Ha, ha, fuck you, Mormons!

This is good. Now separate from the question of whether same sex marriages will be recognized in Utah moving forward, the courts will also have to decide whether marriages entered into in good faith by same sex couples in Utah should be annulled.

I don't think the Utah state government has a leg to stand on in denying to recognize marriages which were conducted in accordance to its own rules. When the court declines to annul those marriages the state legislature will probably try to act, but I can't see how a law annulling such a small number of marriages could be seen as anything but a bill of attainder.

I hope the courts see fit to recognize marriage as a basic right, but even if they don't there are going to be a lot more court battles in Utah.

Glad that the same-sex wedding my sister and her husband attended in SLC is being upheld.

Register, repeat, fight for rights!

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2014/01/1…

Maryland too

Yet another in the series of slaps to the face of Utah officials delivered by federal officials. Plus I'm not sure why they were so short-sighted as to declare they wouldn't recognize the marriages: all that has done is guarantee that when those couples get their marriage rights confirmed once and for all, they'll be doing so with a bit fat check after they successfully sue the state.

@5
Oh, well that's because Utah, unlike you and the rest of the barbarians, holds family and marriage to be of value. And they're willing to risk lawsuits from these degenerates if necessary on grounds you wouldn't recognize- principles of right and wrong.

Your depraved and deviant ilk will likely win, over time, the destruction of family, morality and integrity, all things you despise. But expect the opposition of decent people while you do so. And expect decent people always to treat you as sociopathic barbarians, as long as that's how you behave.

@ 6, when I see you making points that are 100% accurate about your own side and 100% wrong about mine, it reminds me of a finch in a cage fighting with the one in the little mirror.

@6 - Utah does not hold family and marriage to be of value. They believe only SOME families and SOME marriages to be of value. If you're not white and Mormon, you're really not worth shit here. If you're white, female, and Mormon then your primary value is for breeding and keeping house - slightly above the shit value of the rest of us heathens.
As yes, while there are some more enlightened Mormons, the bulk of them are NOT in the legislature nor in positions of power in the church or the church-owned media outlets.

Reading Seattleblues comments in a Skeletor voice always does the trick

It always amazes me that there are still people in this modern world that cling to archaic fundamentalist religious beliefs that decry women should be the stay at home care givers and the man should be the wage earner and the woman should be subservient to the man. In this world, it takes two wages just to pay the bills. If the Mormon Church wants to subsidize the families that don't have two wage earners, then that would be a step in the right direction. C'mon Mormons, want some new hires? Subsidize these families so at least one person can get an education and the other (subservient female) can take care of all the little Mormons that you have produced.

Ha ha, fuck you, Seattleblues!

@6: http://www.picz.ge/img/s1/1204/2/7/70772…
It's funny how you keep claiming to be objectively right, but all you ever do is say mean things about those icky icky gays. Whenever you try to justify your position, you seem to end up telling a blatant lie.

@13

Mean? What would you call someone who, to justify his or her lifestyle choice, decides to orchestrate or join a campaign to destroy marriage for everyone else but sociopath and barbarian? What would you call someone steeped in perversion who won't rest until the moral certainties that define his or her condition are obliterated to the detriment of the larger society but profoundly immoral and degenerate? What would you call supposed journalists who lie (as they must since truth would show their insane worldview as untenable) mis-state sources, and generally ignore reality with malignant purpose but entirely lacking in integrity?

Of course a healthy man or woman would find homosexual acts repugnant. If someone offered me fecal matter for supper I'd be disgusted too and for the same reasons. It's a willful violation of a basic human reality. But as long as another person's sex life is kept private I could care less what sick nonsense they get up to. It's only when they try to get social and legal approval for their sickness that I get angry.

If anything my comment @6 wasn't emphatic enough.

@8

Ah. Well, were I you, moving would seem to be in order. You clearly hate the values of the majority of your fellow state residents so you'd be happier elsewhere.

As to family, that's exactly what Utah is protecting. Not two lesbians, their cat and the nice old neighbor they call 'mom' though she's unrelated - not two men and an unfortunate adopted boy. No, family is a husband, wife and their children. It's the uncles and aunts and grandparents. Like marriage your lot want to define these things so broadly they lose all meaning. Utah is merely saying no.

@14: That's the thing though, innit?
When gay people get married, YOUR MARRIAGE IS NOT AFFECTED. Nobody wants to ruin marriage for you; it's not all about you, man! Now that gays have been getting gay married and having gay families in Washington, what's happened to you as a result? Nothing, that's right.
As for your continual insistence on calling being gay a "lifestyle choice", you're guilty of willful ignorance. Being in same-sex relationships is a lifestyle choice for gays in the same way that using one's left hand is a lifestyle choice for southpaws. Sure, they could do things differently, but it wouldn't feel right and there's no reason to do so other than people being prejudiced against it.

@14: You claim that journalists who disagree with you must be lying on the grounds that you don't think the things they write could possibly be true. Have you ever considered that maybe you're not omniscient, that maybe you don't entirely understand how the world works? You're so hung up on what HAS TO BE TRUE (to your worldview) that you're disgracefully closed off to news of what actually IS TRUE.

As for your second paragraph, perhaps you're the one who's unhealthy. I'm a straight man with no interest in ever engaging in sexual activity with other men; I'm a flat zero on the Kinsey Scale. I'm not disgusted by same-sex whoopie the way you are; I'm disinterested. I just simply don't care about gay sex. It doesn't rate high enough for me to think about it, so my opinion is one of profound apathy and indifference. If you're so deeply disturbed by it that you devote brainpower to being disgusted, you may have some issues to work out. As a child, did you see two men kissing or something?

@15: "your lot want to define these things so broadly they lose all meaning"
Marriage: the romantic union of a man and a woman
Family: a group of people related to each other either by blood, by adoption, or by marriage

Marriage: the romantic union of two people
Family: a group of people related to each other either by blood, by adoption, or by marriage

The second set of definitions is no more vague than the first. You're claiming that it's about keeping these terms meaningful, but it clearly isn't! Just admit that you're motivated on this issue solely by homophobic animus so you can stop lying to yourself, which, after all, is the first step to stop lying to us.

Auntie Seattleblues what will you do when one of your children or nephew/nieces comes out as gay? You do realize don't you that you have gay/lesbian relatives whether your aware of it or not? Statistically it is pretty much guaranteed that someone in your family is gay/lesbian.

BTW that is why we are winning this gay marriage thing. We already are members of your family. We've always been a part of your family.

Gay marriage is coming to Utah, and every other state at some point soon. You might as well file those divorce papers now, Seattleblues, since your marriage is now meaningless!

Except that it doesn't actually affect you, so who knows why you're being such a weirdo about it?

Dear SeattleBlues,
You are obsessed with gay sex! Did you ever wonder why?
I am a heterosexual woman in southern Utah, and there are lots of us.
Heterosexual males as well.
And we don't want to move, because we loooove it here. We'd just
Rather stay, and insist on civil rights for all. And were gonna get it.
Nanny nanny boo boo!

@18

Let's see- 3% of about 40 people in my extended family means that statistically it is in fact possible I have a relative afflicted with the mental illness of homosexual inclinations. Assuming of course that such illness has nothing to do with childhood trauma, upbringing or other environmental factors, that such factors don't contribute as or more strongly than biochemical ones- an assumption I reject.

So what? My aunt's mental illness makes me more sympathetic to mental illness but here's the thing. Sympathy to me means working to cure or manage illness, not encourage and celebrate it.

And you can keep the pointless toddler insults for someone who cares. Or, you know, grow up. Sorry, forgot to whom I was writing... Carry on since infantile jeering is all you can manage.

@19

I'm always amazed that anyone would be misled by this glaringly obvious red herring. 'Well, it won't affect marriage since it hasn't where gay so called marriage exists!'

Really? That the best you've got?

How the hell could two deviants in Seattle erroneously calling their relationship marriage affect my pre existing and real one? My kid married her dolls once as a child, a marriage as real as a gay one, and with as much affect on my wife and I and our marriage.

The harm is in the next generations as a core structure for maintaining society becomes meaningless, derisory even. It's the harm to my kids and eventual grandkids and onward I worry about, not what perverts do now now with a false gloss of civil rights.

@22 The next generation will also include gay people. They will be allowed to marry the person they love. End of story.

You have once again failed to say anything about how gay marriage will affect you, or anyone else. BECAUSE IT WON'T.

@21: A trait or condition only counts as an illness if it meets criteria to be:
A. atypical and
B. maladaptive
Homosexuality, while certainly atypical, is not maladaptive. There are no negative effects of being gay other than societal persecution. If being gay is a disease, so is being left-handed.

@22: So...you want to persecute a ~5% minority because you speculate that your descendants will think that marriage isn't important if gay marriage is societally-accepted.
You'd be better off supporting societal acceptance of gays. Wanna know why?
Suppose in a couple decades you are blessed with a granddaughter. Do you want to risk her marrying a guy only for them to become mired in a meaningless union because he's actually a closeted gay dude? IF GAYS CAN GET GAY MARRIED, THEY WON'T END UP STRAIGHT MARRIED TO UNHAPPY SPOUSES.
How would you feel if your wife were to come out as lesbian, if she had only married you because she felt pressured to act straight? You'd feel betrayed and hurt, and you'd be just one of many this has happened to. It doesn't hurt straight marriage when gays get gay married; that only happens when gays get straight married. USE YOUR NOODLE, SHMENDRIK.

Oh, well that's because Utah, unlike you and the rest of the barbarians, holds family and marriage to be of value ... Your depraved and deviant ilk will likely win, over time, the destruction of family, morality and integrity, all things you despise.

I hold family and marriage to be of such value that I have remained married so far for over 17 years. Indeed, I hold it so valuable that I wish to share it with my homosexual brethren.

But expect the opposition of decent people while you do so. And expect decent people always to treat you as sociopathic barbarians, as long as that's how you behave.

How do you define "decent" in this instance? Hard to address your definition of so obviously subjective a term without clarification, but I know many hard-working, church-going, long-married people (all of which you ostensibly value) who believe as fervently in the legal recognition of same-sex marriage as I do.

It's only when they try to get social and legal approval for their sickness that I get angry.

That's the problem, right there. I willingly live with social and legal approval of your various sicknesses because I do not hold anyone--even myself, whom I hold more qualified than anyone to reason morally--qualified to "treat" sicknesses through legislation that cannot be empirically diagnosed as such. Your ill-founded beliefs and your paltry arguments on their behalf are the price I willingly pay to live in an essentially free society.

Not two lesbians, their cat and the nice old neighbor they call 'mom' though she's unrelated - not two men and an unfortunate adopted boy. No, family is a husband, wife and their children. It's the uncles and aunts and grandparents. Like marriage your lot want to define these things so broadly they lose all meaning. Utah is merely saying no.

What about marriages between the elderly or the infertile, or any of a number of "marriages of convenience" that don't involve any level of romantic entanglement? Utah generally recognized those.

Let's see- 3% of about 40 people in my extended family means that statistically it is in fact possible I have a relative afflicted with the mental illness of homosexual inclinations. Assuming of course that such illness has nothing to do with childhood trauma, upbringing or other environmental factors, that such factors don't contribute as or more strongly than biochemical ones- an assumption I reject.

You're welcome to reject the assumption. Since you have offered credential on the matter, you are only likely to procure agreement from those who share your other foundational assumptions.

So what? My aunt's mental illness makes me more sympathetic to mental illness but here's the thing. Sympathy to me means working to cure or manage illness, not encourage and celebrate it.

I suppose you could encourage any homosexuals in your family to pursue "treatments" that are scarcely more effective than doing nothing at all to "cure" a malady that causes no measurable, empirical harm to the participant that distinguishes it from, say, whatever you and your wife do to experience mutual (giving y'all the benefit of the doubt, here) pleasure. And I will continue to consider those treatments quackery, and any and all so-called "ex-gays" as "sleeper homosexuals" who will inevitably relapse, and who will certainly never have truly satisfying heterosexual relationships.

The harm is in the next generations as a core structure for maintaining society becomes meaningless, derisory even.

Why so? You say that, but you've never illustrated how it's meaningless simply because it now includes people you would have excluded. Frankly, I wouldn't even want to belong to a record club that had you as a member, but your participation in what I can only assume is a sham marriage (no legally competent woman would love you honestly or spend her time with you under legitimate circumstances) doesn't actually have any effect of my marriage despite that fact that both marriages would likely have been legally recognized under law for several generations now.