Quantcast
Utah

Court allows Utah more time to file gay marriage recognition appeal

Comments

Return To Article
  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 26, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    Yeah, I figured this would happen, as the courts have granted the state extra time every time they asked for it.

    It will avail them nothing. The appeals court will also declare that the state must recognize the legal marriages.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    That's very kind of them, to let the People have more time to have a voice in the future of our children. :) The right to effectively vote or have a real voice on this is critical, because it's a critical issue.
    There is no reason for us (the government) to involve ourselves in promoting homosexuality. Gays are free to vote, work, love, visit, etc.
    If there is discrimination in the workplace etc., in gay bars (Black, Asian, overweight, and others are routinely discriminated against in gay bars some are still segregated, some won't hire Blacks, some make Blacks go to the end of the line etc)) etc. then there are already laws against that.

    Associating homosexuality with the Civil Rights movement is shameful, and offensive to many of us, especially those of us who had slave ancestors. It has nothing to do with that. It's sexuality, gays are FREE.

    MARRIAGE, on the other hand, legally sanctions, upholds, and enforces relationships that are crucial for the survival of Humanity. Homosexual relationships need not be enforced. And, honest research shows that promoting homosexuality is harmful for our children.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 1:46 p.m.

    It's for naught. Delay the inevitable is all they've got left.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    It is sad that our Country has reached a point where Government by the People has perished from the earth. There is no valid argument in support of demands for gay marriage. And it is so wrong for people to sue, bully, pressure, bribe, etc. governments, judges, etc into legally enforcing homosexuality against the better judgment of the People (the tax payers, who will be forced to promote it). Sexuality is not race, religion, gender, etc. Gays should be loved and protected, just like everyone else, maybe even more than others, but Judge Vaughn made it clear that legally promoting homosexuality through marriage is not about civil rights, visiting rights, insurance rights, or any rights. Gays can already vote, visit, drink water where they want, etc. (unless they are Black, or overweight, or Asian, etc. since gay bars discriminate, segregate, etc. without being fined)

    But, as Vaughn pointed out (after he took the rights of Californians to truly have a voice, or a vote, on their future), gay marriage is about mainstreaming homosexuality, and his justifications for defying the people were his opposition to "conversion" therapy and wanting to promote homosexuality through "social meaning." It is not about rights.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Aug. 26, 2014 1:58 p.m.

    After listening to the oral arguments in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals over Wisconsin and Indian anti-Gay Marriage laws, I'm convinced the State of Utah is going to need more time to prepare their appeal. A lot more time. A whole lot more time.

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    JOY! I'm very happy about Utah getting more time. Great Job, Utah!

  • netsrik Draper, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 2:15 p.m.

    This is ridiculous. They've had plenty of time. They really need to just give it up and quit wasting the taxpayers money. All they're doing is hurting children.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Aug. 26, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    Oh great, another opportunity for more incoherent comments about what marriage "is"-- about what gay people "should"-- about what (their version of) god "says."

    So much bother over somebody else's life. Absurd really, here in the land of freedom and liberty and equality.

    Some people are gay, which means they are romantically and sexually attracted to members of the same sex and live their lives accordingly.

    Some people think it's a sin, which is completely irrelevant.

    When all the kicking and screaming is over, guess what?

    Some people are still gay, which still means they are romantically and sexually attracted to members of the same sex and still live their lives accordingly, which *includes* legally marrying the person they want to for the whole range of reasons people get married, in the exact same courthouses, in *all* the states in the land of freedom and liberty and equality.

    And some people will still think it's a sin, and it still won't be any of their business.
    But hopefully it will be a lot more peaceful around here.

  • Br. Jones East Coast, MD
    Aug. 26, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    Good. Regardless of how the appeals court rules, let Utah never say that lack of time to file was a contributing factor.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    Aug. 26, 2014 2:43 p.m.

    Faced with certain defeat, Sean Reyes and the state of Utah seem to make gay families miserable for as long as they possibly can. Their motives are transparent. While animus toward gay people is aided and abetted by the state, the federal government will ultimately step in to correct that, as the district court and 10 Circuit Court have done already. It's only a matter of time. The only thing Utah will gain is a reputation for being mean spirited,

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    What do they plan to add that they do not already have in there? Why do they not already have their case together? If they have a good case (and they should with the AG bringing in expensive outside attorneys) then why do they need an extra month? The plaintiffs have already stated that they are ready. They have their case together and ready to go. I will bet you that the case the state presents in October will be the exact same case they have now. They just wanted to push it off for another month.

  • mufasta American Fork, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 2:51 p.m.

    That is the right decision. The court is picking two cases that have the most merit to hear; Utah and Virginia. Once these two cases are settled, the precedent will be set and we will not wrestle with this issue any longer. I am glad they are taking the time to make a measured and adequately considered decision.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    re: firstamendment "And it is so wrong for people to sue, bully, pressure, bribe, etc. governments, judges, etc into legally enforcing homosexuality against the better judgment of the People (the tax payers, who will be forced to promote it)."

    Who is being forced to become homosexual?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 2:58 p.m.

    @firstamendment
    "Associating homosexuality with the Civil Rights movement is shameful, and offensive to many of us, especially those of us who had slave ancestors."

    It's only offensive to those who do not believe that LGBT people should have access to the same rights the rest of us have.

    "then there are already laws against that. "

    Only around half the states (and some cities/counties/municipalities) have such anti-discrimination laws in the workplace on the books. Salt Lake City and County I believe do (along with some others), but the state of Utah as a whole doesn't, so depending on city/county those protections may not exist.

    "And, honest research shows that promoting homosexuality is harmful for our children."

    Honest research shows that a serving of chocolate each day is good for you. Honest research means "research that agrees with me" right?

    "There is no valid argument in support of demands for gay marriage. "

    The courts seem to believe there's no valid argument in support of demands to ban gay marriage.

    " Gays should be loved "

    Yes, which is why I'm not interested in them having second class citizen status.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 26, 2014 3:36 p.m.

    What is the rush? When 98.6% of the nation does not practice same-sex sex, why should we be forced into making a quick decision? The majority of Utahns told us that marriage and same-sex sex are not the same thing. The 1.4% of the population who feel differently want a quick decision. Why are they not willing to thoroughly study the issue? Why are they so adamant that they have the answers? Is society totally wrong? Are the 98.6% of the nation who reject same-sex sex as the definition of "marriage" wrong or are the 1.4% who practice same-sex sex the anomaly?

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 3:43 p.m.

    @First amendment---So your argument is "its our club, and we don't want them in it"?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 4:32 p.m.

    firstamendment

    Lehi, UT

    "That's very kind of them, to let the People have more time to have a voice in the future of our children. :)"

    -----

    What do your children have to do with this? How about the future of the children who are being raised by a gay couple? Would you have them in this limbo as long as you can? Why not get this settled?

    *****
    "There is no reason for us (the government) to involve ourselves in promoting homosexuality. "

    -----
    The government does not promote homosexuality. It has been a legal act for years. Our government just allows all to pursue their own happiness in their own way without forcing your beliefs on those who do not want to follow them. That is not promoting homosexuality, but following our constitution.

    *****
    "MARRIAGE, on the other hand, legally sanctions, upholds, and enforces relationships that are crucial for the survival of Humanity."

    ----

    No, marriage does not enforce relationships at all. You can be married to someone and never see them. You will not be forced by the government to divorce. Marriage is different for each couple. That is what is great about America - we all can have different ideas and live together.

  • Jeff29 Draper, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    I think it's interesting how so many people are getting overly excited about what a Circuit Court does regarding this issue. Regardless of what they rule, this will end up at the Supreme Court (with a stay on any lower court rulings). Then depending on what Justice Kennedy had for lunch that day, State laws prohibiting gay marriage will be deemed unconstitutional, or the issue will be deemed a state's rights issue and each state will be left to determine how to define marriage.

    Kennedy has a history of being "liberal" on issues dealing with sexuality and "conservative" on issues related to state's rights, so I think it's very hard to guess what the outcome will be. Personally, I believe this is a state's rights issue and that invoking the 14th amendment is a stretch at best. I personally oppose same-sex marriage, but fully support the rights of the citizens of any state to define marriage how they wish (hopefully through a transparent, democratic process).

    My question for those who support same-sex marriage is will you support whatever decision is ultimately made by the Court?

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 26, 2014 4:47 p.m.

    @MikeRichards wrote: "What is the rush?"

    Justice delayed is justice denied.

    "Is society totally wrong? Are the 98.6% of the nation who reject same-sex sex as the definition of "marriage" wrong or are the 1.4% who practice same-sex sex the anomaly?"

    Please show me an opinion poll where 98.6% of people are opposed to same-sex marriage.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 5:16 p.m.

    @ firstamendment

    "And, honest research shows that promoting homosexuality is harmful for our children."

    No it doesn't.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Aug. 26, 2014 7:54 p.m.

    @Mike Richards:

    You've used that 1.6% statistic as if it has meaning in and of itself.

    The CDC report said that 1.6% of people out of about 35,000 surveyed identified as gay or lesbian. Another .7% identified as bisexual. And 1.1% declined to answer. Leaving 96.6% as claiming "straight."

    According to The United States Census Bureau webpage, a few minutes ago US population was 318,746,829. If 96.6% of the population is straight, then 10,837,392 US citizens are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or did not care to elaborate.

    If you leave out the 1.1% who did not answer that still leaves 7,331,177 people.

    1.6% sounds pretty abstract. We are actually talking about somewhere between 7 million and 11 million people who are currently disenfranchised and relegated to second-class status.

    The real question? Why should millions of US citizens have to wait for full civil rights because you are not comfortable with them?

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    Aug. 26, 2014 8:22 p.m.

    I think Judge Hamilton said it best today in the 7th Circuit when he eviscerated Wisconsin's utter lack of any rational basis for its ban by observing:
    "What it is is a reverse-engineered theory to explain marriage in such a way that you avoid the logic of Lawrence [v Texas] and ignore a good deal of history about the institution of marriage and provide this very narrow artificial rationale for it."

    Utah will need a lot more than a month to find any rational basis to support its Jim Crow law.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 9:51 p.m.

    More time. No doubt they will totally come up with a valid argument with all that extra time. Maybe they're waiting for some inspiration?

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    Aug. 26, 2014 9:56 p.m.

    How predictable. Anti-gay marriage ban supporters ran utterly out of arguments years ago. If you have any doubt, listen to the audio of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for Wisconsin and Indiana held today available on the 7th Circuit's website. They're eye-opening for the typical observer (Those who've followed this very closely already know how futile trying to preserve this ugly, irrational Un-American discrimination is.) Pay particular attention to how the anti-same sex marriage attorneys were absolutely shredded by the Republican Judge appointed by that saint, Ronald Reagan far worse than the other two Judges.

    Fully aware defeat is inevitable, the strategy of equality opponents has shifted to delay as long as possible inflictin as much damage on same sex couples and their children while they still can, meanwhile pilfering piles of taxpayer funds, lining the pockets of certain favored law firms. Pathetic. Today's arguments in the 7th Circuit are particularly insightful and, as a bonus, hilariously entertaining.

    Even if SSM opponents could pull an impossible rabbit out of their hat, demographics alone seal the fate of this issue. Nationwide voter opinion is overwhelmingly for legal SSM and growing everyday.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 11:30 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "What is the rush?"

    Why should the oppressed have to wait longer?

    " When 98.6% of the nation does not practice same-sex sex,"

    98.3% doesn't practice your religion either.

    "The 1.4% of the population who feel differently want a quick decision."

    More like the 50% of the nation that supports same-sex marriage.

    " Why are they not willing to thoroughly study the issue? "

    We've had 20 court cases in a row each come to the same basic result.

    "Why are they so adamant that they have the answers?"

    When's the last time your side won a court case?

    "Is society totally wrong?"

    A plurality support same-sex marriage, if not a majority.

    "Are the 98.6% of the nation who reject same-sex sex as the definition of "marriage" wrong or are the 1.4% who practice same-sex sex the anomaly?"

    Half the nation thinks marriage includes either type. 98.6% just don't intend to use it for themselves. Don't lump people like me in with your lot.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 26, 2014 11:39 p.m.

    @Jeff29
    "My question for those who support same-sex marriage is will you support whatever decision is ultimately made by the Court?"

    Why should I support an unconstitutional ruling by activist judges that imposes 2nd class citizenship on LGBT people? Should I just go tell a gay couple I know that oh well the courts said you all can't get married so I guess I'll agree with them? Of course not.

  • Brian Utley Freedom, IN
    Aug. 27, 2014 2:03 a.m.

    Justice delayed is justice denied...

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 27, 2014 7:25 a.m.

    The oral arguments in front of the 7th Circuit yesterday were a bloodbath for Indiana's and Wisconsin's appeals. Judges nationwide are zeroing in on the nonsensical nature and lack of public value in these gay marriage bans. It reminds me of "The Emperor's New Clothes." At first, no judge was willing to question the wisdom of these bans, but after one did, everyone can suddenly see how little sense they make.

    As The Atlantic noted last week, faithful conservative Justice Scalia's angry dissent in Windsor explains much of this, and gets cited in many of these SSM rulings. They quote an excerpt of the Ohio decision as example:

    "And now it is just as Justice Scalia predicted—the lower courts are applying the Supreme Court's decision, as they must, and the question is presented whether a state can do what the federal government cannot—i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples ... simply because the majority of the voters don't like homosexuality (or at least didn't in 2004). Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no ...."

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    Aug. 27, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    I note while the state and the AG's office are pleading for more time to prepare their case, AG Reyes is soooo busy that he can't even show up for a scheduled Rotary Club debate with his Democratic opponent. Soooo busy romping on the beach in Huntington Beach California that is.
    Also prey tell where is the Deseret News coverage of the hearing held yesterday in the 7th Circuit Court on the challenges to Indiana's and Wisconsin's same sex marriage restrictions? I can't seem to find anything about it anywhere.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    Aug. 27, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    I wonder how much the state paid the 10th Court of Appeals, (including under the table), to add time to their losing battle against marriage equality. I bet the Utah taxpayers would not be happy if they found out.

  • Brown Honeyvale, CA
    Aug. 27, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    @nycut

    "So much bother over somebody else's life. Absurd really, here in the land of freedom and liberty and equality."

    How interesting most comments don't understand the core of the gay marriage issue. It is not about someone's sexuality, it is about gay adoption. It is about protecting the rights of children--so much bother for the future life of a child. Children have the right to be adopted into a home with the unique influence of both a mother and a father. Who are you to take away children's rights?

    Our goal should be to pass legislation that will-- "...arrive at common ground that recognizes the dignity of gay Americans while also preserving marriage between a man and a woman as the surest foundation for the future of children." (M. Erickson)

    I hope for justice for the children.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 27, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    @Brown wrote: "How interesting most comments don't understand the core of the gay marriage issue. It is not about someone's sexuality, it is about gay adoption. It is about protecting the rights of children--so much bother for the future life of a child. Children have the right to be adopted into a home with the unique influence of both a mother and a father. Who are you to take away children's rights?"

    That is not the focus of the marriage equality issue, and here's why: In Utah, a single adult can adopt.

    If the "a child needs a mother and a father!" pearl-clutching were actually about the children, then surely that should have been the legislative focus.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 27, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    Brown: "it is about gay adoption. It is about protecting the rights of children--so much bother for the future life of a child. Children have the right to be adopted into a home with the unique influence of both a mother and a father. Who are you to take away children's rights?"

    -------

    Who told you that? Did you know that gays are legally able to adopt a child in Utah right this minute? They do not need "gay marriage" to do so. They just must be single...

    And gays in Utah ARE raising children. In fact, there are a higher percentage of gay couples with children in Utah than anywhere else in America.

    Why are you not concerned with these children who are already have gay parents? Why should they be treated less than those who's parents are allowed to marry? Why shouldn't these children be raised in the most stable, legally secure home that we, as Americans can give them?

    Why don't you want to support ALL American families?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 27, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    @Lane Myer: It's not always adoption. Let us not forget that when lesbians and gay men are "encouraged" (forced/coerced) to marry a member of the opposite sex, they may get natural children from that doomed union. When those relationships fall apart and they go on to form a new, more enduring relationship with a member of their own sex, those natural children for which they have custody go with them.

    We need to ask why a child should be denied having a legal step-parent, or be denied coverage under his mother's partner's employment benefits because of who his mother finds to be a natural, loving partner. When the State refuses to allow that child's mother to marry her female partner, not only does the State not benefit, but at least two of its citizens are poorer, more vulnerable, and a potential liability to the State's coffers. Possibly, too, the child's father would remain liable for child support payments, thus restricting his ability to begin again with a heterosexual partner.

  • John Locke Ivins, , UT
    Aug. 27, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    "Understands the Math": What? Now you want the facts? If you were shown that 99.999999% were opposed, most likely you would find some other argument to support your opinion. It was recently indicated by the Census Bureau (that's the federal government) that Gays represents 1-2% of the population. That is a fact.

    I do not personally care what gays do inside their homes, nor in private. But, as for marriage, that is another matter altogether, and one that 1-2% should not be telling the majority what is a "civil right."

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 27, 2014 5:21 p.m.

    @John Locke:

    By the same token, you shouldn't care what gays do in our Quaker meeting houses. In OUR meeting houses, gays can marry each other, before God and in the witness of our Meetings, in exactly the same manner as straight ("traditional") couples can.

    Now, explain to me why the State needs to discriminate and refuse to register or recognize those gay couples' marriages. I have yet had anyone explain to me who benefits from that in any tangible way. All I see is people of your and some other religious persuasions being self-righteously smug that their theology is being honored at the expense of my denomination's and at the secular-world expense of their own taxpaying, fully law-abiding neighbors who happen to be gay.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 27, 2014 5:22 p.m.

    @John Locke wrote: "If you were shown that 99.999999% were opposed, most likely you would find some other argument to support your opinion. It was recently indicated by the Census Bureau (that's the federal government) that Gays represents 1-2% of the population. That is a fact."

    If 99.999999% were opposed to marriage equality, it would not change my argument, because my argument has never been "because it's popular." The fact that marriage equality is popular is not an argument, it's just a fact.

    See Stormwalker's post at 7:54pm on 8/26 for an excellent deconstruction on the CDC (not Census) numbers.

    "I do not personally care what gays do inside their homes, nor in private. But, as for marriage, that is another matter altogether, and one that 1-2% should not be telling the majority what is a 'civil right.'"

    1. What is a civil right is a matter of constitutional law.

    2. How small does a group have to be in order to strip it of civil rights?

    3. *Why* is it another matter altogether? The contracting of marriage is a public act, to be sure, but a marriage itself is just another aspect of private life?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 27, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    @Stormwalker:
    "I support traditional marriage. I support same-sex marriage. I support marriage and families."

    But, the more salient question has to be... what about support for polygamous marriages? Or father/daughter and mother/son marriages? How about siblings?

    Not supporting other types of marriages would bring the curious question of... why not?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 27, 2014 10:30 p.m.

    @Understands Math:
    "What is a civil right is a matter of constitutional law."

    Could you cite the reference in the US Constitution re civil rights?

    "How small does a group have to be in order to strip it of civil rights?"

    That question is a good one to ask the LDS who were stripped of their civil rights to polygamous marriages. Several were even jailed.

    @A Quaker:
    "In OUR meeting houses, gays can marry each other, before God and in the witness of our Meetings, in exactly the same manner as straight... couples can."

    Did anyone ever try a polygamist marriage in your meeting house? Or a sister/brother?

    "Now, explain to me why the State needs to discriminate and refuse to register or recognize those gay couples' marriages."

    Why? To preserve marriage and our society from going the way of the Romans back in the day.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Aug. 28, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    @wrz

    I have to admire the tenacity you have for beating your particular horse.

    I don't have any problem with polygamy in theory. Note, that is polygamy, not polygyny. My reservations are practical - the laws around divorce and custody are complex, adding more people will create a geometric progression in complication. Also, patriarchal religious polygamy seems to always include dimensions of coercion and abuse. Limiting and eliminating that aspect needs to be addressed.

    Legalizing polygamy would eliminate welfare fraud perpetrated by those (often religious) practitioners, and should simplify issues around parentage and child support. Polygamy, done with equality for all members, would provide an expanded income stream and more stability for the entire family, including (especially) the children.

    Incest is another matter. It violates already established legal and familial relationships. It is a different category altogether, and posturing about marrying your grandmother is just that. Posturing.

    I cannot tell, from your posts. Are you against SSM and trying to use the polygamy-and-incest slippery slope as a bogeyman? Or are you supporting the legalization of both? Your incessant posting never clarified your position.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    Propagandists are highly trained but still don't seem understand marriage or the purposes it serves. Activists request or demand marriage using feelings-based morality arguments ("right," "equality," "benefits," "love" "bad bigots oppose us" "unchristian to not let us" "love me let me" etc) yet they dismiss disagreement by claiming it's all just moral feelings etc. All moral decisions are "feeling" based (we have "moral disapprobation" about suicide, drug use, no helmets, etc. and WE, the majority, make laws about these things, not from logic, but from feelings, and NOT ONE PERSONS' FEELINGS. WE, most of us, care about children, decreasing promiscuity, etc.

    WE "legally" and "lawfully" enforce (wed) healthy heterosexual relationships because stable heterosexual relationships are crucial for healthy societies. Homosexuality need not be enforced, polygamists and pedophiles have better arguments for "marriage equality" than homosexuals.

    BUT, for Judge Vaughn (Morality Judge) and many other homosexuals and judges, marriage serves primarily to promote and mainstream homosexuality. Vaughn's other reasons (feelings) for dismissing the judgement of The People of CA and supplanting their government with his own morality, are generally dishonest, unsubstantiated side arguments.

    @ Two For Flinching Yes, it does. :)

    See my next reply for responses

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    "Could you cite the reference in the US Constitution re civil rights?"

    Sure! Amendment 9, 10, and 14. Read them.

    "Why? To preserve marriage and our society from going the way of the Romans back in the day."

    The Roman Empire lasted over 2000 years. During that time, Rome was constructed in 753 BC and became a Republic in 509 BC. It was not until 313 AD that Christianity was accepted and Christians were no longer punished. That started the downfall and gradually Rome was split and conquered. If you read Brigham Young and George Albert Smith, Rome fell because they gave up on polygamy and started to live in monogamy. So, yes, it was their marriage practices that caused their downfall, but not because of homosexuality.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    Can someone please tell me how anyone in this state is being harmed by getting rid of amendment 3? The state is being harmed? They need more time to make up more insults about gay people. So people have their beliefs about us, it does not make those beliefs true! When people keep saying that Mormons are not christians, does it make it true? If people keep insisting that Mormons are not christian, are the Mormons suppose to give up and admit it? The problem with these kinds oof beliefs is that they erffect others and not the people who believe it! If somebody tells me that God opposes my relationship, I am going to tell them it is a lie! I donn't believe it and they shouldn't have the right to dictate my life! I look back and I feel a deep sadness because I was blessed in the LDS church and baptized and I went on a mission . I never would have dreamed that these same people would degrade and demean my life and that is what they do.

  • Cheesecake Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2014 12:44 p.m.

    Preventing two consenting adults from enjoying marriage as they see fit is an attack on Religious Liberty.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Aug. 29, 2014 6:51 a.m.

    @firstamendment says, "pedophiles have better arguments for "marriage equality" than homosexuals."

    Firstamendment, please tell us what these better arguments are. Please?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 29, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    @Stormwalker:
    "Incest is another matter. It violates already established legal and familial relationships."

    As does SSM. Keep that in mind.

    "It is a different category altogether, and posturing about marrying your grandmother is just that. Posturing."

    Posturing about SSM is shuddersome to many.

    "Are you against SSM and trying to use the polygamy-and-incest slippery slope as a bogeyman? Your incessant posting never clarified your position."

    My point is quite simple... if SSM is allowed so should all other types of marriages (including marrying grandma).

    @Lane Myer:
    "Sure! Amendment 9, 10, and 14. Read them."

    Amendment 9: So, folks can use retained rights to marry a frog or subteen?

    Amendment 10: So, States can use retained rights to define marriage?

    Amendment 14: All citizens have equal protection of (State) laws... anyone cam marry whomever they wish, provided they are not married, of legal age, not closely related, and of the opposite sex. Total equal protection for all under (marriage) laws.

    "If you read Brigham Young and George Albert Smith, Rome fell because they gave up on polygamy and started to live in monogamy."

    Those guys are known to be wrong.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Aug. 30, 2014 7:17 p.m.

    @wrz: "Those guys are known to be wrong."

    Interesting point. In their day, they said things they proclaimed as absolute truth. What, I wonder, is being said today that will, in a few years, be seen as "just their opinion.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Aug. 31, 2014 9:06 a.m.

    wrz writes,

    SSM "violates already established legal and familial relationships." "Keep that in mind".

    Huh?

    What legal and/or familial relationship does same sex marriage violate? I'd be happy to keep it in mind if you would explain what relationships you are talking about.