Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Utah officials to appeal order requiring recognition of legally-performed same-sex marriages

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

utahUPDATE 1 1:10PM ET: Utah officials have asked the Tenth Circuit for a stay of the lower court’s injunction pending the outcome of the appeal. If granted, the state won’t have to recognize the legally-performed marriages while the case is on appeal. The request is here.

UPDATE 2 6:45PM ET: The Tenth Circuit has granted a week-long stay while they consider the motion to halt recognition of same-sex marriages pending the outcome of the appeal. A response to that request is due from the plaintiffs next Thursday, June 12. The order was signed by the same three-judge panel who heard arguments in Kitchen v. Herbert, challenging Utah’s same-sex marriage ban itself. An incorrect order was initially filed listing the same judges that are hearing Kitchen v. Herbert. The court issued a corrected order, which we’ve now posted.

Utah officials have announced in a filing that they will appeal a federal district court judge’s order that required the state to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed before the Supreme Court issued its stay in the Kitchen case, which challenges Utah’s marriage ban.

The appeal will be filed in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard Kitchen v. Herbert back in early April. A decision in that case could come at any time, though regardless of its outcome, it remains an open question whether the state would be required to recognize those legally valid marriages performed prior to the stay.

The Salt Lake Tribune has more:

The state is appealing a ruling that would require it to recognize hundreds of marriages that occurred in the days after a judge overturned Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage.

Gov. Gary Herbert and state Attorney General Sean Reyes on Wednesday filed a notice in federal court that it would appeal U.S. District Judge Dale A. Kimball’s May order that the state must treat the same-sex marriages performed in December and January the same way it treats all opposite-sex marriages.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, John Mejia of the ACLU of Utah, said the state’s last-minute filing “smacks of a delay tactic.”

“That doesn’t give us much time to respond [or] the 10th Circuit much time to think about it,” Mejia said.

Mejia said the four couples suing the state “are disappointed.”

“We had hoped that [the state] would stop on their unprecedented and ill-advised campaign, which we believe is a big waste of taxpayer dollars, to fight recognition of these marriages,” Mejia said. “It’s really causing a lot of disruption and interruption in the lives of real, married couples and their families.”

The new appeal will get its own briefing and argument schedule.

Thanks to Kathleen Perrin for these filings


  • 1. Big Rick  |  June 5, 2014 at 8:28 am

    Yes, the late filing does seem like a stalling tactic. But did anyone ever doubt that Utah would appeal the ruling?

  • 2. Big Rick  |  June 5, 2014 at 8:35 am

    On second thought, the filing of appeal on June 4th against a ruling on May 19th is well within the 30 day limit. I wouldn't characterize that as a late filing, after all.

  • 3. Dann  |  June 5, 2014 at 8:40 am

    They are trying desperately to delay the inevitable.

  • 4. Michael Grabow  |  June 5, 2014 at 8:46 am

    "A decision in that case could come at any time, though regardless of its outcome, it remains an open question whether the state would be required to recognize those legally valid marriages performed prior to the stay."

    Is it really even remotely probable that those marriages wouldn't be recognized if the 10th affirmed the district court's decision with no stay/appeal or if it was appealed and the SCOTUS affirmed their decision?

    If that were to happen, that may be the most useless and ridiculous waste of time and money I have ever heard of.

  • 5. palerobber  |  June 5, 2014 at 8:59 am

    from Kimball's earlier decision:
    "The following Preliminary Injunction Order is temporarily stayed for twenty-one (21) days [June 9] to allow the State to seek an emergency stay pending appeal from the Tenth Circuit."

    so now the state has filed notice of appeal, but have they asked the 10th for a emergency stay pending appeal yet? or do they plan to recognized those marriages while the appeal is underway?

  • 6. David Midvale UT  |  June 5, 2014 at 4:38 pm

    Utah state officials, who are nothing more than lap dogs to the Fifteen Old While Men who are the de facto rulers of this state, are not willing to recognize that the sunrises in the east until ordered to do so by their farthest-reich-wing Republican predominantly-Mormon overlords or they have exhausted every possible avenue of appeal.

  • 7. Kyle  |  June 5, 2014 at 9:33 am

    I'm a bit surprised we haven't seen more of a push by fiscal conservatives to stop defending these bans at this point. Maybe we'll reach a tipping point after the 4th and 10th circuit decisions.

  • 8. KarlS  |  June 5, 2014 at 9:49 am

    Many fiscal 'conservatives' can be surprisingly liberal when it comes to spending someone else's money…

  • 9. Quest  |  June 5, 2014 at 10:23 am

    I suspect you're in for more surprises. Just like the nasty bigots who failed to change us through their precious bans and other forms of discrimination for the past 40 years or more, we're not going to change them with our legal insulation from them.

  • 10. Retired_Lawyer  |  June 5, 2014 at 10:36 am

    The fiscal conservatives, also known as the country club Republicans, have allied themselves with the warmongers (defense conservatives) and the religious (social) conservatives for too long to easily let go. They face the question: what bloc of voters would take the place of the religious right wing? No answer has yet been found. Most likely the fiscal conservatives will make pleasant noises in the direction of the religious conservatives now and then, but do little or nothing for them. Their position with respect to us will be to point out the inexorable march to marriage equality, thereby proving how realistic they are, without saying that it is desirable. In particular, the fiscal conservatives will probably not back "religious liberty" laws that would allow one of their employees to refuse to serve customers. We can probably live with what will look like a slow, flabby, increasingly quiet retreat by the fiscal conservatives.

  • 11. David Midvale UT  |  June 5, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    Here in Utah, fiscal conservatives only care about money spent on public education (but they will trow taxpayer money at their friends in private education without blinking an eye) or the financial safety net for the poor, elderly, sick, or disabled (who said conservatives characterize as free-loaders). On the other hand, these hypocrites will spend huge sums of taxpayer money on stupid stuff to benefit their friends, relatives, and potential donors. The only rule here in Utah is that the decision must be consistent on the most vile form of hypocrisy imaginable.

  • 12. Jesse  |  June 5, 2014 at 10:18 am

    Looks like the GOP primaries for Utah occur on June 24th. Maybe the governor did this to incite the republican base to go out on vote for the candidate that would approve of their moral stance. Hopefully there's enough fiscally conservative candidates that can call them out.

  • 13. David ROH  |  June 5, 2014 at 11:59 am

    Herbert likely will face a challenge from the farthest-far-reich-wing of his own party. Reyes similarly has to pander to religionist extremists if he has any hope of being elected. Here in Utah, state government is the political wing of the Mormon cult-like organization.

  • 14. David Midvale UT  |  June 5, 2014 at 11:41 am

    Utah state officials are required to pander to the far-reich-wing of the Utah Republican party, dominated by Utah Mormons, if said officials want to get re-elected. This action was expected and only serves as further proof that Utah Mormons are deliberately disobedient to the principle that their Jesus called the Second Greatest Commandment: treat their neighbors the way that they themselves would want to be treated. Obviously, these hypocrites don't give a flying rodent flatus about their own constitutionally guaranteed right to Due Process or Equal Protection of the Laws since they delight in denying these same rights to their law-abiding, tax-paying, Similarly Situated adult neighbors. Just mention the Second Amendment though and they will jump all over their constitutional protections and personal liberty. No one here in Utah, except the brainwashed sheeple, who are too stupid to think for themselves, believe one word of the irrational nonsense that the state has used to justify causing significant emotional pain and financial hardship to Utah citizens. Utah government officials pander to these hypocrites, and cult-like behavior and straight ticket voting make sure that there is no real competition in most of the state-wide and legislative races.

    If you have Mormon friends, please ask them why Utah Mormons spend so much taxpayer money to hurt children.

  • 15. ABC  |  June 5, 2014 at 7:07 pm

    I wish I could convey how much is wrong with this statement, There are thousands of Latter-day Saints trying to be more loving in Christ's way. Whatever you may think of Prop 8, classifying a people who are trying to learn all truth as we find it based on one election is just not the whole truth. Gays and lesbians are in our churches, our temples, and the best of us love them and don't wish they weren't that way one bit.

    We also have different ways of thinking about chastity and marriage than many on this site. In contrast to the no "rational basis" view which makes perfect sense to those on this site; Utah's marriage laws would survive any level of scrutiny based on how the LDS think about marriage (or other people both now and in particular any group in the past 1000 years that I am aware of until 1972). How do we think of marriage? A dual bond between a couple and God and a couple and society that enables us to raise children with minimal dependence on the state. Since we feel any sexual relations outside of marriage are wrong, and have broad purposes for this law, we approach this differently from you.

    We've hurt you, yes, but much of it is unintentional. We also have many things to share with you and that you hope you'll share good– music, art, drama, ideas, etc.– with us. We have good reasons for what we do– we just view marriage differently at a very fundamental level.

  • 16. davep  |  June 5, 2014 at 7:48 pm

    There was nothing "unintentional" about religious organizations spending forty million dollars to spread ugly lies about gay people to convince people to vote away the important legal rights and protections of civil marriage during the Prop 8 campaign.

    And lots of people have lots of different religious ideas about marriage, but frankly, that's completely irrelevant since the issue is only concerning secular civil marriage laws which have nothing to do with any religious views or practices regarding marriage.

    So no, it is senseless to argue that these marriage bans 'survive any level of scrutiny' since 'level of scrutiny' is a concept relating to constitutional law, not religious views.

    And no, these marriage bans fail to survive ANY level of constitutional scrutiny, including the most lenient 'rational basis' scrutiny. These laws cause great harm to a targeted group, and fail to advance any states interest or serve any legally valid purpose for a secular civil law. They accomplish nothing other than needless discrimination.

  • 17. Retired_Lawyer  |  June 6, 2014 at 5:23 am

    well said, davep.

  • 18. Rose  |  June 6, 2014 at 6:09 am

    Nicely stated and without name-calling…….good for you<3

  • 19. Richard Weatherwax  |  June 5, 2014 at 9:01 pm

    You have merely confirmed the truth of the above statement. It is true that to the LDS way of thinking, the law against same-sex marriage can be justified, what Mormons believe is irrelevant. The 1st Amendment gives Mormons the right to practive their religion according to their beliefs. But it also gives non-Mormons the right to their own beliefs and practices. The Mormon Church is violating the 1st and 14th Amendments by not allowing others to practice their beliefs.

  • 20. Michael  |  June 5, 2014 at 9:26 pm

    The problem is that homophobia is a sin like lying, stealing and murder. To come up with all sorts of convoluted, twisted reasons to remain wallowing in that sin harms the individual, rips the fabric of society and weakens the institution of marriage. The good news is that we see people daily leaving the sinful anti-gay lifestyle so change is possible if you try.

  • 21. Steve  |  June 6, 2014 at 7:29 am

    The truth is that there is no such thing is as "sin". And the sooner people stop thinking in such absurd, inhuman concepts the better.

  • 22. David Midvale UT  |  June 5, 2014 at 9:40 pm

    There is NO justification what-so-flipping-ever for using the Rule of Law to force your narrow-minded religion down the throats of other people who do not have the slightest interest in your mythology.

    The statements made by LDS leaders during the campaign for Prop. 8 in California were deliberately contrived, fear mongering LIES. For about 4 years prior to the Prop. 8 vote, marriage equality had been the law in Massachusetts, and NOT one traditional marriage had been hurt by marriage equality laws. Yet Mormon leaders insisted that the constitutional right to Equal Protection of the Laws would harm so-called traditional marriage and religious liberty. LIES, LIES, LIES!

    No one gives a flying monkey copulation about your religious beliefs, especially your beliefs concerning marriage. YOU, on the other hand are expected (commanded) to treat your neighbors the way that you yourself want to be treated. Do YOU want to be treated as a second-class citizen by your state government? Do YOU want to be denied a constitutionally protected liberty interest?. . . and yes, various courts have ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. Do YOU want to pay higher taxes than your identically-financially-situated neighbors? Do YOU want to be denied the benefits and protections of secular government that your neighbors currently enjoy because some sewer-slime-sucking hypocrites think that their unsubstantiated personal opinion regarding goat-herder mythology or a book of nonsense purportedly translated by looking at a rock in a hat justifies discrimination that precisely matches the text-book definition of bigotry?

    Unintentional? Sorry, but I have read the Dunn memos and the documents published by Mother Jones. Utah voters were told that Utah Amendment 3 might not be constitutional, but they were told by Mormon leaders to vote for the amendment anyway. An eighth grade civics student should be able to tell that Calif. Prop. 8 and Utah Amendment 3 violate the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the deliberately contrived nonsense that state governments have spewed to justify religion-motivated animus provides no Rational basis for the laws, much less the Heightened or Intermediate Scrutiny that courts seem to want to apply to marriage equality decisions. The emotional pain and the financial harm were deliberate. There is NO "unintentional" about hurting your neighbors, especially families, and particularly families that include minor children.

    How does it feel to support an organization that deliberately hurts children?

  • 23. Terence  |  June 5, 2014 at 10:49 pm

    As a gay practicing Catholic, and activist for queer inclusion in Church, I can relate to much of your statement. But consider your own words: " How do we think of marriage? A dual bond between a couple and God and a couple and society that enables us to raise children with minimal dependence on the state."

    There is nothing at all in that which is incompatible with gay marriage. Same – couples are also raising children, thousands of them (very often, adopted and troubled kids who could easily be a serious drain on state resources). These couples also need to have their unions validated by xociety, and many, like the LDS couples, would also see their unions as a bond with God.

  • 24. ABC  |  June 6, 2014 at 1:12 am

    I decline to respond to the rest of the many posts above because I'm not trying to troll. Thank you all for expressing your opinion!

  • 25. Eric  |  June 6, 2014 at 10:04 am

    Which is the typical response of the superstitious when presented with facts. Reduce our struggle for equal protection under the law and due process to a mere opinion.

  • 26. José Merentes  |  June 6, 2014 at 3:03 am

    This has nothing to do here. But I posed this issue in a previo us thread:

  • 27. KarlS  |  June 6, 2014 at 7:05 am

    All religions are delusional nonsense. Mor(m)onism is right up there at the top of goofy.
    golden plates, my ass. Bah.

  • 28. Eric  |  June 6, 2014 at 10:06 am

    Come now, who doesn't appreciate claims of sea faring Jews?

  • 29. Steve  |  June 6, 2014 at 12:23 pm

    In a comedy movie, sure. But people take this shit seriously.

  • 30. Steve  |  June 6, 2014 at 7:22 am

    Your religious beliefs mean shit when it comes to the law. At least outside of your sick, crazy theocracy.

  • 31. JayJonson  |  June 6, 2014 at 7:33 am

    The Mormon Church has been spending millions of dollars to harm gay people in more than a single election and on more issues than same-sex marriage. They funneled millions of dollars, for example, to Australia to fight against the repeal of laws that criminalized private homosexual conduct. They fought against nondiscrimination laws all over the globe. It is dishonest to pretend that the Mormon is only fighting to preserve a definition of marriage or that it only intervened in a single election.

  • 32. Roulette00  |  June 5, 2014 at 11:50 am

    I can't help but wonder what the grounds of this stay might be. It seems to boil down to "if we win, the plaintiffs will be harmed by non-recognition, so we ask that the ban on recognition be upheld, because never recognizing the marriage is less harmful than recognizing them." Such illogic. First of all, doesn't the state have to argue how the stay hurts them? And here they are, arguing how lifting the ban hurts the plaintiffs, which is the very thing the plaintiffs seek? Makes. No. Sense.

  • 33. Jesse  |  June 5, 2014 at 12:37 pm


    One would think that they would argue that because the state has to recognize these marriages, they would show how the state has suffered harm (increased overtime paperwork, confusion, etc.). It's been long enough. Surely they have metrics to highlight how the additional recognition of these marriages affected the State.

  • 34. Roulette00  |  June 5, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    They should at least explain: if withholding recognition harms the plaintiffs, why did the State do it in the first place? Why is it okay to withhold recognition voluntarily but NOT okay to withhold recognition by court order?

  • 35. Dann  |  June 5, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    It's very sad that there're still so many bigots out there that want to deprive others of a better life. Life is so short yet all they want to do is hurt others. All of us only get this one time around. There are no "do overs". I'm having a moment.

  • 36. David Midvale UT  |  June 5, 2014 at 4:44 pm

    Welcome to Utah. If you have any doubt about why Utah is the center for government-sanctioned discrimination, read the Loren C. Dunn memos regarding political activity in Hawaii or the more detailed memos recently posted by Mother Jones.

  • 37. Zack12  |  June 5, 2014 at 4:00 pm
    They got their stay:(
    Still says nothing about how they will rule on marriage equality IMO, this is more of the gay means stay meme.

  • 38. brandall  |  June 5, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    Is the 6:45 ET pm at update at the top correct? The update says the court granted a one-week stay, but here is the excerpt:

    We grant a temporary stay of the district court’s order and direct the Plaintiff s-Appellees to respond to the stay motion no later than 11:59 P.M. MDT on Thursday, June 12, 2014. The temporary stay will be in effect until further order of this court.

    I read this to mean Plaintiff's have a week to respond, but no statement of when the court will rule or the stay will be lifted.

  • 39. David ROH  |  June 5, 2014 at 4:24 pm

    Your interpretation is correct.

  • 40. Big Rick  |  June 5, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    The temporary stay order, linked to from the update above, says "The temporary stay will be in effect until further order of this court." So it's not a week, it's until the court lifts it or makes it permanent.

    I think the comment about the week-long stay may come from date the plaintiff's response is due, June 12, one week from today.

  • 41. KarlS  |  June 5, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    Yes, the stay is clearly of indeterminate duration. Does anyone know if any marriages have been "recognized" (whatever that actually means) by the State or its agencies in the interim?

  • 42. brandall  |  June 5, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    No, all those poor folks are in legal limbo similar to what happened with the City of SF, et al. The State said they do not want to process or acknowledge any of them.

  • 43. JayJonson  |  June 6, 2014 at 7:41 am

    Not quite like City of SF et al. because the federal government recognizes their marriages. These folks are in the same kind of limbo as those of who live in states that do not recognize our legal marriages that we entered into in free states like Massachusetts. We are married in the eyes of the federal government, but not in the eyes of our state government.

  • 44. Jen  |  June 6, 2014 at 9:28 am

    Same bullshit is happening in Michigan. I'm so frustrated with these endless delays!

  • 45. Scottie Thomaston  |  June 5, 2014 at 5:08 pm

    I agree the order doesn't say the stay is in effect for a week, but it says it's in effect pending further order, and the further order is expected after the filing of the response next Thursday. So, the stay is in effect for a week.

  • 46. ebohlman  |  June 5, 2014 at 5:24 pm

    The order says nothing concerning how soon the court will issue further orders, other than the obvious implication that it won't issue any before the response is filed. I rather doubt they'll rule the same day the response is filed. "At least a week" is the applicable phrase here.

  • 47. Ragavendran  |  June 5, 2014 at 7:02 pm

    Yeah, and there likely will be time for a reply from Utah as well, so, more than a week.

  • 48. david  |  June 6, 2014 at 5:37 am… another lawsuit here in MI targets marriages from out of state

  • 49. Sagesse  |  June 5, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    Edie Windsor and Robbie Kaplan on HuffPost Live (VIDEO)

    It's 40 minutes well spent. A real treat.

  • 50. JayJonson  |  June 6, 2014 at 8:13 am

    Thanks for the link. It was indeed 40 minutes well spent. Loved seeing Roberta Kaplan and Edie, and also the adorable John Becker.

  • 51. Fr. Bill  |  June 5, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    Am I correct in thinking that this request for a stay will put pressure on the 10th circuit to issue their opinion soon? It seems Utah will have great difficulty showing any significant harm and the plaintiffs can show great harm in keeping the stay in place. The only rationale supporting a stay would be that Justice Sottomayer issued a stay in the other case involving licenses issued by Utah. Here it seems the issue is the constitutionality of Section 2 of DOMA.

  • 52. BenG  |  June 5, 2014 at 8:23 pm

    Let's hope this does put more pressure on them than they're already under. I think it's safe to say that they've been under a great deal of pressure ever since they received the Utah appeal. It's pretty clear that media and public interest in these cases far exceeds that for the vast majority of cases they routinely consider.

  • 53. ABC  |  June 6, 2014 at 1:25 am

    I do have a question– is it the consensus here that all long-term committed gay and lesbian couples should get married (once it is legalized)?

  • 54. Simon  |  June 6, 2014 at 1:36 am

    No, don't agree. It is up to each individual decision in their individual circumstances.

    I am a straight man, my partner and I are unmarried, we have a child together. Maybe we might get married one day, but my parents' divorce put me off the whole marriage thing, and here in Australia, our legal rights as an unmarried couple are almost the same as those of a married couple. Now, if we lived in the US, we would be married by now, because the legal protections for unmarried couples in the US are nowhere near as good as they are in Australia. I have thought about moving to the US before (for work reasons), if we ever do, we will get married, because US immigration law does not recognize de facto relationships.

    So, since I don't believe every straight couple should get married – it is an individual decision – obviously I don't think every lesbian or gay couple should too. Marriage equality is about giving everyone the same options, not forcing people into choosing one of them.

  • 55. JayJonson  |  June 6, 2014 at 8:20 am

    Precisely. No one in their right mind is in favor of compulsory marriage. The point is not that everyone should marry, but that everyone should have the right to marry.

  • 56. Chuck from PA  |  June 6, 2014 at 11:57 am

    Marriage should be a decision made by both potential spouses. However, the very many benefits that marriage offers are immensely important to consider, particularly as the couple ages. Aspects of life related to finances, health care, company benefits, and inheritance, and in many cases, care of children and other dependents, are protected for married couples under both federal and state laws. Gay and lesbian couples deserve these protections and are wise to take advantage of them thorough marriage.

  • 57. Deeelaaach  |  June 6, 2014 at 3:03 am

    ABC, I'll leave the conclusions up to you as you might arrive at different conclusions than I or others on this site do anyway. I recognize that your question may not be a trolling question (and yet it might be), so I'll take it at face value. Nevertheless, my answer may be quite unhelpful to you:

    Flip the script and maybe you'll find your answer. We like to flip the script a lot on this site because it usually tends to be helpful: "is it the consensus here that all long-term committed [heterosexual] couples should get married?"

  • 58. ABC  |  June 6, 2014 at 5:48 am

    I actually like that flip. Feel free to answer that question too.

  • 59. ABC  |  June 6, 2014 at 6:09 am

    A plurality or majority of Utahns believe all straight couples should get married if they are going to have intimate relations. While this is simplifying, and perhaps unfairly, I hope this helps explain why Utahns are reluctant to have a culture who answers the question Deelaaach asked differently then them (if this site's response is any indication) "fix" their marriage laws.

  • 60. Dr. Z  |  June 6, 2014 at 6:17 am

    Then you may as well ask whether gay couples plan to include monogamy as part of their vows; in which case Deeelaaach's flip is once again valid.

    Each couple will have their own answer.

  • 61. ABC  |  June 6, 2014 at 6:22 am

    Exactly; and many Utahns believe there are better answers to both questions from society's perspective than others.

    I'm not asking you to agree; I'm just showing how the view is so different.

  • 62. ABC  |  June 6, 2014 at 6:22 am

    I guess I mean, Utahns think some answers to the questions are better than others.

  • 63. palerobber  |  June 6, 2014 at 8:33 am

    stop pretending you speak for all Utahns. orthodox LDS are not even a majority in this state.

  • 64. Bruno71  |  June 6, 2014 at 8:47 am

    Whatever the state's religious makeup, a recent poll showed an even number in favor for and against marriage equality. ABC's points about what Mormons think don't nearly apply to all of them according to those numbers.

  • 65. SoCal_Dave  |  June 6, 2014 at 8:28 am

    ABC, I think you've hit the nail on the head with your questions. Why would it matter what some people think that other people "should" do with their private lives?
    That's our basic difference. I believe in free agency. The mormon church, in spite of its articles of faith, apparently does not.

  • 66. JayJonson  |  June 6, 2014 at 8:25 am

    Most people in the United States are neither Utahns nor Mormons. Much of our antipathy toward Mormons stems less from their own beliefs than from their penchant for forcing their beliefs on others. As a minority religious group that has itself been persecuted, Mormons really should have enough introspection and intelligence to not persecute others. Alas, history is rife with people who complain of persecution but then once they gain a measure of power, persecute others. In any case, attempting to force people to marry if they are going to have intimate relations is unconstitutional in the United States and even in Utah and Mississippi.

  • 67. Jen  |  June 6, 2014 at 9:51 am

    Plus, the whole concept of "lying for The Lord" is incredibly hypocritical. John Aravosis at Americablog has a lot on this distasteful Mormon practice.

  • 68. palerobber  |  June 6, 2014 at 8:28 am

    that majority is a presumption on your part. can you back it up with actual polling data (from this decade) ? a lot has changed since 2004.

  • 69. Eric  |  June 6, 2014 at 10:13 am

    Your claim about the beliefs of a majority of Utahns is not supported by the law in Utah, nor have there been any attempts to pass laws that support your claims. Why is that?

  • 70. ABC  |  June 6, 2014 at 10:18 am

    Much of the meaning of marriage is not based on laws, no matter how you feel about same-sex marriage.

  • 71. davep  |  June 6, 2014 at 10:34 am

    ALL of the meaning of CIVIL MARRIAGE is a matter of secular civil law, and these civil laws must comply with the Constitution. Not any religious beliefs.

    Marriage has ALWAYS been a secular civil matter. It existed as civil marriage long, long before any religion decided to get involved and began performing symbolic religious ceremonies to celebrate these civil marriages.

    Religion didn't create marriage, it doesn't own it, and it doesn't control the secular civil laws that DO regulate civil marriage.

    Churches are free to decide for themselves which types of marriages they do or don't want to recognize with a symbolic ceremony in their church. A Baptist church can't be forced to celebrate a Hindu wedding, a Catholic church can decide not to celebrate marriages of people who have previously divorced, etc.

    But NONE of that has anything to do with determining which couples can and cannot go to City Hall and get a civil marriage certificate. THAT is what conveys all of the important legal rights and protections, not the symbolic religious ceremony, and all laws related to this question MUST comply with our Constitution.

  • 72. Retired_Lawyer  |  June 6, 2014 at 5:43 am

    Speaking only for myself: I would not presume to tell anyone else else to get married. The status is a matter of civil law, hence public, but the decision is personal, hence private.

  • 73. Rose  |  June 6, 2014 at 6:23 am

    No, but EVERY individual in a committed relationship should have the right to marry….after all that's what this discussion is TRULY about…..NOT whether Gays and Lesbians WILL get married, but that they have the RIGHT to make that very personal decision for themselves and their families!!!

    Besides there are over 1138 federal rights, benefits and privileges that go with being legally married and SCOTUS has already ruled that Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL right that CAN'T be denied for ANY reason, ESPECIALLY just because folks have issues with who Gays and Lesbians are and who they want to marry!!!

    Let me ask you a question…….how would you feel if someone denied you your right to marry the person of your choosing? Would you just accept it? or would you be angry and fight? Look forward to your answers!!!

  • 74. ABC  |  June 6, 2014 at 6:27 am

    I made all the points I want to make just above; replying to your questions would make me a troll in the harmful sense to the quality of this site. Though I disagree profoundly with many posts on this site, I have no desire to troll. Thanks for replying!

    <This will probably be my last post for the forseeable future.>

  • 75. KarlS  |  June 6, 2014 at 7:02 am

    You didn't make any points, you asked a ridiculous snarky question.

  • 76. JayJonson  |  June 6, 2014 at 8:28 am

    ABC's ridiculous questions are, however, quite revealing. He or she reveals the way authoritarian minds work. They can only think in terms of requiring everyone to be the same and do what they tell them to do. This kind of person is happy only in cults or authoritarian communities.

  • 77. Bruno71  |  June 6, 2014 at 8:55 am

    Yes and the Mormon approach to authoritarianism is so insidious. They are truly the"nicest" people on earth. It's ingrained in them to catch flies with honey. That's why it's so easy for ABC to claim the LDS as an equality minded group while in the same breath intimating their attitudes that squarely discriminate against gay couples. This combo of friendliness and stubbornness has given me more than a few headaches in the past. I do think it's unfortunate ABC just wanted to hit and run on the conversation s/he started.

  • 78. ABC  |  June 6, 2014 at 9:26 am

    I'd be happy to discuss this point (albeit I lack the time at the moment). The issue is truly that we are trying to be like Christ, who we both believe is the nicest person ever to walk the earth, and also our lawgiver who gives commandments. Having a merciful judge makes us both nice and obedient to Him.

  • 79. Dr. Z  |  June 6, 2014 at 9:53 am

    Nice is different than good.

  • 80. ABC  |  June 6, 2014 at 10:02 am

    And Jesus was both, and we are trying to be both.

  • 81. Steve  |  June 6, 2014 at 10:35 am

    And spectacularly failing at both.

  • 82. StraightDave  |  June 6, 2014 at 10:39 am

    You have a strange definition of "nice". It comes across as being personally very polite while in the act of constraining other people's rights and making their lives unnecessarily difficult and putting their children at greater risk.

    That not "nice" in my dictionary.

    Maybe you were brought up to think that the epitome of nice is to spread the LDS credo and culture across the entire planet, and that by doing so you are doing 7 billion people a great favor. Nobody outside your church thinks that way.

    So please stop trying to do me favors I don't want, or need. And perhaps start thinking more about what might make others' lives a little bit better. The latter is how I define "nice".

  • 83. Bruno71  |  June 6, 2014 at 11:03 am

    Exactly. That's why I put it in quotes to begin with. Not that a typical LDS person isn't actually nice or friendly in some ways, but it's certainly a false pretense in many other ways. Some of the fakest people I've met have been Mormons…and the further away they are from their indoctrination, the more genuine they become. Trying to be something you're not is not the same as being that thing.

  • 84. davep  |  June 6, 2014 at 10:42 am

    If you want to be 'nice', one good way to start would be to cease working to harm other people's families and cease advocating for the denial of important legal protections.

    Is that so hard to understand?

  • 85. Rakihi  |  June 6, 2014 at 12:07 pm

    While we find attitudes like ABC's to be incomprehensible sometimes, it's a lot easier to understand if we realize that many of them really do think of gays as akin to drug addicts who need to be "saved" from themselves.

    They don't understand that, unlike alcoholics and drug addicts, who most people agree only project a facade of contentment, gay people really are happy, or would be if only other (primarily religious) people would stop doing everything in their power to make gay and lesbian lives miserable in the hopes that they will someday "see the light".

  • 86. SoCal_Dave  |  June 6, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    I wish you'd try a little harder.
    Jesus never tried to make civil laws to compel people to behave a certain way. And he never (in all the bible AND the book of mormon) said anything about same-sex relationships.

  • 87. Bruno71  |  June 6, 2014 at 11:08 am

    Not too interested in why you fake niceties, actually. I have enough experience with people of your faith in my life to know what that's all about. But you shouldn't post something on a site (in this case your thoughts on prop 8, etc. plus your question about compulsory marriages for gay couples) and then say thanks, no time to really discuss it. You have a right to, but it's kind of rude.

  • 88. KarlS  |  June 6, 2014 at 11:43 am

    Nice? NICE???? if, for argument's sake we concede he actually lived and that the nasty old book is accurate, the guy was a petulant psychopathic idiot…he cursed a fig tree because it didn't have any figs for him to eat…at the wrong time of year. So he was either nuts or stupid…hardly a recommendation for worship. (Yes, I am aware how the apologists attempt to rationalize the story as a metaphor for the Jewish nation…they are good at doing that when it suits their agenda…and also for insisting on literal meaning when THAT suits them.)

  • 89. RCChicago  |  June 6, 2014 at 12:58 pm

    I consider myself a person of faith and have done much study of Christianity, of the Bible and of the history of both. What fascinates me is how so many modern-day Christians vigorously defend their viewpoints based on Jesus' teachings, while completely betraying what he taught. Most of these vigorous defenses arise from the laws of the Old Testament. Jesus said he came to preach a new law, a new way of believing and thinking. He told his people—who were Jews living by the laws of what we now call the Old Testament—to not follow the old rules. The Samaritan story, for example, is not about kindness to strangers…It's that the Samaritan was considered unclean under the laws of the time, which is why even a man of God could walk by him and ignore him. Jesus preached compassion, empathy, loving one another, the Golden Rule. Deny the rigidity of these laws, he said, and make taking care of one another the law by which all other laws are devised. The God of the Old Testament was vengeful, angry, jealous, judgmental. Jesus was not.

  • 90. RCChicago  |  June 6, 2014 at 7:56 am

    It saddens me that, after reading the many logical perspectives posted here in response to your questions, you make no indication that any of them caused you even a moment's pause. The bottom line is this: as Americans, we are entitled to our individual religious beliefs; we are not entitled to insist that others outside of our faith structures adhere to those beliefs. The issue of marriage equality is a civic one, first and foremost. No one can get married in a religious institution without first obtaining a license from the government. No one American should restrict rights to another American based purely on personal beliefs. What the courts and many people are beginning to realize is that equality and equal protection applies equally to minorities.

  • 91. grod  |  June 6, 2014 at 9:08 am

    RC: Tell that to enlightened Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco Cordileone, who is also the chair of the US Conference on Catholic Bishops' Committee on the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. In Nov 2012, he said …… “The meaning of marriage, though, cannot be redefined because it lies within our very nature. No matter what policy, law or judicial decision is put into place, marriage is the only institution that unites a man and a woman to each other and to any children born of their union. It is either this, or it is nothing at all. …..

  • 92. Quest  |  June 6, 2014 at 9:27 am

    He's still under probation with the state of California for pleading guilty to his drunk driving conviction.

    The rule of law isn't important to him.

  • 93. RCChicago  |  June 6, 2014 at 12:48 pm

    I have written directly to the Catholic leaders in San Francisco and in New York and in Chicago. I realize it's an exercise in futility, but to remain silent is to remain the passive victim. These men appear clueless, oblivious, willfully or not, to the harm that they do. This is why I left the Church. About a year or so ago, I (politely) wrote to a priest who had appeared on a Sunday morning news talk show with hurtful language. I advocated for marriage equality and (hopefully) made a few logical points. He wrote back suggesting I seek therapy. I wondered the impact of such a suggestion to someone younger, more impressionable.

  • 94. Steve  |  June 6, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    Never listen to an allegedly celibate old man when he talks about women, relationships or children.

    Also never listen to an organization that claims to be pro-life and for children, but then runs concentration camps for unwed mothers and their children where they throw hundreds of dead babies into a septic tank.

  • 95. davep  |  June 6, 2014 at 10:18 am

    ABC, the fact that your question is even based on what the 'consensus' of one group of people might be for what other people should or shouldn't be allowed to do with their own personal lives is a big smoking gun.

    Questions of rights of the individual, and whether our laws comply with constitutional mandates for Equal Protection and Due Process, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT ANY 'CONSENSUS' SAYS ABOUT HOW OTHER PEOPLE SHOULD LIVE THEIR LIVES.

    The civil marriages of these couples have no effect on you, your church, or anyone else. It's none of your business and it's absolutely appalling that you would presume otherwise. Let that sink in.

  • 96. Sagesse  |  June 6, 2014 at 3:28 am

    Toronto's Rainbow Crosswalks Debut for WorldPride 2014 [Out Traveller]

    My home town hosts World Pride later this month.

    By the way, there was a time on this board, before there were Quick Hits, when news/topics of interest were posted on the most recent thread, even it it wasn't the topic of the thread. It's 'on topic' for the site. Works for me.

  • 97. david  |  June 6, 2014 at 5:36 am

    Another lawsuit has been filed against the state targeting our Gov and AG to recognize out of state SSM

  • 98. Guest  |  June 6, 2014 at 10:40 am

    What is the point, since the ban on SSM in Michigan was already ruled unconstitutional earlier this year? It's on appeal to the 6th Circuit COA , so what's the point of suing again? It won't make the 6th Circuit or Supreme Court rule any faster.

  • 99. Eric  |  June 6, 2014 at 11:36 am

    The point is that their fundamental right is being denied and the courts are where those issues are resolved. Perhaps it would get the attention of the judiciary if every couple denied their rights filed their own lawsuit, rather than wait for someone else to do it. I'd much rather see the state claim fiscal conservatism while having to defend 300 simultaneous lawsuits, rather than one.

  • 100. Chuck from PA  |  June 6, 2014 at 12:06 pm

    I also read the article and hoped it would be tried in state court, opening a different pathway to ME in Michigan. I was disappointed to see it was in Federal District Court for Flint. It seems our state court cases can achieve final victory quicker, note New Jersey and New Mexico for shining examples.

  • 101. ebohlman  |  June 6, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    New Jersey and New Mexico involved highly specific circumstances unique to those states (existing precedent from 2006 in NJ; lack of any amendments or specific statutory ban in NM). I don't think you can generalize from them. AR is more representative of state cases we're likely to see.

  • 102. anniversary quotes To hus&hellip  |  October 19, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    anniversary quotes To husband

    Equality On TrialUtah officials to appeal order requiring recognition of legally-performed same-sex marriages » Equality On Trial

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!