The court previously observed that the state appears to be stalling. This just
confirms it.The real question is why the state is refusing to
recognize marriages which it lawfully granted....is there a more pure expression
of anti-gay animus, especially when children are being harmed by the
Utah should not have to appeal to uphold its Constitution or government for the
people etc. I used to think gays in general were wonderful people, but
it’s so sad to see what a few are selfishly doing to our Country,
Constitution, and the future of humanity. I say “selfishly” because
legally enforcing homosexuality does not benefit humanity in general (in fact
honest research indicates that it is harmful). Gays should be protected, be
free to work, vote, and so on, but the Constitution should not be trampled so
that some powerful lobbyists can force the all to promote their sexual
lifestyles, especially when that tax funded promotion involves oppressing people
who disagree with it, and those supporting traditional marriage are fired,
bullied, threatened, hated, and so on. All of this is so sad, and I worry about
The current deadline, September 22, is over a month away. Given the voluminous
briefs on this subject circulating in other courts around the country, and the
comprehensive Tables of Authority in each of them, listing every known case that
might give Schaerr a hope of winning, it's entirely disingenuous to be
demanding an extension. He's filed 50 page responses to plaintiff briefs
at the relative drop of a hat. All these arguments are queued up in his word
processor already. There's no way he needs 63 more days to print them out.
He could file tomorrow morning the exact same brief he'd file on October
22 if he wanted to.The plaintiffs are completely correct that the
State of Utah is gaming the system, drawing out their temporary stay on the
mandate as long as possible to deny them their due legal rights.
@firstamendment"All of this is so sad, and I worry about my
Country."I know, right? Pretty soon all Americans will have
the same rights you already enjoy, and you won't have a reason to feel
@firstamendment wrote: "I say “selfishly” because legally
enforcing homosexuality does not benefit humanity in general (in fact honest
research indicates that it is harmful)."'Legally enforcing
homosexuality'? That is a ridiculous word salad of a statement (and
representative of your post generally).There have been four
arguments against same-sex marriage. Tradition, religion, 'the vote of the
people', and Regnerus.Regnerus has been debunked, tradition and
religion don't hold water in a court of law, and a vote of the people does
not overrule the 14th amendment.Delaying is all that the state can
@firstamendment: "it’s so sad to see what a few are selfishly doing to
our Country, Constitution, and the future of humanity. I say
“selfishly” because legally enforcing homosexuality does not benefit
humanity in general..."I'n not a high-priced lobbyist.
I'm working two jobs to make ends meet. My partner is disabled due to a
genetic condition that is getting worse as he gets older. Legal marriage would
make our lives better as we would not have to rely on a series of patches and
fixes to make things work - we'd automatically have the same rights and
privileges as any married couple. Sorry you find that selfish. And as for you claim about "honest research," sorry. That
research has been fully discredited by researchers doing real research, not
people who start with a conclusion and work backward.
@firstamendmentHuh? The public tide for equal rights for
LGBT's started turning when opponents began voicing their opposition.
Hate, inequality and bias don't have strong appeals for decent men.
How refreshing that the majority of commenters here understand the fundamental
right to dignity and equality. These individual rights, granted by the
Constitution of the United States to all human beings, far outweigh the right of
religious people to impose their will on others just because they are the
What a mockery of marriage.
@firstamendment"Utah should not have to appeal to uphold its
Constitution or government for the people"When "government
for the people" is for only SOME of the people, then, yeah, Utah needs to
justify it's actions in the courts. Utah's amendment3,
while touted as "protecting" traditional marriage is doing no such
thing; traditional marriage does not need protecting. Amendment 3's sole
purpose is to deny dignity, stability, and equality to a select group of adults
the religious majority of the State of Utah have deemed unworthy of equal
protection under the law. Amendment 3 is about "special rights" for
It's clearly the state just dragging its collective feet some more, and
lawyers collecting billable hours. Utah and the rest might as well face the fact
that they can't defend bigotry over a civil marriage contract, and stop
wasting taxpayer money.
@worf 10:20 a.m. Aug. 20, 2014What a mockery of marriage.------------------Denying couples who married at a time when it
was legal for them to do so the right to have their marriages legally recognized
is indeed a mockery of marriage.