Mormons/GOP ask Sup Ct to stop gay marriages in Utah… for sake of the gays

God bless the Mormons.  They care so much it hurts.

You see, the state of Utah – late on New Year’s Eve – just filed its appeal with the Supreme Court, asking the court to stay the marriages of gay couples in Utah.  And the state’s arguments are, as always, quite a doozy – including my new all-time favorite.  You see, the Mormons and the GOP have to stop gays from getting married IN ORDER TO SAVE THE GAYS ANY UNNECESSARY PAIN.

They just care so much.


Just to back up a second – a federal court on December 20, 2013 struck down Utah’s gay marriage ban, effectively legalizing gay nuptials in the state.  And boy did the gays get nupped.  Over one thousand couples stood in very long lines across the state to get married.

Well, Utah has finally gotten around to asking the Supreme Court to stop the-gay from getting married, and conveniently chose late on New Year’s eve to do it.  Suggesting to me, at least, that the Mormons got involved and pushed to minimize the PR damage as much as possible.

The Mormons have been smarting for going on 5 years now after they single-handedly killed love in California back in 2008 by being the guiding, and financial, source behind Proposition 8, which repealed the right of gay couples to marry in that state.  As a result, a lot of people who didn’t know much about Mormons realized that they don’t really like Mormons because Mormons don’t really like any us (or women, or blacks).

Fast forward to today.  Pending the appeal of the case that effectively legalized gay marriage in Utah, the last chance of the GOP-Mormon-Complex to kill the civil rights of gays and lesbians yet again is to petition the Supreme Court to issue a stay.  So that’s what they did today.

Let me share a few of the particularly funny things the Mormons included in their hideously anti-gay brief:

1. The GOP Mormons are very concerned about the “historical” and “traditional” definition of marriage, even though historically and traditionally the definition of marriage in Utah meant one man having dozens of wives.  This guy, for example, had 55 wives:


Mormon founder Joseph Smith had 55 wives, 1/3 of whom were married to other men at the same time.

Feel free to visit this link to peruse the 55 wives of Joseph Smith.

2. The GOP Mormons think that states should be left alone to make up their own definition of marriage, even though Utah had to give up its polygamist definition of marriage in order to join the United States. Here’s what their Supreme Court brief incredibly claims:

“That states have a powerful interest in controlling the definition of marriage within their borders is indisputable.”

Except when it’s not.

3. The GOP Mormons are using the already-debunked Regnerus “study” – actually a religious right initiated project – to “prove” that gay couples are bad parents, or something.  An internal audit of the study found it to be, and I quote, “bullsh*t.

It’s pretty despicable to use something that’s A) already been debunked, and B) wasn’t even designed to consider whether kids do better or worse with gay parents, as proof that kids do better without gay parents.  But hey, we’re not dealing with reason here.  We’re dealing with two powers that hate us mightily – the Republican party and the Mormons.  And they will bash us any and every chance they can.  Lies are a small price for them to pay for the chance to bash someone they don’t like.

4. The GOP Mormons want to kill your civil right to marry, yet again, because they love you.  I’ll let this one speak for itself:


How sweet, the gay-bashers care about the dignity of their victims.

5. Of course, the Mormons are asking the courts for the very “irreparable harm” that they claim they want to avoid.  There already are over 1,000 gay marriages in the state.  And those marriages will suffer “irreparable harm” if their marital status is retroactively voided.  So I guess the court shouldn’t void those marriages.  Thanks, guys!

(I’m told that in order to better see my Facebook posts in your feed, you need to “follow” me.)

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

123 Responses to “Mormons/GOP ask Sup Ct to stop gay marriages in Utah… for sake of the gays”

  1. cleos_mom says:

    Of course the elephant in the room in statements like that is that gays are also ‘citizens’, ‘residents’, whatever, of that state. Even in legalese, there’s an assumption that gays are outsiders or invaders. Kind of like Christians used to think of Jews, come to think of it.

  2. cantake8 says:

    I worked with a business group headed up by three lawyers. They were trying to figure out how a bar/nightclub could be a tax-exempt endeavor. They lacked a central mythology. I pointed out that’s how Unitarianism works.

    WHY shouldn’t people be able to deduct what they “contribute” to a place they attend regularly? How popular would Jesus be if he wasn’t tax exempt? Why shouldn’t bar owners be as rich as religious shysters?

  3. Stev84 says:

    Mormonism is 19th century Scientology

  4. Ed Himes says:

    JESUS WARNS AGAINST JUDGING IN MATTHEW 7:1-10….Apparently the mormons cannot read !!!!!!

  5. Ed Himes says:

    There are NO PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET more IGNORANT, more conceited, more stuck in their OLD TESTAMENT ways, more corrupt, more HATEFUL, more seething, more dirty, more selfish, more greedy, more hypocritical, more self righteous, more prejudice, more violent, more evil and more bigoted than a sorry mormon or a so-called christian QUACK !!! There are not enough LIONS to deal with these religious zealot frumps !!!! Ed Himes, Chattanooga, Tennessee

  6. Ed Himes says:

    I say we should round up all the sorry sloth republiCON, prejudice, self righteous, bigoted mormon men and force them to have oral sex with a MAN (or females a WOMAN);….then after they discover THEY LIKE IT, maybe they will leave the GAY COMMUNITY ALONE. I think these sorry self righteous religious QUACKS should read MATTHEW 7:1-10 before condemning someone to hell; but these sorry ignorant rednecks can’t read in the first place !!!! I say there are not enough LIONS and LION’S DENS to take care of the sorry sloth self righteous republiCON so-called christians like the mormons, their sorry religious friends and family!!!! By the way, the sloth idiot, joseph smith, was also a pedophile who got a 14 year olf girl PREGNANT after having a kinky affair with her. He was killed trying to escape out of a window at their compound during a government raid because they were marrying more than one person !!! This man is who founder the sorry sloth mormon cult !!!!! EdofTennessee

  7. zorbear says:

    or Aes Sedai…

  8. karmanot says:

    6000 years, she doesn’t look that old—-could be a vampire.

  9. Butch1 says:

    For our sake, they aught to mind their own business and quit meddling in our lives and being so darned “concerned” about us. It isn’t any of their business how I am and if they would just leave us along and stop trying to take our rights away from us there wouldn’t be a problem.

    The religious right and the Mormons need to mind their own business.

  10. karmanot says:

    Clearly, she has forgotten that work will make her free.

  11. karmanot says:

    What evah

  12. riannonqas321 says:

    Aunty Julia got silver Volkswagen Beetle Convertible by working parttime off of
    a home computer… Look At This B­u­z­z­3­1­.­ℂ­o­m

  13. Badgerite says:

    Thanks for the local perspective. Always interesting.

  14. Badgerite says:

    Let’s hope so. There clearly are many people to whom this ruling means a great deal. They should have their day. If for no other reason than to show that it really does not constitute a harm.

  15. benb says:

    So even if Utah gets an injunction and prevails…do they believe that existing same-sex marriages performed in that state are…what…gonna be annulled? Kids are gonna be unadopted? Mortgages…what…reversed? Gonna be endless complications and endless legal expenses for obvious and unforeseen conflicts. All that time & effort wasted.

    re: LDS. Kinda weird that they don’t see the same persecution they got handed from ‘Christians’ as nearly the same as what gay people have received.

  16. kenthomes says:

    The Mormons never wanted to be a part of the United States. They set up their little Theocracy called “Deseret” back in Brigham Young’s days. The United States sent an army to Utah “reclaim” the territory. They have always wanted their own Theocracy, and when they could not get it, they have tried to dismantle it from the inside. Mormons are nothing if not crafty survivors, who will conveniently throw any revelation out the window when it becomes onerous to reaping more and more duped people into that cult.

  17. kenthomes says:

    She is too damn stupid to understand any of what you are saying. Troll alert…please do not feed the insane.

  18. kenthomes says:

    Such hatred from a mad Jewess….hahahaha! Try looking at history a little and seeing how Jews were persecuted everywhere they went, based on lies and a majority making their lives hell. Some stupid people never learn…you are one of them!

  19. Ember1 says:

    It should not have. Part of the problem (I’ve been watching closely–I’m in Salt Lake) is that our Attorney General just recently was suspended for all sorts of shady dealings. His office was in disarray, with all sorts of issues about the temp AG and how the AG would be replaced. So there was a combination of not a good case to begin with, and people who shouldn’t have been trying it in charge of it. A perfect storm of things to blow up in the State’s face. They really did go in without any thought that they might lose. Like Romney on election day. And so they did not do what they should have and lost their chance. The best time to get a stay is BEFORE the genie is out of the bottle. The burden of proof just keeps going up from there. They might have been able to get one at the start. But after over a thousand weddings? That is MUCH harder.

  20. Whitewitch says:

    wow that is perfect…thank you – I don’t believe I have ever heard it explained so well.

  21. paulsimon says:

    What 600o year-old tradition is that and do you have any evidence for the 6000 year figure.

  22. pappyvet says:

    They are wrong ,deal with that. ‘IN ORDER TO SAVE THE GAYS ANY UNNECESSARY PAIN.’
    is the same as saying “I;m gonna make them an offer they can’t refuse.”
    Rape is more than a 100,000 year old tradtion so don’t hand me your blown out time estimates.
    Wrong is wrong. Denying someone their basic rights as a human because you don’t like them is petty , childish and hateful.

  23. KingCranky says:

    The fact that same-sex marriages are happening in Utah shows that not “everyone” hates those unions, otherwise none would be taking place.

    Do you always debunk yourself so spectacularly, or only on special occasions?

  24. cantake8 says:

    Thom, YOU CRACKED ME UP! Thanks

  25. Thom Allen says:

    What old man would buy her, much less take her as a gift? Can you imagine giving MJ’s father one of your sheep to get a raving ass in return?

  26. Thom Allen says:

    The Mad Jewess flits on and off threads vomiting the contents of her diseased mind every few weeks when her therapist is away. She’s trying desperately to get tapped – to be on Fox Entertainment News. She makes the Bachmaniac look almost rational – almost.

    She certainly was given an appropriate screen name in “Mad.” Certainly fits all of the definitions:

    1. disordered in mind : insane
    2. completely unrestrained by reason and judgment

    3. carried away by intense anger : furious
    4. affected with rabies : rabid
    5. marked by wild GAIETY (closet lesbian, perhaps?) and merriment
    6. intensely excited : frantic, manic
    7. marked by intense and often chaotic activity esp. of thought : wild

  27. Badgerite says:

    Any port in a storm circular argument!

  28. Badgerite says:

    I’ll take your word that that is proper procedure. If so, the verdict probably caught them sort of flat footed. They probably weren’t expecting it.

  29. cantake8 says:

    Alrighty now!
    Just as an FYI: there is plenty of side material to access. as well. Wishing you the best in your endeavors.

  30. Monoceros Forth says:

    Maybe it’s just another case of right-wingers’ difficulty with math.

  31. cantake8 says:

    What “6000 yr old tradition” are you talking about?
    Could it be the one in which women are not allowed a public voice because men do the talking for them? If so, ShutTheFuckUp.
    Maybe it’s the one where you were sold as a young teen to an old man for a few head of livestock.
    You really should organize your thoughts better before opening your big word hole.

  32. Monoceros Forth says:

    Hatred and contempt are evergreen.

  33. The_Fixer says:

    I said that I wasn’t sure if I was better or worse off for having seen it.

    Give me several weeks to properly evaluate the site and I’ll get back to ya.

  34. cantake8 says:

    I should have included more warning. I hope you’re okay.

  35. The_Fixer says:

    Ummmm. Wowwwww.

    That was something of which I was totally unaware. And I’m not sure if I’m better or worse off for having learned it.

    Inseminated with the power of the priesthood? Is that what we’re calling it now?


  36. Monoceros Forth says:

    Man, you’re late to this party! Those teetotal New Year’s hangovers are the worst. Next time sneak a bit less lime vodka in your Sprite.

  37. Ember1 says:

    The time to argue for shutting the barn door is BEFORE the horses are wandering all over the hills. If they had asked for a stay before the judge gave his verdict (like is proper procedure) they could have argued disruption and the possibility of things being changed on appeal and at least had something reasonable to say. But now that there are over 1000 couples married, it isn’t going to cause any more or less hurt for either side.

    It would have been just as wrong to ask for it than as it is to have the ban in the first place, but at least it would not be as STUPID and overtly cruel as trying to get a stay now is.

  38. Bomer says:

    So you are okay with being the property of your husband (and father before that)? With your husband having multiple wives and concubines? With being forced to marry your brother-in-law if your husband dies before you have children? You are okay with being married off to whomever your father decides based on social or economical reasons and your personal preferences be damned?

    Some how I doubt it.

  39. Ember1 says:

    6000 year old tradition? I don’t think you know what marriage looked like in Sumeria. And that only takes us back about 5000 with anything written. What we have for them, however, would hardly be violated by this. Have you read Gilgamesh?

    What newfangled “traditions” are you trying to sell as “6000 yr old”?

  40. The_Fixer says:

    It’s the ultimate circular argument. That’s all it is, and as such, it would be hilarious if it didn’t have the intended effect of denying people their rights.

  41. The_Fixer says:

    Which 6,000 year-old tradition are we going against? Wives as property? Multiple wives? Marrying within families? Marital rape? All of these things were tradition at some point or another in human history.

    And this is not an abuse of power. The court cited constitutional reasons as to why it voided the prohibition against same-sex marriage.

    You are wrong.

    Deal with it.


    They are right.
    Deal with it.
    The abuse of power with the SC of Utah was a bad move that will cause a LOT of pain and hatred to gays b/c everyone will hate what happened there.

    Deal with it, you make your bed, be prepared to lay in it.
    You go against a 6000 yr old tradition and want everyone to love this, youre nuts.

  43. karmanot says:

    Damn, sometimes snark is so true.l.

  44. cantake8 says:

    True. But I bet those Catholics would give it up — except the headgear — to have those wholesome Mormon lads for their altar-boy teams.

  45. cantake8 says:

    It’s encouraging that the circuit court refused to issue a stay, and bluntly pointed out that the state had not proven anything. It’s about time that people’s equal rights were not interrupted while bigots dragged their feet getting their shit together.

  46. cantake8 says:

    I believe you may have misread Glenn I’s comment: he is not on the side of Mormons, but criticizing their methods which have failed repeatedly in the past.

  47. karmanot says:

    True that—except Catholics have fabulous drag.

  48. Hosagi Matissmo Taishou says:

    Just like Bible Thumpers declaring that all Homosexuals are Pedophiles is a baseless and tiring arguement.

  49. karmanot says:

    Thanks Mormon scum. I will endeavor not to spare your feelings.

  50. Glenn I says:

    Nothing fresh here. These tired arguments are the same ones that have been trotted out for every anti-marriage filing, including the pity-the-gays one. Oh dear, their feelings will be hurt if they get married then have their marriages revoked – so make sure they can never get married – because we want to make sure they never have their feelings hurt by getting the notion that they are human beings only to find out they aren’t! It’s weird and I haven’t seen a judge persuaded by it – so far stays have been issued for the convenience of the state, not to “spare” the feelings of the gays.

  51. Bill Santagata says:

    The 14th Amendment explicitly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States […] are citizens of the United States ***and of the state wherein they reside***.

    All U.S.citizens of “dual citizenships” so to speak: we are citizens of our State and of the United States.

    Their usage of “citizen of Utah” is correct.

  52. cantake8 says:

    I heard that at a barbecue this summer and simply reacted as if it was all true: “Really? All those people in rush hour traffic this morning were conservatives going to their jobs, and no liberals were stuck in traffic… except me?” And then I gave what one friend titled “a wilting gay glare” that said “FUCKYOU.”

  53. Monoceros Forth says:

    Well, you know how Republicans like to talk as though they’re the only ones who have jobs while all liberals are lazy moochers living off welfare? Same thing: it’s only liberals who cheat on their spouses and get divorces.

  54. cantake8 says:

    Mormons decry periods in their history when they were run out of places, or had to flee the United States, because they weren’t “popular.” Now they’re trying to hold marriage equality hostage for the same reason: “a majority of Utah voters oppose it.” Maybe that was good for 3rd grade elections, but no more.

  55. cantake8 says:

    “Straights Only” is going the way of “Whites Only” because it makes just as much sense. It also seems to be supported by many people with the same mindset.

  56. cantake8 says:

    You bring up a good point. Too many right wing conservatives specialize in parsing words, because they redefine meaning and intent. It’s a form of “linguistic secession.” They don’t like Obama, Obamacare, or having to pay federal taxes, so they tear away.

  57. cantake8 says:

    That’s brilliant and so fitting!

    momser: a bastard; a contemptible person; someone thought of as being, variously, mischievous, impudent, deceptive, etc.

  58. cantake8 says:

    As BBC’s Katty Kay asked NOM-skull Brian Brown a couple of years ago: “Why is marriage only sacred gay and lesbian people seek it?”

    I mean, seriously, heterosexuals have reached a national 52% divorce rate without any participation from G/Ls, the divorce rate in Utah is 1/2-1 percentage point higher. What are straights “protecting” marriage from?

  59. perljammer says:

    Yeah, picky. But nore than that — you’re focused on a trivial turn of phrase, rather than looking at the larger picture. Would you feel better if the wording was, “The state and the citizens living within its borders…”?

  60. UncleBucky says:

    NOPE, NOT PICKY. They’re states’ rightISTs… And probbly secessionists, to boot!

  61. UncleBucky says:

    MORMONS… Momsers. (that’s Yiddish, y’know?)

  62. kevinbgoode says:

    I find those arguments almost entertaining when conservatives push that “powerful interest” crap – after all, every single time they pass any kind of legislation bestowing special rights or responsibilities on the legally married, they are redefining marriage in the eyes of the state. And yet, this “powerful interest” to the state and it’s “citizens” never seems to exist at the ballot box, no matter how many thousands of times Utah changes its definitions in any law about age of legal consent, death benefits, etc. Hundreds and hundreds of little redefinitions that no one ever got to vote on, and yet somehow this “powerful interest” appears out of nowhere when it becomes all about denying the gays access all of those greedy little legal and financial rights the heteros have been passing (without referendum) and hogging for themselves for decades.

    Perhaps Utah would have had a more meaningful argument if they hadn’t so greedily attached so many special privileges to the idea of “marriage”

  63. kevinbgoode says:

    “The state and its citizens. . .” Someone help me here please. How is someone a “citizen” of a state? It seems to me that someone is a RESIDENT of a state in this country, and a citizen of the United States. I don’t know of anything which bestows automatic citizenship on someone living in a state – our states are not sovereign nations. When someone is born in a state and they move, they don’t become a “citizen” of the state of Utah, for example, by means of birth, AND a “citizen” of the new state in which they reside.

    I suppose I’m being picky here, but the use of “citizen” in regards to state residency is something which seems to me repeatedly crops up in right-wing language, as if the United States is somehow operating under the Articles of Confederation instead of the Constitution. To me, the use of such language seems significant (unless someone here can explain to me where I’m wrong) – but when Utah attempts to possess its residents by declaring them “citizens” of the state, rather than residents, it is asserting something that, in my mind at least, attempts to frame the state’s case as including “citizens” who are somehow first citizens of the state and THEN citizens of the United States.

    I know this seems a bit murky, but it just stands out to me.

  64. Buford says:

    Since marriage is primarily a civil institution rather than a religious one, I can’t understand why these churches even get to have an opinion on the matter…ESPECIALLY since their exemption from paying taxes should exclude them from having opinions on public policy.

  65. Badgerite says:

    That was then. This is now. A few court cases have been resolved since then. And not really in their favor.

  66. Badgerite says:

    That’s it exactly. Well said and hard to argue with.

  67. Badgerite says:

    Familihood is powerful!

  68. Badgerite says:

    This case is based on the application of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law to citizens of any state. It is a federal district court enforcing the 14th Amendment on a state whose laws, via a state constitutional provision, bans marriage for a group of people for no rationally based policy reason. The State of Utah is challenging this Federal District Court decision. The federal court decision overturned the state law based on a violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

  69. Badgerite says:

    The irreparable harm part is a necessary part to getting an immediate injunction. Otherwise there would be no reason to not just let this proceed up through the court system, as it will, and let people get married in the interim. They can;t show a harm to the state or to society so they have latched on to some immediate harm that would flow to the couples getting married if higher courts support the state’s position later on. And it is true that taking away a civil right, once recognized, would cause some heartbreak and disappointment. But that would be caused by once again denying them their civil rights. Not by recognizing their civil rights in the first place. I think their PR machine just has a problem with all those happy, committed couples and family values on display. It is a little hard to contend that that is a bad thing. I think.

  70. Buford2k11 says:

    Heh, read your history…I was impressed with the Pastor who dressed up as a poor person and wandered around his parish…he was surprised at the response he got from his own congregation…In their belief system, Jesus will return. but, will He be recognized??? Apparently not…they wouldn’t even recognize their own teacher, and prophet…While the followers of the rest of the Evangelicals wouldn’t be able to know Jesus, unless he had a huge checking account and trailed one hundred dollar bills along his path…I wonder what the Pope would say about the Mormons?

  71. cantake8 says:

    Mormons and other wacky conservatives are LOSING THEIR HEADS over gays and lesbians finally getting some of the “special rights” heterosexuals have enjoyed for centuries.

  72. cantake8 says:

    I am a longtime proponent of taxation of religion EXCEPT for direct services and portions of real estate dedicated exclusively to those services: food, shelter, education (in line with state accreditation only, not religious mumbo jumbo), and social services (again, in line with state requirements for counseling, etc.). How popular would Jesus be if he wasn’t tax-deductible?

    A few years ago some entrepreneurs tried to figure out how to open a non-profit “church of good times,” so those who attended faithfully could write off their “contributions” and the business could operate tax-free. They almost made it until the Colorado Supreme Court struck down their religious status. The judgement still makes no sense: apparently they didn’t have an overriding superstition upon which to base their tax-exempt claim.

  73. rmthunter says:

    I read the filing. It’s all the arguments that failed in the District Court, another citation to Regnerus, and it doesn’t counter the Constitutional issues, it just denies them.

    Be interesting to see what Sotomayor does. She can’t believe Utah has a chance of success in the Circuit Court.

  74. samiinh says:

    Mormonism is a corporate enterprise and it’s anyone’s guess whether it is a criminal enterprise. The required 10% dues, which are tax deductible, are not any different than a membership in an exclusive country club, though those dues are not tax deductible. Why should people like Mitt Romney get tax deductions for dues? The LDS Corporation spends less than 1% on charity, and it’s charity is mostly used for other Mormons. The rest goes to the corporate headquarters to support their empire.

  75. samiinh says:

    Mormon religious beliefs change on a regular basis depending on who the chairman of the board is today. Even though a revelation in 1890 ended polygamy and an acceptable practice, it remains on the books as an acceptable practice and revelation from the Prophet Con-man Joe Smith. Modern day Mormons are required to believe the plural marriage is God’s law even though the state does not recognize such marriages. Many Mormons still practice polygamy. First wife is legal, the rest are “spiritually married” and usually supported by welfare programs as they produce more and more offspring.

  76. I can think of something worse — someone who uses these hypocrites to profit themselves. The corporate sluts are bad enough, but the prejudice sluts are worse. At least there’s some benefit from corporations. Of course, it is not the business of the state to protect the gullible bigots; the state has no interest in protecting those who would throw away their money just to feel superior.

  77. Utah’s definition of marriage is not absolute. Suppose they go back to making interracial marriage illegal, or even marriages between Mormons and “Gentiles” illegal. What comes back from our federal Constitution and the traditional Supreme Court is that the state must have an overriding concern to overcome individual rights. In this case, individuals are making the decision to marry; the state cannot prove harm. Lack of consent would be one, should the marriages be between minors, or coerced, or outside of species (beastiality).

  78. Indigo says:

    When it comes to hate, the Mormons are way ahead of those Duck Dynasty people.

  79. BeccaM says:

    Any part that says they’re not allowed to hate and oppress gay people.

    That’s what they’re demanding. I’m guessing they also see some kind of Constitutional right to have convenient scapegoats.

  80. rmthunter says:

    On your last point, this case originated in the federal district court. State courts haven’t been involved, and couldn’t have found the marriage ban unconstitutional, because it’s in the state constitution.

    Which is why these cases are best pursued through the federal judiciary.

  81. rmthunter says:

    And only five years after they spent $20 million to “retroactively void” the marital status of gay and lesbian Californians. Let’s see here:

    1: They’re not trying to retain “the” definition of marriage, they’re trying to impose “a” definition of marriage. Marriage changes, sometimes very rapidly, as does everything else in the universe, because stasis is death.

    2: Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Supremacy Clause.

    3: Speaks for itself.

    4: Liars. Also, the previous point — sovereign will of the people: Romer v. Evans, reflecting the basic legal principle that the people’s sovereignty is limited. Always has been. And the Supremacy Clause again.

    5: What, you’re expecting consistency?

    What part of “fundamental rights” do they not get?

  82. cantake8 says:

    There is that pesky issue of “real Americans” versus me and my friends, who are job-holding, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of this country.

  83. BeccaM says:

    Not all that long ago — not even long enough for the word ‘tradition’ to be applied — the Territory of Utah had to give up legal, civil polygamy to be allowed to join the Union as a State.

    The ‘powerful interest’ of the resulting state of Utah knew damned well they couldn’t get away with making polygamy fully legal again, so the most they did was to turn a blind eye to households with just a few too many unrelated adult women under the same roof. Nevertheless, they did not dream of asserting that the State of Utah had the right to declare a version of marriage different from that subject to certain Federal rules.

    And now, those same rules, as judged by our U.S. Supreme Court, includes same sex marriage. And it’s Utah (and other states) who say their will should override Federal laws and rules.

    Honestly, I’m not seeing how this couldn’t also be applied to polygamy on their part.

    But really what it comes down to is there are a whole lot of States and American citizens among them who don’t particularly believe we’re all one country anymore.

  84. cantake8 says:

    Oh Ms. Betty: “Best Christian in the World!”

  85. cantake8 says:

    Mormonism really is American Catholicism, right down to the figurehead who supposedly speaks directly to “God” and gets new directions when the old ones fail.

  86. cantake8 says:

    No doubt!

    Ask the owners of Pleasures Adult Stores: They have never remodeled their store just inside the Colorado-Utah border, because business is so brisk. People with Utah plates buy trunk-loads of adult themed materials and scoot back across the border with it.

  87. cantake8 says:

    Thanks for the LAUGH!

    An escaped LDS friend of mine pointed me to this interview with porn pony “Elder Miltmore.” (Nerds are my favorite.) These are his first two questions and responses:

    How did you get started in the porn industry?
    I think there’s been a misunderstanding. I’ve never done porn. To the
    untrained eye, it might look like Bishop Stevenson and I were having
    sexual intercourse in our video – but we absolutely weren’t. The Bishop
    was inseminating me with the power of the priesthood. Ordination by
    insemination is a religious practice that we hold sacred.

    Do you get much fan mail?
    I’ve been told that I’ve received so-called “fan mail” from misguided
    homosexuals who are inappropriately viewing our church films, but I’m
    not allowed to see it.

    The rest is equally awesome, but accompanying images are “icky”:

  88. cantake8 says:

    I wish a court would require the Mormon Church to open its books, so examiners and forensic bookkeepers could determine if there had been any financial harm to the secretive behemoth.

  89. cantake8 says:

    Tax Religion!
    Let’s see how popular Jesus is when he isn’t tax-deductible.

  90. cantake8 says:

    You can tell you’re in Utah when the sign at the all-you-can-eat restaurant reads “Wives Under 16 Eat Free!”

  91. cantake8 says:

    “That states have a powerful interest in controlling the definition of marriage within their borders is indisputable.”

    Why is it almost always religious groups who claim moral superiority who spout such obvious lies?

    It really is time for those who support marriage equality to start loading requirements upon “traditional marriage” such as no remarriage after divorce until one party dies; mandatory procreation and dissolution of marriages that prove “useless;” and harsh penalties in the event of abuse, extramarital affairs, failure to provide, or abandonment.

  92. cantake8 says:

    Looks like “Straights Only” is going the way of “Whites Only,” and rightfully so, because it makes as much sense.

  93. cantake8 says:

    It sounds like the only fair thing to do in Utah to prevent Mormons from being “harmed” is to halt ALL marriages. I am so proud of the court for denying a stay based simply on tired old biased bullshit. Proponents of Prop 8 were unable to prove anything in courts at any level, and somehow they think these courts didn’t hear about any of it.

    I watched a few episodes of “Breaking The Faith” about the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints who still believe in plural marriage. Basically it’s about old farts who want a harem of young girls, and control them with wild fables about eternal damnation. Nothing new; centuries old, actually. Maybe Mormons should clean up the mess Joseph Smith created before bothering anyone else.

  94. zorbear says:

    Since Mormons are secretly ashamed of what they do, they figure gays must be also…

  95. zorbear says:

    Thank FSM for moderates!

  96. malibujd44 says:

    I love the irony in this after what they did here in California with all the money they poured into the prop 8 campaign….Mizz Karma really is a bitch. That (karma) is my religion. Sorta like the golden rule…Watch out mega-hater-ultra-mo’-ron, I mean mormon Alan Osmond….Karma will soon get you too. SHAME ON THEM ALL!!! Nothing worse then a hypocrite trying to tell people how to live there lives..

  97. BillFromDover says:

    Now take these gay marriages to the Supreme Court and force these
    fine, fine Mormons to prove how they irreparably harmed their own multiple wives.

    If they can’t, them simply order them to shut the fuck up… once and for all!

    BTW, if they feel so strongly that this is a state issue, why the hell are they ignoring their own courts and whining for the Feds to help them out?

    Hypocrites, every friggin’ one of ’em.

  98. Island In The Sky says:

    Bang’em Young, he did.

  99. Ninong says:

    There are already more than 2,000 new gay married couples in Utah. Think of all the Mormon families that now have new gay sons-in-law or daughters-in-law. Congrats to them! It’s called progress if that makes them happy, or karma if it doesn’t.

  100. Mike_in_Houston says:

    Note that Justice Sotomayor did grant an interim stay in another matter while at the same time giving the government until Friday to respond.
    Is it significant that she didn’t grant the interim stay in our case? I sure hope so…
    Happy New Year, all!

  101. judybrowni says:

    Hokay, here in CA we got the lists of contributors to Prop 8hate, which listed their employers.

    And we contacted those people — at their employers — to ask why they were fucking with our families.

    How the fuck was it any of their business?

    One Hollywood restaurant lost a sizeable contingent of customers, gay and straight customers, reacting to the Hate contributions of the family who ran it.

    Long term customers, who’d felt slapped in the face by that family and their staff.

    I called a couple of local Hate contributors myself, asking what business they had supporting discrimination to my family.

    You’d think the Mormon Church would have learned it’s lesson, but noooooooooooooooooooooooooo….

  102. dula says:

    Bring’em young?

  103. Ninong says:

    I think it was Brigham Young who had 55 wives. Joseph Smith had only 34.

  104. Rick Roberts says:

    It’s sad, really.

  105. Ted Hayes says:

    Let’s ask the SCOTUS to stop the Mormon Church in the United Stated.

  106. Thom Allen says:

    I was wondering the same thing. The Mormon apologists/propagandists haven’t arrived. No right wing h8ers either, quoting Phil Robertson and salivating over the 15 year old brides that Phil recommends for the straight guys. No one quoting preacher Pat Robertson about how dangerous our AIDS rings are. Not even anyone quoting Chief Justice John Robert(son) about how there’s really no discrimination, bigotry or racism in the USA. Hey, do you think this Robertson clan has done a lot of inbreeding over the generations? They all seem to channel roughly similar thoughts. Some are just more polite and lucid than others.

    Nah, they don’t want us to commit suicide. Didn’t you get the memo? We’re all invited to Utah. We’re supposed to meet at a place called Mountain Meadows for a picnic that the Mormons are hosting . . .

  107. cole3244 says:

    this is nothing more than state sponsored terrorism passing itself off as concern for fellow citizens.
    just like joseph smith who was a shyster and came up with mormonism so he could get layed legally by many women the gop and their mormon allies are charlatans on an equal footing with the founding father of bs 101 utah style.

  108. Dakotahgeo says:

    Well, helllllll… they have the money, let them waste it any way they want. I can’t wait to watch these global Temples/Cathedrals implode from non-use.

  109. Dakotahgeo says:

    Ohhhhhhh! That I could “like” this x 50! Or a vegan chef counseling a butcher on how to cut beef (or any other piece of meat!).

  110. Dakotahgeo says:

    If it please the US Supreme Court, we citizens ask that you nullify the Mormon cult Klan for the sake of humanity. There… that sounds a lot more sensible and using common sense. christian Nazis have made marvelous strides in the last 5 years! TO THE OVENS!!!

  111. AnitaMann says:

    B-b-b-b because… icky sex! Ew! We’ve seen the videos. Over and over and over!

  112. karmanot says:

    Even Mormons have difficulty keeping up with their scam of a religion.

  113. AdmNaismith says:

    Points 2 & 4 of their own argument lead back to the very reason marriage laws need to be equalized in this country.

    How many Utah tax dollars are being paid to the Church-provided ‘counsel’ to put forward these losing arguments? This whole thing feels more like a tax-dollar scam than a real court case.

  114. Monoceros Forth says:

    Hell, why not mandate that Mormonism should be the Utah state religion then? If the sight or even the very thought of two people doing something contrary to Mormon teaching is so catastrophically insulting to Mormon religious beliefs that it’s the state’s duty to protect those tender sensibilities from the slightest bruising, then maybe Utah is bound to forbid (say) Methodism. After all those heathenish idolaters have been known to drink coffee.

  115. BeccaM says:

    Boggles the mind, doesn’t it? It’s concern trolling of the lowest order.

  116. JoeNCA says:

    “Getting lectured about traditional marriage from a Mormon is like getting lectured on loitering from a crack whore.” – Betty Bowers

  117. BeccaM says:

    As if the ‘dignitary and monetary’ pain inflicted by attempting to forever deny marriage equality for gay and lesbian families, as well as all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities associated with it, is somehow outweighed by the anger and disappointment of witnessing homophobic bigots get their way yet again…

    That’s one hell of a lot of gall they have there. But we already knew that.

    I wonder how long it’ll take the Mormon Apology Squad to show up here to insist that they don’t actually hate gay people and we should just talk to them to learn why they do. I guess maybe they figure they can talk us all into committing suicide or something.

  118. JoeNCA says:

    So wait, if same sex couples may be irreparably harm in their dignitary and financial interests if marriage is taken away from them, then aren’t they irreparably harmed in their dignitary and financial interests if it’s never given to them in the first place?????

  119. bkmn says:

    With such low grade work in the appeal to the Supreme Court I can almost understand why they need to hire an outside lawyer.

    P.S. Outside lawyers have until Jan. 7th to apply.

    They might want to apply heightened scrutiny if Paul Clement puts in a bid.

  120. Naja pallida says:

    Since it’s founding, the Mormon faith has changed its definition of acceptable marriage no less than three times, maybe as many as five, if one wanted to get technical about it. Each time it has brought them further acceptance by the general non-Mormon public, and brought more prosperity to the church… but yet, they fought it each and every time. I can’t see any way that this situation will be any different.

  121. emjayay says:

    The Mormon/Utah history thing does indeed make the gay marriage thing kind of absurd in Utah. Dignity of the divine holy matrimony and all that, which Kolob or someone changed conveniently just when Utah had to in order to be a state.

  122. timncguy says:

    That “spare them the pain when their marriages are voided” is the same argument they used with Prop 8. And, it worked then, They were given the stay tat they asked for while to appeals worked their way through the courts.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS