I’m not usually a big gay marriage advocate - I usually think that we have more immediate concerns.
But this…
This is beyond the pale.
I’m speechless.
I read the link. This is appalling. But, in light of how some people on this board respond to homosexuality, it isn’t suprising that some ‘religious’ people would try and quash any love they don’t deem real.
I’m glad I didn’t have to worry about this in my wedding plans. I hate when the Brady Bill might get in the way of a wedding date. 
Too bad the article linked doesn’t describe the situation accurately.
First, the bill is not against marriage per se, but against polygamous marriage.
Second, there’s some good mind reading going on there about what the legislators are more interested in.
Third, the comment in the article about the D&C requiring polygamy is 100% wrong for the LDS church. The LDS church excommunicates those who practice or preach polygamy.
Okay, the bill pretty obviously does not to make marriage a felony. It does, however, appear to make the solemnization of a prohibited marriage a felony – or at least it did as amended on February 8, 2001. The text now reads, in part, “30-1-15. Solemnization of prohibited marriage – Penalty. Any person authorized under Section 30-1-6 to solemnize a marriage who knowingly, with or without a license, solemnizes a marriage prohibited by law is guilty of a third degree felony.” Same-sex marriage is prohibited under Utah law. Here’s the link, if anyone feels like wading through the various versions of the bill and substitute bill:
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2001/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB0146.htm
My only comment is that it seems pretty clear that the sponsor’s intent is not to persecute homosexuals but to stiffen the penalties for polygamous and under-age marriages, though by extending the bill’s reach to all prohibited marriages, same-sex unions are obviously included.
What the hell does “solemnize” mean? If I giggle through the ceremony, can I escape prosecution?
Giggle hard enough and loud enough and you might be able to escape the whole ceremony.
“Solemnize: To observe or honor with solemnity; to perform with pomp or ceremony, esp. to celebrate (a marriage) with religious rites.”
It’s the marriage that’s solemnized, not the participants. They can giggle to their hearts’ content.
You raise a good point, though: I think if the same-sex couple called it something other than a marriage – like a “commitment ceremony” – I don’t think this proposed law would apply.
Um,
Seems to me pretty clear what the intent was.
Oh. In other gay news:
Eminem and Elton John will duet at the Grammys
I told Hamish, and his comment was “Oh, god, that queen gives me gas. …And I’m not too fond of Elton, either.”
MATT, the article very clearly states that the bill’s sponsor was Ron Allen, not John Valentine. The sponsor of the bill is the one who explains its intent – not other legislators, who are of course free to comment, as Mr. Valentine did, on what they personally think the bill ought to say and to mean. In other words, any legislator may comment on what a bill should mean, but only the sponsor can say what the bill is intended to mean. Or the committee reports, of which there are none in this case that illuminate the issue at all.
Besides, the very paragraph you cited explicitly states at the end “Allen [the sponsor] admitted that SB 146 “covers the gamut” of prohibited marriages, while trying to redirect discussion to coerced polygamous marriages of girls under 16.” Why did you leave that part out?
Don’t get me wrong: It appears clear that the bill, if passed, will have the effect of outlawing the solemnization of same-sex unions. But it also appears clear that this was not the primary intent behind the introduction of the bill.
Well, they certainly don’t seem to mind that particular side effect, from where I’m sitting. Look, if a particular bill has a homophobic effect, it has a homophobic effect, even if it’s ostensibly about the prevention of nun beating and puppy stomping.
My question is, isn’t this kind of contrary to the whole “freedom of religion” thing? Are we talking arresting public officials, or ministers who conduct these ceremonies? I mean, a justice of the peace wouldn’t do it because he can’t issue a license to a same-sex couple, underage participant or more than one person, so that I could see, but what if a church minister did this? It would obviously have no legal relevance whatsoever, but it would still be a religious expression of the participants.
Esprix
So they’re gonna go after the polygamists now? It’s about bloody time! However, why pick on gay marriage? After all, the thing that bugs me about polygamy is the abuse that goes on, and the very sexist nature of it!
Guin is very anti-polygamy, especially after reading about the abuses that go on
People should be able to marry whomever they want…even in Utah.
It pisses me off when politicos do shit like that, burying horrible things in what looks to be an otherwise innocuous bill concerning something that people will most likely vote for (like banning polygamy).
Do you think they sit around saying, “People won’t read that far! We’ll fill it with long words and boring rhetoric and then bury this little bit about taking the right to vote away from women right here at the end!”?
Assholes.
I’m not saying it’s right but there’s a long history of trouble regarding marriage and the laws pertaining to it in Utah.
And as far as ‘freedom of religion’ goes it should surprise no one that the United States government has long had a policy that says that freedom of religion is good but don’t you Mormons get too damn carried away.
So Utah finds itself constantly undecided and confused. With such a strong conflict between the culture, state government and federal government we’re going to see some truly bizarre things from time to time.
Me? Liberty baby, in it’s rawest form. I’ve got nothing against polygamy, but I have a great deal against the marginalization and degradation of women and girls. If we’d all just act like adults (OK, reasoning adults) on the issue I don’t think it would be an issue.
Get what I’m sayin’?
Hastur wrote:
Talk about a shotgun wedding!
The Brady law only deals with hand guns. Shotgun weddings are still basic humans rights.
Deja Vu! There was an episode of Beavis and Butthead where they were watching a videa of Elton John and Ru Paul singing “Don’t go Breakin’ my Heart.” When Butthead said, “That’s that guy who wants to be a woman,” Beavis replied, “Oh yeah. What’s he doin’ with that chick?”
So, Guin, why not go after the ABUSERS? Why pick on poly-folk? There are a lot of us out here who DO NOT ABUSE OUR PARTNERS, OUR CHILDREN, OURSELVES OR ANYONE ELSE.
If you want to rant & rave about the pseudo-Mormon fringe cults that practice a certain, very limited form of polygyny and are also often (but not necessarily) abusive towards women and children, please go right ahead. Just be extremely clear about whom you are a-rantin’ and a-ravin’.
I dislike being associatively accused of incest, wife abuse and child abuse just as much as gays dislike being associatively accused of necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality.
Thank you.
I thought I’d find out this thread was about St. Valentine who was martyred for performing illegal marriages.
Oh well, carry on.
Have a Happy St. Valentine’s day!