Utah won't recognize same-sex marriages

Utah won't recognize same-sex marriages

There are 338 comments on the KCRA-TV Sacramento story from Jan 8, 2014, titled Utah won't recognize same-sex marriages. In it, KCRA-TV Sacramento reports that:

Once you're logged in, at the top of each article, video or slideshow you will see a list of your Facebook friends who recently visited Choose to share stories you'e read with your friends or turn sharing OFF to keep your reading experience anonymous .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KCRA-TV Sacramento.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#294 Jan 14, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>are you asking for all gun owners to submit to being part of a well regulated militia now?
AMENDMENT II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
You've been high jumping the fence so much lately I hope you try out for the next Olympic Team.
You complain about senior housing saying it's discriminatory, you whine about States Rights then turn around and want a Federalist policy for certain things (like gun ownership) but not others (marriage). You want religious freedom for States Rights when it comes to a bigot baking a cake in Colorado knowing full well that under that banner you made it possible for ministers in Indian to be jailed if they bless a SSM.
I originally came up with this as a response for Kimare but it fits you so well.
The Definition of being Two Faced.
When the two cheeks people see are squeezing out a smile, but the two cheeks people experience are the ones squeezing out a load of crap.
Hey, read the J. Thomas opinion in McDonald vs. The City of Chicago. The writers did a great job explaining the 14th amendment and civil rights issues. I would not be surprised to see it quoted in a SSM brief.

Oh the irony!!!!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#295 Jan 14, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, read the J. Thomas opinion in McDonald vs. The City of Chicago. The writers did a great job explaining the 14th amendment and civil rights issues. I would not be surprised to see it quoted in a SSM brief.
Oh the irony!!!!
I have heard of this case a lot lately. Thanks for reminding me of it again so I can book mark it.

Snyper recently came up with a term that describes these folks perfectly:
PADD ... Political Acumen Deficit Disorder
(thanks snyper)
Christaliban

Philadelphia, PA

#296 Jan 14, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
It's also not
You continue to have some fantasy notion that everything a religion does in terms of its practices is somehow beyond the reach of civil law.

Like a fundamentalist troll, you simply elided the discussion of Jeffs and the other "religious" freak examples I supplied.

So you want to be intellectually dishonest and stupid. Fine.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#297 Jan 14, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I have heard of this case a lot lately. Thanks for reminding me of it again so I can book mark it.
Snyper recently came up with a term that describes these folks perfectly:
PADD ... Political Acumen Deficit Disorder
(thanks snyper)
By the way, where is he? I haven't seen him around for a few days. Hope he's doing well.
Christaliban

Philadelphia, PA

#298 Jan 14, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Avoiding personal attacks makes your rhetoric stronger.
The arguments are in most of my posts for anyone to adapt. You're free to be as reasonable sounding as you wish to anytime you want to be.

You didn't address the matter of context I raised: I am not a glbt spokesperson. This is not PBS's Newshour.

I don't think any of these fundie bigots are ever going to be persuaded of anything - they believe the earth is under 10000 years old. You cannot fix a malady like that with reasoned argument. Furthermore, they assiduously avoid ever dealing with any of the content - because they have no good answer. They're complete hypocrites and they know it.

So I believe the fundie trash should be subject to ridicule, defamation and dehumanization. After all, they treat others the way they would wish to be treated - I am merely obliging them.

The fact that some percentage of the talibangelical posters is just a troll doesn't enter too much into my calculations.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#299 Jan 15, 2014
http://www.scribd.com/doc/199722739/4-04-cv-0...
"Preclusion of “moral disapproval” as a permissible basis for laws aimed at homosexual conduct or homosexuals represents a victory for same-sex marriage advocates, and it forces states to demonstrate that their laws rationally further goals other than promotion of one moral view of marriage. Therefore, although Part A rationally promotes theState’s interest in upholding one particular moral definition of marriage, this is not a permissible justification."

"Civil marriage in Oklahoma does not have any procreative prerequisites. See supra Part VI(C); see also Gill, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 389 (“[T]he ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country.”). Permitting same-sex couples to receive a marriage license does not harm, erode, or somehow water-down the “procreative” origins of the marriage institution, any more than marriages of couples who cannot “naturally procreate” or do not ever wish to “naturally procreate.” Marriage is incentivized for naturally procreative couples to precisely the same extent regardless of whether same-sex couples (or other non-procreative couples) are included"

"The reality is that same-sex couples, while not able to “naturally procreate,” can and do have children by other means. As of the 2010 United States Census, there were 1,280 same-sex“households” in Oklahoma who reported as having “their own children under 18 years of age residing in their household.” United States Census 2010 and 2010 American Community Survey,Same-Sex Unmarried Partner or Spouse Households by Sex of Householder by Presence of OwnChildren,
available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/supp... . If a same-sex couple is capable of having a child with or without a marriage relationship, and the articulated state goal is to reduce children born outside of a marital relationship, the challenged exclusion hinders rather than promotes that goal."

"Smith does not ask a couple if they intend to be faithful to one another, if they intend to procreate, or if they would someday consider divorce, thereby potentially leaving their child to be raised in a single-parent home. With respect to marriage licenses, the State has already opened the courthouse doors to opposite-sex couples without any moral, procreative, parenting, or fidelity requirements. Exclusion of just one class of citizens from receiving a marriage license based upon the perceived “threat” they pose to the marital institution is, at bottom, an arbitrary exclusion based upon the majority’s disapproval of the defined class. It is also insulting to same-sex couples, who are human beings capable of forming loving, committed, enduring relationships."

"Applying deferential rationality review, the Court searched for a rational link between exclusion of this class from civil marriage and promotion of a legitimate governmental objective. Finding none, the Court’s rationality review reveals Part A as an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit."

"Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed. It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights. The Bishop couple has been in a loving, committed relationships for many years. They own property together, wish to retire together, wish to make medical decisions for one another, and wish to be recognized as a married couple with all its attendant rights and responsibilities. Part A of the Oklahoma Constitutional Amendment excludes the Bishop couple, and all otherwise eligible same-sex couples, from this privilege without a legally sufficient justification."

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#300 Jan 15, 2014
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, where is he? I haven't seen him around for a few days. Hope he's doing well.
Never mind, I saw him post on another page.

“T-Warrior”

Since: Dec 07

El Paso Tx (Rochester NY)

#301 Jan 15, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, legal marriage is a series of legal rights and protections.
When last I checked, the US Constitution requires states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
Such equal protection CAN be infringed upon if doing so serves a compelling governmental interest.
Can you come up with any such interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional?
there are no rights involved...

all real rights are free and we don't need governmen permission

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#303 Jan 15, 2014
chief22 wrote:
<quoted text>
there are no rights involved...
all real rights are free and we don't need governmen permission
I see we have another case of P.A.D.D.
Political Acumen Deficit Disorder

Rights are granted BY the Government you doofus.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#304 Jan 15, 2014
Christsharian Deelite wrote:
<quoted text>
Watch list, aisle 4.
YUP!
good one
spot on.
LMAO

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#305 Jan 15, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Jesus, you're just another crazy, religious person.
Religions are not beyond the reach of law, as you try to claim. There might be a high standard in areas, but that's different.
The factually based argument to make would have been that houses of worship will not be forced to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies, not that they are entirely beyond the reach of civil law to begin with. Simple.
Wow! You just can NOT stand that I have an argument that's different from yours, can you?

Religions and religious practices *ARE* beyond the reach of the law. Unless they violate a secular law. Read the Constitution. A polygamous family that considers themselves married in their church, but are not legally (civilly) married outside their church, are breaking no law.

The Catholic Church (usually) refuses to recognize divorce. Yet civil divorce *outside* the Church is perfectly legal. Does the government go stomping into Catholic Churches and demand that they MUST "follow the law" by recognizing civil divorce? Of course not. Because the Church's freedom to marry, not marry, or recognize, or not, the divorce of anyone they wish is constitutionally protected. Just like anything else they do, provided they're not breaking any civil laws.

I can start the Loyal Church of eJohn and declare that all church members must put their hands on their head and spin around three times before entering our church. Is it illegal to require a person to put their hands on top of their head and spin round three times? Nope! Then the government has no issue if *I* decide that's that I want people to do if they want to participate in the Loyal Church of eJohn.

Now if I decided that members of my church had to bring a dead body of someone of another religion that they murdered on their way to my church before they could enter, I feel pretty confident that I'd be in some serious big-o trouble-o with a whole lot of a levels of law enforcement.

Can you *seriously* not see the difference here? Why do you continue to argue that the government can control churches' activities when they clearly cannot? Is it really because I'm not using your "Christaliban Approved, Officially Sanctioned Argument" here??

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#306 Jan 15, 2014
LOL!!!! You're hilarious! Are you even bothering to read what I'm writing???
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to have some fantasy notion that everything a religion does in terms of its practices is somehow beyond the reach of civil law.
The fact that I keep continually typing "unless they break a civil law" might have been your first clue that that's not the case.
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
Like a fundamentalist troll, you simply elided the discussion of Jeffs and the other "religious" freak examples I supplied.
You're definitely too busy crapping your pants to read my posts, aren't you?? I specifically explained to you, several times now, that the religious marriages arranged by Warren Jeffs was *NOT* what got him into trouble with the law. It was arranging the statutory rape of underage girls that got him into trouble. Statutory rape is a civil law. Therefore, and again, break a civil law, and you're in trouble. Don't break a civil law, do whatever you want and worship as you please. Wanna worship a really nice bottle of wine? Go for it! Knock yourself out!(Just don't knock anyone else out or you'll be in trouble for THAT!).

Notice Jeffs did *NOT* get into trouble for any of the polygamous religious marriages he arranged where all the participants were of legal age, right?? And he arranged FAR more of those then he did ones involving underage girls, right?? Now WHY would that be.... Hmmmm..... Possibly because it's not against civil law for for a group of people to behave as if and believe that they're all married to each other as part of their religious beliefs. Funny that, huh?? No civil law broken, no problem.
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
So you want to be intellectually dishonest and stupid. Fine.
If you'd pull your pants up and read my posts before you respond to them, you might see that I'm being neither of those things. Although you seem to galloping toward both of them with all your might!

By all mean, don't let ME get in your way. Carry on!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#307 Jan 15, 2014
12-Year-Old Boy Speaks Up for Gay Moms and Marriage Equality

http://shine.yahoo.com/author-blog-posts/12-o...
hi hi

Lancaster, PA

#308 Jan 15, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It plays into their whole "Obama is a secret homosexual" narrative.
Anti-gays are by definition irrational, so what they do seldom makes sense.
Which in itself stems from horrid illogic.

If something is an inherent trait, people don't tend to claim that only those in sympathy would excuse, support, defend it, etc. They only do that with BEHAVIORS.

The antigay think of "gay" as a behavior, and so they can then claim that anyone supporting gays IS GAY -- meaning, to the antigay, that the person *engages in those horrid gay behaviors* they hate.

The tactic at root is not limited to the antigay -- not by a long shot. If you support a greedy Wall Street executive, people jump on a bandwagon that you MUST be greedy. If you support a criminal, people claim you MUST be a criminal or have the same mindset.

It really infuriates the living shit out of people when they cannot control the views of others and those views offend them. It's fascinating to watch.
Rainbow Kid with the News

Alpharetta, GA

#309 Jan 15, 2014
'ACLU of Utah to file class action lawsuit'
http://fox13now.com/2014/01/14/aclu-of-utah-t...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#310 Jan 15, 2014
Rainbow Kid with the News wrote:
'ACLU of Utah to file class action lawsuit'
http://fox13now.com/2014/01/14/aclu-of-utah-t...
That's good news.

It still amazes me that married couples would have to sue the state of Utah to recognize the very marriage licenses they issued.

Just goes to show how far the anti-gays will go to deny us equal protection.

And is MORE evidence for the 10th circuit appeals court of the animus directly solely at same-sex couples.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#312 Jan 15, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
The arguments are in most of my posts for anyone to adapt. You're free to be as reasonable sounding as you wish to anytime you want to be.
You didn't address the matter of context I raised: I am not a glbt spokesperson. This is not PBS's Newshour.
I don't think any of these fundie bigots are ever going to be persuaded of anything - they believe the earth is under 10000 years old. You cannot fix a malady like that with reasoned argument. Furthermore, they assiduously avoid ever dealing with any of the content - because they have no good answer. They're complete hypocrites and they know it.
So I believe the fundie trash should be subject to ridicule, defamation and dehumanization. After all, they treat others the way they would wish to be treated - I am merely obliging them.
The fact that some percentage of the talibangelical posters is just a troll doesn't enter too much into my calculations.
I would say they need to be re-educated and re-programed by whatever means necessary. The bottom line is they drive people away from God which makes their sins great.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#313 Jan 15, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
The arguments are in most of my posts for anyone to adapt. You're free to be as reasonable sounding as you wish to anytime you want to be.
You didn't address the matter of context I raised: I am not a glbt spokesperson. This is not PBS's Newshour.
I don't think any of these fundie bigots are ever going to be persuaded of anything - they believe the earth is under 10000 years old. You cannot fix a malady like that with reasoned argument. Furthermore, they assiduously avoid ever dealing with any of the content - because they have no good answer. They're complete hypocrites and they know it.
So I believe the fundie trash should be subject to ridicule, defamation and dehumanization. After all, they treat others the way they would wish to be treated - I am merely obliging them.
The fact that some percentage of the talibangelical posters is just a troll doesn't enter too much into my calculations.
R U angry?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#316 Jan 15, 2014
Christsharian Deelite wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, but are breathing?
Sure I am. Are you holding your breath? ;-)... and yes, I get angry with those dolts too.

What I meant was that we can all be angry. In my personal experience, anger is rather ineffective when dealing with the mentally ill.

.... Just saying.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#317 Jan 15, 2014
chief22 wrote:
there are no rights involved...
all real rights are free and we don't need governmen permission
If this were the case, there would have been no need for the founders to create the Bill of Rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Autos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
1998 Honda Civic wet seatbelt 11 hr DL George 1
News BMW boycott sought by Jesse Jackson Sat vbs 2
News Jeep Patriot: An Unpleasant Surprise (Jan '10) Fri Guy with jeep pat... 38
5 cylinder chevy colorado (May '07) Oct 18 Bob D 316
News GM to Introduce at Least 20 New EVs by 2023 Oct 17 BS Repellent 6
EU cars key programmer advice, Lonsdor K518 is ... Oct 12 lanny717 2
XTOOL X-100 PAD Tablet Key Programmer (Nov '15) Oct 10 jimmyLIN 16
More from around the web