Showing posts with label Utah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Utah. Show all posts
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Utah And Texas Are Indicative Of The Trouble Trump Is In
The latest polls in the normally bright red states of Utah and Texas can give you a good idea of just how much trouble Donald Trump is in. In a normal year, the Republican presidential candidate could spend his time in the battleground (swing) states -- knowing that the red states were safe. That's not the case this year.
The top chart shows the latest results from a poll in Utah by the Deseret News. It shows Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton tied at 26% each. No one could have guessed several months ago that Clinton would have any chance of carrying Utah, but that is now a reality.
The chart below is from a new Texas CBS 11 / Dixie Strategies Poll. It was done between September 29th and October 1st of a random sample of 780 likely Texas voters, with a margin of error of 3.51 points. It shows Trump has slightly less than a 7 point lead in Texas -- far less than any Republican presidential candidate in many years.
The fact is that Trump can't just focus on battleground states. He has to worry also about the red states -- the states that are supposed to be safe for a GOP presidential candidate.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
Seven New Presidential Polls In Virginia, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, Arizona, And Utah
This chart shows the latest presidential polls in Virginia, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, Arizona, and Utah. You can click on the state name to learn more about the polls.
Monday, August 22, 2016
Prominent Utah Republican Backs Hillary Clinton
David Irvine (pictured) is a Salt Lake City attorney, a lifelong Republican, and a former member of the Utah House of Representatives. He is also a supporter of Hillary Clinton for president. Here is much of what he wrote in an op-ed for the Salt Lake Tribune:
I've been an active Republican for all of my adult life. That this venerable political party, once home to visionary thinkers and leaders, could hand its presidential nomination to Trump, who seems not to know how much he doesn't know and could not care less, is unfathomable to me. It is unfortunate that so many of those who claim to be leaders of the congressional and presidential wings of the Republican Party have long since made their Faustian bargains and are actively endorsing a totally self-centered know-nothing who behaves like the caricature of a banana-republic dictator.
That only shows that there are no Republican leaders of Lincolnian stature. It is especially dissonant when they have to distance themselves more than once per week from the outrageous statements of a man who even disparages the sacrifice of a heroic Army officer's Muslim family. There's a point where this failure to withdraw an endorsement becomes a self-indicting embrace of a demagogue's values.
Trump is riding astride the Four Horsemen of Calumny he has resurrected from an earlier and equally dismal Republican playbook: Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry and Smear. Then-Sen. Margaret Chase Smith, R-Maine, coined the phrase on June 1, 1950, as the first in the Senate to oppose Sen. Joe McCarthy. Smith's "Declaration of Conscience" laid out four fundamental American values that McCarthyism and now Trumpism seek to trample: (1) the right to criticize, (2) the right to hold unpopular beliefs, (3) the right to protest and (4) the right of independent thought.
Some retired military flag officers, for whom I have high regard, contacted me about endorsing Hillary Clinton, which I've agreed to do. There's irony here, because 98 percent of them are either Republicans or unaffiliated voters. That they feel so strongly about this election says a lot.
We see this as a matter of high stakes when it comes to national security and which candidate has the temperament to make critical decisions about war and peace. Trump revels in being a bull in a china shop, but that mentality scares seasoned national security hands to death.
Elections are always gambles; candidates are rarely perfect. George Washington came as close as perfection gets; few would have guessed that Lincoln would become a giant. The nation has been blessed at critical junctures with presidents of good heart even though there have been a lot of clay feet.
Most Utahns loathe Trump, for admirable reasons. Yet we live a political reality that unless Hillary Clinton gets more electoral votes, Trump and his tweeting fingers will be moving into the White House, where the nuclear codes also reside. There have been Utah voices urging Utahns to either not vote or vote for a third-party candidate — on "principle" — but it's really a binary choice.
It's entirely possible that this election could turn on Utah's electoral votes. Recognizing that reality, every Clinton vote is crucially important. A nonvote or a Johnson vote is a vote for Trump.
Wednesday, August 03, 2016
Race Is Close In Utah / Georgia - And That's Bad For Trump
Georgia and Utah are very red states. Georgia hasn't voted for a Democrat for president in a couple of decades, and Utah has done that for over four decades. But both states seem to be turning purple -- mainly because their voters are balking at supporting the current GOP nominee, Donald Trump.
This is exciting news for Democrats. If Trump is having trouble keeping some traditionally Republican states in the fold, he can't just focus on battleground states (like Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). He's going to have to campaign in, and spend some money in Republican states so he doesn't lose ground.
The Hinckley Institute / Salt Lake Tribune Poll was done in June of 1,425 Utah voters, and has a margin of error of 2.5 points.
The Landmark / Rosetta Stone Poll was done on August 1st of 787 Georgia voters, and has a margin of error of 3.5 points.
The SurveyUSA Poll was done between July 29th and 31st of 628 Georgia voters, and has a margin of error of 4 points.
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Democratic Delegates Chosen In Arizona, Utah, And Idaho
(This graphic image is from the New York Times.)
Last night, three more states made their presidential choice known in the Democratic race. They are Arizona (primary), Utah (caucus), and Idaho (caucus). Arizona had 75 delegates up for grabs, while Utah had 33 and Idaho had 23. Hillary Clinton went into the night with 1630 delegates, and Bernie Sanders had 870 delegates.
Here is how the voting went in those states:
ARIZONA
Clinton...............57.9%
Sanders...............39.6%
UTAH
Clinton...............25.1%
Sanders...............74.1%
IDAHO
Clinton...............21.2%
Sanders...............78.0%
Sanders has won two out of the three states, but it's only another moral victory -- since that didn't help him to close the huge delegate gap. Clinton's big win in Arizona helped her maintain her delegate lead.
Last night, three more states made their presidential choice known in the Democratic race. They are Arizona (primary), Utah (caucus), and Idaho (caucus). Arizona had 75 delegates up for grabs, while Utah had 33 and Idaho had 23. Hillary Clinton went into the night with 1630 delegates, and Bernie Sanders had 870 delegates.
Here is how the voting went in those states:
ARIZONA
Clinton...............57.9%
Sanders...............39.6%
UTAH
Clinton...............25.1%
Sanders...............74.1%
IDAHO
Clinton...............21.2%
Sanders...............78.0%
Sanders has won two out of the three states, but it's only another moral victory -- since that didn't help him to close the huge delegate gap. Clinton's big win in Arizona helped her maintain her delegate lead.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Arizona, Idaho, And Utah Democrats Vote On March 22
Next Tuesday (March 22nd), Democrats will go to the polls in Arizona, Idaho, and Utah. But this will not be another "super Tuesday", since there are a lot of delegates up for grabs in those states. Voters will choose 75 delegates in Arizona, 23 delegates in Idaho, and 33 delegates in Utah -- for a three-state total of 131 delegates.
There is a new poll out for Arizona (which has the most delegates). It is the Merrill Poll -- done between March 7th and 11th of a random sample of 300 likely Arizona Democratic voters, and has a margin of error of 5.4 points. That poll shows Clinton with a 26 point lead over Sanders, but a whopping 26% say they are still undecided.
No polls have been issued, at least so far, for Idaho and Utah.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Presidential Preference Of Utah Democrats & Republicans
To my knowledge, this is the first poll showing us the wishes of Utah voters in this presidential primary season. It is the SurveyUSA Poll -- done between January 6th and 13th of a random sample of 989 registered Utah voters. The margin of error for Democrats is 7.2 points, and among Republicans is 4.9 points.
Clinton has a significant 10 point lead among Democrats over Sanders (50% to 40%), while the top four candidates among Republicans (Cruz, Trump, Carson, Rubio) are all within the margin of error of each other.
Friday, July 11, 2014
Judge Tosses Colorado's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Another state ban on same-sex marriages has been tossed out by a federal judge. This time it's in Colorado. It marks the 16th time a federal judge has declared a state's ban to be unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.On Wednesday, District Judge C. Scott Crabtree declared Colorado's ban unconstitutional. The judge stayed his ruling to give the state time to appeal, but that appeal would probably have to be at the United States Supreme Court. That's because Colorado is under the same appeals court as Utah (the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals), and that court recently upheld a ruling that Utah's ban was in violation of the U.S. Constitution. There is no legitimate reason why that court wouldn't decide the same for Colorado. Judge Crabtree said the marriage ban:
". . .bears no rational relationship to any conceivable government interest."
He went on to say:
"The Court holds that the Marriage Bans violate plaintiffs' due process and equal protection guarantees under the Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."
"The existence of civil unions is further evidence of discrimination against same-sex couples and does not ameliorate the discriminatory effect of the Marriage Bans."
"If civil unions were truly the same as marriages, they would be called marriages and not civil unions. If they were the same, there would be no need for both of them."
Utah has announced that it will appeal the appeals court decision to the United States Supreme Court. The Utah Attorney General's office released a statement saying:"To obtain clarity and resolution from the highest court, the Utah Attorney General’s Office will not seek en banc review of the Kitchen v. Herbert Tenth Circuit decision, but will file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United State Supreme Court in the coming weeks. Attorney General Sean Reyes has a sworn duty to defend the laws of our state. Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3 is presumed to be constitutional unless the highest court deems otherwise."
The United States Supreme Court has been dodging this issue for years now, but it looks like it is going to finally be forced to make a decision -- probably in the next term of the court. That means we could only be about a year away from a Supreme Court decision -- and considering their decision striking down DOMA as violating the Constitutions, I don't see how they could determine state bans are constitutional.
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Judge Tosses Out Michigan's Ban On Same-Sex Marriage
(This image of Michigan draped in the LGBT Rainbow Flag is from Wikipedia Commons, where it was posted by Fry1989.)
Late Friday U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman issued a ruling that ended Michigan's ban on same-sex marriages (and adoptions). Michigan's ban was an amendment to the state constitution (called the Michigan Marriage Act) which had been passed by that state's voters in 2004. The judge wrote in his 31-page decision:
“Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage. Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law.”
This makes Judge Friedman the fifth federal judge in the last four months to rule that a state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the United States Constitution. The first was Utah back in December. Then a judge tossed out Oklahoma's ban in January. In February, federal judges in Virginia and in Texas ruled the bans in those states unconstitutional.
The Michigan Attorney General immediately appealed the decision to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. That means there are now three cases that have been appealed and are pending in three different appeals courts. The Utah case is pending in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Texas case is pending in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
It will be interesting to see what happens in these three different courts. Will they all agree, or will they make different decisions? If they disagree, then the United States Supreme Court will probably be forced to make the decision it has been avoiding for several years now -- whether these state bans on same-sex marriages violate the United States Constitution by denying same-sex couples equal rights. Will the Supreme Court try to turn back the clock (as a previous court did in the terrible Dred Scott decision), or will they finally admit that all Americans deserve equal rights under the law?
I may be an optimist, but I believe same-sex marriage bans will soon be eliminated in the United States as a whole -- the same way mixed-race marriages were a few decades ago. It is just time for it to happen.
Late Friday U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman issued a ruling that ended Michigan's ban on same-sex marriages (and adoptions). Michigan's ban was an amendment to the state constitution (called the Michigan Marriage Act) which had been passed by that state's voters in 2004. The judge wrote in his 31-page decision:
“Many Michigan residents have religious convictions whose principles govern the conduct of their daily lives and inform their own viewpoints about marriage. Nonetheless, these views cannot strip other citizens of the guarantees of equal protection under the law.”
This makes Judge Friedman the fifth federal judge in the last four months to rule that a state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the United States Constitution. The first was Utah back in December. Then a judge tossed out Oklahoma's ban in January. In February, federal judges in Virginia and in Texas ruled the bans in those states unconstitutional.
The Michigan Attorney General immediately appealed the decision to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. That means there are now three cases that have been appealed and are pending in three different appeals courts. The Utah case is pending in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Texas case is pending in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
It will be interesting to see what happens in these three different courts. Will they all agree, or will they make different decisions? If they disagree, then the United States Supreme Court will probably be forced to make the decision it has been avoiding for several years now -- whether these state bans on same-sex marriages violate the United States Constitution by denying same-sex couples equal rights. Will the Supreme Court try to turn back the clock (as a previous court did in the terrible Dred Scott decision), or will they finally admit that all Americans deserve equal rights under the law?
I may be an optimist, but I believe same-sex marriage bans will soon be eliminated in the United States as a whole -- the same way mixed-race marriages were a few decades ago. It is just time for it to happen.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Same-Sex Marriage Ban In Texas Ruled Unconstitutional
Back in 2005, the voters in Texas approved an amendment to the state's constitution that defined marriage as only being between a man and a woman. This amendment, which passed by a huge majority, had the effect of banning marriage between same-sex couples -- and the religious right was sure this amendment would settle the question of same-sex marriage in Texas for good. They were wrong.
While the voters do have the right to alter marriage rules through a constitutional amendment, any changes they approve must apply equally to all citizens. Neither voters nor state officials have the right to deny rights to any group -- rights that are given to other groups. That's because the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (which trumps all state constitutions) says:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And that's just what a judge said on Wednesday in San Antonio. U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled that the Texas constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage "violates plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution". The judge also wrote these powerful words:
"Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration — it is a constitutional mandate. Consequently, equal protection is at the heart of our legal system and is essential for the existence of a free society."
This makes Texas the third state to have its same-sex marriage ban overturned recently by a federal judge. The other states are Utah and Oklahoma. All three states have had those decisions stayed until they can be reviewed by a federal appeals court. Utah has appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Oklahoma is waiting to see the outcome of that appeal (since they are also covered by that appeals court). If the Texas decision is appealed (and it undoubtably will be), it will go to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
So far, the United States Supreme Court has been able to avoid making a decision on the constitutionality of same-sex marriages. But if the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals don't make the same decisions, then the U.S. Supreme Court will finally be forced to make a decision for the country as a whole. And that is a distinct possibility. Preliminary indications are that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals might uphold the decision of the federal judge in Utah (that declared Utah's ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional), but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is a more conservative court and could overturn the Texas jude's decision.
Regardless of what these two appeals courts decide, it is time for the United States Supreme Court to stop avoiding this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear, and these same-sex marriage bans clearly violate that amendment. Opponents are going to try to claim these decisions violate their religious rights, but that is a ridiculous assertion. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does nothing to impinge on the religious rights of any person or church, and they can continue to practice their religious bigotry to their hearts content -- they will just no longer be able to force their own bigotry on others.
The majority of Americans support the equal right of the LGBT community to marry the person they love, and it is time for this issue to be put to rest once and for all.
While the voters do have the right to alter marriage rules through a constitutional amendment, any changes they approve must apply equally to all citizens. Neither voters nor state officials have the right to deny rights to any group -- rights that are given to other groups. That's because the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (which trumps all state constitutions) says:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
And that's just what a judge said on Wednesday in San Antonio. U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled that the Texas constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage "violates plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution". The judge also wrote these powerful words:
"Equal treatment of all individuals under the law is not merely an aspiration — it is a constitutional mandate. Consequently, equal protection is at the heart of our legal system and is essential for the existence of a free society."
This makes Texas the third state to have its same-sex marriage ban overturned recently by a federal judge. The other states are Utah and Oklahoma. All three states have had those decisions stayed until they can be reviewed by a federal appeals court. Utah has appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Oklahoma is waiting to see the outcome of that appeal (since they are also covered by that appeals court). If the Texas decision is appealed (and it undoubtably will be), it will go to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
So far, the United States Supreme Court has been able to avoid making a decision on the constitutionality of same-sex marriages. But if the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals don't make the same decisions, then the U.S. Supreme Court will finally be forced to make a decision for the country as a whole. And that is a distinct possibility. Preliminary indications are that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals might uphold the decision of the federal judge in Utah (that declared Utah's ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional), but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is a more conservative court and could overturn the Texas jude's decision.
Regardless of what these two appeals courts decide, it is time for the United States Supreme Court to stop avoiding this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment is very clear, and these same-sex marriage bans clearly violate that amendment. Opponents are going to try to claim these decisions violate their religious rights, but that is a ridiculous assertion. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does nothing to impinge on the religious rights of any person or church, and they can continue to practice their religious bigotry to their hearts content -- they will just no longer be able to force their own bigotry on others.
The majority of Americans support the equal right of the LGBT community to marry the person they love, and it is time for this issue to be put to rest once and for all.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Federal Judge Overturns Virginia Ban On Same-Sex Marriage
The states who want to ban same-sex marriage are starting to fall fast. Last month a federal judge in Utah ruled that such a ban violates the equal protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Only a couple of weeks later a federal judge in Oklahoma made that same ruling. Now a judge in Virginia has followed suit.
On Thursday, Judge Arenda Wright Allen ruled in a 41-page ruling that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional saying:
"Tradition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia's ban on interracial marriage."
And other states may soon follow. A suit is being heard in federal court in San Antonio right now seeking to overturn the same-sex marriage ban in Texas. Many people, including me, believe the San Antonio court is likely to follow the lead of the federal courts in Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia. These rulings are currently not being enforced, as the courts are waiting to see what happens in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (that is hearing Utah's appeal of the ruling in their state).
I may be wrong, but I'm starting to get the feeling that marriage equality will be a reality in all states very soon. And that's a very good thing, since equality denied to any group can easily be extended to all groups -- and equality under the law is one of the most important tenets of a democracy.
On Thursday, Judge Arenda Wright Allen ruled in a 41-page ruling that Virginia's ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional saying:
"Tradition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia's ban on interracial marriage."
And other states may soon follow. A suit is being heard in federal court in San Antonio right now seeking to overturn the same-sex marriage ban in Texas. Many people, including me, believe the San Antonio court is likely to follow the lead of the federal courts in Utah, Oklahoma, and Virginia. These rulings are currently not being enforced, as the courts are waiting to see what happens in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (that is hearing Utah's appeal of the ruling in their state).
I may be wrong, but I'm starting to get the feeling that marriage equality will be a reality in all states very soon. And that's a very good thing, since equality denied to any group can easily be extended to all groups -- and equality under the law is one of the most important tenets of a democracy.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Public's View Of Same-Sex Marriage Changing In Utah
A couple of weeks ago, a federal judge ruled that Utah's ban on same-sex marriages violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (which guarantees equal rights for all citizens). The state government got a stay of that decision, and is currently appealing it to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. At that time, I assumed (as did many others) that the state government was probably just following the wishes of a majority of the people of Utah (a very red state). But it looks like I was wrong.
The Salt Lake Tribune decided to find out just where the state really stood on the issue, so they got Survey USA to do a poll for them -- and the results of that Salt Lake Tribune / Survey USA Poll was rather eye-opening. It seems that about 36% of the population have changed their views on same-sex marriage, and when that is added to the people who already supported it, we find that the people of Utah are evenly split on the issue right now. About 48% are in favor of same-sex marriage, while an equal 48% are opposed (with the remaining 4% unsure what they think). That's quite a different result that was expected.
The demographic breakdown of those supporting/opposing same sex marriage is in the top chart below. Note that mormons and Republicans have significant majorities opposing it. Democrats and non-mormons have large majorities supporting it. The other groups are pretty evenly split (reflecting the statewide view of all adults).
But what I found most interesting was the bottom chart, which reflects support for allowing same-sex couples to form legal civil unions in the state -- civil unions that would have all the same rights and advantages offered to married couples. Note that every single group, including Republicans and mormons, show a significant majority supporting civil unions between same-sex couples. It seems that, like the people of other states, the people of Utah really do favor equal rights for all of their citizens.
They just stumble over the use of the word "marriage" -- probably because many of them think that marriage is a religious thing. They fail to realize that marriage predates not only mormonism, but all forms of christianity (and even the Old Testament), and that in every state in the union there are both religious and civil marriages (with each carrying the same rights).
Personally, I don't care whether you call it "marriage" or a "civil union" as long as both have the same rights under the law. Equal rights under the law is the most important thing -- not the label put on a loving relationship.
--------------------------------------------------
And while I'm on the subject of same-sex marriages, I want to congratulate Mayor Annise Parker (of Houston) and her spouse. They recently were married. They had to go to California to get it done, because their home state of Texas has not yet joined the civilized world, but they are now officially married -- and regardless of what the Texas right-wing state government thinks of it, they now qualify for all the federal benefits offered to married couples in this country. I wish them a long and very happy marriage.
The Salt Lake Tribune decided to find out just where the state really stood on the issue, so they got Survey USA to do a poll for them -- and the results of that Salt Lake Tribune / Survey USA Poll was rather eye-opening. It seems that about 36% of the population have changed their views on same-sex marriage, and when that is added to the people who already supported it, we find that the people of Utah are evenly split on the issue right now. About 48% are in favor of same-sex marriage, while an equal 48% are opposed (with the remaining 4% unsure what they think). That's quite a different result that was expected.
The demographic breakdown of those supporting/opposing same sex marriage is in the top chart below. Note that mormons and Republicans have significant majorities opposing it. Democrats and non-mormons have large majorities supporting it. The other groups are pretty evenly split (reflecting the statewide view of all adults).
But what I found most interesting was the bottom chart, which reflects support for allowing same-sex couples to form legal civil unions in the state -- civil unions that would have all the same rights and advantages offered to married couples. Note that every single group, including Republicans and mormons, show a significant majority supporting civil unions between same-sex couples. It seems that, like the people of other states, the people of Utah really do favor equal rights for all of their citizens.
They just stumble over the use of the word "marriage" -- probably because many of them think that marriage is a religious thing. They fail to realize that marriage predates not only mormonism, but all forms of christianity (and even the Old Testament), and that in every state in the union there are both religious and civil marriages (with each carrying the same rights).
Personally, I don't care whether you call it "marriage" or a "civil union" as long as both have the same rights under the law. Equal rights under the law is the most important thing -- not the label put on a loving relationship.
--------------------------------------------------
And while I'm on the subject of same-sex marriages, I want to congratulate Mayor Annise Parker (of Houston) and her spouse. They recently were married. They had to go to California to get it done, because their home state of Texas has not yet joined the civilized world, but they are now officially married -- and regardless of what the Texas right-wing state government thinks of it, they now qualify for all the federal benefits offered to married couples in this country. I wish them a long and very happy marriage.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Appeals Court Refuses To Stop Same-Sex Marriages In Utah
Last Friday, a federal judge declared Utah's ban on same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional. The state asked that judge (U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby) to stay his decision until they could appeal it and get a decision from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Shelby refused, and state officials immediately asked the appeals court itself to issue a stay until the state's appeal could be heard.
I had thought the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals might issue that stay, but I was wrong. On christmas eve, the appeals court refused to issue the stay. The court said the state had failed to show it would suffer "irreparable harm" if the stay was not issued. That means same-sex couples can now be married legally in that states -- and all but four counties are now issuing those marriage licenses (and in light of the appeals court refusal, those four counties must now comply with Judge Shelby's decision, or face penalties).
And there is even better news for those of us who believe in equal rights for all Americans. In denying the stay, the appeals court went on to say that the state had also failed to show it had a "significant likelihood" of winning their appeal when the case is finally heard by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. That means the state of Utah stands a good chance of losing their appeal.
This makes sense. The state will probably try to make a religious freedom argument. But that won't really fly, since all the decision says is that the state government cannot prevent same-sex marriages. It does not force any church or individual to participate in those marriages, while reinstating the ban would force individuals to accept a state-imposed religious belief.
If the appeals court does uphold Judge Shelby's decision, which is now expected to happen, the state will undoubtably appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Until now, that court has avoided having to make a decision on the constitutionality of state-imposed bans on same-sex marriages. But they would no longer be able to avoid it. They would either have to take the case, and finally decide the question -- or refuse to hear the case, which would mean the appeals court decision would be the law of the land (and could be used to overturn the bans on same-sex marriages in other states).
I had thought the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals might issue that stay, but I was wrong. On christmas eve, the appeals court refused to issue the stay. The court said the state had failed to show it would suffer "irreparable harm" if the stay was not issued. That means same-sex couples can now be married legally in that states -- and all but four counties are now issuing those marriage licenses (and in light of the appeals court refusal, those four counties must now comply with Judge Shelby's decision, or face penalties).And there is even better news for those of us who believe in equal rights for all Americans. In denying the stay, the appeals court went on to say that the state had also failed to show it had a "significant likelihood" of winning their appeal when the case is finally heard by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. That means the state of Utah stands a good chance of losing their appeal.
This makes sense. The state will probably try to make a religious freedom argument. But that won't really fly, since all the decision says is that the state government cannot prevent same-sex marriages. It does not force any church or individual to participate in those marriages, while reinstating the ban would force individuals to accept a state-imposed religious belief.
If the appeals court does uphold Judge Shelby's decision, which is now expected to happen, the state will undoubtably appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Until now, that court has avoided having to make a decision on the constitutionality of state-imposed bans on same-sex marriages. But they would no longer be able to avoid it. They would either have to take the case, and finally decide the question -- or refuse to hear the case, which would mean the appeals court decision would be the law of the land (and could be used to overturn the bans on same-sex marriages in other states).
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Utah Court Decision Could End Same-Sex Marriage Discrimination Nationwide
On Thursday, a New Mexico Supreme Court decision made that state the 17th one to legalize same-sex marriages. Now only one day later, it looks like an 18th state has joined that growing list -- the state of Utah. And this could be the most important court decision in this fight for equal rights so far.
On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled that Amendment 3 of the Utah state constitution, the amendment that barred same-sex marriages, was unconstitutional. He said:
“The court hereby declares that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional because it denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. . .any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United States.”
Of course, the state will probably appeal this court decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and if that court upholds Judge Shelby's decision, the United States Supreme Court will finally have to make a decision on whether the banning of same-sex marriages violates the United States Constitution.
So far, the Supreme Court has avoided having to make a decision on that. When they overturned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that decision was limited in scope -- and only applied to the federal government (saying the federal government could not discriminate through DOMA). They did not rule on the constitutionality of the numerous state laws banning same-sex marriages.
So things will soon be in the hands of the federal appeals court. If that court overturns the lower court ruling, the Supreme Court could still avoid making a decision by just letting the appeals court decision stand -- and then the onus of this fight for equality will stay with the individual states, and will have to be won state by state.
But if the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the lower court decision, the Supreme Court will have to make a decision finally -- either by refusing to hear the case and letting the appeals court decision stand (in which case it could be used to overturn laws in other states), or by hearing the case (and hopefully uphold the equality guaranteed by the Constitution).
Whatever happens, Utah (at least for now) has become the 18th state to allow same-sex marriages. Here is a list of those states:
1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Delaware
4. Iowa
5. Maine
6. Maryland
7. Massachusetts
8. Minnesota
9. New Hampshire
10. New York
11. Rhode Island
12. Vermont
13. Washington
14. New Jersey
15. Illinois
16. Hawaii
17. New Mexico
18. Utah
and
District of Columbia
On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby ruled that Amendment 3 of the Utah state constitution, the amendment that barred same-sex marriages, was unconstitutional. He said:
“The court hereby declares that Amendment 3 is unconstitutional because it denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. . .any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United States.”
Of course, the state will probably appeal this court decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and if that court upholds Judge Shelby's decision, the United States Supreme Court will finally have to make a decision on whether the banning of same-sex marriages violates the United States Constitution.
So far, the Supreme Court has avoided having to make a decision on that. When they overturned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that decision was limited in scope -- and only applied to the federal government (saying the federal government could not discriminate through DOMA). They did not rule on the constitutionality of the numerous state laws banning same-sex marriages.
So things will soon be in the hands of the federal appeals court. If that court overturns the lower court ruling, the Supreme Court could still avoid making a decision by just letting the appeals court decision stand -- and then the onus of this fight for equality will stay with the individual states, and will have to be won state by state.
But if the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the lower court decision, the Supreme Court will have to make a decision finally -- either by refusing to hear the case and letting the appeals court decision stand (in which case it could be used to overturn laws in other states), or by hearing the case (and hopefully uphold the equality guaranteed by the Constitution).
Whatever happens, Utah (at least for now) has become the 18th state to allow same-sex marriages. Here is a list of those states:
1. California
2. Connecticut
3. Delaware
4. Iowa
5. Maine
6. Maryland
7. Massachusetts
8. Minnesota
9. New Hampshire
10. New York
11. Rhode Island
12. Vermont
13. Washington
14. New Jersey
15. Illinois
16. Hawaii
17. New Mexico
18. Utah
and
District of Columbia
Friday, October 11, 2013
GOP Is Still Being Blamed For Shutdown
We are now in the second week of a government shutdown, and the GOP is still taking it on the chin for doing it. They had hoped to blame the shutdown on Democrats or the president, but so far that is not happening. Poll after poll has shown the public blames the Republicans for the shutdown (even though they're not real happy with anyone in Washington).
In fact, the GOP is now starting to be abandoned by some of their friends (like Wall Street and ultra-rich contributors such as the Koch brothers) -- who are starting to get nervous about an extended shutdown, and the fact that it could merge with the debt ceiling issue (which is coming up very soon). There is some talk now of passing a short (maybe 6 week long) extension of the debt ceiling among Republicans, but that wouldn't really solve anything. It would just kick that political can a little further down the road so the Republicans could hold out longer on the shutdown (hoping to get more concessions).
The question now though seems to be -- how long can the GOP hold out and keep the government shut down? The president and the Senate Democrats seem to have dug in and are refusing to delay Obamacare or give the GOP more cuts to the budget, just to get the government running again. The Dems know that once you give in to this type of blackmail, it will be tried again and again -- and will become the way things are done in government (which is totally unacceptable).
As the YouGov Poll shows in the charts above, it is the GOP brand that is being hurt the most by continuing the shutdown. And if it goes on much longer, it will seriously damage the economy -- and give the GOP an enormous amount of bridges to rebuild before the next election. There has already been damage done, and the damage will just continue to grow as long as the shutdown persists.
This damage is not limited to Republicans in "competitive" districts or states either. Note in the chart below what has happened to the approval rating of one of the main teabaggers in Congress -- Senator Mike Lee of Utah. Back in June of this year, he had a pretty good approval rating with 50% of voters approving of his job performance and 40% disapproving. But since the shutdown (and his support of it), those numbers have flipped. He now has only 40% approval and 52% disapproval.
The YouGov Poll was conducted on October 7th and 8th of 1,000 nationwide adults, with a margin of error of 4.3 points.
The BYU-Utah Voter Poll was done between October 2nd and 7th of 1,040 Utah voters, with a margin of error of 3.2 points.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Salt Lake Tribune Endorses Obama
I don't know whether newspaper endorsements mean anything these days, but this one was rather shocking. It seems that the Salt Lake Tribune has endorsed President Obama for the November election. Here is what they had to say in an October 19th editorial:
Nowhere has Mitt Romney’s pursuit of the presidency been more warmly welcomed or closely followed than here in Utah. The Republican nominee’s political and religious pedigrees, his adeptly bipartisan governorship of a Democratic state, and his head for business and the bottom line all inspire admiration and hope in our largely Mormon, Republican, business-friendly state.
But it was Romney’s singular role in rescuing Utah’s organization of the 2002 Olympics from a cesspool of scandal, and his oversight of the most successful Winter Games on record, that make him the Beehive State’s favorite adopted son. After all, Romney managed to save the state from ignominy, turning the extravaganza into a showcase for the matchless landscapes, volunteerism and efficiency that told the world what is best and most beautiful about Utah and its people.
In short, this is the Mitt Romney we knew, or thought we knew, as one of us.
Nowhere has Mitt Romney’s pursuit of the presidency been more warmly welcomed or closely followed than here in Utah. The Republican nominee’s political and religious pedigrees, his adeptly bipartisan governorship of a Democratic state, and his head for business and the bottom line all inspire admiration and hope in our largely Mormon, Republican, business-friendly state.
But it was Romney’s singular role in rescuing Utah’s organization of the 2002 Olympics from a cesspool of scandal, and his oversight of the most successful Winter Games on record, that make him the Beehive State’s favorite adopted son. After all, Romney managed to save the state from ignominy, turning the extravaganza into a showcase for the matchless landscapes, volunteerism and efficiency that told the world what is best and most beautiful about Utah and its people.
In short, this is the Mitt Romney we knew, or thought we knew, as one of us.
Sadly, it is not the only Romney, as his campaign for the White House has made abundantly clear, first in his servile courtship of the tea party in order to win the nomination, and now as the party’s shape-shifting nominee. From his embrace of the party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: "Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?"
The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear.
More troubling, Romney has repeatedly refused to share specifics of his radical plan to simultaneously reduce the debt, get rid of Obamacare (or, as he now says, only part of it), make a voucher program of Medicare, slash taxes and spending, and thereby create millions of new jobs. To claim, as Romney does, that he would offset his tax and spending cuts (except for billions more for the military) by doing away with tax deductions and exemptions is utterly meaningless without identifying which and how many would get the ax. Absent those specifics, his promise of a balanced budget simply does not pencil out.
If this portrait of a Romney willing to say anything to get elected seems harsh, we need only revisit his branding of 47 percent of Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, yet feel victimized and entitled to government assistance. His job, he told a group of wealthy donors, "is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Where, we ask, is the pragmatic, inclusive Romney, the Massachusetts governor who left the state with a model health care plan in place, the Romney who led Utah to Olympic glory? That Romney skedaddled and is nowhere to be found.
And what of the president Romney would replace? For four years, President Barack Obama has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to pull the nation out of its worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression, a deepening crisis he inherited the day he took office.
In the first months of his presidency, Obama acted decisively to stimulate the economy. His leadership was essential to passage of the badly needed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Though Republicans criticize the stimulus for failing to create jobs, it clearly helped stop the hemorrhaging of public sector jobs. The Utah Legislature used hundreds of millions in stimulus funds to plug holes in the state’s budget.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
America's Gayest City ?
Oh my! This is going to upset the Mormon Church. The Advocate magazine has named Salt Lake City as the gayest city in America. Here's how CNN describes this rather humorous ranking:
The Advocate ranked cities according to its own admittedly nonscientific criteria, including the number of gay and lesbian bookstores, elected officials who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, and some edgier metrics like the number of International Mr. Leather competition semifinalists and the presence of nude yoga classes. This year’s list intended to examine cities that are outside the usual orbit of San Francisco, Boston, Miami and New York, and came up with several surprises - Grand Rapids, Michigan, Knoxville, Tennessee. Even Little Rock, Arkansas, ranked 11 out of 15.
Salt Lake City LGBTQ advocates were pleasantly surprised by the rankings.
Here are the top 15 "gayest" cities, as ranked by The Advocate:
15. Denver, Colorado
14. Long Beach, California
13. Austin, Texas
12. Portland, Oregon
11. Little Rock, Arkansas
10. Grand Rapids, Michigan
9. Atlanta, Georgia
8. Knoxville, Tennessee
7. St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota
6. Ann Arbor, Michigan
5. Seattle, Washington
4. Fort Lauderdale, Florida
3. Cambridge, Massachusetts
2. Orlando, Florida
1. Salt Lake City, Utah
The Advocate ranked cities according to its own admittedly nonscientific criteria, including the number of gay and lesbian bookstores, elected officials who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, and some edgier metrics like the number of International Mr. Leather competition semifinalists and the presence of nude yoga classes. This year’s list intended to examine cities that are outside the usual orbit of San Francisco, Boston, Miami and New York, and came up with several surprises - Grand Rapids, Michigan, Knoxville, Tennessee. Even Little Rock, Arkansas, ranked 11 out of 15.
Salt Lake City LGBTQ advocates were pleasantly surprised by the rankings.
Here are the top 15 "gayest" cities, as ranked by The Advocate:
15. Denver, Colorado
14. Long Beach, California
13. Austin, Texas
12. Portland, Oregon
11. Little Rock, Arkansas
10. Grand Rapids, Michigan
9. Atlanta, Georgia
8. Knoxville, Tennessee
7. St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota
6. Ann Arbor, Michigan
5. Seattle, Washington
4. Fort Lauderdale, Florida
3. Cambridge, Massachusetts
2. Orlando, Florida
1. Salt Lake City, Utah
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Utah Screws The BCS - Big Time !

The college Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is not having a good season. It is supposed to use several polls and computer statistics to pick the best two college teams in the nation, and pit them against each other to get a national champion. In most years, it works fairly well. But this year has been a disaster for the system.
The system has been tweaked several times to insure a better result, but this season has made the BCS into little more than a joke. The BCS picked Florida and Oklahoma as the top two teams amid a lot of disagreement. Many people thought Texas should be ranked ahead of Oklahoma, since they had the same record and Texas beat them handily during the regular season.
Others thought Southern California should be considered since it had the same record, especially after they took powerful Penn State apart in the Rose Bowl. But it is Utah that is making the whole system look like little more than a bad joke.
You see, the BCS never really considered Utah to be a contender, even though they finished the season at 12-0. The BCS ranked five teams higher than Utah -- and all of them had lost a game. Even though Utah was undefeated, it was not considered powerful enough by the BCS to play for the mythical national championship.
So they threw Utah a bone, and let them play Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Everyone expected Alabama to roll over Utah and embarrass them. But that didn't happen. Utah easily beat Alabama (who was ranked #1 by the BCS for five weeks this year until they were defeated by Florida in the SEC championship). In fact, Utah defeated Alabama by a bigger margin that #1 ranked Florida did.
Now we are left with a big mess. It doesn't matter whether Florida or Oklahoma wins the championship, that championship will be tainted. How can an undefeated team (Utah) who has shown they can play with the best teams, not be given a shot at the championship? How can Texas (who beat Oklahoma) not be given a shot at the championship? How about So-Cal?
The large-college presidents have a lot of pitiful excuses why they can't have a play-off system and determine a real champion on the field, but it is all bullshit! All of the smaller college divisions have a play-off system, and if they can do it, so can the bigger colleges. It all boils down to money. The current bowl system has been very lucrative -- even for a lot of schools with mediocre teams.
Frankly, I don't even care whether Florida or Oklahoma wins their scheduled game. I would not consider either one to be a national champion, and I believe there are a ton of people who agree with me. The only way I would believe either team is better than Utah or Texas, is if they beat them fairly in a real game.
Thank you, Utah! You have shown us once and for all that NCAA Division I Football needs a play-off system. A real play-off system -- not a one or two game mythical joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


























