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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#273 Jan 14, 2014
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be true......but where did SCOTUS EVER actually declare in ANY of the 14 rulings regarding marriage did they ACTUALLY say that Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT ONLY FOR A MAN AND A WOMAN?
It was understood. Still is.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#274 Jan 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a stupid question.
Not at all and you failed to show that it is.

Is this another unfounded opinion?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#275 Jan 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It was understood. Still is.
Fundamental rights are for all citizens. Heterosexuals love the opposite sex; homosexuals love the same sex. What can be more fundamental the right to choose a mate?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#276 Jan 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It was understood. Still is.
So, it was IMPLIED because of the times....is that what you mean? And NO it DOESN'T still imply opposite-sex couples ONLY seeing as Same-Sex Couples are getting married!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#277 Jan 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a stupid question.
No dumber than claiming that just because the marriage case involved an opposite-sex couple, that the fundamental right to marry only applied to opposite-sex couples.

So did the Loving ruling only guarantee a right to marry for inter-racial couples, since the couple involved was inter-racial?

I agree, your assertion is stupid.

Which explains why you anti-gays keep losing in court after court and state after state.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#278 Jan 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It was understood. Still is.
Multiple courts & constitutional experts disagree with your assessment.

Gee, now whose opinion should carry more weight?...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#279 Jan 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
It was understood. Still is.
And before that it was "understood" that whites should only marry whites.

Times change.

What's "understood" changes.

If they intended their ruling to apply only to opposite-sex couples, surely the justices were forward looking enough to realize any ambiguity in their ruling could be used to justify other couplings.

The justices weren't stupid. They may have been ignorant at times, but certainly they understood the importance of clarity in their rulings; which is why their rulings are so damn long to cover all the bases.

It's simply wishful thinking to believe the justices wouldn't simply have stated something along the following if they wished to limit their ruling to opposite-sex couples:

"The fundamental right of a man to marry a woman cannot be infringed based on the race of either party."

See how easy that would have been?

Any ambiguity in court rulings is intentional.
Christaliban

Philadelphia, PA

#280 Jan 14, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
By dropping the personal remark, your post is much stronger.
That presumes the xstain mullah bigots are to be treated as human beings. They are not.

Now, in a different medium, like TV, or if by a glbt spokesperson, then, sure.
Christaliban

Philadelphia, PA

#281 Jan 14, 2014
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Fundamental rights are for all citizens. Heterosexuals love the opposite sex; homosexuals love the same sex. What can be more fundamental the right to choose a mate?
Your post would be stronger if you were not naive about whom you are addressing it to, and if your post reflected such a lack a naivete, imo.

So earnest...with a troll who either does believe or pretends to believe that the earth is under 10000 years old. Get a clue.

He is a pos, and should be consistently named as such.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#282 Jan 14, 2014
Christsharia Law wrote:
<quoted text>
The case of Warren Jeffs is not vague. The fact that religions are not totally exempt from civil laws is not vague. The fact that the tv polygamist himself is worried about prosecution by the feds is not vague.
It's also not credible. He's mugging for the camera and ratings when he says that.

There are ZERO laws on the books that he could be prosecuted under because, as far as his religious marriage to his wives is concerned, he's not breaking any laws.

Now, if he were to try and LEGALLY marry multiple wives, which he has not, but if he were try to do that, THEN he'd be in trouble.

Or they might be in trouble for welfare fraud or child abuse or neglect or something like that, but simply considering oneself to be religiously married to multiple spouses at the same time is just not against the law. It's protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
Christaliban

Philadelphia, PA

#283 Jan 14, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
It's also not credible. He's mugging for the camera and ratings when he says that.
There are ZERO laws on the books that he could be prosecuted under because, as far as his religious marriage to his wives is concerned, he's not breaking any laws.
Now, if he were to try and LEGALLY marry multiple wives, which he has not, but if he were try to do that, THEN he'd be in trouble.
Or they might be in trouble for welfare fraud or child abuse or neglect or something like that, but simply considering oneself to be religiously married to multiple spouses at the same time is just not against the law. It's protected by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#284 Jan 14, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
That presumes the xstain mullah bigots are to be treated as human beings. They are not.
Now, in a different medium, like TV, or if by a glbt spokesperson, then, sure.
Avoiding personal attacks makes your rhetoric stronger. The fundamentalists always tell people they are going to hell. This is a personal attack which makes them vulnerable to those who use a non-personal approach. For example, rather than focus on the individual, I focus on the behavior and how that behavior is unfavorable to God. Drives them nuts. lol

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#286 Jan 14, 2014
Oklahoma marriage ban overturned by federal judge!!!

The dominos are falling!!!!!!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#287 Jan 14, 2014
The Oklahoma case will be heard by the 10th circuit; probably combined with the Utah case.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#288 Jan 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If marriage were a fundamental right there would be no fees, certificates or regulations. Yes, I've heard it called a fundamental right but it obviously isn't.
I have to thank you once again.

You never fail to come up with a post that if I heard you use it on Judge Judy I'm pretty sure she'd tell Bert to slap you upside the head.

Under your definition of "FUNDEEMENTAL RIGHTS:
- having a baby isn't a fundamental right (gotta pay the doctors),
- buying a postage stamp to mail a letter isn't a fundeemental right.
- getting a check from your boss isn't a fundeemenatal right (taxes remember. plus he has to pay someone for the paper and banking fees)

I could go on but I've shown enough of your backside.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#289 Jan 14, 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.
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.

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#290 Jan 14, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Oklahoma marriage ban overturned by federal judge!!!
The dominos are falling!!!!!!!!
Badda bing,
Badda boom!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#291 Jan 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never heard the supreme court say that gay marriage was a fundamental right.
Gun ownership may be a 'right' but looks very much like a privilege, similar to a driver's license. You also have a right to own property but you don't really own it, you just rent it from your city or town.
Read the Windsor Decision then.

It's comical watching you all try to pass Federal Laws about marriage, abortion etc. and then whine about States Rights.

You want original intent?

Fine.

"The courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
- Alexander Hamilton; Federalist No. 78
(My thanks to Snyper for his additions to my original of this)

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#292 Jan 14, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering has a positively childlike understanding of the world.
I had to post a disagree icon.

"Wondering" is far from childlike. Overly simplistic, homophobic and irrational most the time yes, but far from childlike IHMO.

"Wondering" is an adult who takes great pride in their rationalizations for being such a twit.

Children don't take pride in being foolish.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#293 Jan 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of "Gun ownership may be a 'right' " has you confused?
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.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gay marriage victory at Supreme Court triggerin... 4 min Table Scraps 7
News Feds' transgender guidance provokes fierce back... 8 min An NFL Fan 1,066
News 'Gay sex causes earthquakes' says conservative ... 12 min johnson1 14
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 14 min Big C 11,937
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 1 hr June VanDerMark 10,352
News Anti-Gay Jehovah's Witness Cartoon Tells Kids T... 2 hr RedhorseWoman 2,127
News Mississippi Governor Signs Law Allowing Busines... 2 hr Credence 492
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr WeTheSheeple 36,268
More from around the web