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
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.
It's for naught. Delay the inevitable is all they've got left.
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
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.
JOY! I'm very happy about Utah getting more time. Great Job, Utah!
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
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.
Good. Regardless of how the appeals court rules, let Utah never say that lack of
time to file was a contributing factor.
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,
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.
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
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?
@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.
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?
@First amendment---So your argument is "its our club, and we don't want
them in it"?
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.
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?
@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.
@ firstamendment"And, honest research shows that promoting
homosexuality is harmful for our children."No it doesn't.
@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?
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.
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?
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.
@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.
@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.
Justice delayed is justice denied...
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 ...."
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
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?
@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.
"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."
@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.
@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?
@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
@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
@wrzI 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.
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
"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.
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.
Preventing two consenting adults from enjoying marriage as they see fit is an
attack on Religious Liberty.
@firstamendment says, "pedophiles have better arguments for "marriage
equality" than homosexuals."Firstamendment, please tell us
what these better arguments are. Please?
@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.
@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
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.