• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Utah will not recognize same-sex marriages performed before high court stay

Post some more, I love owning you slave

edit pic

so again instead of staying on topic, supporting your post, you resort to incivility and failed insults. THis is because you cant post anything to support your failed claims. Well let us know when you can, try to refer to our conversation for the topic actually is and let me know when you are ready to be civil and you are able to back up your claims. we'll be here waiting.
 
so again instead of staying on topic, supporting your post, you resort to incivility and failed insults. THis is because you cant post anything to support your failed claims. Well let us know when you can, try to refer to our conversation for the topic actually is and let me know when you are ready to be civil and you are able to back up your claims. we'll be here waiting.

Your lying and crying is not of topic, in fact it is just your constant crap
 
Not to worry. In the end, Utah fails on this.

im not worried at all

even if UTAH would fail it would just be a lost battle in the war equal rights is winning.

WHat i hope happens is after this stay is done put up by SCOTUS is that equality wins again and then i hope the biogts and people who support discrimination fight it again to puch the actual CASE to SCOTUS.

I actually hope this happens everywhere, the faster these thigns get to SCOTUS or at least people TRY to get them their the better.

at this right SCOTUS sill only be able to avoid this topic or make narrow rulings for another year thats it

this is where we currently are:

1/5/14 Version 3.3

18 States with Equal Rights

Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
Utah – December 20. 2013 (appealing to supreme court! :) )
Illinois - June 1, 2014 effective

21 States Working Towards Equal Rights

14 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alaska (Suit to be filed this month)
Kentucky
Idaho
Louisiana
Michigan (Feb 2014 Trial)
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (June 14 Trial)
South Carolina
Tennessee (Direct US Constitution Challenge)
Texas (Jan 2014 Trial, Direct US Constitution Challenge)
Virginia (two different suits, one involves Prop8 lawyers)
West Virginia

4 States with Court Case(s) and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Arizona
Arkansas (Decesion Pending and 2016 ballot)
Nevada
Ohio (December 2013 trial) Trial had narrow ruling that ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.

3 States with Legislation to Establish Equal Rights
Colorado
Florida
Oregon

thats 39 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

With a picture like this the writing is on the wall, so no worries, but thank you :)
 
Your lying and crying is not of topic, in fact it is just your constant crap

1.) yes i know what you are making up is not on topic thats why i asked you to get on topic
2.) but if you feel what you say is true do you have any links? facts?quotes? that support you?

link/quote what you are talking about and FACTUALLY prove it to be a lie, id love to read it, do this in your next post please.
 
1.) yes i know what you are making up is not on topic thats why i asked you to get on topic
2.) but if you feel what you say is true do you have any links? facts?quotes? that support you?

link/quote what you are talking about and FACTUALLY prove it to be a lie, id love to read it, do this in your next post please.

I have been on topic until you came in with your usual crap that made absolutely no sense. I drew you in thought just like I knew I would since went bat**** crazy when a liberal judge upheld the previous ruling. Now the ball belongs to this court and until the ruling is made the marriages are nullified, nothing you say changes that. END OF STORY

Post again confirms your whining. I know you won't disappoint
 
im not worried at all

even if UTAH would fail it would just be a lost battle in the war equal rights is winning.

WHat i hope happens is after this stay is done put up by SCOTUS is that equality wins again and then i hope the biogts and people who support discrimination fight it again to puch the actual CASE to SCOTUS.

I actually hope this happens everywhere, the faster these thigns get to SCOTUS or at least people TRY to get them their the better.

at this right SCOTUS sill only be able to avoid this topic or make narrow rulings for another year thats it

this is where we currently are:

1/5/14 Version 3.3

18 States with Equal Rights

Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
Connecticut - November 12, 2008
Iowa - April 27, 2009
Vermont - September 1, 2009
New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
New York - July 24, 2011
Washington - December 6, 2012
Maine - December 29, 2012
Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
California - June 28, 2013
Delaware - July 1, 2013
Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
Minnesota - August 1, 2013
New Jersey - October 21, 2013
Hawaii - December 2, 2013
New Mexico – December 19, 2013
Utah – December 20. 2013 (appealing to supreme court! :) )
Illinois - June 1, 2014 effective

21 States Working Towards Equal Rights

14 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alaska (Suit to be filed this month)
Kentucky
Idaho
Louisiana
Michigan (Feb 2014 Trial)
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania (June 14 Trial)
South Carolina
Tennessee (Direct US Constitution Challenge)
Texas (Jan 2014 Trial, Direct US Constitution Challenge)
Virginia (two different suits, one involves Prop8 lawyers)
West Virginia

4 States with Court Case(s) and Legislation to establish Equal Rights
Arizona
Arkansas (Decesion Pending and 2016 ballot)
Nevada
Ohio (December 2013 trial) Trial had narrow ruling that ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected.

3 States with Legislation to Establish Equal Rights
Colorado
Florida
Oregon

thats 39 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

With a picture like this the writing is on the wall, so no worries, but thank you :)

I hear ya man, not that diligence isn't in order, and bigotry doesn't need to be destroyed, but Utah doesn't stand a chance. In the end same sex marriage in Utah, is law.
 
I have been on topic until you came in with your usual crap that made absolutely no sense. I drew you in thought just like I knew I would since went bat**** crazy when a liberal judge upheld the previous ruling. Now the ball belongs to this court and until the ruling is made the marriages are nullified, nothing you say changes that. END OF STORY

Post again confirms your whining. I know you won't disappoint

soooo, the answer is NO you dont have and facts, links or qoutes the support the lies you posted. Got it.

marriages are factually NOT nullified, this fact will never change no matter your factually wrong opinion.

the marriages issued are 100% intact and legal and all those people are still factually and legally married as far as the FED is concerned and any other state that recognizes equal rights, Facts defeat your post again. Nice try though, at least you were on topic, you were just still 100% factually wrong, again, so your story end failed. thanks for doubling down and proving your post was wrong!
 
soooo, the answer is NO you dont have and facts, links or qoutes the support the lies you posted. Got it.

marriages are factually NOT nullified, this fact will never change no matter your factually wrong opinion.

the marriages issued are 100% intact and legal and all those people are still factually and legally married as far as the FED is concerned and any other state that recognizes equal rights, Facts defeat your post again. Nice try though, at least you were on topic, you were just still 100% factually wrong, again, so your story end failed. thanks for doubling down and proving your post was wrong!

Overwith, nullified, done. I win, you lose
 
1.)Overwith, nullified, done.
2.)I win, you lose

1.) 100% factually false lol
sorry you are still wrong, thank for tripling down on this though and further proving you are severely uneducated on this topic. You might want to look into topics deeper before posting on them so you can avoid these mistakes.

the marriages issued are 100% intact and legal and all those people are still factually and legally married as far as the FED is concerned and any other state that recognizes equal rights, Facts defeat your post again.

if you disagree simply post ANY facts you have that says otherwise.

2.) nope you lost and you are playing against me, you are arguing against facts and they won.
 
1.) 100% factually false lol
sorry you are still wrong, thank for tripling down on this though and further proving you are severely uneducated on this topic. You might want to look into topics deeper before posting on them so you can avoid these mistakes.

the marriages issued are 100% intact and legal and all those people are still factually and legally married as far as the FED is concerned and any other state that recognizes equal rights, Facts defeat your post again.

if you disagree simply post ANY facts you have that says otherwise.

2.) nope you lost and you are playing against me, you are arguing against facts and they won.


the facts are in the Op and your tantrum does not change it. NULLIFIED
 
the facts are in the Op and your tantrum does not change it. NULLIFIED

translation: you have ZERO facts to support you thanks, thats what i thought

FACTS: the marriages issued are 100% intact and legal and all those people are still factually and legally married as far as the FED is concerned and any other state that recognizes equal rights, Facts defeat your post again. See California cases.
 
A state can't be under duress. The state was offering marriages legally for three weeks. Whether they had choice in the matter or not, those contracts should remain valid in my opinion.

Do you believe the State of Utah was offering these marriage licenses? I thought it was similar to California/San Francisco, where a Mayor granted licenses against State law and the referendum while the matter was still in the courts. I don't know how Utah is governed, but I believe local municipalities offer marriage licenses.
 
Again the ignorance of bigotry. There are dozens of legal reasons why living together and a recognized marriage are different. Please quit with this childish representation of the legalities and rights associated with marriage.

Perhaps a course in reading comprehension should have been on your Christmas list. There's nothing bigoted about my comments. I simply stated the reality on the ground in Utah. You can keep your emotional attempts to paint me as a villian. Personally, I don't believe government should be in the marriage business, but as long as it is, I see no reason to restrict any adult from marrying another other adult(s) he or she chooses.
 
As someone who opposes cohabitation regardless, this is not an argument which would make me sympathetic to the gay cause.

It wasn't an argument for or against, simply a statement of the reality of the moment.
 
I tend to agree, however, the legality of the matter is still at issue.

What's a few weeks/months in the big scheme of things anyway - if marriage is forever, waiting until the Supreme Court rules shouldn't be too onerous.

Judging by the glacial pace of the prop H8 appeal, that could be *years* and some of these couples have in fact been waiting for decades. Funny how gays are out to destroy the family system and marriage yet over 1000 couples married in a few weeks even in a small red state.

This charade is a disgrace. We're 10 years behind other countries, including canada, and the bigots out there are just desperately clinging to a status quo that will inevitably end.

Utah seems hellbent on becoming loathed in the history books, like a certain state involved in Loving v virginia.
 
Judging by the glacial pace of the prop H8 appeal, that could be *years* and some of these couples have in fact been waiting for decades. Funny how gays are out to destroy the family system and marriage yet over 1000 couples married in a few weeks even in a small red state.

This charade is a disgrace. We're 10 years behind other countries, including canada, and the bigots out there are just desperately clinging to a status quo that will inevitably end.

Utah seems hellbent on becoming loathed in the history books, like a certain state involved in Loving v virginia.

Why is it that many liberals need to throw around terms like "bigot" when a person, such as myself, comments on the appropriateness of just following the legal process to the end? Did you deduct from my "conservative" political lean that I must be against gay marriage? Did anything I posted here or on other gay marriage threads indicate that I was opposed to such unions? In fact, my position is that the governments should not be in the marriage business, but if they insist on being in the marriage business they should sanction any adult's choice of union with any other adult(s) they choose.

So, you're entitled to your opinion, but some basis for it would be wise and helpful.
 
Why is it that many liberals need to throw around terms like "bigot" when a person, such as myself, comments on the appropriateness of just following the legal process to the end? Did you deduct from my "conservative" political lean that I must be against gay marriage? Did anything I posted here or on other gay marriage threads indicate that I was opposed to such unions? In fact, my position is that the governments should not be in the marriage business, but if they insist on being in the marriage business they should sanction any adult's choice of union with any other adult(s) they choose.

So, you're entitled to your opinion, but some basis for it would be wise and helpful.

no, i was referring to bigots in utah who are doing everything possible to **** on these couples

please, i know plenty of conservatives even on this forum who support SSM
 
Last edited:
no, i was referring to bigots in utah who are doing everything possible to **** on these couples

please, i know plenty of conservatives even on this forum who support SSM

That's fair - no harm done - however, you did link your comments to me by quoting my previous post. If it wasn't related to me, it should have noted so or not been part of a quote response, but all is good.
 
Do you believe the State of Utah was offering these marriage licenses? I thought it was similar to California/San Francisco, where a Mayor granted licenses against State law and the referendum while the matter was still in the courts. I don't know how Utah is governed, but I believe local municipalities offer marriage licenses.

It wasn't against state law.
 
legally the courts are in the right and utah in the wrong.the 14th amendment means equality under law,meaning so long as marriage is recognized by that state,all marriage must be legally protected unless valid reason is given(ie harm or something else that justifies excluding a group,a group cant be excluded simply because you dislike them)

i dont agree with the courts claiming marriage as a right,as it was never granted in the constitution nor was the courts ever given power to create rights,but in this case they are doing what is very well within their legally granted power,they have power under the constitution not over it,meaning they cant define amendments,nor altr the constitution,but they very well hold the power to uphold the constitution and decide whether a law is constitutional or not.


constitutionally speaking,banning gay marriage without ending all state recognized marriage would have only been constitutional prior to the 14th amendment,and being amendment not federal law,it is part of the constitution,and not challengeable by the states.



Equality under the law... LOL, you're kidding right? How many laws in this nation have organizations been exempt from, heck entire states have been given exemption from national laws, the ACA is a prime example if you need a recent one. :)


Tim-
 
He simply doesnt get to make that call
if will be a court decision

he can choose to not recognize them while the stay is in place and if the ruling goes his way, which it wont but thats it

also for the record the marriages are 100% legal and intact and to all states that recognize equal rights for gays :shrug:

so all those couples are still 100% marriage no matter how much this bigot stomps his feet and holds his breath lol

You throw that word around with such authority, but rarely is it ever used correctly. I've pointed this out to you countless times, yet you still use the word incorrectly. How in God's green Earth is the governor of Utah a bigot, AGENTJ? Please do explain? Or were you doing what you always do, and hoping no one would call you out on it?


Tim-
 
1.)You throw that word around with such authority, but rarely is it ever used correctly.
2.) I've pointed this out to you countless times, yet you still use the word incorrectly.
3.) How in God's green Earth is the governor of Utah a bigot, AGENTJ?
4.)Please do explain?
5.) Or were you doing what you always do, and hoping no one would call you out on it?


Tim-

1.) authority? if you think so but i only use it accurately by its definition
2.) yes you have given me you OPINION many tims on this but ZERO facts to support your opinion
3.) by definition, he wants to deny people equal rights and treat them as lessers simply based on thier sexual orientation, that factually makes him a bigot and no this just isnt because during the stay he claims to not see marriages. Its his own words he has stated before equal rights was granted in UTAH and after they were
4.) see #2
5.) actually i LOVE when people argue against facts and lose, its the second most entertaining thing that happens here

thank your for this bit of entertainment Facts>Tims Opinion
 
1.) authority? if you think so but i only use it accurately by its definition
2.) yes you have given me you OPINION many tims on this but ZERO facts to support your opinion
3.) by definition, he wants to deny people equal rights and treat them as lessers simply based on thier sexual orientation, that factually makes him a bigot and no this just isnt because during the stay he claims to not see marriages. Its his own words he has stated before equal rights was granted in UTAH and after they were
4.) see #2
5.) actually i LOVE when people argue against facts and lose, its the second most entertaining thing that happens here

thank your for this bit of entertainment Facts>Tims Opinion


1. You have never used it correctly, ever as far as I can tell.
2. When there are no facts just interpretations of issues and events, our opinions are elevated to status by the observer based on the stronger more desirable conclusion of ones opinions. You do know what a fact, is, correct?
3. No, Sir, that still does not make him a bigot. What WOULD make him a bigot is if he wanted to do this for no rational reason at all. As I and many others have pointed out several times, and despite the fact that you wish to ignore their and my input, there are very good rational arguments to want to keep traditional marriage at the forefront of any civilized society. Place traditional heterosexual marriage above that of marriages of any other variety. Sticking your fingers in your ears, and stomping your feet isn't going to change that opinion.
4. I don't need to "see #2", because you're still, as you always do, claim someone with an opinion of the interpretation of issues and events somehow needs to prove they have "facts" to support their opinion, when there are NO FACTS to be had. I and apparently many others take great joy at your endless use of the terms "100% factually correct" nonsense, when in the end, your opinions of SSM, and it's implementation are also based on opinions that are derived from your interpretation of issues and events.
5. I haven't argued against facts, as there are none to be put forth.


The fact is that there are no inalienable rights given to man by God. Men give rights, and men can take them away, FACT! Even our own Constitution is not set in stone, and rights and privileges have been given and then taken away throughout our history. FACT, a single individual took nullified the voice of the people under a state constitutionally recognized due process, and did it based on nothing more than his interpretation of issues and events. Call them his interpretation of the laws, but semantics doesn't change the reality of what happened, or whenever it happens.

Now you can continue to play your little game all you like but I know you, and I can't promise I'll play for too much longer as I have real important things to be doing. ;)


Tim-
 
translation: you have ZERO facts to support you thanks, thats what i thought

FACTS: the marriages issued are 100% intact and legal and all those people are still factually and legally married as far as the FED is concerned and any other state that recognizes equal rights, Facts defeat your post again. See California cases.

Fact are in the op, your failure to grasp is on you, you lost, take it like a man. PS California has nothing to do with Utah, talk about failed deflection
 
1. You have never used it correctly, ever as far as I can tell.
2. When there are no facts just interpretations of issues and events, our opinions are elevated to status by the observer based on the stronger more desirable conclusion of ones opinions. You do know what a fact, is, correct?
3. No, Sir, that still does not make him a bigot. What WOULD make him a bigot is if he wanted to do this for no rational reason at all.
4.) As I and many others have pointed out several times, and despite the fact that you wish to ignore their and my input, there are very good rational arguments to want to keep traditional marriage at the forefront of any civilized society. Place traditional heterosexual marriage above that of marriages of any other variety. Sticking your fingers in your ears, and stomping your feet isn't going to change that opinion.
5. I don't need to "see #2", because you're still, as you always do, claim someone with an opinion of the interpretation of issues and events somehow needs to prove they have "facts" to support their opinion, when there are NO FACTS to be had. I and apparently many others take great joy at your endless use of the terms "100% factually correct" nonsense, when in the end, your opinions of SSM, and it's implementation are also based on opinions that are derived from your interpretation of issues and events.
6. I haven't argued against facts, as there are none to be put forth.


7.)The fact is that there are no inalienable rights given to man by God.
8.)Men give rights, and men can take them away, FACT!
9.) Even our own Constitution is not set in stone, and rights and privileges have been given and then taken away throughout our history.
10.) FACT, a single individual took nullified the voice of the people under a state constitutionally recognized due process, and did it based on nothing more than his interpretation of issues and events. Call them his interpretation of the laws, but semantics doesn't change the reality of what happened, or whenever it happens.

11.) Now you can continue to play your little game all you like but I know you, and I can't promise I'll play for too much longer as I have real important things to be doing. ;)


Tim-

1.) ding ding ding, correct as far as YOU can tell which is meaningless but facts and the dictionary also disagree with your ability to tell
2.) but there are facts, you ignoring them doesn't change reality, your ability to deny them doesnt impact thier existence. SO the solution is very simply, preset ANY facts that make my usage wrong, Heck just present ONE fact. You cant, you wont and you will never be able to because you are factually wrong.
3.) by definition it makes him a bigot, if you dont like this fact thats your issue but his words and the definition of the word all prove you wrong.
4.) no there are none because opinions done impact fact. Bigots also though they had good reason to deny women and minorities equal rights too. All those illogical mentally retarded reasons were destoryed and proved wrong then and the same remains true today about those wanting to deny gays equal rights. But you are free to stand by your reasons all you want. ALso note i have no intrest in changing your OPINION i just pointed out the fact that OPINION is the rest of us are dealing in FACTS.
5.) yes we all get that, you dont see it because you are biased and want to deny facts based on your OPINION lol
6.) yes you have and you lost just like every other time continuing my entertainment

7.) weird dont recall ever saying there was. oh thats right i didnt just a meaningless desperate strawman that impacts nothing
8.) also meaningless to the topic, why dont you just say yellow is a color, FACT, that has just as much impact lol
9.) see #8
10.) voice of the people meaningless to equal rights, see womans rights, minority rights and interracial marriage
11.) translation you are running out of lies, deflections and meaningless failed starmen and facts are still winning

once again FACTS > Tims opinion

he is factually a bigot and SSM is factually and equal rights issue

if you disagree simply provide any FACTS that prove otherwise, i bet you cant
 
Back
Top Bottom