They're within their rights to treat marriages performed before the stay as invalid, but I don't think they're *doing right* by exercising that option. They could just as easily take the course followed by the NM governor who has just chosen to accept their supreme court's ruling rather than fight equality.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57367991-78/state-marriages-utah-court.html.csp

That's really terrible.

I saw this... How very sad. I mean, I think I understand what the governor is saying legally, but I wish they didn't take this route.

Hopefully this will be resolved soon and all the marriages will be officially recognized everywhere. It's painful now, but it won't be too much longer before marriage equality is everywhere.

They just had to take it to the next level. I so disgusted at my state.

their behavior is pretty disgusting, however all they are going to accomplish with this is show everyone how bigoted the mormon church really is. I personally think that justice is going to prevail. the church is going to end up losing members and new converts, on top of looking really stupid.

The church faced off on polygamy and lost.

The church faced off on blacks and the priesthood and lost.

They faced off on woman's rights, they largely lost - though women may never receive the priesthood because that's a strictly religious thing. In my ward, many of the younger mothers work in addition to their husbands, women speak in church, pray in church, etc. There may still be some way to go, but it's obvious to me that women won't be oppressed to the same degree by the lds church ever again.

Gay rights is just the next step. They'll lose the cultural and legal war, but I doubt they'll have to allow temple marriages/sealings.

Here is how it went down in my hood (Canada). Complete separation between church and state. No religious organisation is required to perform a wedding or any other ceremony that is against their beliefs. I don't remember any Canadian arguing this point before legislation became law.It just seems like good common sense.

tootsmcguire Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here is how it went down in my hood (Canada).
> Complete separation between church and state. No
> religious organisation is required to perform a
> wedding or any other ceremony that is against
> their beliefs. I don't remember any Canadian
> arguing this point before legislation became
> law.It just seems like good common sense.

No religious organization is required to perform a wedding or any other ceremony that is against their beliefs anyplace here in the U.S. of A. either.

Regardless of the facts though, the LDS Church just keeps on complaining that it MIGHT occur.

It's just an obvious tactic to increase fear and feelings of threat and persecution in people who are already vulnerable to these anyway.

Herbert believes in baptizing dead people and supports a corporation that re-writes inconvenient history.

Oppression is not only a way of life.
It's a calling.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2014 02:17PM by zenjamin.

...that was fasting thinks HE did it!

Execrable JERK.
Execrable state.

"Please understand this position is not intended to comment on the legal status of those same-sex marriages,"

That's exactly what I thought SL Cabbie. Double-speak indeed.

Mormons are good at that. Mormon politicians are even better at it.

Of course they are making a statement about the legality of those marriages. The statement they are making is barely veiled. They are hoping to invalidate the marriages. Failing that, they will make life as difficult as possible for those gay couples.

I am good with them fighting it. In the end all of the effort and acrimony shows their true selves.

Typical of MoRONS to get mean when they lose.

Looks like they are being jerks about this because they think they can.

I meet with the tax commission tomorrow to find out if it will allow *any* same-sex couple married in Utah or elsewhere, to file a joint state tax return. I bet the answer will be "no"

State law requires that if you file a joint federal return, you must file a joint state return, and all the procedures and software are written that way. This will make filing a state income tax return a nightmare for same-sex couples. It will probably involve doing 5 returns - joint federal, two single returns federal that are not filed, but used to get data for state return, and two state returns.

That is a total of 5 returns. Plus the state software compares the state return(s) to the federal return, but in this case the two "single" filing status federal returns are not actually filed, so that comparison will fail, and the returns will need to be processed by hand.

Gee, thanks, Gary.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2014 03:22PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Yup. My wifey and I need to do that this year in Idaho (married in WA). 5 returns. My accountant isn't sure the software will allow him to do it, but he's up for the task. I'm sure it will cost us.

They are spending our money to fight it and they have no bones about doing so. It may be time for taxpayer revolt.

I'm confused then about why the marriages that were performed in California between when it was ruled legal and Prop 8 were still valid while it was being appealed. Any answers?

Lots of links to coverage are provided in this thread:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1131369

Some of those, including (I think) the Salt Lake Tribune story, talk about California.

In reference to your question about Prop 8, here are some reader comments from the SL Tribune site:

"Please remember in Prop 8 the 18,000 marriages were upheld while Prop 8 was being litigated in the Courts."

"California had no state government fighting the court's decision and consequently the plaintiffs had "no standing." There is plenty of "standing" in Utah. Unlike California, Utah will fight this judge's decision all the way to the Supreme Court."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/197435295/Utah-Marriage-Case-ACLU-Utah-Letter-to-Attorney-General

The ACLU thinks the same thing

This will go a long way to encouraging Utah citizens to choose non-mormon political candidates in the future...

Isn't there supposed to be separation of church and state? Waht are the non church reasons to oppose marriage equality in Utah?

performed between the issuance of Judge Shelby's opinion and the entry of the SCOTUS stay as invalid. The marriages are valid unless and until Shelby's opinion is reversed and the marriages judicially invalidated.

every time they meddle they just get the country closer to a federal ruling on gay marriage. Keep fighting, homophobes, you're gonna lose.

I read the transcripts of the justices talking about prop 8, and there were a lot of technical issues about jurisdiction that made them reluctant to rule on it. I don't think this case has those restrictions. I hope they hear it.