Welcome to the Newest Gay Marriage State in the Country

That's right Utah---gay marriage is in as of this afternoon.



http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28099570&nid=148&title=utah-judge-rules-same-sex-marriage-ban-unconstitutional&fm=home_page&s_cid=featured-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whats the point of voting when any judge can simply overturn the result?

Impeachment.

The moral decline of the world, and the decay of the United States is picking up the pace. This is a sad day, and I am flabbergasted that a single judge can overturn state law. I hate activist judges. Next, these sexual deviants will be marching against churches who refuse to recognize or condone gay marriage. It won't be long before these deviants in Utah, bolstered by this travesty, start challenging in particular, the LDS Church.

Ungoy wrote:
The moral decline of the world, and the decay of the United States is picking up the pace. This is a sad day, and I am flabbergasted that a single judge can overturn state law. I hate activist judges. Next, these sexual deviants will be marching against churches who refuse to recognize or condone gay marriage. It won't be long before these deviants in Utah, bolstered by this travesty, start challenging in particular, the LDS Church.

Today was unavoidable after the Supreme Court's opinion in US v Windsor. I'm more upset with those 5 judges than this one.



US v Windsor is now also being leveraged to find new rights for pedophiles, intrafamilial spouses, and bestiality as the legal bars against those are susceptible to the same "logic" that the Supremes used to find a right to marriage/intercourse with whomever one pleases.

You're right about that Sno. Unfortunately, the end of these perversions will only occur with the second coming of Christ. Until then, evil will continue to grow and percolate throughout the world.

Hopefully your families are strong, and your testimony is firmly entrenched in the gospel of Jesus Christ.



Remember, because something is illegal doesn't (necessarily) make it wrong.

Because something is legal, doesn't make it right.

snoscythe wrote:

The moral decline of the world, and the decay of the United States is picking up the pace. This is a sad day, and I am flabbergasted that a single judge can overturn state law. I hate activist judges. Next, these sexual deviants will be marching against churches who refuse to recognize or condone gay marriage. It won't be long before these deviants in Utah, bolstered by this travesty, start challenging in particular, the LDS Church.

Today was unavoidable after the Supreme Court's opinion in US v Windsor. I'm more upset with those 5 judges than this one.



US v Windsor is now also being leveraged to find new rights for pedophiles, intrafamilial spouses, and bestiality as the legal bars against those are susceptible to the same "logic" that the Supremes used to find a right to marriage/intercourse with whomever one pleases.

And decisions like this show that the state governments are an unnecessary and irrelevant level of bureaucracy. State governments should be dissolved and their duties assumed by the federal governemnt. We live in a post-Constitutional republic. State laws are no longer relevant. We should save ourselves the pain of an added level of bureaucracy that we don't need.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Ungoy wrote:
The moral decline of the world, and the decay of the United States is picking up the pace. This is a sad day, and I am flabbergasted that a single judge can overturn state law. I hate activist judges. Next, these sexual deviants will be marching against churches who refuse to recognize or condone gay marriage. It won't be long before these deviants in Utah, bolstered by this travesty, start challenging in particular, the LDS Church.

Today was unavoidable after the Supreme Court's opinion in US v Windsor. I'm more upset with those 5 judges than this one.



US v Windsor is now also being leveraged to find new rights for pedophiles, intrafamilial spouses, and bestiality as the legal bars against those are susceptible to the same "logic" that the Supremes used to find a right to marriage/intercourse with whomever one pleases.

And decisions like this show that the state governments are an unnecessary and irrelevant level of bureaucracy. State governments should be dissolved and their duties assumed by the federal governemnt. We live in a post-Constitutional republic. State laws are no longer relevant. We should save ourselves the pain of an added level of bureaucracy that we don't need.

I'm hoping this is sarcasm. If anything we should continue the fight for more state sovereignty and less federal intrusion. Unfortunately, that's going to be an uphill battle. Presidents like Clinton, Bush and Obama have only added to the power of the federal government to the detriment of all US citizens.

BroncoBot wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

The moral decline of the world, and the decay of the United States is picking up the pace. This is a sad day, and I am flabbergasted that a single judge can overturn state law. I hate activist judges. Next, these sexual deviants will be marching against churches who refuse to recognize or condone gay marriage. It won't be long before these deviants in Utah, bolstered by this travesty, start challenging in particular, the LDS Church.

Today was unavoidable after the Supreme Court's opinion in US v Windsor. I'm more upset with those 5 judges than this one.



US v Windsor is now also being leveraged to find new rights for pedophiles, intrafamilial spouses, and bestiality as the legal bars against those are susceptible to the same "logic" that the Supremes used to find a right to marriage/intercourse with whomever one pleases.

And decisions like this show that the state governments are an unnecessary and irrelevant level of bureaucracy. State governments should be dissolved and their duties assumed by the federal governemnt. We live in a post-Constitutional republic. State laws are no longer relevant. We should save ourselves the pain of an added level of bureaucracy that we don't need.

I'm hoping this is sarcasm. If anything we should continue the fight for more state sovereignty and less federal intrusion. Unfortunately, that's going to be an uphill battle. Presidents like Clinton, Bush and Obama have only added to the power of the federal government to the detriment of all US citizens.

It was sarcastic to a point. I really think the Liberty Amendments (by Mark Levin) are direly important if we want to save the nation and reverse the impending federal tyranny. The ONLY solution is greater state sovereignty. But that is NOT something the federal leviathan is going to allow to happen easily. The States MUST band together to fight back against the soft tyranny that Clinton and Bush started and Obama has begun to codify and solidify. If they don't act quickly then my post becomes a lot less sarcastic and a lot more realistic.

SpiffCoug wrote:
The States MUST band together to fight back against the soft tyranny that Clinton and Bush started and Obama has begun to codify and solidify.

Not to nitpick, but the tyranny was beginning long before Bush or Clinton were even twinkles in their daddies' eyes. Sure, they accelerated it, but the Constitution was being chipped away even in the lead up to the Civil War.

It's not tyranny, it's equal treatment under the law.



Think Brown v. Board of Education.

Think Loving v. Virginia.



Bill O'Reilly says it well:

The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals...That's where the compelling argument is. We're Americans, we just want to be treated like everyone else. That's a compelling argument. And to deny that, you've got to have a compelling argument on the other side. And the other side hasn't been able to do anything but thump the bible."



And it's true. Sorry, but "My religion says it's a sin so it should be illegal for you to do that" simply goes nowhere in the courtroom.



This morning, one of my former mission companions got married to a guy he met while going to school in Provo. They have been together for 8 years, and I couldn't be happier for them.



I realize I am in the minority here, but as a cougar fan, and a utahn, and a mormon, I am thrilled at the events going on in Utah this week.



Merry Christmas to all!

They have always been able to marry, they just don't like what marriage is: the union of a man and woman. To change the very definition of a word, you'd have to give a very compelling argument, and the "I've chosen to live a certain way and society must change their definitions of words because of my choices" argument isn't good enough.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Government never should have become involved in marriage in the first place. Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. The only reason for government to be involved is so they can steal more money from the idiots running down to the courthouse for their marriage certificates.

Marriage between just one man and just one woman is a relatively new concept compared to the antiquity of the earth, actually. For most of the earths history men "married" as many women as they could support. Having multiple mates was a symbol of wealth and virulence. Dozens of prophets in the bible had multiple wives.



The world or society won't come to an end because of this.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Marriage between just one man and just one woman is a relatively new concept compared to the antiquity of the earth, actually. For most of the earths history men "married" as many women as they could support. Having multiple mates was a symbol of wealth and virulence. Dozens of prophets in the bible had multiple wives.



The world or society won't come to an end because of this.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Yes, marriage has always been the union between man and woman, thanks for reaffirming that. No, the world will not end, but society will further erode and the world will continue to draw itself further and further from God, His gospel, and His truths because of it.

My prediction on where this is headed? I bet that in 10 years the Church no longer performs civil marriages within the United States because at that point anyone who performs civil unions will forbidden to discriminate by refusing to perform wholly homosexual weddings.



To avoid being forced to perform such weddings, the Church will cease all civil marriages, and will instead switch to a model where you are wedded civilly by a government officer, and then immediately go to the temple thereafter to be sealed. It's what they already do in countries where the Church has been denied the authority to perform civil weddings, so I see that as the model to follow when the "right" to marry anyone you please regardless of gender becomes an undeniable right in this country.

Schmoe wrote:

Marriage between just one man and just one woman is a relatively new concept compared to the antiquity of the earth, actually. For most of the earths history men "married" as many women as they could support. Having multiple mates was a symbol of wealth and virulence. Dozens of prophets in the bible had multiple wives.



The world or society won't come to an end because of this.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Yes, marriage has always been the union between man and woman, thanks for reaffirming that. No, the world will not end, but society will further erode and the world will continue to draw itself further and further from God, His gospel, and His truths because of it.

Maybe that is one reason the church doubled the missionary efforts? The only way to combat this that I see is to convert people to the gospel, and hope they can be strong enough to overcome their tendencies/temptations. As has been mentioned before, I think that if the government is recognizing one type of marriage, it can legally exclude other types (between consenting adults).



As a libertarian, I would prefer that the government just stop recognizing marriage altogether, because marriage is a private contract between two people and should have nothing to do with the government in the first place. But seeing as how that is a revenue source for them and a way of control, that might have to be pried away from their fingers.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
I would prefer that the government just stop recognizing marriage altogether, because marriage is a private contract between two people and should have nothing to do with the government in the first place. But seeing as how that is a revenue source for them and a way of control, that might have to be pried away from their fingers.

Well said; I totally agree.