Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[cowhide]

I've already mentioned some, but what do my speculations matter when I'm simply answering the call of Mormon prophets I thought you were a follower of :

"WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

Legally:
If you legally degrade the states/people's power to continue this restriction on marriage you degrade their power to continue other restrictions...# of marriages, age of marriages
Homosexuals will further abuse their new found legal status as a battering ram against the religious rights and livelihoods of Christians.
Homosexuals will not be satisfied with state sanctioned homosexual "marriage" and will demand religions recognize their "legal" marriages or lose their ability to perform marriages. This is about total moral acceptance, an anti-Christian movement.

Morally:
Legal status will empower government schools to teach homosexuality as morally acceptable to children from Christian families.
This is why I ain't a libertarian: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
We already have a hard enough time convincing young males of the value of marriage and of providing for and raising children, this degradation of the purpose and meaning of marriage will only make the civilizing of males that much harder.

Actually the founding fathers were outstanding individuals but very flawed human beings they owned slaves. The USA has done many immoral things and christians have been behind many of these immoral things. The problem with making laws based upon morals is wrong because the constitution protects people's rights regardless of their morality (even criminals have rights under the constitution). Any gov't who tries to force their moral culture on the population is setting themselves up for failure because not everyone shares the same religious or moral beliefs. The founding fathers understood this and that is why they decided to put this protection in the constitution. However, many religious people have a history of trying to shove their particular beliefs down other people's throats while they continually cry about how they are the one's being attacked.

You cannot have morality when a group of people are being oppressed and not allowed to have the same rights as another group. The reason why the Supreme Court will ultimately decide that Utah and other states cannot keep Lesbian/Gay people from marrying is because it is violation of the 14th amendment. So waving the morality flag will fail like it should because the Founding fathers were smart enough to know based on their own experiences that allowing one religion to dominate would lead to the failure of this newly found country they were trying to keep united. You can't cry about your religious freedoms being taken away from you (which they are not) and then turn around using your moral judgments to take away another person's right to be who they are. This is why there is conflict in the world. Your argument is weak because the only argument most anti-gay people have is it is immoral and it makes them uncomfortable. Same excuses used against interracial marriage and women working and the reason why the anti-gay crowd will lose another Supreme court decision.

The idea that gays are making it more difficult to convince males to marry is ridiculous and only demonstrates how weak your argument is against gay marriage. Perhaps if there is an actual crisis regarding marriage instead of blaming gays/lesbians how about using some of that personal responsibility stuff and look in the mirror to find the culprit regarding the bad state of heterosexual marriage. The so-called protectors of marriage should stop spending time and money "protecting" marriage and work on being better partners in their own marriage. With a divorce rate of over 50 percent, adultery, incest, molestations etc the family unit seems to be "under attack" by the same protectors who profess the gays are the problem.

 

[cowhide]

Some weirdos don't get that. Jim Green, a tea party nut job from Heber City writes weekly into the Dnews and SLTrib about how Utah is a sovereign state. Apparently he still feels as if we are under the AoC and not the Constitution.

But I think most have issue with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment was written in reference to slaves. Many feel that activist judges have now stretched the 14th amendment to cover "lifestyles" (since mormons/Christians believe homosexuality is a choice).

Similar to Citizens United. Is money a form of speech? Ummmm no. But I guess an activist judge could make a case for it. Is marriage a right? I guess one could make an argument that loving v Virignia was an activist ruling. As was ruling that a gay marriage ban violates the 14th amendment, which was written in regards to ones race and not lifestyle choice.

The issue that we have here is that Christians don't believe gays are born that way. They believe that hey are choosing a lifestyle of homosexuality. If it isn't a choice then it isn't a sin. If it isn't a sin then Apostle Paul and other religious doctrine is wrong.

It really doesn't matter what Christians think, they can think it is a sin or a choice the problem is what they believe should never be included in the decision about the law. While the constitution -14th amendment was addressing the rights of slaves it doesn't mean that it cannot be used as a protection for any person being discriminated against. A major reason for the court is to settle constitutional disputes due to the many interpretations of the constitution. You can't throw out the 14th amendment based upon what you (not you personally) think was the intention of the founding fathers. If this were the case then the 2nd and 1st amendments would be more restrictive.

The most disturbing part of this argument is how religious people complain about being attacked for their beliefs(complete bs) and then turn around and attack people for having different beliefs.

 

[cowhide]

Many Mormon voters in Utah are probably some of the worst informed (politically) voters out there. Many are sheltered and tend to mix religion with politics too often. I remember a kind neighbor of mind, a wonderful relief society member, commenting on how "nice" it was to have a President in the WH who prayed. This was in reference to Bush just after he signed his ruinous tax cuts and invaded Iraq. She clearly had no idea about his policies. All that mattered was his appearance/level of religiousosity.


As a result, I think many Utah voters fear that if gay marriage continues in Utah then the government may force the church to seal homosexual couples.

I think many believe that homosexuality is a sin. By legalizing it, it gives the appearance as an acceptable lifestyle... Which may or may not lead children to believe that it's acceptable/appealing. Heck, they may even lose the belief that homosexuality is a sin!

I think many are paranoid about the federal government and feel like this is another case of the federal government overstepping.

We as a state could benefits from hearing from other parties, political voices, and religions. Our culture is too one sided

Man, it sounds like you live next to my mother.

 

[cowhide]

Do you think the gay rights people would be satisfied with civil unions that aren't called marriages, but which are otherwise equivalent? I certainly don't think they would be, and I think that's been shown. So this does seem--on both sides!--to be at least in part about the integrity of what the word "marriage" means.

Why should they have to be satisfied with calling it civil unions? Marriage is a word and the state has always had the power to marry people. It is religious people who get their panties all scrunched up when gay people want the SAME rights as they do. Marriage only became scared in the eyes of religious people because the church started marrying people.

 

[cowhide]

I neither support gay marriage, nor am I against it either. Just because I do not live one way doesn't mean it needs to be legally restricted, as long as it is not infringing on other citizen's safety and rights. I view it as a personal issue and not a legal issue. There are too many laws restricting citizens. Free agency should be allowed as long as if doesn't infringe upon others.

Nicely said. This is the actual reason why gay marriage will eventually become law despite the moral concerns of the right.

 

[Stoked]

It really doesn't matter what Christians think, they can think it is a sin or a choice the problem is what they believe should never be included in the decision about the law. While the constitution -14th amendment was addressing the rights of slaves it doesn't mean that it cannot be used as a protection for any person being discriminated against. A major reason for the court is to settle constitutional disputes due to the many interpretations of the constitution. You can't throw out the 14th amendment based upon what you (not you personally) think was the intention of the founding fathers. If this were the case then the 2nd and 1st amendments would be more restrictive.

The most disturbing part of this argument is how religious people complain about being attacked for their beliefs(complete bs) and then turn around and attack people for having different beliefs.

That is no less prevelant in (insert group of your choice). Complain about being attacked by (insert another group of your choice) and then turn around and blast them. It is not BS. See it flung everywhere all the time

 

[7StraightIsGreat]

My sister in-law is engaged to be married. She is a doctor and her soon to be husband is a firefighter. They are madly in love and have no plans of EVER having a child. Beanclown's assertion that they will never be a family is not only short sighted and dumb, it's downright mean. Not only are they going to be a family to each other, they're family to me and countless others. **** off Bean. And **** off to anybody else who thinks their marriage will be anything less than yours because you have children.

As for the rest of the argument, let's cut through the ********: 99.999% of the time, those who stand against gay marriage do so on a religious platform. Most will dance around that (as has been done constantly through the first 14 pages of this thread), but that is what it comes down to.

Problem is, one of the biggest principals this country was founded on was religious freedom. One religion or group of religions are not here to dictate to the entire country what is right and what is wrong. To try and say religion isn't the overwhelming factor in the fight against gay marriage might just be the most disengenious argument in the history of civil rights.

The religions and morals people practice in their homes and around like minded individuals is their right. To try and gays from having the exact same rights as as those people is so utterly wrong and disgusting it's not even comprehensible. We had those who raged against women's right to vote, we had those who raged against the right for blacks to be seen as equals, and now we have the same group of small minded individuals raging against the rights for homosexuals. Just like the others, when all is said and done, they will be the ones on the wrong side of history. It's a shame it has to take this long, but the outcome is inevitable.

I've also got to give props to Trout and those who share is stance. Major props to the religious people out there who are able to reconcile their faith alongside the belief that we don't have the right to stop others from being equal. It's those type of religious progressives that will eventually help us find our way.

Edit- And please keep in mind, I still hate Trout.

 

[Stoked]

^^^ I have a sister up in Washington that is married to a wonderful woman. They have a son that they raise. They are absolutely a family. They are better parents and a damn better family than countless hetero couples I know.

 

[One Brow]

Oh really? How many female homicide-bombers are you friends with? You would have to be swimming in burka chick mobs to counter the overwhelming and obvious evidence that human males are inherently the most dangerous creatures on the planet.

It's very amusing that you seem to think you have provided evidence that this is not a learned behavior. People who are raised to be violent will be violent. People who are raised to be non-violent will be non-violent (yes, there will always be exceptions). We teach boys to be violent and girls to be non-violent, and they respond to their training.

 

[One Brow]

The behavior that is a sin is homosexual relations and that ain't against the law and happens before homosexuals tried to redefine the meaning and purpose of marriage, so this "free agency" b.s. can be put to rest.

They don't wan't to re-define marriage, they want to participate in it. Marriage has only occasionally been defined as one-man-one-woman in history.

 

[One Brow]

Legally:
If you legally degrade the states/people's power to continue this restriction on marriage you degrade their power to continue other restrictions...# of marriages, age of marriages
Homosexuals will further abuse their new found legal status as a battering ram against the religious rights and livelihoods of Christians.
Homosexuals will not be satisfied with state sanctioned homosexual "marriage" and will demand religions recognize their "legal" marriages or lose their ability to perform marriages. This is about total moral acceptance, an anti-Christian movement.

Pure paranoia and fear-mongering. Legislation that serves a valid, secular purpose will always be justifiable based on that purpose, including the number of marriages and the age of the participants. The is no right to discriminate or harass, and the acceptance of gay marriage affects no other religious behavior. No religion has ever been forced by the US government, at any time, to recognize any marriage. For example, there are still churches that refuse to recognize interracial marriages some 45 years after Loving vs. Virginia.

 

[Stoked]

I'd like to take this time to thank several posters for being shinning examples of what I think is wrong with humanity and what I do not want my children to ever be.

 

[Stoked]

Pure paranoia and fear-mongering. Legislation that serves a valid, secular purpose will always be justifiable based on that purpose, including the number of marriages and the age of the participants. The is no right to discriminate or harass, and the acceptance of gay marriage affects no other religious behavior. No religion has ever been forced by the US government, at any time, to recognize any marriage. For example, there are still churches that refuse to recognize interracial marriages some 45 years after Loving vs. Virginia.

That term can be be open to vast interpretations based on who is talking.

 

[One Brow]

That term can be be open to vast interpretations based on who is talking.

I agree. However, ultimately, it has to be one that will stand up to a court of law, which narrows the interpretations slightly. You can't just say it protects children, you have to provide evidence it does, and in particular, evidence that does not fall apart on cross-examination.

 

[colton]

I neither support gay marriage, nor am I against it either. Just because I do not live one way doesn't mean it needs to be legally restricted, as long as it is not infringing on other citizen's safety and rights. I view it as a personal issue and not a legal issue. There are too many laws restricting citizens. Free agency should be allowed as long as if doesn't infringe upon others.

Nicely said. This is the actual reason why gay marriage will eventually become law despite the moral concerns of the right.

This reminds me of a point I thought about bringing up before (but then forgot). There are actually two completely separate questions that are going on with this train of thought: (a) Should laws be passed to enable gay marriages? (b) Is there a fundamental right to gay marriage? Default's sentiment is an argument for (a), but not for (b).

In my opinion, as I've strongly opined in this thread and elsewhere, (b) is invalid. There is no fundamental right to gay marriage (again, speaking about my own opinion). And nothing short of a Supreme Court decision will convince me otherwise. However, if the discussion were about (a), I'd be much more open. I'd still be against gay marriage, but I recognize that there are reasons for supporting it that fall short of "fundamental right", but which are compelling. Loggrad's story, for example. Hopefully I said that clearly enough, but let me try to restate. If a proposition for gay marriage were on a ballot here (Utah) like it was in California some years ago, I'd vote against it, but I'd be content to live with the outcome if my side were outvoted. It's the whole "courts overruling the will of the people because of some perceived civil right which doesn't actually exist" thing that gets under my skin.

 

[Scat]

States rights never trump the constitution. Not allowing gay marriage is purposefully discriminating against a particular (and significant) segment of society. How is that okay?

Context?

 

[LogGrad98]

I was wondering about the significant part of that post too. Exactly how significant is the population segment affected by this? I have read polls and studies that peg the gay community at anywhere between <1% to about 3% of the total population, with obvious room for error. I would be surprised if it is north of 5% as the actual number. And the government had no problem with the 5% of Americans that were going to be forced out of their health care plans through Obamacare (I know that number is higher now, but Obama pointed out the 5% number and more or less called it insignificant when asked about his statement that if you like your health plan you can keep it not being the reality).

I think the fact that it really is a small percentage of the population is another reason to just legalize it already.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

This reminds me of a point I thought about bringing up before (but then forgot). There are actually two completely separate questions that are going on with this train of thought: (a) Should laws be passed to enable gay marriages? (b) Is there a fundamental right to gay marriage? Default's sentiment is an argument for (a), but not for (b).

In my opinion, as I've strongly opined in this thread and elsewhere, (b) is invalid. There is no fundamental right to gay marriage (again, speaking about my own opinion). And nothing short of a Supreme Court decision will convince me otherwise. However, if the discussion were about (a), I'd be much more open. I'd still be against gay marriage, but I recognize that there are reasons for supporting it that fall short of "fundamental right", but which are compelling. Loggrad's story, for example. Hopefully I said that clearly enough, but let me try to restate. If a proposition for gay marriage were on a ballot here (Utah) like it was in California some years ago, I'd vote against it, but I'd be content to live with the outcome if my side were outvoted. It's the whole "courts overruling the will of the people because of some perceived civil right which doesn't actually exist" thing that gets under my skin.

1. Is there a fundamental right to straight marriage? I'm speaking in government terms here.
2. Are there laws passed legalizing straight marriage? Do all 50 states have a law on the books allowing for straight marriage? I do not know the answer to this question.

 

[sirkickyass]

This thread is entertaining yet frustrating at the same time. Both sides acknowledge the other won't change their view, yet they continue to hash it out with each other.
What's the definition of insanity?

Actually I think the board's position on this has evolved somewhat significantly over the last five years.

We're in the home stretch of a very rapid sea change on this civil rights issue. 5-6 years ago it was so outrageous that the Iowa Supreme Court legalized gay marriage on constitutional grounds that many justices were recalled out of vengeance. Today we're at 16 states and rising and it's hardly notable when the number goes up again. Because of Full Faith and Credit, gay marriage is de facto legal in the United States right now.

Do you think the gay rights people would be satisfied with civil unions that aren't called marriages, but which are otherwise equivalent? I certainly don't think they would be, and I think that's been shown. So this does seem--on both sides!--to be at least in part about the integrity of what the word "marriage" means.

A quibble:

For one side it's about the sanctity of a word. For the other side it's about being against separate but equal as a principle. I think this country's experience very strongly indicates the only reason to keep things separate is to also keep them unequal in some way. If nothing else the attitude expressed by Bean in this thread is the mildest version of this separate and unequal attitude.

As a result, I think many Utah voters fear that if gay marriage continues in Utah then the government may force the church to seal homosexual couples.

This is the overhang of the IRS strongarming the church into accepting black people in the 1970s.

Serious question for homosexuals: politics aside, why don't you just go to a state where it's legal and get married? You could still come home and have a big reception if you wanted. I know a ton if straight and gay (I know, heaven forbid) couples who have done this.
And don't give me that crap about "why should I have to?" If marriage were really important to me and I was told I couldn't marry the person I wanted to because of some stupid law in the state I live, but I could go on a vacation/honeymoon to another state and get married, I would do it in a heartbeat.

The "why should I have to?" is not crap.

I've been married for almost two weeks so it's totally appropriate for me to have an opinion about this sort of thing now.

We got married in Southern California because the Madame's elderly grandparents live there and, to be honest, there was no way that they could attend a wedding in any other location. She really wanted them to be there and my family has a three-generation tradition of eloping so it was no skin off my back. Those are the kinds of decisions you get to make when you can walk into any state in the country and pay the $60 fee for a marriage license the day before the ceremony. As an added bonus, it's so easy to do things the way you want to do them when you're straight that we had the internet certify my best friend as a jedi knight, flew him out, and had him perform the ceremony itself as the priest.

Life is much harder if the person you happen to love is the same sex as you. If the Madame was a Monsieur and his elderly grandparents were in Arkansas we would have been out of luck. Grandpa's just got to die without seeing his grandson get married. That's not "crap." That's the kind of thing people don't forget for their entire lives. And that is total ******** that this happens to people.

If I can fly anyone out that I want to any location I want to perform a ceremony on 24 hours notice and he can write my wedding vows to be all about jaegers and kaijus then there is no reason that two people of the same sex should have to jump through any hoops whatsoever if they want to get married too.

Oh really? How many female homicide-bombers are you friends with? You would have to be swimming in burka chick mobs to counter the overwhelming and obvious evidence that human males are inherently the most dangerous creatures on the planet.

Only the Australians. Everyone knows that everything that constitutes the world's most dangerous anything is from Oceania.

 

[sirkickyass]

1. Is there a fundamental right to straight marriage? I'm speaking in government terms here.

Yeah, there is. There are (at least) 14 US Supreme Court cases stating that marriage is a fundamental right.

https://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Virtually all of the quotes contained in these cases would apply to marriage gay and straight.

2. Are there laws passed legalizing straight marriage? Do all 50 states have a law on the books allowing for straight marriage? I do not know the answer to this question.

All 50 states have segments in their civil code relating to marriages. In Utah it's Title 30 Chapter 1 of the Utah Code.

https://www.le.utah.gov/UtahCode/section.jsp?code=30-1