Quantcast
Utah

Utah argues for more time to file appeal in gay marriage recognition case

Comments

Return To Article
  • mufasta American Fork, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 1:42 p.m.

    Good Luck on getting the extension.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    Why more time? they have a new found argument? I highly doubt about it.

    More likely than not, they would just repack same old arguments that have been again and again rejected in different courts.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 2:43 p.m.

    I've yet to hear a valid claim as to why it's legal to discriminate. Everyone deserves the same legal rights.

  • mufasta American Fork, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 3:09 p.m.

    The Supreme Court obviously saw some merit in Utah's appeal just as they did in Virginia's appeal. If Utah were asking for a long extension, I could understand your concern. They are, however, asking for a month to complete the drafting of a complex appeal. It makes sense to have the Supreme Court vet the issue thoroughly so there are no more issues surrounding the laws legality. They are uniquely qualified (by the Constitution) to be the ultimate determinant of the laws merit.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    This is just getting pathetic. Let it go, Utah. Freedom won.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    @mufasta 3:09 p.m. Aug. 20, 2014

    They've already had over three months to draft a brief for which the research has long been done. The brief and motion should have been filed well over a month ago. Enough is enough.

  • Hugh1 Denver, CO
    Aug. 20, 2014 3:52 p.m.

    Is this what's happening behind the scenes? I am requesting a delay because I cannot come up with a good reason to deny gay Utahans equal marriage rights. I have tried morality, public health, child welfare, majority vote, states' rights, economics, and freedom of religion and nothing seems to work. I even hired a new Attorney General and outside council. I need a new reason, a more complex reason, one that obscures the real reason that I don't want gay marriage - because I just don't like gay marriage and neither do the voters in Utah. Dear U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball, I am asking the court for a temporary delay to help me find a better reason for a permanent delay - as in never. Please?

  • Mark l SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 3:56 p.m.

    Every one discriminates, all the time. I discriminate when I choose to patronize one establishment over another. I also discriminated when I chose a wife. Discrimination is not a bad thing. It used to be a compliment that a person had discriminating tastes. The answer is for people to be honest with each other. I will still be polite to those I don't like, but in a free society we don't have to like everybody. Religious people don't hate others that choose to live what they consider to be a sinful lifestyle.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    Utah is being "hurt" because they cannot enforce their laws?

    Their laws are being enforced right this minute! What a bunch of hooey...

    They remind me of a spoiled brat that is stomping this feet and holding his breath. "But Mommy, I'm not getting my waaaaay! I want to take my ball and go home, but those mean judges won't give me my ball back. They want me to share with others. I'm just going to make them wait as long as possible so that they can't PLAY!!!!"

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 20, 2014 4:20 p.m.

    "...attorneys haven't acknowledged the "equally true proposition" that Utah is hurt by not being able to enforce its laws."

    Wait, I'm confused. Utah is 'not able to enforce its laws'... but said decision to recognize legal in-state same-sex marriages has been stayed pending appeal.

    Because of the stay, the State of Utah has not had to do anything differently whatsoever. It's business as usual. And if Utah wins the appeal, they still won't have to make any changes. And they are saying they need the extension to avoid the 'hurt'.

    So essentially, Utah is saying that without a 30-day extension, losing the appeal is a dead certainty.

    And in that I believe them.

    I also believe that *with* the 30-day extension, the state will also lose the appeal.

    I suspect the court will grant the extension. Because they always do.

    And Utah will lose the appeal.

  • mdophoto Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    Utah's AG is filing motions anywhere he can to try to stop what appears to be inevitable when it comes to gay marriage in Utah. I realize many people in Utah are concerned, but the Constitution seems to guarantee the rights of ALL Americans certain rights. The AG is desperate to do what he can to stop this from happening, but it only seems that he is just doing the dance. It seems to me that there probably isn't anything that can be done. Why waste all of the money trying to stop something that is all but inevitable, and use it for the common good of ALL people in Utah.

  • Dekawar Riverton, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 5:22 p.m.

    This issue is about the state of Utah being able to govern itself by the consent of the governed, not about recognition of the marriages performed last year.

    If all your neighbors were to tell you that you have to live by the rules of their homes and could not have control of your own house, you would be up in arms trying to defend your right to keep your neighbors OUT of your business. The marriages which took place late last year were "authorized" when a left leaning federal judge saw an opportunity to create an issue in the state of Utah. His inappropriate actions put Utah into the position where they have to defend the right to govern themselves.

    Now here's the rub, the US Constitution declares that powers not granted explicitly therein were RESERVED to the states or to the people. Federal authority overstepped its bounds by the actions taken by the federal judge and now Utah is fighting to retain control of its own state against the rising tide of corrupt federal power grabs.

    Are happy to turn over control of your home to your neighbors? This is really the core issue here.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 5:30 p.m.

    It's shameful to see resources wasted to try to deny people rights.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 20, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    @Hugh1:
    "Is this what's happening behind the scenes? I am requesting a delay because I cannot come up with a good reason to deny gay Utahans equal marriage rights. I have tried morality, public health, child welfare, majority vote, states' rights, economics, and freedom of religion and nothing seems to work."

    Did you try 'equal protection under the law (14th Amendment)?'

    Let's see, how that might work...

    Everyone can marry provided they (1) choose one other person who is not married, (2) of legal age, (3) not closely related, and (4) of the opposite sex. Sounds like equal protection to me.

    Furthermore, if 'equal protection" applies to SS couples who wanna marry, it must also apply to others who want other marriage combinations... such as polygamy, siblings, close relatives, children, and a host of other marriage combinations that can be conjured by the human mind. Else, discrimination would have been established within our very own US courts. Not good!

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 20, 2014 5:55 p.m.

    @mdophoto:
    "I realize many people in Utah are concerned, but the Constitution seems to guarantee the rights of ALL Americans certain rights."

    I suspect you would then say all other marriages such as polygamy, siblings, close relatives, and children would fall into the realm of guaranteed rights of all Americans? No?

    "The AG is desperate to do what he can to stop this from happening, but it only seems that he is just doing the dance."

    The AG is desperate to see that the provisions of Amendment 10 to the US Constitution are honored and sustained... which say: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution... are reserved to the states or the people.' And that would include the right to define marriage since that power is not delegated to the United States by the US Constitution.

  • John Locke Ivins, , UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 7:03 p.m.

    You can install a of rule of law by judge, but it is not necessarily right. If it is consistent with God's law, (not man made or woman made philosophy), then it is right. We should all know the difference between right and wrong. That comes from the Ten Commandments, the Torah and in my own case, The Book of Mormon, dictates these laws. If they are not consistent with these, the law cannot be recognized as right. This is the case with gay marriage. Is God wrong?

    If you've studied the Talmud, Torah, Qu'ran, Bible, Book of Mormon, et al., you would know what they say, consistently, that homosexual activity, including marriage, is forbidden. No new news there, just the beliefs of a judge(s).

  • hanfrina Buffalo, NY
    Aug. 20, 2014 7:33 p.m.

    ... All this adds up to is legal stalling tactics. A waste of $$$-&-TIME!!!

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 20, 2014 7:44 p.m.

    @Dekawar wrote: "This issue is about the state of Utah being able to govern itself by the consent of the governed, not about recognition of the marriages performed last year."

    I'm pretty sure that the lawsuit, being from a family whose marriage was performed last year, is for the recognition of their marriage.

    @wrz wrote: "Furthermore, if 'equal protection" applies to SS couples who wanna marry, it must also apply to others who want other marriage combinations... such as polygamy, siblings, close relatives, children, and a host of other marriage combinations that can be conjured by the human mind. "

    Slippery slope fallacy. This outcome is only inevitable in your mind, and not in reality.

    @John Locke wrote: "If you've studied the Talmud, Torah, Qu'ran, Bible, Book of Mormon, et al., you would know what they say, consistently, that homosexual activity, including marriage, is forbidden."

    Welcome to the United States of America, where religious texts are not the law of the land. If you want to go to a place where religious texts are the law, there are daily flights.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 20, 2014 9:11 p.m.

    @Understands Math:
    "Slippery slope fallacy. This outcome is only inevitable in your mind, and not in reality."

    If marriage is extended only to SS and not to all other marriage combinations including polygamy and incest the courts will have introduced discrimination into the law.

  • Dekawar Riverton, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 10:12 p.m.

    @Understands Math
    If the Fed Judge had not overstepped his bounds by his rewriting Utah Law, those "marriages" would never have taken place and there wouldn't be a lawsuit.

    Start at the beginning if you want to find the problem.

    1) Fed Judge overturns Utah Law which was ratified by the voice of the people and supported by the State (both of the components which have reservations against the Federal usurpation of powers not granted by the US Constitution).
    2) Marriages take place under the guise of law by SS couples, contrary to Utah Law.
    3) Stay gets placed, to allow for appeal (original Fed Judge should have done this before allowing SS marriages in Utah to allow for vetting of arguments).
    4) SS couples file lawsuit for recognition
    5) Appeals process working its way through Fed courts, now all the way to US Supreme Court

    If step 1) above had not taken place, step 4 wouldn't have been an issue in Utah.

    It is ENTIRELY proper for Utah to have all the time needed to ensure Due Process works. This is America. As you noted, if you don't like it, there are daily flights.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 21, 2014 5:37 a.m.

    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.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 21, 2014 6:01 a.m.

    @Dekawar: If you were truly worried about people not being able to tell their neighbors how to live their lives, you'd be the first one in line to support removing the restriction against same-sex marriage. It is somewhat ridiculous to claim that extending liberty to your neighbors somehow diminishes yours.

    And, if you want to live in a country ruled by theological principles, it's you who needs to hop a flight. Unfortunately, you'll also need to take a new religion, as none of those countries are Mormon.

    @wrz: It seems you're the one who wants to destroy marriage. The ACLU, Lambda Legal, and all the plaintiffs are merely arguing in SUPPORT of marriage being two unrelated adults joined as next-of-kin for their lifetimes. The only issue is the freedom to choose that other unrelated adult. Just because they seek something which happens to go against one of your religious precepts, doesn't mean you need to throw your hands up in the air and completely abandon all rules, teachings, morals and laws. The rest of us sure aren't going to.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Aug. 21, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    Hey John Locke

    We don't live in (your) theocracy. As suggested elsewhere in this thread, there are plenty of places that do have theocracy in this world. Try living there and see if you like it. I have a feeling that those of you who advocate "adherence" to God's laws (whatever that is, there are so many conflicting ones) would prefer those awful secular western style democracies. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and some of those repressive African regimes offer religious orthodoxy in law, but I would not want to live there. Do you?

  • YoungPuppy west Jordan, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    @Dekawar
    I think you might have missed few steps, let me help.

    0.1)The voters of the state of Utah passed an amendment that denied people equal protection under Federal law.
    0.2)The people that were harmed by this law fought for their rights to be recognized equally.
    0.3)A Federal just rules in favor of them based on the Constitution of the Unites States. That their rights have been violated and that their Marriage should be recognized.

    1.1) The State was unprepared for the ruling and did not have an appeal ready. So the Judge could not grant something that no one had asked for.

    2.1) Marriages take place where the state enters into a binding contract with 1300 couples saying that they have legal marriage status. If they would have denied any, as Utah county tried for a few days, they would be in violation of Federal Law.

    3.1) After the stay is placed the Governor said that he would not recognize the legal contracts that were issued by the state.

    4.1)The appeal is upheld by the 10th court of appeals.

    Ok that should fill in some gaps.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    I find it funny that those who say the slippery slope theory is a fallicy when 20-30 years ago, this legislation would have been thought of as a non-issue. Beliefs change and the "slippery slope" theory is very valid.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    Mark1: "Every one discriminates, all the time...."

    Really? Of course everyone discriminates. That's the nature of making decisions. However, in the context of the SSM debate (and civil rights law in general), there is a generally unspoken understanding that the discussion is about discrimination on factors that are irrelevant to the decision being made. For example, an applicant's race is irrelevant to a landlord's decision to rent an apartment (whereas the applicant's credit worthiness is a perfectly reasonable and valid basis for the landlord's discrimination). However, since race has historically frequently been used as a criterion in housing discrimination, it becomes a matter of injustice and enters the realm of civil rights and legislative and judicial intervention. Your comment, while true in general terms, is inapplicable to this particular context and adds nothing to further the discussion.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Aug. 21, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    @Markl says: "Every one discriminates, all the time. I discriminate when I choose to patronize one establishment over another. I also discriminated when I chose a wife. Discrimination is not a bad thing."

    Yes, we make distinctions between things and choose one over another based on personal preference. Where to eat, who will be your wife. (You may have terrible taste, but no one's trying to pass laws against your right to choose for yourself.) Here, "discriminate" means "distinguish differences." Choices happen within your personal sphere.

    Amendment 3 would impose your preference on *others* based on distinctions *you* think are meaningful, and result in harm to other people. This is the concept of legal discrimination-- outside your personal sphere. Different concept.

    You can dislike gay couples and judge them sinners. But courts have repeatedly held that moral disapproval or religious belief alone is insufficient basis for passing a discriminatory law.

    Utah must show why one group of people, heterosexuals, gets to "discriminate" for themselves and choose their own spouse, while another group, gay people, should have that choice limited by someone else's preference.

    No legally convincing argument has emerged.

  • Hugh1 Denver, CO
    Aug. 21, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    @WIZ
    One more time. "Furthermore, if 'equal protection" applies to SS couples ... it must also apply to others who want other marriage combinations..." "such as polygamy." Multiple marriages are legal, but just one at a time, even in Utah. And "Siblings and close relatives," never heard that request, not once, not ever. "Children?" Well that's dumb, not only can't a child give consent, it's criminal child abuse, and serious jail time. "And a host of other marriage combinations that can be conjured by the human mind." You mean like animals? Cruelty to animals, jail. Then you say, "Not good!" What exactly is not good about my marriage? After four amazing decades together, we got married. We have a wonderful life. Yup, "As you noted, if you don't like it, there are daily flights." The ultimate refuge of a failed argument is to change the subject. Send this one to Attorney General Reyes, perhaps he hasn't thought of it yet.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 21, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    @WRK wrote: "I find it funny that those who say the slippery slope theory is a fallicy when 20-30 years ago, this legislation would have been thought of as a non-issue. Beliefs change and the "slippery slope" theory is very valid."

    I don't think you understand the fallacy. Here's an example: some are saying 'same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to polygamy.' That's a slippery slope because there is no inevitability. I note that of countries where same-sex marriage is legal, polygamy is illegal/civilly unrecognized in all of them, while in countries where polygamy is legal, same-sex marriage (and in most cases, homosexuality itself) is illegal.

    You seem to be saying "slippery slope is not a fallacy because same-sex marriage used to be illegal and now it isn't*." But that's the thing: the past looks inevitable because it already happened.

    And in any case, if same-sex marriage inevitably leads to terrible things, since same-sex marriage wouldn't exist except for opposite-sex marriage, wouldn't then the real root cause of these terrible things be opposite-sex marriage? That, too, would be a slippery slope fallacy.

    *pending appeal

  • nycut New York, NY
    Aug. 21, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    "The Case of the Slippery Slope: A Metaphor"
    Down at City Hall, there are special bicycles built for two that only grown-ups can ride.
    Lisa and Larry are grown-ups, and want to ride on the bicycle-built-for-two.
    Mark and Bob are grown-ups, and want to ride on the bicycle-built-for-two.
    What will the judge say? Let’s find out.

    [Utah Attorney General]: "Mark can ride with Lisa. Bob can ride with Lisa. But Mark can't ride with Bob."

    [Judge]: "Why?"

    [Utah Attorney General]: "Because if the two people riding the bicycle-built-for-two are men, it will lead to children riding adult bikes, cats and dogs riding bikes, and bicycles built for ten."

    [Laughter. Fade to black.]

    The End.

    A comedy in one act, already played in courtrooms everywhere.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 2:25 p.m.

    The Case of the Slippery Slope: A Metaphor and Answer

    In a family (with off-spring) there is a way to have off-spring.
    The rooster and the hen want children and a supreme being said they could.
    The rooster and the rooster want to have children and a supreme being said they could not.
    What will the Judge say.
    We will have to wait until judgment day to find out.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    Now, lest you say that adoption plays a part, there still had to be a rooster and a hen someplace.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Aug. 21, 2014 3:40 p.m.

    @wrz: Your defense of the "slippery slope" argument is to change the subject to procreation? Talk about a non sequitur.

    At any rate, procreation is not a requirement of legal marriage. For any combination of metaphorical roosters or hens. Regardless of what your particular supreme being says. But let's cut to the chase:

    @wrz: "We will have to wait until judgment day to find out."

    I think everyone's fine with that.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    (resubmitted with caps removed)
    @wrk and chicken coops:

    As nycut noted, procreation is not a requirement of marriage. One need not marry to procreate, nor is procreation required of married couples. However, if you want to pursue the argument (as the state has in its legal case) that facilitating procreation is the state's compelling policy interest in marriage, please consider this: In 1996, the legislature passed Senate Bill 89 by overwhelming margins in both houses. It was codified as Section 30-1-1(f) of the Utah Code. It allowed (for the first time) first cousins to marry if and only if they could _not_ procreate. Prior to Senate Bill 89, _all_ first cousin marriages were prohibited. The existing law already accommodated responsible procreation by prohibiting marriages that could result in birth defects. The change did nothing to benefit reproduction or child health. So why would the legislature make a special exception to allow (nay, require) nonprocreative marriages? Could it be that the state rejects the principle that marriage is solely about procreation and acknowledges that marriage can also be about love and commitment? SB89 invalidates any procreation-based arguments about marriage.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 22, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    @Dekawar;

    State may govern, but they may NOT violate the rights of the governed.

    The citizens of Utah had no right to vote on the rights of other citizens in the first place, the courts are doing their job, ruling on the consitutionality of what the citizens of Utah did.

    Finally, how much "due process" did Utah give initially to LGBT people before they took away our rights?

    @John Locke;

    One more time. The US is not a theocracy. "God's law" is irrelevant. Besides, Odin doesn't care one way or another.

    @WRK;

    Beliefs definitely change; your children and grandchildren are one day going to wonder why you believed in bigotry.

    @Markl;

    You were able to "discriminate" and choose the spouse of your choice; isn't it hypocritical that you want to deny that ability to someone else?

    @WRK;

    In your tale, what about the rooster and hen where they can't have offspring? And, guess what? We rooster/rooster, hen/hen combinations CAN! (through a variety of means).

  • Dekawar Riverton, UT
    Aug. 22, 2014 1:29 p.m.

    Just for fun (so lighten up a little), I think we should let everyone believe and live how they want. However, in order to do so they must group together and live that way.

    Therefore, all the LGBT people can group together - lets give them California.
    Religious and non-religious groups move elsewhere.

    Now after some period of time, lets say 100 years, people will move in and reclaim California.

    +++
    I can respect that everyone has to desire for freedom to live how they want. This country was founded on the principles of religious freedom, and our laws are based on religious belief. The LGBT group wants to force their non-religious beliefs upon those who believe religiously and are enacting laws, rules, and penalties against religious people's beliefs. Why NOT give them a country of their own where they can have non-religious laws enacted?

    I heard a recent news story where a private land owner allowed a reception for a LGBT couple on his property, but disallowed the marriage to take place there and got penalized $13k for exercising his personal belief about use of his personal property. That's not justice for the land owner.

  • Dekawar Riverton, UT
    Aug. 22, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    @YoungPuppy
    You missed the part where powers not granted to the Feds were held by the States or the People. People and State both acted properly on this one, Feds didn't, and neither did the LGBTs who jumped in during the opportunistic window to get married here. They could have moved elsewhere but wanted to force a State and its People into submission of their minority will.

    @A Quaker
    You made an assumption that I'm a Mormon, simply because I live in Utah. How seriously should I take your arguments when they jump to conclusions. Whether I'm a Mormon or not, my arguments are based in the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment calls for "EQUAL protection UNDER the law", not write new law under the guise of protection. As Powers not granted to the Federal level of government are reserved to the States or to the People, and both the People and State of Utah acted according to the rules to make a proper law for its citizens, the Feds should have bowed and stayed UNDER the law to ensure the law was administered fairly and equally to all the people of Utah.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    Dekawar: "Now after some period of time, lets say 100 years, people will move in and reclaim California."

    I'm afraid that you underestimate gays. Many are doctors and can impregnate any number of lesbians who want to raise children (just like they do today, right here in Utah) via IVF. The same number of children born to gays and lesbians today would not decrease, but probably increase, since there would be a whole country (CA)to populate. Did you know that 1/4 of gay and lesbian couples in Utah are raising children? Wake up, and look around.

    "The LGBT group wants to force their non-religious beliefs upon those who believe religiously"

    Again, you do not really know any gays, do you? They too are religious, but attend churches where they are wanted, accepted, and fellowshipped. That must not be your church, right?

    Our Constitution was made to allow all different people to live together. I am afraid that you are trying to make this country in your own image, rather than use our great constitution to help up be a melting pot and allow all to live together in peace.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2014 3:25 p.m.

    Dekawar, regarding the 10th amendment, let me quote it to you: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it [the constitution] to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    So, you see the States can be prohibited from passing laws that are unconstitutional. If gays are American citizens, they should have equal protection under the law. There are those who are similarly situated (legal term you need to look up), who are participating in rights, privileges and benefits of marriage. If there is not a legal reason of harm to others that can be proved, gays, by our constitution, should be allowed to have those same rights, privileges and benefits.

    That is what the 14th amendment is about.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 22, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    @Dekawar (duplicate of my comment to Kora on the story you reference);

    1) You're going to be hard pressed to point me to a scripture that tells you not to do business with "sinners". As such, you're also going to be hard pressed to show me how it violates your religious freedom to provide services to LGBT citizens that you provide for others.

    2) Until and unless you refuse to do business with ALL "sinners" and not just the LGBT "sinners", then all your protestations of "religious conscience" ring quite hollow and are nothing more than pure discrimination.

    Do you do business with adulterers?
    Do you do business with thieves?
    Do you do business with Sabbath breakers?
    Do you do business with fornicators?

    When you claim that doing business with LGBT citizens violates your religious freedom, and you turn around and do business with any of the above, then you are nothing but a hypocrite, and guess what, I CAN point to numerous scriptures in your bible that condemn the hypocrites.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Aug. 22, 2014 5:47 p.m.

    @Dekawar

    "Why NOT give them a country of their own where they can have non-religious laws enacted?"

    The protections and rights spelled out in the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights are for ALL Americans, not just the majority. If it troubles you that you have to "share" these protections with citizens you find distasteful or if it is your belief that you are entitled to "special rights," then I suggest you seek out a new country.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Aug. 23, 2014 1:24 p.m.

    @Dekawar: "Therefore, all the LGBT people can group together - lets give them California.
    Religious and non-religious groups move elsewhere...Now after some period of time, lets say 100 years, people will move in and reclaim California."

    About 30% of LGBT folks have kids, and in your scenario would continue to have and raise kids through invitrio and surrogacy. Their kids will be 90 to 95% straight and will couple and also have kids.

    The gay state and the secular states will be allies and have a regional area much like Scandinavia - peaceful, educated, pleasant, and egalitarian.

    Meanwhile, the religious states will start hold inquisitions and courts to identify and punish heritics. As the most Fundimentalist and intolerant gain power public executions will be the norm. Religious wars between opposing factions will become crusades against neighboring states.

    As civilization soars in the gay and secular states, a savage dark ages will fall over other areas.

    Wild speculation? No, based on current real activities in secular countries and in theocratic countries.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    Sept. 2, 2014 1:44 p.m.

    Interesting how Stormwalker can give a wild speculation and yet quite a few cannot grasp the slippery slope concept.

    Give it a minute, it will sink in somehow.