Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 03/03/2004 7:41:33 PM PST by William McKinley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: William McKinley
Every state should get right on it, too.
If one law can be broken because a few don't like it, they all can. If the homosexuals get a pass and get their way through lawlessness, get ready for all out anarchy.
There's a lot of laws I don't like myself. I'm sure others feel the same.
2 posted on 03/03/2004 7:58:45 PM PST by concerned about politics ( Liberals are still stuck at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: William McKinley
I found this, 2nd story on the page.

Bill OK'd limiting who can perform marriages

After reaffirming Utah's ban against same-sex marriage, lawmakers now are moving to limit who can perform marriages.

House members Tuesday approved 45-26 a bill that restricts marriage powers to clergy, county clerks and specified elected officials, including the governor, House speaker and Senate president.

The measure already has passed the Senate and now goes to Gov. Olene Walker for final action.

Sponsoring Sen. Carlene Walker, R-Cottonwood Heights, said the idea for the bill was brought to her by an unidentified person who had observed marriages performed by people designated by county clerks.

"A marriage is a special thing," said Walker. "There is an authority factor that should be present."

Critics of Senate Bill 157 questioned what was driving the quest to restrict marriage authority.

"I've never seen a worse example of a solution looking for a problem," said Rep. Scott Daniels, D-Salt Lake City.

"If somebody wants their neighbor to perform the marriage, what's wrong with that? Why do we want to control people in this fashion?" asked Daniels. "Why do we care?"

-- Dan Harrie

3 posted on 03/03/2004 8:17:55 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: William McKinley
The NY homosexual mayor called this "heterosexist" . The homosexuals are out in force to define marriage as adult sex.
11 posted on 03/03/2004 8:58:07 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: William McKinley
I believe speed limits are a violation of my civil rights. I'm going to ignore any tickets I may get, after all, my driving fast doesn't stop others from following the speed limit laws...and I've never caused an accident in 30 years of driving.
18 posted on 03/03/2004 9:59:22 PM PST by highlander_UW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping.

Just when I think it's safe to turn off my computer, another article pops up.

Good for Utah. May more states line up on the right side of morality and sanity.

The more "gays" call people like me (and very likely you) "haters" the more they are going to lose the culture war. They are too clever by half.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this very busy ping list.
20 posted on 03/03/2004 10:10:20 PM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: William McKinley
This is what will bring the Supremes into the fray. Some states recognize 'em, and other forbid 'em. They'll call it an Equal Protection issue (even though states have had different rules for different topics since this nation was founded). Then they'll tell Congress what laws they'll have to pass, as they did in Lawrence v Texas. I sure am glad we don't have an activist bench, and that Separation of Powers protects us from tyrants!
23 posted on 03/04/2004 4:43:47 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: William McKinley
source


S.B. 24 Enrolled

                 

MARRIAGE RECOGNITION POLICY

                 
2004 GENERAL SESSION

                 
STATE OF UTAH

                 
Sponsor: D. Chris Buttars

                 
                  LONG TITLE
                  General Description:
                      This bill states that the policy of this state is to only recognize as a marriage the union
                  between a man and a woman.
                  Highlighted Provisions:
                      This bill:
                      .    creates a marriage recognition policy for the state; and
                      .    adds the requirement that applicants for a marriage license be a man and a woman.
                  Monies Appropriated in this Bill:
                      None
                  Other Special Clauses:
                      This bill provides an immediate effective date.
                  Utah Code Sections Affected:
                  AMENDS:
                      30-1-4.5, as enacted by Chapter 246, Laws of Utah 1987
                      30-1-8, as last amended by Chapter 212, Laws of Utah 1995
                  ENACTS:
                      30-1-4.1, Utah Code Annotated 1953
                 
                  Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
                      Section 1. Section 30-1-4.1 is enacted to read:
                      30-1-4.1. Marriage recognition policy.
                      (1) (a) It is the policy of this state to recognize as marriage only the legal union of a
                  man and a woman as provided in this chapter.


                      (b) Except for the relationship of marriage between a man and a woman recognized
                  pursuant to this chapter, this state will not recognize, enforce, or give legal effect to any law
                  creating any legal status, rights, benefits, or duties that are substantially equivalent to those
                  provided under Utah law to a man and a woman because they are married.
                      (2) Nothing in Subsection (1) impairs any contract or other rights, benefits, or duties that
                  are enforceable independently of this section.
                      Section 2. Section 30-1-4.5 is amended to read:
                       30-1-4.5. Validity of marriage not solemnized.
                      (1) A marriage which is not solemnized according to this chapter shall be legal and valid if
                  a court or administrative order establishes that it arises out of a contract between [two consenting
                  parties] a man and a woman who:
                      (a) are of legal age and capable of giving consent;
                      (b) are legally capable of entering a solemnized marriage under the provisions of this
                  chapter;
                      (c) have cohabited;
                      (d) mutually assume marital rights, duties, and obligations; and
                      (e) who hold themselves out as and have acquired a uniform and general reputation as
                  husband and wife.
                      (2) The determination or establishment of a marriage under this section must occur during
                  the relationship described in Subsection (1), or within one year following the termination of that
                  relationship. Evidence of a marriage recognizable under this section may be manifested in any
                  form, and may be proved under the same general rules of evidence as facts in other cases.
                      Section 3. Section 30-1-8 is amended to read:
                       30-1-8. Application for license -- Contents.
                      (1) A marriage license may be issued by the county clerk to a man and a woman only after
                  an application has been filed in his office, requiring the following information:
                      (a) the full names of the [parties] man and the woman, including the maiden name of the
                  [female] woman;

- 2 -


                      (b) the Social Security numbers of the parties, unless the party has not been assigned a
                  number;
                      (c) the current address of each party;
                      (d) the date and place of birth (town or city, county, state or country, if possible);
                      (e) the names of their respective parents, including the maiden name of the mother;
                      (f) the birthplaces of fathers and mothers (town or city, county, state or country, if
                  possible); and
                      (g) the distinctive race or nationality of each of the parents.
                      (2) If the [female] woman is a widow, her maiden name shall be shown in brackets.
                      (3) If one or both of the parties is under 16 years of age, the clerk shall provide them with
                  a standard petition on a form approved by the Judicial Council to be presented to the juvenile
                  court to obtain the authorization required by Section 30-1-9 .
                      (4) (a) The Social Security numbers obtained under the authority of this section may not
                  be recorded on the marriage license, and are not open to inspection as a part of the vital statistics
                  files.
                      (b) The Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics shall, upon
                  request, supply those Social Security numbers to the Office of Recovery Services within the
                  Department of Human Services.
                      (c) The Office of Recovery Services may not use any Social Security numbers obtained
                  under the authority of this section for any reason other than the administration of child support
                  services.
                      Section 4. Effective date.
                      If approved by two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, this bill takes effect
                  upon approval by the governor, or the day following the constitutional time limit of Utah
                  Constitution Article VII, Section 8, without the governor's signature, or in the case of a veto, the
                  date of veto override.

- 3 -



28 posted on 03/04/2004 6:48:15 AM PST by TheDon (John Kerry, self proclaimed war criminal, Democratic Presidential nominee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: William McKinley
Kerry said the other day that he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act two years ago, because he didn't see a threat.

Now there is a guy with absolutely no ability to predict anything.
31 posted on 03/04/2004 8:54:58 AM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson