Another court defeat for Utah on gay ...

Another court defeat for Utah on gay marriage

There are 21 comments on the Albany Times Union story from Dec 25, 2013, titled Another court defeat for Utah on gay marriage. In it, Albany Times Union reports that:

Dan Trujillo, left, and Clyde Peck get married as about 1,500 people gather to show support of marriage equality after a federal judge declined to stay his ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in Utah, at Washington Square, just outside of the Salt Lake City and County Building Monday, Dec. 23, 2013, in Salt Lake City.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Albany Times Union.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Nov 09

Columbus OH

#1 Dec 25, 2013
What part of "no" does the state not understand?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2 Dec 25, 2013
nealcmh wrote:
What part of "no" does the state not understand?
Season's Beatings, Neal!

lol

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#3 Dec 25, 2013
nealcmh wrote:
What part of "no" does the state not understand?
Clearly the state believes falsely that we are a democracy instead of a Republic. That is why they do not understand what "no" means. If more people understood the difference they would be more accepting of marriage equality for all Americans. Including polygamists.
Elizabeth Johnson

Falls Church, VA

#4 Dec 25, 2013
Equal Rights is one thing and should be what everyone fights for. However, this is the WRONG approach when dealing with ultra conservatives and their fight to FORCE ALL of us to follow them and believe as they do.
The fight should be for “FREEDOM of RELIGION”. The RIGHT to worship as you CHOOSES as supposedly guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U S Constitution and under Jesus’ Plan of Salvation WE ALL have “AGENCY or FREE AGENCY”. That is WE HAVE the RIGHT to CHOOSE “What, When, Where, and How” we BELIEVE.
I find it interesting the Mormon Church, which stands for and teaches about DEFENDING one’s “AGENCY” and NOT interfering with it seems to be doing just that. In addition, their Articles of Faith the 11th Article states
“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
This sounds just like Jesus’ Plan of Salvation does it not. So if this church is a supposedly DEFENDER of the faith why is it seemingly violating its own law?
Now, I will say this, I DO NOT understand why two men want to lay together as a Man and a Woman and DO NOT condone such activity. No matter what I think, believe, and or want, if these individuals go to a church, have a faith, and or belief that condone such activity, and allow marriage, I CAN object to it. However, NO matter how much I dislike it, think it is wrong, and disapprove, I CANNOT violate their Freedom of Religion or their AGENCY to do so. I CANNOT judge another for what they believe or do nor do I want to suffer the severe punishment for violating their “AGENCY”.
It is all very simple but the hardest thing to do is being a true Christian and knowing you have to allow things you DO NOT like to protect your RIGHT to worship the way you want.
santorum Greetings

Philadelphia, PA

#5 Dec 25, 2013
Elizabeth Johnson wrote:
Equal Rights
Shut it, cretin. There's no discussion here about abridging any moron-whatever-it-is right to worship or any fundie mouthbreather right to worship.

This discussion is about secular laws in a non theocracy, you trash. If buybull babble made the laws then coveting would be a capital offense.
Elizabeth Johnson

Falls Church, VA

#6 Dec 25, 2013
Take the “DUCK Dynasty” Phil Robertson statement. He said he thinks and believes that homosexuality, adultery, and the other things listed as sins in the bible are sins. He also said he does not judge, treats everyone with respect, has homosexual friends or acquaintances, and believes that all have a right to believe and or live as they choose.

The point is whether or not everything he said or what I thought he said is correct, it is that he expresses his views, thoughts, and beliefs and still tries to treat all equally. That principle is WHAT ALL of US are supposed to be doing.

The U S is NOT supposed to have any type of RELIGIOUS POLICE force or watchdog as the ULTRA Conservatives try to be in their efforts to FORCE ALL of US to conform to their beliefs as the ONLY way.

There was/is ONLY one person that wants us to worship and believe ONE way, SATAN, Lucifer, dare I add Ultra Conservatives.

I say WE should fight for OUR FREEDOM of RELIGION
santorum Greetings

Philadelphia, PA

#7 Dec 25, 2013
Elizabeth Johnson wrote:
Take the “DUCK Dynasty” Phil Robertson statement. He said he thinks and believes that homosexuality, adultery, and the other things listed as sins....
Shut it, you deluded dipsh t.

No christianist ever spoke in such sexually fraught terms about about "sins," of which there are many and which we are all guilty of.

The freaks pick out certain "sins" - most heatedly the homosexual one [sic]- and ignore the others.

If your retrograde "religious" beliefs are to be the basis of secular law then you should get to work outlawing coveting, you moron.

“They committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions.  They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

You christards never spoke about liars or thieves or even murderers in such terms. And this freak explicitly did not do so. He has a homosexual fixation wrapped up in buybull babble. You're just too stupid to know what "pick and choose" means regarding following [sic] a text.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#8 Dec 25, 2013
Elizabeth Johnson wrote:
Equal Rights is one thing and should be what everyone fights for. However, this is the WRONG approach when dealing with ultra conservatives and their fight to FORCE ALL of us to follow them and believe as they do.
The fight should be for “FREEDOM of RELIGION”. The RIGHT to worship as you CHOOSES as supposedly guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U S Constitution and under Jesus’ Plan of Salvation WE ALL have “AGENCY or FREE AGENCY”. That is WE HAVE the RIGHT to CHOOSE “What, When, Where, and How” we BELIEVE.
I find it interesting the Mormon Church, which stands for and teaches about DEFENDING one’s “AGENCY” and NOT interfering with it seems to be doing just that. In addition, their Articles of Faith the 11th Article states
“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
This sounds just like Jesus’ Plan of Salvation does it not. So if this church is a supposedly DEFENDER of the faith why is it seemingly violating its own law?
Now, I will say this, I DO NOT understand why two men want to lay together as a Man and a Woman and DO NOT condone such activity. No matter what I think, believe, and or want, if these individuals go to a church, have a faith, and or belief that condone such activity, and allow marriage, I CAN object to it. However, NO matter how much I dislike it, think it is wrong, and disapprove, I CANNOT violate their Freedom of Religion or their AGENCY to do so. I CANNOT judge another for what they believe or do nor do I want to suffer the severe punishment for violating their “AGENCY”.
It is all very simple but the hardest thing to do is being a true Christian and knowing you have to allow things you DO NOT like to protect your RIGHT to worship the way you want.
If everyone understood the difference between a Republic and a Democracy we would all be fighting to save our Republic from the authoritarians who believe in majority rule; the mob-o-philes.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#9 Dec 25, 2013
santorum Greetings wrote:
<quoted text>
Shut it, cretin. There's no discussion here about abridging any moron-whatever-it-is right to worship or any fundie mouthbreather right to worship.
This discussion is about secular laws in a non theocracy, you trash. If buybull babble made the laws then coveting would be a capital offense.
If anyone knew the difference between a Republic and a Democracy we would be taking about our Constitution instead of secular laws. How the authoritarians are trying to destroy it with Democracy.
santorum Greetings

Philadelphia, PA

#10 Dec 25, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
If anyone knew the difference between a Republic and a Democracy we would be taking about our Constitution instead of secular laws. How the authoritarians are trying to destroy it with Democracy.
Hey, you wanna know something?:

"Secular laws" is a perfectly acceptable usage for the sorts of civil laws we have in the United States.

I don't know what explains your trying to make some non point point about this, but I assume the explanation is closely related to your generally addled, "religious" thinking.

If you want to make some sort of point about "minoritarian" versus "marjoritarian" then I'm sure someone else can do so more ably. The person I am replying to is a theocrat, not someone arguing in favor of pure, non representational democracy.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#11 Dec 25, 2013
Elizabeth Johnson wrote:
Take the “DUCK Dynasty” Phil Robertson statement. He said he thinks and believes that homosexuality, adultery, and the other things listed as sins in the bible are sins. He also said he does not judge, treats everyone with respect, has homosexual friends or acquaintances, and believes that all have a right to believe and or live as they choose.
The point is whether or not everything he said or what I thought he said is correct, it is that he expresses his views, thoughts, and beliefs and still tries to treat all equally. That principle is WHAT ALL of US are supposed to be doing.
The U S is NOT supposed to have any type of RELIGIOUS POLICE force or watchdog as the ULTRA Conservatives try to be in their efforts to FORCE ALL of US to conform to their beliefs as the ONLY way.
There was/is ONLY one person that wants us to worship and believe ONE way, SATAN, Lucifer, dare I add Ultra Conservatives.
I say WE should fight for OUR FREEDOM of RELIGION
Religious Freedom IS a part of what we are fighting for. I have been pointing out for over a year now that the law in Indiana bans ministers from blessing Same Sex Unions. In fact it makes it a crime punishable by $1000 fine and 180 days.

It's part of Indiana's State DOMA law.

Believe me, I am very confident it won't be long before that ban is ruled unconstitutional; not only for the same reason Utah's was but because it denies religious freedom.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#12 Dec 25, 2013
santorum Greetings wrote:
<quoted text>
Shut it, you deluded dipsh t.
No christianist ever spoke in such sexually fraught terms about about "sins," of which there are many and which we are all guilty of.
The freaks pick out certain "sins" - most heatedly the homosexual one [sic]- and ignore the others.
If your retrograde "religious" beliefs are to be the basis of secular law then you should get to work outlawing coveting, you moron.
“They committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions.  They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
You christards never spoke about liars or thieves or even murderers in such terms. And this freak explicitly did not do so. He has a homosexual fixation wrapped up in buybull babble. You're just too stupid to know what "pick and choose" means regarding following [sic] a text.
Why are you attacking this person? She supports marriage equality.

You religious revulsion is clouding your thinking.
santorum Greetings

Philadelphia, PA

#13 Dec 25, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you attacking this person? She supports marriage equality.
You religious revulsion is clouding your thinking.
I don't blame you for being confused by all that disordered buybull babble.

"Now, I will say this, I DO NOT understand why two men want to lay together as a Man and a Woman and DO NOT condone such activity."

Some support.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#14 Dec 25, 2013
santorum Greetings wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't blame you for being confused by all that disordered buybull babble.
"Now, I will say this, I DO NOT understand why two men want to lay together as a Man and a Woman and DO NOT condone such activity."
Some support.
She followed those words with these:

"No matter what I think, believe, and or want, if these individuals go to a church, have a faith, and or belief that condone such activity, and allow marriage, I CAN object to it. However, NO matter how much I dislike it, think it is wrong, and disapprove, I CANNOT violate their Freedom of Religion or their AGENCY to do so. I CANNOT judge another for what they believe or do nor do I want to suffer the severe punishment for violating their “AGENCY”.

Sounds to me that even though she may not approve, she RESPECTS our relationships.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#15 Dec 25, 2013
Elizabeth Johnson wrote:
Take the “DUCK Dynasty” Phil Robertson statement. He said he thinks and believes that homosexuality, adultery, and the other things listed as sins in the bible are sins. He also said he does not judge, treats everyone with respect, has homosexual friends or acquaintances, and believes that all have a right to believe and or live as they choose.
Kind of contradictory, don't you think? Homosexuality is a sin, they have murder in their hearts, or words to that effect, but he has homosexual friends. How friendly would you feel with someone who called you "heartless" and "senseless" and ready to "morph out" into bestiality?
Elizabeth Johnson wrote:
The point is whether or not everything he said or what I thought he said is correct, it is that he expresses his views, thoughts, and beliefs and still tries to treat all equally. That principle is WHAT ALL of US are supposed to be doing.
He's not in jail, and he hasn't been fined. He is still free to express his views and thoughts. He can continue doing it today, tomorrow, and into the future, without fine or imprisonment.
Elizabeth Johnson wrote:
The U S is NOT supposed to have any type of RELIGIOUS POLICE force or watchdog as the ULTRA Conservatives try to be in their efforts to FORCE ALL of US to conform to their beliefs as the ONLY way.
None of the people who have criticized this man have been representatives of the US government. No "religious police force" has been appointed or enacted. The critics of this man have only been from the public marketplace of ideas, where ALL ideas and statements are up for grabs and subject to criticism. Businesses (such as A&E) are not obligated to continue a business relationship with someone who makes it a point to slander innocent citizens.
Elizabeth Johnson wrote:
There was/is ONLY one person that wants us to worship and believe ONE way, SATAN, Lucifer, dare I add Ultra Conservatives.
Oh, just ONE person is super super super evil... and plus all these other millions of Americans.
Elizabeth Johnson wrote:
I say WE should fight for OUR FREEDOM of RELIGION
No one's freedom of religion has been threatened in any way in this issue. When the government comes and tries to force you into a religion, under threat of legal punishment, then we'll have something to worry about. But if a TV channel decides not to employ a man who gives interviews and says that gay people should be just as reviled as murderers, that man is still free to choose his religious beliefs, and so are you and I. He just might have to find another TV channel to work for.
santorum Greetings

Philadelphia, PA

#16 Dec 25, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>She followed those words with these:
"No matter what I think, believe, and or want, if these individuals go to a church, have a faith, and or belief that condone such activity, and allow marriage, I CAN object to it. However, NO matter how much I dislike it, think it is wrong, and disapprove, I CANNOT violate their Freedom of Religion or their AGENCY to do so. I CANNOT judge another for what they believe or do nor do I want to suffer the severe punishment for violating their “AGENCY”.
Sounds to me that even though she may not approve, she RESPECTS our relationships.
One thing that poster does not do is resprct glbt relationships.

Durthermore, if one can shape "her" posts into an argument that reluctantly favors marriage equality, that argument in this case seems to rest on glbt "religious agency."

That's more theocratic babbling. That is precisely not what these civil rights rest on.

However, those posts probable are good examples of unreadable texts. You can read the words but you can't read them....
santorum Greetings

Philadelphia, PA

#17 Dec 25, 2013
Those are funny, if unfortunate typos of mine.

Potato chips and one handed typing....
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

#18 Dec 25, 2013
So we have a new voice in the forum. Elizabeth Johnson. Or should I say: "A hell of a lot of new voice"? She has a lot to say, again and again. Someone needs to take away her caps key. And tach her how to make a cogent argument. I got so lost in her angry meandering that I'm not actually sure which side--or sides--she's on. I suspect she's on all sides.

Meanwhile, I'm waiting for the governor of Utah and his Mormon minions to declare that they are no longer a part of the USA and not subject to its laws or court decisions. That should give us some interesting drama as we head into the new year.
santorum Greetings

Philadelphia, PA

#19 Dec 25, 2013
Sir Andrew wrote:
So we have a new voice in the forum. Elizabeth Johnson. Or should I say: "A hell of a lot of new voice"? She has a lot to say, again and again. Someone needs to take away her caps key. And tach her how to make a cogent argument. I got so lost in her angry meandering that I'm not actually sure which side--or sides--she's on. I suspect she's on all sides.
Meanwhile, I'm waiting for the governor of Utah and his Mormon minions to declare that they are no longer a part of the USA and not subject to its laws or court decisions. That should give us some interesting drama as we head into the new year.
She or he or it seems to have a case of that biologically based malady of Magic Underpants Brain Reflux Disorder, imo.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#20 Dec 25, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Religious Freedom IS a part of what we are fighting for. I have been pointing out for over a year now that the law in Indiana bans ministers from blessing Same Sex Unions. In fact it makes it a crime punishable by $1000 fine and 180 days.
It's part of Indiana's State DOMA law.
Believe me, I am very confident it won't be long before that ban is ruled unconstitutional; not only for the same reason Utah's was but because it denies religious freedom.
I've been waiting for these cases to surface. So far my predictions have been very accurate.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 min lides 38,427
News Ben Carson Warns Gay Couples Against Pushing Ba... (Jan '15) 5 min Divorce Lawyer 77
Little Robbie's Bedtime Stories 5 min Easy Rider 3
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 16 min Seamus 68,794
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 19 min who cares 14,683
Turdday Cafe 26 min Syca 1
News Gay-bashing US pastor feeling the heat from SA 1 hr sister Pendulous ... 9
More from around the web