Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Uncle Ted]

I see a lot of people upset that Utah is spending money in defense of their ban on SSM. While I think SSM should be legal and I'm pretty sure it will be in pretty much every state in the near future, I still think Utah has an obligation to defend the provision in its constitution and I don't think the argument that the tax dollars could be spent somewhere else is a valid argument. We are a country of laws and checks and balances and those should play out. I say Gov Herbert should appeal it as high as possible even if his argument is not strong (some think it is) and when he loses we can all be happy that the proper process was carried out and the correct result was the ultimate result.

Yeah, Texas and the other states won't have to spend their tax dollars doing the same. Thanks Utah.

[byu71]

I see a lot of people upset that Utah is spending money in defense of their ban on SSM. While I think SSM should be legal and I'm pretty sure it will be in pretty much every state in the near future, I still think Utah has an obligation to defend the provision in its constitution and I don't think the argument that the tax dollars could be spent somewhere else is a valid argument. We are a country of laws and checks and balances and those should play out. I say Gov Herbert should appeal it as high as possible even if his argument is not strong (some think it is) and when he loses we can all be happy that the proper process was carried out and the correct result was the ultimate result.

Does anyone know when it was voted on by the public, what the percentage was for and against. If it is only in the 50% range, I would think spending the money is not a responsibility to the public as probably 5-10% of the public in Utah have changed their minds on the issue.

[Moliere]

Does anyone know when it was voted on by the public, what the percentage was for and against. If it is only in the 50% range, I would think spending the money is not a responsibility to the public as probably 5-10% of the public in Utah have changed their minds on the issue.

Amendment 3 was passed in 2004 with 66% in favor. I doubt they'd get the amount in favor that high in 2014 but it would probably still pass in Utah.

[byu71]

Amendment 3 was passed in 2004 with 66% in favor. I doubt they'd get the amount in favor that high in 2014 but it would probably still pass in Utah.

Surely a poll has been done recently on how folks would vote. While I am a traditional marriage supporter, if 55% or less of the public are in favor now, I would say bag the pursuit and just deal with marriage not being traditional anymore.

[Uncle Ted]

Surely a poll has been done recently on how folks would vote. While I am a traditional marriage supporter, if 55% or less of the public are in favor now, I would say bag the pursuit and just deal with marriage not being traditional anymore.

I say we just bag government defined marriage all together and let the religions do that.

On a side note, according to a freakonomics podcast I listened some time ago the divorce rate is at an all time low... Why? Less people are getting married and just living together instead.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/02/13/w...radio-podcast/

[byu71]

I say we just bag government defined marriage all together and let the religions do that.

On a side note, according to a freakonomics podcast I listened some time ago the divorce rate is at an all time low... Why? Less people are getting married and just living together instead.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/02/13/w...radio-podcast/

Totally agree. If you have lived together long enough you can go to court and get palimony or something like that.

I am really not sure what benefits a couple living together can't arrange to have that a married couple can. So outside of the religious aspects, your married, your living together, you have one wife, you have 3 wives, your mate is same gender or not, who cares?

[creekster]

I say we just bag government defined marriage all together and let the religions do that.

On a side note, according to a freakonomics podcast I listened some time ago the divorce rate is at an all time low... Why? Less people are getting married and just living together instead.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/02/13/w...radio-podcast/

Why would that affect the rate of divorce (as opposed ot the total number)? Is that to say that a greater proportion of people who are willing to live together are likely to divorce if later married when compared to people who are not weilling to live together without marriage?

[byu71]

Why would that affect the rate of divorce (as opposed ot the total number)? Is that to say that a greater proportion of people who are willing to live together are likely to divorce if later married when compared to people who are not weilling to live together without marriage?

An interesting statistic might be to look at the national trend vs the trend of say LDS and Catholic marriages. Those who I would think are more committed or indoctrinated into the importance of marriage vs those who aren't.

[Uncle Ted]

Why would that affect the rate of divorce (as opposed ot the total number)? Is that to say that a greater proportion of people who are willing to live together are likely to divorce if later married when compared to people who are not weilling to live together without marriage?

That is just one of the explanations that threw out. i.e. it is more of the truly committed and/or religious are actually going through the trouble (and cost) of getting married and they tend to stay married.

[Nakoma]

I say we just bag government defined marriage all together and let the religions do that.

On a side note, according to a freakonomics podcast I listened some time ago the divorce rate is at an all time low... Why? Less people are getting married and just living together instead.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/02/13/w...radio-podcast/

When things aren't working out, the cohabitating couple just move on to the next love shack partner without the messiness of a divorce proceeding which only makes the lawyers happy.

[TripletDaddy]

Utah is invincible.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politic...riage.html.csp

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is funny. It appears that congratulating someone on a gay marriage is against the BYU honor code.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58...riage.html.csp

[CardiacCoug]

BYU is so weird. What on earth is wrong with having those cards for sale and how the hell would it be related to the honor code?

Decisions like pulling these cards off the shelf really make you realize that BYU and Church policies really boil down to "we want to pretend gay people don't exist because they're gross and their existence doesn't mesh with our worldview."

[Maximus]

BYU is so weird. What on earth is wrong with having those cards for sale and how the hell would it be related to the honor code?

Decisions like pulling these cards off the shelf really make you realize that BYU and Church policies really boil down to "we want to pretend gay people don't exist because they're gross and their existence doesn't mesh with our worldview."

sounds like both sides are getting upset over something not getting upset over.

[CardiacCoug]

sounds like both sides are getting upset over something not getting upset over.

Huh? BYU should just say they didn't want to sell the cards, totally stupid to mention the Honor Code, no?