Signatures 11 total
Page: 1
-
1
Name: R. Paul Evans on May 9, 2012Comments: I support this petitionFlag
-
2
Name: Charlotte England on May 18, 2012Comments:Flag
-
3
Name: Kenyon Kennard on May 20, 2012Comments:Flag
-
4
Name: Anonymous on May 20, 2012Comments: I fully support this great petition!Flag
-
5
Name: Ted Taylor on Jun 3, 2012Comments: Why are they exempt from a building permit?Flag
-
6
Name: Hobiron on Jun 4, 2012Comments: Since the Freedom of Religion is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and the MC cetonnds that legal SSM will erode that freedom (as Elder Oaks contended at BYU Idaho), then it is certainly a legal matter that could and should be contended in court. In fact, legal SSM pertains only to secular, civil law, and the MC knows that. Trying to conflate that with restrictions on religious practice are legal nonsense, and thus the MC does not want to embarrass itself in court making that case. When (not if) SSM is legal, no religion will be compelled to marry anyone, as they are not now or ever able to be compelled, as per the religious exemption carved out by the First Amendment. The Mormon Church can't even be compelled to marry its own members in the Mormon Temple who do not meet the Church's standards, let alone people not of their faith. The proceeding that took place in Federal Court with Judge Vaughn Walker was not a hearing, it was in fact a trial. The legal status of Prop 8 was determined to be unconstitutional after a trial. The case is Perry V Schwartzenegger and the plaintiffs were represented by lawyers Olsen and Boies the defendant was the Governor, but since both the Governor and the Attorney General refused to defend Prop 8, the ProtectMarriage coalition (which MC members donated heavily to) was given standing to defend Prop 8, which they did dismally. They called two witnesses, one of whom agreed with the plaintiffs. The unconstitutionality of Prop 8 determined by Judge Walker in the first trial is what is now being appealed in a second trial with the 3 judge panel of the 9th circuit. Judge Walker's opinion if I am not mistaken is about 138 pages. The ProtectMarriage coalition did not mention the erosion of religious liberty in their defense of Prop 8 could have used Elder Oaks who did make that argument at BYU.Anyone is entitled to their delusions, but the law is not based on delusions, religious or otherwise.Flag
-
7
Name: Jzntkxcfzyb on Jun 4, 2012Comments: Zb2kFr ofgazdkbdzygFlag
-
8
Name: Yvmlmmdygke on Jun 6, 2012Comments: 13XGsX euartaxfkdvbFlag
-
9
Name: Sammora on Jun 6, 2012Comments: Actually you are wrong. The first Prop 8 trial was a trial in Federal Court, where it was ruled by Judge Walker to be unconstitutional. That desiicon was appealed to the 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of appeals (one of those judges is an LDS BYU graduate), where a desiicon on whether or not to uphold Judge Walker's desiicon is pending. In the first trial, the Mormon Church had any number of options to support Prop 8. Not one lawyer from the Mormon Church participated with the defendants in offering any of the arguments that were used by the church to get Prop 8 passed. Not one. If the arguments were so compelling, and the danger posed by SSM really the end of the world scenario the church painted it to be, why were church lawyers MIA? The Mormon Church could also have participated in the current appeal it did not. Can anyone explain why something deemed so dire by the Church wasn't worth defending in the two trials which will decide whether or not Prop 8 stands or doesn't? In fact, Elder Oaks made a dramatic speech at BYU Idaho where he complained of loss of religious freedom because of opposition to the Church's position on Prop 8 .he is a lawyer why couldn't he make the same case in either of the two Prop 8 trials? If not Elder Oaks .why not any of the other wall to wall lawyers retained by the Mormon Church? Perhaps because the arguments used to pass Prop 8 in the first place were bogus, cheap fear mongering tactics with no basis in fact or law? Someone please explain.Flag
-
10
Name: Mfzljcxi on Jun 7, 2012Comments: FjtBSL , orunnuhxmrzh, cqzfdhidmfgx, http://kmwrcunxjcnz.com/Flag
-
11
Name: Sofia Adams on Jul 31, 2012Comments:Flag
Page: 1