Gay Marriage in Utah
Sen. Scott McCoy writes an article on gay marriage – which is particularly interesting between the lines.
Sen. McCoy first warns of “political rhetoric and demagoguery” (no doubt, which will be spread exclusively by Republicans), while informing us that the California gay-marriage decision won’t mean much for Utah “in the short term.” He notes that his pending marriage to his partner won’t be recognized in Utah “for now.”
So, what do those qualifiers – “in the short term” and “for now” – mean? They mean that Scott and Democrats are working to force Utahns to recognize gay marriage, even though there is no doubt that most Utahns want no part of that.
The “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that states recognize laws and legal arrangements from other states. So, the plan of gay-marriage advocates is to use the courts to force other states to recognize California same-sex marriages – Utah being no exception.
There is a particularly juicy bit of irony in this, since Sen. McCoy and Democrats can’t stop beating the political drum that Republicans are out of touch with Utah voters, because the Legislature passed vouchers, and the people then said “no.” Well, just a few years ago, 66% of Utahns said “no” to gay marriage. Hmm.
So, while high-minded Democrats share facts and information about vouchers (which is a dead issue), we can only hope that those lowly Republicans don’t spread political rhetoric and demagoguery about same-sex marriage (which is far from a dead issue).
UPDATE (6/19/08): Glen Warchol's blog has a good discussion going on regarding the topic.
Sen. McCoy first warns of “political rhetoric and demagoguery” (no doubt, which will be spread exclusively by Republicans), while informing us that the California gay-marriage decision won’t mean much for Utah “in the short term.” He notes that his pending marriage to his partner won’t be recognized in Utah “for now.”
So, what do those qualifiers – “in the short term” and “for now” – mean? They mean that Scott and Democrats are working to force Utahns to recognize gay marriage, even though there is no doubt that most Utahns want no part of that.
The “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that states recognize laws and legal arrangements from other states. So, the plan of gay-marriage advocates is to use the courts to force other states to recognize California same-sex marriages – Utah being no exception.
There is a particularly juicy bit of irony in this, since Sen. McCoy and Democrats can’t stop beating the political drum that Republicans are out of touch with Utah voters, because the Legislature passed vouchers, and the people then said “no.” Well, just a few years ago, 66% of Utahns said “no” to gay marriage. Hmm.
So, while high-minded Democrats share facts and information about vouchers (which is a dead issue), we can only hope that those lowly Republicans don’t spread political rhetoric and demagoguery about same-sex marriage (which is far from a dead issue).
UPDATE (6/19/08): Glen Warchol's blog has a good discussion going on regarding the topic.
posted by steve u. at 6/17/2008
Subscribe
34 Comments:
Steve,
It's called "heads I win, tails we flip again". Everyone does this. How many times did hate crimes legislation come up tails before it finally came up heads?
At least voucher supporter like you (and me) are willing to admit that vouchers are dead. We're not asking for a second coin toss.
Any judge or lawyer who attempted to use the "full faith and credit" clause to force a gay marriage from another state into Utah would be out of their mind. After all, the Constitution is very clear: "And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." And DOMA is equally clear. Case closed.
What I hear Scott saying is that over time people will change their view of same-sex marriage. I agree. I used to be opposed to same-sex marriage and over several years my position has changed.
Why did it change? Because I got myself more educated about homosexuality. I also have family members who have come out of the closet and are now living in openly gay relationships that have every aspect of my own marriage relationship except that they don't have the civil benefits that I enjoy.
I look at beliefs that were prevalent in the past and how these racist or sexist beliefs have faded over time (thank goodness). I see the same happening with same-sex marriage. In the future, there will be a time when we will look at amendment 3 for what it is -- a wholesale denial of civil rights to homosexual couples. I look forward to supporting courageous legislators like Scott McCoy (regardless of political party affiliation) and support their efforts to provide equal rights to all.
Derek,
You very well might be right. My hope is that the issue is handled pursuant to democratic process, not by judicial fiat. Judge-made law, like California's decision, is disrespectful to basic principles of rule by the people and, thus, disrespectful to the people.
As I read Rep. Urquhart’s response to my blog post on gay marriage in California it became clear to me that he really hasn’t read it very closely. Rather, he tries to scare Utahns for political gain.
Here is what he asserts: “Scott and Democrats are working to force Utahns to recognize gay marriage.”
What? I nor any elected Democrat in the state of Utah has ever tried to “force” Utahns to accept or recognize gay marriage.
In fact, in my blog, I specifically say that I won’t try, and I caution other gay and lesbian Utahns not to try to “force” gay marriage on Utah through lawsuits. I suggested rather than ram gay marriage down Utahns’ throats, we should understand Utah law and we should lead by example and live honestly. That’s not forcing anything on anyone.
This demonstrates a big difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Democrats don’t try and force their values on other people. Republicans with a super majority do. Rep. Urquhart raises the classic example: vouchers. He and his colleagues forced vouchers and their values on the Utah public even though Utahns overwhelmingly opposed and ultimately rejected vouchers and the anti-public education values that underlie them.
So who really is forcing things on whom?
Senator, you have a few glaring flaws in logic here.
"Democrats don’t try and force their values on other people."
Except in California, where a law approved by a 60% majority of voters was overturned on the most tenuous of grounds. It's probably best to not open that can of worms any further.
"He and his colleagues forced vouchers and their values on the Utah public even though Utahns overwhelmingly opposed and ultimately rejected vouchers and the anti-public education values that underlie them."
Big difference here. Vouchers were passed by the legislature and THEN rejected by the voters. At the time of the vote in the legislature, polls showed a pretty even split on the issue; attempting to reinterpret the final vote on the issue is disingenuous at best.
In California, however, the opposite happened: a small group overrode the will of the people. Trying to compare the two is apples and oranges.
Jesse,
The Court is California was a majority Republican appointed court. Odd you blame the their decision on the Democrats here in Utah.
I assume you will agree that if the folks in CA defeat the constitutional amendment that the decision will be legitimized.
Interesting on the rationalization on vouchers that it was only rejected after the vote by the legislature. I don't remember any poll showing support for vouchers by the public either before or after the passage by the legislature. Maybe you could give me a cite to one.
Also, important to note that the CA legislature actually passed marriage equality twice. The governor did veto it. Now however, every branch of government in CA has endorsed the Court's decision and oppose the amendment.
Scott,
On a personal level, I wish you and Mark the best. This must be a very exciting time for you.
But, c'mon. You're not arguing that Utahns shouldn't have this forced on them through the courts. You're just laying out the best strategic way to do exactly that. Not only do you want to avoid the will of the people. You want to avoid the courts of most of the states, in order to forum shop and find those that will be the most active in thwarting the will of their citizens.
You write, "Utah courts are not likely to lead out on marriage equality for Utah. (Nor arguably should they.) Those first legal recognition battles will be fought elsewhere in more favorable venues." Until Utahns eventually are forced to accept same-sex marriage. Right?
Steve,
Thanks for your kind words. Your readers should know that we are friends and I have a great deal of respect for you.
Scott
Sen. McCoy: I didn't say that Utah Democrats have any blame, but the lawsuit in question was filed by the City and County of San Francisco, governments both in Democratic control. Trying to say that that Democrats were not heavily involved in the decision to overrule a popular vote is outright false.
Just like with Massachusetts, California is welcome to do whatever it wants so long as it doesn't act as a sledgehammer to be used against other states AND the general consensus of the public backs said action. (I will say, though, that the people haven't gotten a chance to vote on the issue in Massachusetts thanks to a legislature unwilling to give them that opportunity.) That's federalism in action.
As far as pre-vote polls on vouchers, KSL and the Deseret News did a poll in January of 2007 showing a split of 48-46 in favor of vouchers or tuition tax credits. (Source)
It also appears to be a bit of double-talk to use support by the legislative and executive to legitimize the decision made in California while using the same support in Utah as an example of ignoring the will of the people. You simply can't have it both ways.
Jesse,
You are right. You didn't say that Utah Democrats were to blame. Sorry for that. But it is not fair for you or Rep. Urquhart to generalize and say that because Democrats did something or drove a process in CA or MA, that therefore, they will do the same thing here. I may support marriage equality but that doesn't mean every Democrat does, especially every Democrat in Utah. Thus part of my view that the "Scott and the Democrats" phrase used by Rep. Urquhart in his blog was purposefully chosen and aimed at drawing political lines.
Rep. Urquhart,
Sen. McCoy (my senator) tried to articulate very clearly what the California decision means for Utah, as a whole and for the LGBT population of this state. I consider that the most important point in his commentary is committed couples would continue to live their lives as a family and be who they are for themselves, friends, and family. True policy change happens when folks really see the issue on its own merits, with all politics left aside. The equality of marriage should not be a political decision on what the left or right is winning out if it. What we need to have in mind is that the California decision affects real people and real families in a very positive way by giving them not only security and stability under the law, but other legal and financial benefits which were long overdue. The recognition of marriage equality is a community issue, and with the time folks will see that won't be that bad after all: we might try to have a better community by including everybody in it.
I thank you for providing this dialogue through your blog.
Notice no response from Sen. McCoy to Urquhart's inclusion of Sen. McCoy's language that "Those first legal recognition battles will be fought elsewhere in more favorable venues." Although Sen. McCoy strains to call Rep. Urquhart wrong on the line about "Scott and Democrats..." the point of Rep. Urquhart's post was this sentence, which Sen. McCoy makes no attempt to refute. In essence McCoy's point was, the gay community in Utah should just hold on and not stir the pot because other states will eventually push this through until Utah is forced to acquiesce (likely by federal courts). I think that's the fair reading of Sen. McCoy's post and it's what Rep. Urquhart was trying to call attention to.
This is a specious comparison for a number of reasons.
1) Gay marriage is constitutional right under the state constitutions of Massachusetts and California. We don't take a poll to see whether a constitutional right is popular before we enforce it.
By contrast, I have never seen a case where someone has argued that someone has a constitutional (federal or state) right to vouchers to go to private/parochial schools. While SCOTUS has said it is not unconstitutional to use public money for vouchers in the Cleveland case, it said nothing about there being a right to vouchers.
2) This is not the case of judicial fiat. True, in 2000 the voters in CA created a state law to ban gay marriage. But since then the legislature has twice passed bills affording gay couples the right to marry/have civil unions...only to be vetoed by the governor. These judges were appointed by Republicans and Democrats and are up retention every so often.
Moreover, if people don't like the court's ruling, they can pass the constitutional amendment and/or vote the justices out of office. Last time I saw a poll, 51% of Californians approved of the decision.
3) Sen. McCoy's wise counsel for gay activists in Utah to hold their fire when it comes to law suits is just that--smart strategic advice. Given the current political climate in Utah and in the federal judiciary, a suit would likely fail and set back the cause for decades.
Better to fly out and get married in CA and wait for the courts to become more favorable to gay marriage than to force a losing hand.
"Better to fly out and get married in CA and wait for the courts to become more favorable to gay marriage than to force a losing hand."
Exactly my point. Translation: Better to wait for constitutional explorers to discover those hidden constitutional rights in liberal states, and then use those activist discoveries to force the issue on other states.
California didn't find new language in the California Constitution that had been written in invisible ink. The judges (human and flawed, like the rest of us; but unlike legitimate policymakers, not subject to popular election) simply made up something to match their world view.
Because of a few very well covered comments and activities of Utah legislators I went online, found the site for Utah Gay Pride, and donated. In addition to the card that identifies me as a scoutmaster in the BSA, I also carry a card that identifies me as a 'Gay Activist'. As long as basic civil rights and human dignity are denied to this segment of our population I will remain a supporter and donor.
This being Utah, let's not forget the true "force."
From the DN:
"The biggest donors overall so far in this years legislative races include: Rocky Mountain Power, $31,750 split among 51 candidates; the Utah Association of Realtors, $28,000 to 20 candidates; gay rights activist Bruce Bastian, $28,000 to 11 candidates; EnergySolutions, $26,110 to 66 candidates; and Parents for Choice in Education, $21,654 to 17 candidates."
The forgoing is now being taken into circumspect consideration Nation Wide.
The forgoing will protect the sanctity of marriage for all time. Equating the equality of our Great Nation.
" IMAGINATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THEN KNOWLEDGE "
-----Albert Einstein----
I am going to draw a parallel in regards to the inappropriateness of such a "ban" of which equated inequality.
This parallel circumvolves Christmas and Christ's Birthday. Let us, if you will, hypothesize that we " ban " either one of these aspects of our Holiday for the sanctity of the other. Whom among us would be angry !?!
Have you hugged your opponent today !?!
This Day 84,897.us.( Days since the signing of our Declaration of Independence.) Our American Democracy is like a ship on the ocean. If our rudder is off just a fraction we will be way off course by the time we are thinking we have reached our charted destination. We will find ourselves searching for land. I am working on our rudder
I will not be one searching for land.
TODAY is 84,897.us
Mr. President,
My sincerest apologies. I spoke with a psychiatrist and he explained. When one is Angry. one tends to be oblivious to the rest of the world around them. This Not unlike those who wish to preserve the Sanctity of Marriage who have occurred inequality . Not unlike those of us who require equality who construe The "Origin" Of Marriage . It is called an amygdala /emotional high jacking. You see. We receive our information to the amygdala milliseconds before we receive the information to our frontal lobes for processing. Mr. President. What I am talking about is a Proclamation Compromise of which would be enacted forthwith for equality for all. I understand that forthwith translates to be a timely manner. Of course then their would be propositions, on a state level, nationwide for it to become an Amendment. If we so choose. Their after it would be ratified by the senate and house as an Amendment.
IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS !!!
The "origin" of Marriage is one man one woman. Rather or not it can be construed otherwise. The "Origin" remains the same. What we have done is compromised our American Democracy by even suggesting a " Ban " EQUATING INEQUALITY. As a result of our social Idealism. Marriage one man one woman. We have enacted disenfranchising those same sex couples without offering a solution within the same proposition. Equating the Inequality of our Nation. We have done the wrong thing / enacted inequality. For the right reason / The Sanctity of Marriage. I suspect those voting against same sex marriage. Do want equality for all. Those who voted for same sex marriage where doing the exact opposite. The right thing / for equality. for the wrong reason same sex marriage... It is inappropriate. Our nation is 84,89.us days old. I am 16,071.rm days old. Kinda puts the youth of our nation into perspective. I have been alive for about 1/5th of our Great Nations History. I am 43 years old. I URGE YOU GO FORTH WITH A HEART OF A CHILD and DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE RIGHT REASON. SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE AND EQUALITY FOR ALL.
Respectively,
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to "resolve"
the political "bans" which have "disconnected" them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Natures God entitled them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them "resolved".
This revised in parenthesis is from The United States Declaration of Independence. July 4.1776.
I humbly submit for your circumspect evaluation , The Compromise of ??/??/????, which
"would be" the 28th Amendment of the constitution of these United States of America.
This is in regards to the sanctity of our American democracy, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self evident ... that all men are created equal."
This excerpt is from our Declaration of Independence and the Compromise ( Of which was enacted forthwith/a timely manner) of 1850 in regards to slavery. .
I humbly submit that, for the sanctity of marriage and equality for all, The Compromise of ??/??/????, whereas, nation wide, same sex partners are granted the same rights as one man and one woman in marriage.
The Document would be entitled "A Civil Union."
On the same document, in the header, it would read:
Marriage: One man, one woman. ____________ Go to section A
Coupling: Same sex. ___________ Go to section B
Section A : Marriage Certificate>>>
Section B: Coupling Certificate>>>
Whereby selection of either would enact the same.
Same Document, Same Rights. Different Certificate.
I have written in regards to the sanctity of our American democracy, Marriage, and equality for all. This is in regards to the would be "up and coming" 28th Amendment of the United States. I have suggested, for the Sanctity of Marriage, and equality for all. A compromise. This compromise is in which where same sex coupling would be proclamated as the compromise of ??/??/????, then,
" may be" written into the 28th Amendment which would grant equal rights to all and settle the civil unrest that is upon us. I have referred to various great American documents throughout history to validate my determination in regards to the "Origin" , sanctity and institution of Coupling/Same sex Coupling. I believe this is a national issue. I am a homosexual. I am in a 24 year relationship with the love of my life. My love lives in beautiful up state Oregon and I live in sunny southern California. If one state or the other instituted same sex coupling and the other did not. When one or the other crosses state lines our union would not be recognized. This unless both states recognize same sex coupling. I have suggested that we will be able to build our own traditions. I suggest we would have our own Coupling March, to be able to wear our coupling rings on our right hand, outwardly displaying our union as being coupled. I suggest that Holy Matrimony would be restated as Sacred Trust. These are only suggestions and I believe these suggested traditions to be appropriately drawn by consensus by all coupling constituents. We may have an International/National competition to determine the coupling march.
I am only one man. Can one man make a difference !?!
The civil unrest of our nation is not unlike the civil unrest resolved on January 13, 1865, by the 13th Amendment (Abraham Lincoln). It is not unlike the civil unrest resolved by the 15th Amendment on February 3rd, 1870 (Martin Luther King Jr.). It is not unlike the civil unrest resolved by the 19th Amendment on August 18th, 1920 (Alice Paul).
How we handle ourselves now is the example that future generations will learn from their history books in school. You may ask yourself ? Self ? Do I simply be a part of history repeating it's self or do I learn from history and make history !?!
For the sanctity of our American democracy, equality for all, marriage and the institution of the sanctity of coupling/same sex coupling, I respectively urge you to have circumspect in your determinations in regards to the "would be " 28th Amendment of these United States of America.
Mr. President. PROCLAMATE.
The compromise of ??/??/????.
I leave you with this, of which is an excerpt of the compromise of September 9th-20th, 1850:
"It being desirable, for peace, concord, and harmony of the union of these United States, to settle and adjust amicably all existing questions of controversy between them arising out of the ... "
and I add,
" ... Question of Same Sex Unions upon a fair and just basis."
Contact your state representatives and comments@whitehouse.gov
HAPPY PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AMERICA !
Roland Menard
Welcome to our company which sells all kinds of eve isk.
You can buy and gain very cheap eve online isk.
And the more cheap eve isk is very good for you.
If you have to buy isk, please come to our company.
We can give you the best gold and best service to buy eve online isk.
If you do find the guide useful, do not be shy, shoot Hardin an Eve-Mail and say thanks. If you found it really useful fell free to donate a few eve isk his way. If you have a weak attribute in the primary attribute of the skill you wish to buy eve online isk to learn then the training time will be subsequently longer. The differences in your attributes can make significant eve online isk differences in the time it takes you to train a skill which is especially the high ranking skills. If you have not to buy isk to train the skill yet then you can use show info on the skill booklet and it will also show you the primary and secondary attributes. The attributes you get at start up will depend on the race, sub race and then sub sect or else the cheap eve isk you chose. Each race has two sub races.
The Requiem shows up so many cool pictures that got me thinking a lot. And I really mean that a lot of requiem gold is very important and required. First off is not taken some requiem lant of book Requiem. Some requiem money will well enough chatting better go and write this book. In Requiem, there is blood. Monsters, blood, bigger monsters, and yes, more blood and need cheap requiem lant. You know what that requiem online gold means; there are factions, races changing sides, and all out war.
cheap wow power leveling buy wow gold cheapest wow power leveling CHEAP BUY power leveling CHEAPEST wow power leve LiangZhiYong
wow goldwow goldwow goldwow gold
Men JeansCheap Brand Jeans Shop - True Religion Jeans, Women JeansGUCCI Jeans, Levi's Jeans, D&G Jeans, RED MONKEY Jeans, Cheap JeansArmani Jeans, Diesel Jeans, Ed hardy Jeans, Evisu Jeans, Jack&Jones Jeans...
clothes
polos
gillette
sports
polos
gill
china
e
t
Chaussure PumaBon March¨¦ Chaussure Sports Shop:baskets pumaChaussure Puma Femme,Chaussure Puma Homme,Chaussure Nike Femme,Chaussure Nike homme,nike shoxChaussure Sport et plus. Livraison Rapide.Paypal
Ralph Lauren polo shirts , Lacoste Polo Shirts, Burberry Polo Shirts.wholesale Lacoste polo shirts and polo ralph laurenwith great price. clothingol.com offers lot of 10 lacoste polo shirts and lot of 20 cheap polo shirts. clothingol.com offers classic fit polo shirts. polo clothing All our shirts made in original factory.
ski clothing men's sweate, cheap columbia jackets, lacoste sweater, ralph lauren north face jacket,ski clothing. Free Shipping, PayPal Payment. Enjoy your shopping experience on mensclothingstore.UsPuma shoes , Ugg Boots , nike max shoes, NIKE AIR MAX TN ,nike max shoes ,PUMA CHAUSSURES, NIKE SHOX Torch ,puma Ferrari F1 ,PUMA DRIFT CAT
nike tnEnter the necessary language
translation, up to 200 bytes winter, moves frequently in Chinanike chaussures showing that the deep strategy of the Chinese market. Harvard Business School, tn chaussures according to the relevant survey data show that in recent years the Chinese market three brands, Adidas, Li Ning market share at 21 percent, respectively,
webthink.blog126.fc2.com/
www.actiblog.com/iblog98/
iblog99.blog.so-net.ne.jp/
iblog99.justblog.jp/
http://polo-tshirts.blogspot.com
http://nike-shox-show.blogspot.com
http://bbeautifullife.blogspot.com
http://cheap-ghk-mk4.blogspot.com
http://good-puma-shoes.blogspot.com
http://men-polo-tshirts.blogspot.com
I like your blog . They are really great. Ermunterung ++ .please pay a return visit to my blog http://iblog99.blogsome.com/ .thank you .
Some new style Puma Speed is in fashion this year. . . The information age is really convenient .Do you know Nike Air Shoes is a best . another kinds of Nike shoes is better . the nike shox shoes is fitting to running..
If you want to buy the Cheap Nike Air shoes ,you can buy them online. They are same as the Nike Air shoes authorized shop. Very high-caliber Air shoes and puma cat shoes . the cheap puma shoes as same as other.
ralph lauren polo shirts
chaussure puma
puma CAT
ed hardy clothing
ed hardy sunglasses
orange converse
Ugg Boots
hair straighteners
nike shoes
jordan shoes
nike dunks
nike air force 1
nike shox
nike shoes
nike shox
nike dunks
nike air force 1
nike shox
nike shoes
nike shox oz
nike shox nz
nike shox r3
nike shox r4
nike shox r5
nike shox tl
nike Air Force 1
nike shoes
Jordan shoes
nike sb dunks
cheap nike Air Force 1
cheap nike shoes
cheap Jordan shoes
cheap nike sb dunks
discount nike Air Force 1
discount nike shoes
discount Jordan shoes
discount nike sb dunks
nike shoes
nike shox
nike dunks
nike air force 1
jordan shoes
nike shoes
nike shox
nike dunks
nike air force 1
jordan shoes
nike shoes
nike shox
jordan shoes
puma shoes
nike dunks
nike air max
nike air force one
timberland boots
ugg boots
nike shoes
nike shox
nike air force 1
nike sb dunks
puma shoes
nike air max
jordan shoes
ugg boot
jordan sneakers
timberland shoes
bape shoes
nike shoes
nike shox
nike dunks
nike air force 1
jordan shoes
Post a Comment
<< Home