankrupt is he harmed?'...Does the business owner not have
rights?...[N]ow who is being discriminated against?"U.S. Supreme
Court answers: "When followers of a particular sect enter into
commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own
conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the
statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity." United
States v Lee, (1982) "We have never held that an individual's
religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law
prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate." Employ. Div v
Smith(1990)As discussed on other threads, the facts of the Colorado
"baker" case are consistently misrepresented (see Tony Perkins/FRC, Doug
Robinson column) to cynically whip up anti-SSM fears. These profane
manipulations arise from and appeal to the darker aspects of our humanity, but
likely won't persuade the 10th Circuit.