Utah’s Mormon governor un-marries 1,300 gay couples

Last month, on 20 December 2014, Utah became the 15th state with legal gay marriage, due to a ruling from Federal District Court Judge Robert Shelby.

In his ruling, Judge Shelby declared Utah’s state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection under the law, and in a very clear and forthright opinion, tied marriage equality to the previous bans on interracial marriage.

Since then, both Judge Shelby and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to issue a stay pending appeal, resulting in an estimated 1300+ newly married gay and lesbian couples in Utah.

I think perhaps our host, John Aravosis, had a smidge of optimism that the Mormons would forbear from their usual knee-jerk homophobia, suggesting this turn of events could represent a new chance for them to reform their reputation… but I’ve been skeptical all along. Heck, one Utah man went on a hunger strike to stop gays and lesbians from marrying.


Mormons via Shutterstock

Indeed, mere days later on New Year’s Eve, the Mormons and the GOP both begged for Federal intervention from the Supreme Court, referring their request to the supervising head of the 10th Circuit, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who then referred the matter to the full bench, which then did issue the requested stay on January 6th, Monday.

The marriages stopped. Yes, everybody knows that the legitimacy of those 1300+ Utah marriages remains in question pending a final judicial ruling. However, there’s the judicial precedent of California. Roughly 18,000 couples from the 2008 “Summer of Love” did have their marriages upheld, despite the lack of Federal recognition.

And now we have a situation where these 1300+ Utah couples, regardless how the state government feels about it, would enjoy post-DOMA Federal rights and protections. Thus, there is clear and unavoidable ‘tangible harm’ if those marriages are overturned, whereas — as I like to put it — the only harm to homophobic bigots and religious radicals is their fee-fees are hurt because gay people aren’t suffering. Every reason posited to oppose same-sex marriage equality and equal protection under the law is based either on outright lies (harm to kids, procreation, etc.) or blatant anti-gay animus, or both.

So what does the Utah state government do? What Mormon bigots always do – attempt to un-marry gay people.

In this case, Governor Gary Herbert (R-of course) announced Wednesday (Jan 8) that the state will not recognize those 1300+ marriages. It’s also worth noting that Governor Herbert (why do I always think of Star Trek when I hear that name) felt compelled to issue this statement despite the fact that Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (also Republican, surprisingly) said he could not determine on his own whether or not the marriages were valid.

Reyes said:

We are unable to reach a legal conclusion as to the ultimate validity of marriage  between persons of the same sex who completed their marriage ceremony in Utah between Dec 20, 2013 and Jan. 6, 2014. That question remains unanswered and the answer will depend on the result of the appeal process.

Actually, they’re married.  The Supreme Court stayed the federal court’s decision, pending appeal.  But they didn’t say anything about undoing the marriages that were already done.

In the meantime, I for one will be quite interested to hear the official position of the Obama Administration and his Department of Justice. Will these couples be considered married by the Federal government, despite the pending case?

We have no doubt what Governor Herbert has in mind though, do we?

Published professional writer and poet, Becca had a three decade career in technical writing and consulting before selling off most of her possessions in 2006 to go live at an ashram in India for 3 years. She loves literature (especially science fiction), technology and science, progressive politics, cool electronic gadgets, and perfecting Hatch green chile recipes. Fortunately for this last, Becca and her wife currently live in New Mexico. @BeccaMorn

Share This Post

158 Responses to “Utah’s Mormon governor un-marries 1,300 gay couples”

  1. BeccaM says:

    Not bad, although I have a simpler rule: Anybody who equates homosexuality with bestiality — and this “what if I want to marry my dog?” trolling IS doing exactly that — is a gay-hating homophobic bigot and as such not even worth trying to debate.

  2. Steven Jaeger says:

    What if the bitch was raised Jewish, would the pups be Jewish?

  3. Steven Jaeger says:

    Maybe they won’t notice because he’s got such a small wee-wee.

    2ndly I’d like to propose a corollary to Godwin’s Law: (the nazi law) It would be that anyone who brings up human animal marriage (hyperbolic symbolism) shows that they have no real argument and lose the entire argument.

    Falling afoul of Godwin’s law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility (borrowed from wikipedia)

  4. attorney general Holder has already announced the position of the federal government re the Utah marriages. The feds will honor them.

  5. Sameboat1 says:

    Juan Carlos, I can only hope you are being facetious here. Love between women and between men can be as close as love between heteros. In fact, it may be stronger in many cases simply because of the barriers erected against it. Please open your mind and your heart for these people who mean you no harm.

  6. pappyvet says:

    Funny joke.

  7. pappyvet says:

    What !!! No Starbucks !! sheeeit ;]

  8. karmanot says:

    Nailed it Duck.

  9. karmanot says:

    And, BTW there ain’t no Starbuck’s on Kolob.

  10. karmanot says:

    Juan, If your parakeet can take it, who are we to judge.

  11. David Tiffany says:

    When we want to point fingers at others, such as saying homosexuality is detestable in God’s eyes, we should understand there are many things that are detestable in God’s eyes. Proverbs 6:16-19, “There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies, and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.”
    Also important to understand is what Jesus says in Mark 3:28, “I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.”
    The fact is, we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory. And because Jesus went to the cross, all who come to Him can be saved from judgement…and know they have eternal life.

  12. Zorba says:

    Really??? Stew, you are the bigot. I am offended by you. Go back to your cave.

  13. Stew says:

    How can anyone give this the thumbs down? What a bunch of bigots! I’m offended.

  14. Karl says:

    Excellent! Finally, a gov who has his head on straight.

  15. HelenRainier says:

    I’ve known lots of men who are two-legged animals. Those are the ones I want to keep, John! ;-)

  16. Stev84 says:

    John Stewart asked the same: “What is it with you people and the animal-fucking?”


  17. pappyvet says:

    too literally is I believe correct Helen.

  18. Rambie says:

    John, as a lawyer, I’m sure you know that there is a difference and as a site I’d also hope you’d strive accuracy in your reporting. Besides, Utah has enough legitimate issues to expose and *snicker* about. :)

  19. I’m aware of that, but it sounds like a nuance without (much of) a difference.

  20. You want to marry an animal?

  21. Stev84 says:

    The second M is silent.

  22. vickif says:

    I graduated in 1963 and I went steady with my boyfriend for 3 years. We broke up right before graduation and the next week I met my future husband. We were married for 25 years and have 2 sons. We are now divorced and he has remarried. I didn’t. I got tired of being told what to do as if I didn’t have a mind of my own.

  23. cleos_mom says:

    Actually according to Luke’s Gospel (Luke 8:3), he also had friends among upper-class ladies, “Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward and Susanna, and many others”, who “ministered unto him of their substance” (KJV) Sounds rather suggestive but in Elizabethan phrasing that just means “subsidized”. Jesus apparently had a few sugar-mamas as well.

    Christian fundamentalism depends very heavily on biblical ignorance; that’s why so many of The Faithful are immune to biblical scholarship.

  24. cleos_mom says:

    I graduated high school in 1967, and clearly remember endless controversies about teens “going steady”. Of course, that was right after the era when people actually discussed the gradations and distinctions among “necking”, “petting”, “heavy petting” and “going all the way” with straight faces.

  25. cleos_mom says:

    In another biblical context, the girl dog can be “saved by puppybearing.”

  26. cleos_mom says:

    What a terrible thing to wish on a dog!

  27. cleos_mom says:

    Run along and play now, dear; the grown-ups are talking.

  28. cleos_mom says:

    “Indeed, mere days later on New Year’s Eve, the Mormons and the GOP both begged for Federal intervention from the Supreme Court”

    Interesting how this anti Gubber Mint mania disappears into thin air when the maniacs want something.

  29. HelenRainier says:

    I must disagree with your first sentence. Perhaps I am taking your words too literally but humans are indeed animals. We are homo sapiens. We share much of the same DNA as other animal species.

  30. Dakotahgeo says:

    Moron, or mormon? I fail to see the difference.

  31. Dakotahgeo says:

    Poor Juan is almost an embarrassment to perverts!

  32. Dakotahgeo says:

    You arrogant Mormon ass! Nobody can marry anyone or anything without their written and verbal approval. You magic underwear doesn’t protect your gray matter, obviously! Geeezzz, Louise!

  33. pappyvet says:

    I wonder , would the liter have to be raised Mormon? If the pooch in question were say , a southern Baptist. Would a St. Bernard have to change it’s name? Would it cause an uproar what with that little cask of brandy? Would a concerned citizen file a lawsuit on behalf of all St. Bernards to maintain their carrying of that little cask even though liquor is not allowed? After all ,I believe the historic culture and integrity of the Bernard as a group would be put at risk!
    I hope Juan is careful with his choice of marriage partners.

  34. pappyvet says:

    Canine Shish Kolob ? Hmm ,it must be whats for dinner.

  35. The_Fixer says:

    Just because your argument comes from someone who has the brain of a dog does not mean anyone should be allowed to marry one.

    Seriously, that is and always has been a stupid argument. It’s like thinking automobiles and doorknobs are the same thing. Your assignment is to carefully research consent, the mental capabilities of the animal kingdom exclusive of humans and to finish by researching contract law.

    As others have pointed out, civil marriage is a contract between two consenting adults. End of story. If you don’t get that, you may wish to take some classes at the local community college to catch up.

  36. AnthonyLook says:

    Hey Juan Carlos Mendoza leave you pets alone, you’re sick, get help. Insofar as humans, leave us humans alone too and keep your bigotry and discrimination within the confines of your own family and church. Hate all you want there. You’re a perv.

  37. AnthonyLook says:

    This move has essentially guaranteed the unconstitutionality of the state law against same sex marriage. If anything it is ammunition in the arsenal of bigotry and denial of rights.

  38. pappyvet says:

    Humans are not animals. Human bonds are not animal bonds. And in the example of your thoughts , humanity and higher brain functions are not universal among our people.

    People who are of the same mind as yours were once convinced that Jews sacrificed Christian babies. They were positive that blacks were not completely human. They believed that if a woman was angry and showed it , she was psychologically “asking” to be disciplined.
    But if there is any lack of those qualities which are universally recognized a being those of a higher order , you are the one who is displaying them.

  39. mike31c says:

    You are yet another uneducated and stupid moron. Please educate yourself (if that is possible) and go back to your false religion.

  40. Palto says:

    Juan Carlos that’s ironic coming from you since your whore of a mother probably did three ways with horses. You should’ve been the load that your mom swallowed.

  41. pericles9 says:

    It appears that Juan Carlos has been eating his own Santorum.

  42. Thom Allen says:

    And several of the sister wives are married to other men.

  43. Thom Allen says:

    Awww, did you experience too much butt hurt? Poor, oppressed ultra-“religious” bigot.

  44. Thom Allen says:

    Beautiful! I’ll get the Holy Water.

  45. Thom Allen says:

    Juan, you and frothy can get together with HIS favorite dog for a three way. Or maybe you already have.

  46. Monoceros Forth says:

    I think Whitewitch has the right of it. If you think of sex as something that happens not between two consenting adults but as something a predominate male does to a subservient woman, then of course it’s a natural step to think that men who slip the surly bonds of heterosexuality will want to screw any object, animate or not, because they’re used to thinking of sex as something that men do to objects.

    Notice that, with Mr. Carlos Mendoza and everyone else who employs this line of thought, it’s always men who will presumably wish to screw box turtles. Always men.

  47. Duck says:

    What IS it with you people? Anytime same sex civil marriage rights are mentioned it is a guarantee that some twit is going to bring up sex with the family dog. What don’t you people get about marriage being a legal contract? One must be able to sign a legal effing contract to enter into marriage, as in be a member of homo sapiens sapiens of legal age and otherwise capable to enter into a contract in the jurisdiction in question.
    Just so your bigoted self is aware this does NOT include: human children, human corpses, horses, sheep, dogs, cats, birds, whales, dolphins, herring, chimpanzees, orangutans, apes, salmon, snails, redwood trees, koalas, jumping spiders, boa constrictors, cows, polar bears, seals or penguins. Nor does this include members of other species such as mushrooms. Nor does this allow you to marry your toaster, refrigerator, beer kegs, martini glasses, microwave ovens, stoves or other household appliances. Nor does it include your computer, sofa-love seats, throw pillows or any of a number of automobile brands.
    So I imagine that you are pretty put out by the fact that your wife or girlfriend left you after catching you in the act with the family dog. “No really honey, its not what you think, Rover WANTED to lick the peanut butter out of my butt-crack! I mean have you seen the way he looks at me? He wanted it!” or perhaps it was more like this, “No really honey, Rover tripped me and I fell penis first onto his butt! It’s not what you think!”

  48. Whitewitch says:

    I envision them shaking in their tighty whities….(briefs)

  49. Duck says:

    All the religiously motivated bigots think that they are the “one true” religion that will come out on top of the theocratic scrum. To think otherwise would be to acknowledge that 1) other religions make the same claims with the same validity and 2) the Gods might not actually be on their side. Isn’t any room in their theology for either much less both of those admissions.

  50. Duck says:

    Personally I think that IS a source of the fear that leads to bigotry – the haters (mostly rightwingers, almost exclusively of an Abrahamic faith, largely (for the most outspoken) male) know how they look at and treat women and are terrified that they will be treated the same way. Imagine how horrified one of the haters must be to think about how he will be treated in the marriage equality world – he might be treated like a *gasp* woman!

  51. karmanot says:

    Snarky, snarky LOL!

  52. karmanot says:

    What makes you think you ever left?

  53. Whitewitch says:

    Depends, is it a boy dog or a girl dog…

    Boy dog yes – own planet
    Girl dog – no planet, but she can join you on yours in Kolob.

  54. Stev84 says:

    Also the Utah War. Maybe it’s time to repeat that one.

  55. Bomer says:

    News flash for you. I’m not a Mormon and your rules don’t me shit to me. We also don’t live in a theocracy (which brings up and interesting question: What makes you think that if the U.S. did, indeed, become a theocracy your religion would be the one that comes out on top?).

  56. karmanot says:

    But, but, can you take your dog to Kolob and, does he/she get a planet of their own?

  57. Bomer says:

    It’s not just the Mormons. Conservative Christians all bleat about “traditional” marriage as being between one man and one woman…except, ya know, according to their book it wasn’t.

  58. LanceThruster says:

    I fear no ones god(s), just when they try to act as proxies for their god(s).

  59. Whitewitch says:

    That is the same solution I offer up for drugs as well. Make them legal and regulate them. End of the ugliness that is the “War On Drugs”.

  60. heimaey says:

    I don’t have an issue with polygamy as long as it’s consenting adults. The issue is that so many of these girls are married off in their early/mid teens without consent. That said, it happens now when it’s illegal, so why not legalize it and regulate it better? I just solved my own issue with it. I’m for legalization.

  61. Strepsi says:

    I’ve called my dog, and as soon as he’s finished voting he’s gonna drive over here and marry me. Wait, he can’t vote or drive or marry — because HE’S A DOG.
    Gay people are tax paying citizens. Dogs are not. Citzens have civil rights.

    Look up “inalienable” and get back to me.

    P.S. Can Christians please stop telling us about interspecies sex? I know you love this whole “Lion lying down with the Lamb” thing, please stop shoving it down our throats!

  62. Strepsi says:

    I never heard that angle but it’s true. Even if they render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and allow civil marriage, that doesn’t make God do jack sh**.

  63. Naja pallida says:

    I think that’s why they’ve been so hesitant to take any case that might lead to such a ruling. They’re scared to face all of their conflicts of interest. Even the more liberal leaning justices still have religion shadowing over their ideology. Does a Catholic justice side with their beliefs or the law? If the Court was doing their job as they were supposed to, it would be the law and only the law, but they’ve all proven time and time again that they’re not beyond ruling for personal reasons without any basis in legal theory.

  64. Rambie says:

    I didn’t mean to imply I was without hope. But I will admit I’m a little nervous about the SC taking the case. Even the 10th is the most conservative circuit court so I’m hopeful but worried.

  65. BeccaM says:

    They always leave off that part. “Informed, adult, legal consent.” Why do they leave it off? Because they hate gay people so very much, they must dehumanize us first.

    That makes it easier to ship us off to concentration camps later on.

  66. BeccaM says:

    I didn’t think they’d rule to over turn the worst part of DOMA — but they did. So I’m not utterly without hope.

  67. Rambie says:

    They aren’t wasting any tax dollars fighting the ruling on polygamy! Funny how they don’t have the cash for that yet can find it to fight marriage equality

  68. Rambie says:

    You and every other supporter of marriage equality. :) However, I do worry with the conservative tilt of the SC that they’ll not rule in our favor.

  69. BeccaM says:

    Former Senator Santorum? Welcome to AmericaBlog. Glad to hear you’re into dogs these days. Those box-turtles you were pining to rape wouldn’t survive the experience.

  70. Monoceros Forth says:

    I’ve never been much a one for cherry pies myself. :p

  71. karmanot says:

    And consider the sister litters.

  72. Nelson says:

    I agree with Indigo. I am a Gay Man and I cannot count the number of married Mormon Men that have begged me to have sex and drink liquor. Utah is full of Gay Men living in the closet. I say we boycott the state.

  73. PeteWa says:

    exactly, rapists like Juan only consider themselves and objectify everyone and thing else.

    really sick, sad people.

  74. Whitewitch says:

    You know the real problem with people like Juan and the mormon church is that they don’t think they need consent – BECAUSE woman are property, so they don’t really need consent. I think they see that this is going to change a lot of things in society – when men are married to men – you will see a big change in the status of a “spouse”.

  75. PeteWa says:

    I’m just really sick of seeing animal rapists like Juan talk about wanting to marry their dogs.

  76. karmanot says:

    “apple pies.” I prefer cherry pies, but they are hard to eat on a slippery slope.

  77. Whitewitch says:

    OH darn Pete – your post is far superior to mine argument. Thanks for reminding me of the “consent” thing!!!

  78. karmanot says:

    Hold that thought snarly puss. :P

  79. Whitewitch says:

    Hi Juan…if you really want to marry your dog – then have a member of your church do that for you in a spiritual union. Or BETTER….try to understand that although humans are animals; humans and dogs are different species. We do not allow the marrying of different species of animals..just like in nature those of a different species rarely mate.

    But hey – if you really really love your dog – go for it.

  80. Whitewitch says:

    I am leaving instructions with my son to SUE the CRAP out of them after I die for violating my right to freedom of religion….they better not marry me to anyone – I will HAUNT the hell out of all of them and Spook up Their Temples as well.

  81. Monoceros Forth says:

    I’ve never been clear as to why opposite-sex couplings were any less slippery a slope to bestiality as same-sex relations. I mean, if you are a man that way inclined, surely a mare is as tempting if not more tempting than a stallion? Maybe we should ban all sexual relations. It’s the only way to be safe. I mean, if you get the idea that society permits the insertion of one’s cock into any entity, male or female, it’s just a tiny bit further down the slope to screwing fish or apple pies.

  82. Whitewitch says:

    And one “fag hag” (sorry if that is Politically Incorrect – I am using my old lady pass on this one)

  83. PeteWa says:

    let us all know when the dog you are raping can give you consent to marry, okay?
    thanks in advance.

  84. karmanot says:

    Didn’t the unmarried Jesus hang out with 12 hunky working men?

  85. Whitewitch says:

    Let’s let them have polygamy then. I don’t care, as long as they marry adult person who consent. Heck, if some crazy man wants a bunch of women (or vicey versie) go for it (…me I can barely manage one companion and a dog)

  86. karmanot says:

    Hiding behind your magic underwear ‘guest.’

  87. Juan Carlos Mendoza says:

    If same sex marriage will be legal; then, lets the human-animal marriage be legal too, If its true love, the sex or the animal doesnt matter.

    a man can be inlove with another man
    or a man can be inlove too with his dog or his cat :D, process and equal protection under law :P

  88. karmanot says:

    Cool, you just got 12 sister wives to up vote you—-gonna be real busy for the next week and a half I imagine.

  89. karmanot says:

    There is a growing movement by the homosexual agenda/lifestyle to re-baptize all dead Mormons as gay so that Zolob will be filled with queers for eternity.

  90. Whitewitch says:

    Hey MyrddinWilt – do you think that is the real problem? They can reconcile their belief that “Men” have to marry a bunch of women to build their kingdom in heaven and now they might have to marry men too? Which man wins, the gay man who marries himself to a bunch of “straight men”….interesting!!!!

  91. Thom Allen says:

    Oddly, or perhaps not so, THEY don’t seem to mind wasting millions of tax dollars when it suits them.

  92. Naja pallida says:

    I always roll my eyes when they point at their theocracy for how they think they ‘rules’ should be applied. Even if you go to the Bible, there’s over 600 rules explicitly spelled out, yet only a half-dozen or so are actually laws in civil society (the no murdering, no stealing parts, mainly). It’s just more of how they like to make things up as they go. Picking and choosing what their religion actually says. If they can pick and choose from what they like out of ~600 other ‘rules’, they can make an exception in their little world for one more.

  93. BeccaM says:

    So your demand is all people must live under Mormon rules, even non-Mormons. I guess that explains California and Prop 8, and all those slanderous commercials the Church paid to have run.

    Got it. Just so we’re clear here, that your position is America should be New Gilead — a theocracy dominated by one or a few particular religions and their arbitrary, bigoted, misogynistic and gay-hating rules — as opposed to a Constitutional Republic, where the civil rights of minorities are protected.

  94. PeteWa says:

    Hey now, if he can baptize the dead, how hard can it be to unmarry the living?
    It’s all in the way you wear your magic under-roos.

  95. Naja pallida says:

    I’m hoping it goes right to the Supreme Court, so we can finally get a Loving v. Virginia-style federal ruling and be done with this nonsense in the States. But then, with this Court of random nonsense, who knows how that would actually go.

  96. BeccaM says:

    Certain keywords trigger it. Folks don’t like having their casual bigotry challenged, but I’m done being Ms. NiceGirl.

  97. BeccaM says:

    Oddly enough, the AG is being the honest one here, saying the state doesn’t have enough information or legal grounds to say whether the marriages are valid or not. It’s Governor Herbert who’s preemptively jumping out in front and insisting the state agencies must not recognize the marriages, no matter what.

  98. BeccaM says:

    If you’ll remember though, one of the earliest cases before the California Supreme Court with respect to Prop 8 — in addition to challenging its constitutionality under state law — was an attempt by the anti-gay forces, led by their Mormon and Catholic deep-pocket backers, to invalidate the 18,000+ same-sex marriages performed during 2008.

  99. BeccaM says:

    Why not? You have no rational reasons. Just lies, slander, and selected bits of religious oppression lifted from a violent bronze age culture.

  100. Whitewitch says:

    Excellent post – perhaps Post of the Day???

  101. Whitewitch says:

    Sadly that is your stance now (I am hoping you join us here in the 21st Century)…before it was marry as many women as you can to enhance your kingdom.

    And more importantly as Naja has said. That is LDS law, rules, restrictions, ideology and LDS does not own or rule Utah. Utah is a state in the United States of America and must follow the laws of the country and state.

    Romney did NOT win and therefore your rules/restrictions (thankfully) are not the law of the land.

  102. BeccaM says:

    Heck, it’s simpler than that: Utah bases its tax returns off the Federal forms, as do many other states.

    According to the IRS, those newly married couples, who were married on or before 12/31/12, are by law supposed to file as a married couple — whether jointly or separately. Utah presumably won’t allow them to do that.

    So either those couples will be in violation of Federal or Utah law — and guess which one of those is supposed to trump the other?

  103. Rambie says:

    That really just ties into the existing lawsuit that’s now before the 10th. I’m hoping the 10th rules in our favor and makes the state recognize same sex marriage.

  104. LanceThruster says:

    “This is what I say to the most conservative person that’s so terrified of gay marriage becoming legal: Just because the state says it’s legal, it’s not like God’s gonna let them into heaven?! You can still sleep sound every night, knowing that goal line defense is up at the pearly gates going, “You’re not getting in here, f4ggot“ ~ Daniel Tosh

    PS – Before anyone gets upset about his terminology, understand that he was parodying the haters who think God shares their hatred of gays.

  105. Naja pallida says:

    Every single one of those couples should immediately request services from the State, any service at all that is only available to married couples, and if they are refused, file a law suit anyway. Drown them in litigation.

  106. Rambie says:

    Agreed, it’s a total dick-ish move. I was half-hoping they step out of bounds and open up for more suits, though I’d hate think of the tax dollars they’d waste.

  107. Monoceros Forth says:

    Oh, jeez, that is just so dumb. *chuckles* Never mind that Joe Smith didn’t exactly invent the temperance movement, and notions about restricting smoking go back even earlier. But then Mormonism is essentially imitative in nature.

  108. Whitewitch says:

    I think it is truly the reason. Your feelings are hurt that you can’t convert the entire country to your way of thinking and that Your Romney didn’t become President – and now you can’t say – See the Prophet was right we are the BEST and should will rule the world.

    Romney Tsunami…Romney Tsunami

  109. Whitewitch says:

    Ohhh Monoceros Forth – you clearly did not read the comments – here is the very bestest ONE!

    Mountain Man1
    Salt Lake , UT
    “Things like this just keep coming out. Long ago the Prophet told us not to drink or smoke. 100 years late everyone else figures out it’s bad. I wonder what else we the world will come to find out that we already know :)”

    Wonder what else they know that we don’t….hehehehe. I know something you don’t know….

  110. sane37 says:

    They can’t not.
    If they don’t spend all their time looking at others, they may have to look at themselves.

  111. Naja pallida says:

    And nothing there is applicable to Utah state law. It’s still the State of Utah, not the Theocratic Reich of Utah.

  112. Monoceros Forth says:

    Oh, man XD I just cackled when I read this bit from the article you cite:

    When you begin dating, go with one or more additional couples. Avoid going on frequent dates with the same person. Developing serious relationships too early in life can limit the number of other people you meet and can perhaps lead to immorality.

    The thing is, I know where I’ve seen this before: in those educational shorts from the ’50s that they used to make fun of on “Mystery Science Theater 3000” and which they still make fun of on “Rifftrax”. There’s one in particular that Rifftrax did which puzzled the hell out of me at first: it’s called “Going Steady” and, in it, a high-school age couple is questioned by their friends about why they’ve been going out only with each other lately and not seeing anyone else. When the boy in the couple is asked, “Are you going steady?” he replies, in the most depressed-sounding voice imaginable, “…Going steady?” as though he’d just been asked whether he’d been sentenced to death.

    It took me too long to grasp what was going on. Dating lots of different people, back then, didn’t mean that you were sleeping around; it meant that you were keeping yourself unattached. Dating the same guy or girl too often meant that you were getting too involved with one person and (gasp!) might end up with you “going steady” (i.e. screwing.) So you were supposed to keep it light and superficial.

    It’s truly bizarre to see the same approach to dating in a black-and-white short film from 1951 and from a current article in the Deseret News.

  113. TychaBrahe says:

    And that’s what I’m holding onto right now. This is going to go to SCTOTUS and some couple in Utah now living in pseudomarriage is going to be the Loving of marriage equality and we will end this crap once and for all. “They were living as married spouses, and the state summarily removed that status, causing them significant harm.”

  114. Indigo says:

    Fair enough. It’s clearly a foot-dragging gesture worth of former Governor George Wallace of Alabama.

  115. Rambie says:

    As a Utah resident let me explain a bit. They did not invalidate the marriages, just that the state won’t recognize the marriages (just like they do not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states). It’s an jerk-asshat thing to do and it skirts the limits of the law. If the state had tried to invalidate the marriages they’d have 1000+ lawsuits on their hands.

  116. sfcanative says:

    Oh, you mean like this story from the oracle of Mormonism:


  117. Strepsi says:

    I read it in full, thank you.

    1) One religion’s view of God’s will still has absolutely NOTHING to do with civil marriage law. Or any kind of governmental regulation.


    2) “We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.” I take it that the Mormon Church is sponsoring STate constitutional amendments to prohibit having children out of wedlock, an amendment prohibiting divorce, and legislation for the state to sieze all children that do not have a married mother and father? Wait, it has never done any of those things anywhere? Could it be that this is all a long-winded cover for simple anti-gay bigotry? Color me shocked!

  118. Monoceros Forth says:

    It’s a fair point. Really, all of the right-wing religious nuts in America, regardless of their particular religion or denomination, are converging on the same small set of values, most of which are more political than spiritual.

  119. sfcanative says:

    It should be noted that In addition to posthumous baptism, Mormons also wash and anoint, bestow the priesthood, conduct an endowment ceremony and marry those same dead people. That is the main function and purpose of their 150 temples around the world.

  120. Strepsi says:

    I know, but it’s completely understandable they think that the State overrides the U.S., I mean it’s not as if there was a civil war over that issue or anything.


  121. Monoceros Forth says:


    (OK, cheating a bit with that one since I’m not a UCSF member any more. But then I’m not a Mormon either.)

  122. Monoceros Forth says:


    (Hey, if you can weary me by quoting the rules and regulations of a society I don’t belong to so don’t need to care about, I can return the favor.)

  123. Monoceros Forth says:

    By coincidence, yesterday I came across a fascinating (and hilarious) summary of the Twilight books written from the perspective of a woman who had escaped from Mormonism, so the reviews were full of insider stuff. Basically the books, aside from being unutterable garbage written in elementary-school prose, have a lot of deeply creepy and specific references to Mormon beliefs. It goes way past the general, “I can’t fuck youturn you into a vampire until we’re married,” obviousness. For instance, did you know that Edward Cullen is described just as Joseph Smith is, down to hair and eye color? Anyway, if you’re interested, start reading here ( http://stoney321.livejournal.com/317176.html ) and chase the links through to the end.

    One thing in particular struck me about this writer’s inside scoop on Mormon society: they talk endlessly about sex. Either they talk endlessly about all the sexual activity you’re not supposed to be having until you’re married (French kissing counts as forbidden sexual activity, by the way), or they brag about how great the sex was on honeymoon night and they’re so glad they waited. A sample:

    Again, sex is talked about ALL THE TIME. If you aren’t married, you shouldn’t have it. You shouldn’t do it. This: *diagrams with laser pointers* Let me explain all the ways that you can have sex. Now don’t do it. <– in church, in the break-off Sunday school classes, in Firesides (Sunday night hour long lectures,) on Wed. night break-off classes for the different sexes… Sex is constantly talked about. It's really fucking weird.

    Also she mentions how four times in one year Mormons would go out of their way in church service to reassure the people that, yes, their first kid was born eight months after the wedding and not nine, but the kid came EARLY. Everyone get that straight, they were born EARLY. We didn’t have sex before we married, just wanted everyone to know that, the kid was EARLY.

    Mormons are deeply, deeply sick. But I think we sort of knew that already.

  124. BlueIdaho says:

    I know we are discussing the mormon here but the truth is that the far right wing in Utah (and Idaho) are made up of mormons, catholics and a host of other independent religious nuts. The bottom line is that that they truly believe that their state constitutions trump the federal constitution. Unfortunately even when the SCOTUS slaps them down on this, they still won’t believe it. They will just install more “Don’t Tread on Me” signs in their yards.

  125. Mormon Me says:

    Incredibly well said!

  126. Duwayne_Anderson says:

    Exactly. Joseph Smith (founder of the church) was a serial adulterer and probable pedophile, who “married” little girls as young as 14.


  127. Duwayne_Anderson says:

    That’s a link to the Mormon Church’s “The Family, a proclamation to the world.” Couple of points on this document:

    1) It illustrates the hubris of the Mormon Church, their leaders, and their people — as if the “world” needs a “proclamation” from them.

    2) It reaffirms the Mormon concept of a pre-existence. The pre-existence doctrine was used by the church to justify denying the priesthood to Blacks on the pretense that they’d been less “valiant” in the pre-existence. Interesting how they keep using the “pre-existence” to support the bigotry in their religion.

    3) It reaffirms the Mormon belief in a literal Adam and Eve, and helps to illustrate the literal interpretation that Mormonism brings to the Old Testament. Mormons are highly literal with the Old Testament, and this is one reason that Mormonism is hopelessly inconsistent with science. Mormonism is Christian Fundamentalism on steroids.

    4) It plays down the history of plural marriage in Mormon history by talking about “the husband and wife” (singular). This is part of a concerted effort by the Church to keep members unaware that Church founder, Joseph Smith, was a serial adulterer and probable pedophile, who “married” little girls as young as 14.

    5) It’s a direct instruction to Mormons to use civil government to force Mormon religious beliefs on society. As such, it illustrates the contempt that the Mormon Church holds for the Constitution and the separation of Church and state.

  128. zorbear says:

    “never met a woman” — make that “never met a female”, given their lack of age restrictions on their actions…

  129. nicho says:

    And the poor Mormons still think they were persecuted for their religious beliefs. They were persecuted because they tried to impose a theocracy everywhere they went. That and the fact that the founders never met a woman –married or single– who they didn’t want to fuck.

  130. nicho says:

    Well, it’s either post here or spend the day baptizing and marrying dead people.

  131. 2patricius2 says:

    A simple question. How many of today’s Mormons would not be here today, had their Mormon ancestors not practiced polygamy? Mormon tradition is multiple wives. The tradition of one man/one woman is not the original tradition. But now the leaders of the church are trying to impose the one man/one woman on everyone. Why? Maybe their “revelations” from their god are not as definitive as they seem to think.

  132. jomicur says:

    Then why are they trying to destroy families?

  133. jomicur says:

    You need to drop your religious bigotry. We have a right to marry because the angel Macaroni got some engraved golden plates from the FSM that say we do. We are simply following the will of the deity. Prove me wrong.

  134. jomicur says:

    Hey, they’re just upholding traditional Biblical marriage. After all, Jesus went around divorcing people, too. Oh wait…

  135. Monoceros Forth says:

    Crikey, the entire Mormon sock-puppet drawer is being emptied on our heads this morning.

  136. Monoceros Forth says:

    It’s pointless to go through arguments like this. The plain truth is that the right-wing Christians and the Mormons and all the other religious bigots want the special privilege of forcing all civil society to validate their particular religious prejudices. Equality before the law be damned.

  137. Strepsi says:

    There have been now several court cases, with ample opportunity to present arguments as to why gay people should not be allowed to marry, aaaaaand… NONE was presented that was logical, consistent, or Constitutional. Indeed, the ONLY consistent reason was anti-gay animus: and a majority cannot take a civil right away from a minority just because they don;t like them.
    Other (non) arguments:
    1) Religious. Totally irrelevant to the civil marriage debate. No church has to solemnize marriages they deem inappropriate. Some actually do marry gay people. But either way, the question is to whether governments allow and recognize same-sex marriage.

    2) Marriage is for procreation. No it is not, annd the ability or intent to procreate is nowhere in any civil marriage contract. Post-menopausal straights, sterile straights, and straights with no intention to have children are permitted to marry. No bans are attempted against them. Also: many gay citizens have kids, and stopping them from marrying actually harms those existing families by denying legal kinship status.

    3) Have civil unions with all the same rights but don’t call it “marriage”: separate but equal is not equal, as has been decided by the courts many times. And on the other hand, if it’s “just a word” then allow it to be marriage.

    Thats basically it. The anti-gay-marriage crowd just wants gay people to have less rights. Thus, anti-gay animus. If you are against gay marriage, you are a bigot.

  138. Monoceros Forth says:

    More like nudged forward than taken back, I’d say.

  139. Guest says:

    Good one.. that took me straight back to kindergarten.

  140. Monoceros Forth says:

    “Is that honestly why you think people are fighting against gay marriage?”

    Well, it’s either that or, “Ew, gays are icky, society should protect me from them,” whingeing.

  141. One Random Mormon says:

    Love this line “…the only harm to homophobic bigots and religious radicals is their fee-fees are hurt because gay people aren’t suffering.”
    Is that honestly why you think people are fighting against gay marriage? Stopped reading/taking you seriously right there…

  142. FLL says:

    Governor Herbert is playing federal justice here. He is trying to do what only a court can do. Even though Herbert is playing fast and loose with the separation of powers, Utah state officials may very well follow his instructions. But it’s the time of year to file federal income taxes. Obama and Eric Holder would be dead wrong if they did what Herbert is doing and denied Utah same-sex married couples all federal benefits, including filing tax returns as a married couple. I’d be very surprised if Obama and the Justice Department withhold federal benefits from those Utah couples. The federal administration needs to speak to the question now. People are already starting to file tax returns.

  143. MyrddinWilt says:

    I think folk are getting it all wrong here. Following LDS practice we gay-married Herbert to 1,300 men last week and that is what his is overturning.

    Liberace was too dead so we married him to Lindsey Graham, Ken Mehlman and the members of Village People.

  144. Drew2u says:

    “Take away my marriage rights? Don’t make me mormon-marry your daughters, I’ll do it!!”

  145. Duwayne_Anderson says:

    The largest government-mandated divorce in the history of the United States has just been issued by a Mormon, and governor of Utah.

    That’s not small government, and it’s not “pro family.”

    This is just one more example of the Mormon Church hijacking the government in order to use the government to force their religious beliefs on other people.

  146. heimaey says:

    I suppose if they can’t have polygamy, they’ll just throw a tantrum.

  147. Monoceros Forth says:

    Nothing like a little ex post facto bigotry to ring in the New Year. Fun.

    On the bright side, Lily Tomlin finally married Jane Wagner. I’m lucky enough to have seen Tomlin in person once, performing “The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life in the Universe”. Seems appropriate all of a sudden.

  148. PLAINTOM says:

    Mormons convert dead people to their religion so naturally they think they have the right to un-marry living people.

  149. Strepsi says:

    Well, that’s what undid Prop 8 in California. Even more than the right to marry, the judge ruled that taking away an EXISTING RIGHT (to the couples that are already legally married) for simply arbitrary reasons, is not Constitutional… even if voted on by the population.

  150. Strepsi says:

    You’re so right John! I forgot the stay is in granting new licenses, and that those married are… well… married.

    Either way it’s a win for us. By cutting off equal rights from legally married couples because of their membership in an unpopular minority, Herbert is demonstrating tangible harm. If the marriages continue, we gain equality.

    So either way it bodes well, I just wish bigots didn’t cause the most protracted harm to the most people they can, along the way, EVERY time.

  151. caphillprof says:

    My position remains: a marriage legal when made is thereafter legal; the only way to undo such a marriage is through a divorce proceeding, and few have standing to bring a divorce proceeding. The governor of Utah is disgusting in his intrusion in other’s domestic affairs. Is he even human?

  152. cole3244 says:

    mormons, religious hypocrites spewing their hate at anyone they don’t like or agree with.

  153. bkmn says:

    Fortunately the gov and AG won’t have the last say on this topic.

  154. UncleBucky says:

    Makes me want to…

    Oh, I can’t say it. But a Mormon’s fee-fee’s would be harmed to the same degree the couples in Utah would be harmed.

  155. Indigo says:

    Just hateful! That whole Mormon enterprise is just hateful.

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