Reader comments
California court denies Shurtleff request to delay same-sex marriages
142 comments | Read story
K.C. | 10:58 a.m. June 4, 2008
Tuff Break, Utah.
Anonymous | 11:15 a.m. June 4, 2008
Dear Shurtleff -
Why not focus on cleaning up your own backyard before you start whining about your neighbor's.
Why not focus on cleaning up your own backyard before you start whining about your neighbor's.
Gay and former Cali resident | 11:16 a.m. June 4, 2008
I'm glad California denied request. Not everyone here in Utah is opposed
to Gay Marriage. I hope to one day find the right guy and commit. Maybe I will
have to return to California to do so. But meanwhile I will continue to serve
the poeple of Utah as a mental health counselor.
Comments continue below
circus | 11:20 a.m. June 4, 2008
Marriages performed now may be overturned in 5 mos.
Why not wait on the voters and avoid a circus?
Because CA doesn't really care about voters or marriage.
Typical homosexual marriage farce theatrics.
Why not wait on the voters and avoid a circus?
Because CA doesn't really care about voters or marriage.
Typical homosexual marriage farce theatrics.
Anonymous | 11:22 a.m. June 4, 2008
Yay AGAIN for CA which seems to understand and be willing to stand up and
practice the provisions of their own and the US Constitution!
Stenar | 11:25 a.m. June 4, 2008
HURRAH! :)
i-survived-roe-v-wade | 11:28 a.m. June 4, 2008
Judicial activism is out of control. Our judiciary better not overturn the will
of the people here in Utah. Federalism still rings true in our country, at least
I hope it does. Power to the people...or power to the Govt? Which do you want?
Matt | 11:36 a.m. June 4, 2008
Best news of the day!
K.C. | 11:43 a.m. June 4, 2008
i-s-r-v: "Judicial activism is out of control. Our judiciary better not
overturn the will of the people here in Utah"
Don't worry, your right to oppose marriage for gay couples won't be harmed. Utah needn't recognize these marriages. People who believe as you do can congregate in places like Utah where opposition is strong. Those who don't can vote with their feet and relocate to places like California.
Don't worry, your right to oppose marriage for gay couples won't be harmed. Utah needn't recognize these marriages. People who believe as you do can congregate in places like Utah where opposition is strong. Those who don't can vote with their feet and relocate to places like California.
Dear "i-survived" | 11:49 a.m. June 4, 2008
The will of WHAT people in Utah?
Those who believe in God, and who DO NOT HATE others because they're different -- or those who follow the false God of hatred and government control?
You're in the minority now. Get used to it.
Those who believe in God, and who DO NOT HATE others because they're different -- or those who follow the false God of hatred and government control?
You're in the minority now. Get used to it.
Dan | 12:03 p.m. June 4, 2008
I believe connecting with those from other states to help strengthen the family
is a good thing.
Children suffer when they are confused about their identity. It may be because their parents or friends choose an alternative lifestyle.
What ever the reason, I oppose same sex marriage.
I believe children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity
Children suffer when they are confused about their identity. It may be because their parents or friends choose an alternative lifestyle.
What ever the reason, I oppose same sex marriage.
I believe children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity
Gay | 12:04 p.m. June 4, 2008
This has got to be one of the lamest things ever. I love how gay people justify
themselves being gay by hammering those who disagree with thier practice. Hey,
in all seriousness,if you want to be gay, be gay, be the best gay person you can
possible be. Be happy with your partner, but because some government leaders or
religous leaders dont agree with you, dont call them out. You dont like being
singled out for being gay, so dont single anyone out for not agreeing with you.
I think gay people cause half the problems for themselves, if you would just
live a normal life even as a gay person, the majority of people I would think
would look the other way, but because some gay people decide to flaunt thier
alternative life style and ask for the attention, then what do you expect.
Although you have all made the choice, it was just that, a choice. You were not
born that way, it just so happens that I believe your choice was wrong, if you
disagree, that is your opinion, I am giving mine. Chill out!
to gay | 12:04 p.m. June 4, 2008
Not every one is for it either. In fact, a MAJORITY of americans are against
it.
Sorry, the courts gave you false hope of making your 'relationship' legit. We the people WILL SPEAK.
Sorry, the courts gave you false hope of making your 'relationship' legit. We the people WILL SPEAK.
Read more | 12:06 p.m. June 4, 2008
"Judicial activism is out of control"
Today, 51 percent of California voters favor gay marriages. Has the courts contradicted the will of the majority of Californians?
When gay marriage wins at the polls in California you will be faced seeing which way the momentum is going in America.
Today, 51 percent of California voters favor gay marriages. Has the courts contradicted the will of the majority of Californians?
When gay marriage wins at the polls in California you will be faced seeing which way the momentum is going in America.
Cal | 12:07 p.m. June 4, 2008
Ever notice how anytime a court rules in a way that conservatives don't
like it is an "activist judge" but when their position is supported
they say "justice was served"? The California court that allowed gay
marriage was majority Republican...just like the majority Republican Supreme
Court that ruled that gays have a right to privacy. Conservatives in this
country have abandoned the principles of fairness and individual freedom and
replaced them with a victim mentality that is really ugly to behold. If a court
is impartial then roughly 50% of people are probably going to disagree with any
given decision. Interestingly enough that is almost exactly the way the polls
show that Californian's are split on same-sex marriage.
PoliSci Doc | 12:08 p.m. June 4, 2008
I just don't get it. I certainly don't understand why polygamists
can't legitimize their unions, but two "dudes," can? I am
absolutely against either. Either the Federal Government needs to formally
define marriage as being being between one man and one woman, or rule that
marriage is just another form civil contracts and not define them at all. But
hey, the insurance lobbies wouldn't like it if the Feds decided not to
interfere in the definition of marriage, now would they?
JEB | 12:13 p.m. June 4, 2008
wow, I laugh when people like Dan use the argument that children should be born
in matrimony. So why do we not ban divorce? Or ban sexual relations outside of
marriage? Why deny other people the right to marry or raise children because of
whom they've fallen in love with? Don't hold a double standard. If
you don't want gay marriage then you need to also be fighting to ban
divorce and sex outside of marriage.
Anonymous | 12:18 p.m. June 4, 2008
Hey K.C., do you take donations to help the gays relocate to California?
Anonymous | 12:21 p.m. June 4, 2008
Why is it that they wanted it delayed until after the Novemeber election? Both
OBama and McCain oppose gay marriage. And, odds are that the country will go
more democrat then anyway. What would the stay gain?
Anonymous | 12:25 p.m. June 4, 2008
JEB, great points.
"Our judiciary better not overturn the will of the people here in Utah. "
Guess what? you need to go back to civics, because the purpose of checks and balances and the point of having a judicial system is to ensure that the will of a racist, homophobic majority don't surpress the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to people who have beliefs they don't.
The judicial system is in place to protect us (and the mormon church for that matter) from bigots like this.
"Our judiciary better not overturn the will of the people here in Utah. "
Guess what? you need to go back to civics, because the purpose of checks and balances and the point of having a judicial system is to ensure that the will of a racist, homophobic majority don't surpress the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to people who have beliefs they don't.
The judicial system is in place to protect us (and the mormon church for that matter) from bigots like this.
DOe | 12:25 p.m. June 4, 2008
Damnn
I don't like it
I don't like it
YBU | 12:27 p.m. June 4, 2008
To Dan
"Children suffer when they are confused about their identity. It may be because their parents or friends choose an alternative lifestyle."
I grew up in Salt Lake in the suburbs and if children were not in an active LDS family, they suffered. They did not receive the socialization of primary. They were always thought of as just a little less. They were never part of mutual and sports. We ostracized them. I realize that now.
Maybe we should outlaw anyone being different. It sure would help the kids so that they wouldn't suffer.
"Children suffer when they are confused about their identity. It may be because their parents or friends choose an alternative lifestyle."
I grew up in Salt Lake in the suburbs and if children were not in an active LDS family, they suffered. They did not receive the socialization of primary. They were always thought of as just a little less. They were never part of mutual and sports. We ostracized them. I realize that now.
Maybe we should outlaw anyone being different. It sure would help the kids so that they wouldn't suffer.
daro | 12:35 p.m. June 4, 2008
i think this whole debate is based on a misunderstanding of the term
"marriage". to many people "marriage" is a religious rite,
therefore "sacred" to them. but remember, separation of church and
state is part of what makes this country great. "marriage" in a legal
sense, ie. what the government recognizes, is NOT a religious/sacred rite, but
rather a LEGAL agreement concerning taxes, property, insurance benefits, etc.
Therefore (stay with me folks i know LOGIC is tricky sometimes) the STATE cannot
discriminate against homosexuals just because certain RELIGIOUS beliefs dont
condone homosexuality. If you expect the GOVERNMENT to enforce your
religion's idea of what is "sacred", then you dont actually
believe in FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY... realize that YOU are the ones forcing others
to believe as you do, and not the other way around. Stop confusing your bible
with OUR constitution. If you want your government to uphold your quaint
religious beliefs, try Saudi Arabia or Iran or some other country that rejects
Life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of Happiness. The same arguments,
"god's law, blah blah" were made before interracial marriage was
legal. Oh and those of you who have been divorced have NO right to open your
mouth
Anonymous | 12:42 p.m. June 4, 2008
Try minding your own business my conservative brothers and sisters.
It's the first step in the healing process.
It's the first step in the healing process.
John | 12:50 p.m. June 4, 2008
Utah,
One would think the government and citizens of Utah would have enough to focus on without worrying about California. One would almost think you are jealous.
If you can't appreciate fairness and equality for all then maybe you are in the wrong country period.
Father's Day is June 15th for those heterosexuals who can't keep it straight. (Pun intended.)
Finally, if your marriage is so weak that it is threatened by someone else's union, that's your fault.
But if your marriage is that weak there's no way you can talk to your children about love one another, do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . .
but I'm sure you'll indoctrinate them to hate anyone different. You right wing moralists always do that.
One would think the government and citizens of Utah would have enough to focus on without worrying about California. One would almost think you are jealous.
If you can't appreciate fairness and equality for all then maybe you are in the wrong country period.
Father's Day is June 15th for those heterosexuals who can't keep it straight. (Pun intended.)
Finally, if your marriage is so weak that it is threatened by someone else's union, that's your fault.
But if your marriage is that weak there's no way you can talk to your children about love one another, do unto others as you would have them do unto you . . .
but I'm sure you'll indoctrinate them to hate anyone different. You right wing moralists always do that.
ExMoWeHoMo | 12:55 p.m. June 4, 2008
Judging from some of the comments on this board, there are some really stupid
people out there.
Even though I've had to wait a long time to be able to marry my partner, we've still been able to have children. There are no laws requiring people be married to reproduce.
And for a religion that's supposedly based on free agency and family, I can't understand why they're constantly attacking me and mine.
Even though I've had to wait a long time to be able to marry my partner, we've still been able to have children. There are no laws requiring people be married to reproduce.
And for a religion that's supposedly based on free agency and family, I can't understand why they're constantly attacking me and mine.
re Gay | 1:02 p.m. June 4, 2008
If you truly believe being gay (for a male,anyway) is a Choice, you need to go
back to Human Biology class.
I was Hoping... | 1:07 p.m. June 4, 2008
that the State of California was going to take Utah to court since our state
laws forbid Utah Residents from ordering wine directly from California's
Wineries, thus negatively impacting a large and vital California industry, and
adversely affecting their state.
california voter | 1:12 p.m. June 4, 2008
To read more,
Your 51% statistics are based on polling which of course is VERY error prone. Don't assume that a majority of us are pro gay marriage just because those who oppose gay marriage don't spend all of their time commenting in these "reader comment" sections or demonstrating in SF. Let's wait until November.
Your 51% statistics are based on polling which of course is VERY error prone. Don't assume that a majority of us are pro gay marriage just because those who oppose gay marriage don't spend all of their time commenting in these "reader comment" sections or demonstrating in SF. Let's wait until November.
RangerGordon | 1:13 p.m. June 4, 2008
Nobody seriously thought California was going to take the Utah A.G.'s
wishes into account when deciding how to manage its affairs, did they?
Well, perhaps it made sense to the type of people who think it's their business to tell strangers who they can or can't marry. That is, busybodies.
This was just typical Utah grandstanding. Good for the Cal Supremes!
Well, perhaps it made sense to the type of people who think it's their business to tell strangers who they can or can't marry. That is, busybodies.
This was just typical Utah grandstanding. Good for the Cal Supremes!
Pandora's Box | 1:18 p.m. June 4, 2008
Either way you look at it, California is opening Pandora's Box.
Personally, I LOVE it!! Great news to hear just before this weekend!!
Personally, I LOVE it!! Great news to hear just before this weekend!!
the point is... | 1:17 p.m. June 4, 2008
You all are missing the point of the article. It's not that Mark Shurtleff
was trying to make some moral outcry...it's money we're talking about
here. The California Supreme Court upheld a challenge to that state's
stance on gay marriages. This will spur people in other states to challenge
their states' stances on gay marriages. Whether that's good or bad is
irrelevant -- it simply means that Utah is going to get sued. Litigation
expenses will cost the state a lot of money. Mark Shurtleff and the other
Attorney Generals were simply trying to get California to wait and see how
things will pan out in California after the people of California get to vote
(not for president, but for a gay marriage ban in their state constitution).
The idea was that such an outcome in California could halt the lawsuits against
Utah and other states.
A few points | 1:20 p.m. June 4, 2008
They wanted the delay until November election because Californians qualified a
ballot proposition (with about double the number of required signatures) to
amend the CA constitution to protect traditional marriage.
Government involvement in marriage has one main purpose, to protect the interests of vulnerable citizens, i.e. children and mothers. Since gays don't have children in the normal course of things, and such relationships don't involve a disadvantaged partner (such as a woman who bears children and is the primary caregiver, thus limiting her earnings and career opportunities), there's nobody to protect. Yes, gays can have children from former relationships or adoption or infertility treatment, but those are exceptions, not the norm. Gay households in general are far wealthier than the average American household, so there's also nobody to protect financially. Any contractual benefit that accrues to marriage can be obtained through other legal means anyway.
As far as sexual relationships go, limiting marriage to one man/one woman has no effect on gays. Nobody cares what they do, and the SCOTUS ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional, if on very shaky grounds. Someday the incest and polygamy laws are going to be thrown out too, and we'll have ourselves to blame.
Government involvement in marriage has one main purpose, to protect the interests of vulnerable citizens, i.e. children and mothers. Since gays don't have children in the normal course of things, and such relationships don't involve a disadvantaged partner (such as a woman who bears children and is the primary caregiver, thus limiting her earnings and career opportunities), there's nobody to protect. Yes, gays can have children from former relationships or adoption or infertility treatment, but those are exceptions, not the norm. Gay households in general are far wealthier than the average American household, so there's also nobody to protect financially. Any contractual benefit that accrues to marriage can be obtained through other legal means anyway.
As far as sexual relationships go, limiting marriage to one man/one woman has no effect on gays. Nobody cares what they do, and the SCOTUS ruled that sodomy laws were unconstitutional, if on very shaky grounds. Someday the incest and polygamy laws are going to be thrown out too, and we'll have ourselves to blame.
california voter | 1:21 p.m. June 4, 2008
To re Gay:
In many cases it is. Some people are wired that way, others enjoy the attention, others just like the thrill of that lifestyle, etc... There are many reasons. Unfortunately, the human mind is very adaptable and even if the lifestyle is started for reasons other than biological makeup, it can finish as a bit of an addiction. Only God knows the specifics of each case!
Nonetheless, homosexual marriage defeats the whole purpose of marriage since marriage is designed to be a commitment between a man and a woman under which they can bring children into the world. This fundamental part of a marriage union is not possible with homosexual marriage.
In many cases it is. Some people are wired that way, others enjoy the attention, others just like the thrill of that lifestyle, etc... There are many reasons. Unfortunately, the human mind is very adaptable and even if the lifestyle is started for reasons other than biological makeup, it can finish as a bit of an addiction. Only God knows the specifics of each case!
Nonetheless, homosexual marriage defeats the whole purpose of marriage since marriage is designed to be a commitment between a man and a woman under which they can bring children into the world. This fundamental part of a marriage union is not possible with homosexual marriage.
Oh Goody | 1:21 p.m. June 4, 2008
Here we go again with the same bible quoting, natural vs un-natural, protect the
traditional family, "Won't someone PLEASE think of the
children??" unoriginal rhetoric.
Times are changing in the way gay people are being treated. Accept it and move on, or pull over and let the rest of us pass you by.
Times are changing in the way gay people are being treated. Accept it and move on, or pull over and let the rest of us pass you by.
Me | 1:24 p.m. June 4, 2008
I've got more important things to worry about than whether 2 people of the
same sex want to get married. How about this. Live and let live.
@ California voter | 1:28 p.m. June 4, 2008
You are 100% correct. And even if the results were true, I would like to see
more than a 1% difference. It's going to get interesting in California
between now and November. I'm just waiting to see how much the LDS church
funds the anti gay marriage side of things this time.
Brandon Burt | 1:29 p.m. June 4, 2008
Utah's anti-marriage amendment will be challenged in court regardless of
what happens in California. It's not a matter of "if" but
"when."
Massachusetts has had marriage equality for years now, with no ill effects. California's law does not have the residency requirement Massachusetts' does, which may mean Utah's amendment will be challenged a bit sooner--but people from Massachusetts move to Utah.
The Utah challenge will happen either way. To pretend that California's so-called "activist" Republican judges have anything to do with it is disingenuous.
Massachusetts has had marriage equality for years now, with no ill effects. California's law does not have the residency requirement Massachusetts' does, which may mean Utah's amendment will be challenged a bit sooner--but people from Massachusetts move to Utah.
The Utah challenge will happen either way. To pretend that California's so-called "activist" Republican judges have anything to do with it is disingenuous.
NorCal | 1:30 p.m. June 4, 2008
Utah needs to worry about Utah. Please stay out of our states business. We
don't want Sacramento to be controlled by a theology.
MY SLC | 1:34 p.m. June 4, 2008
Great News! Congratulations California and to my brothers and sisters there!
california voter | 1:36 p.m. June 4, 2008
"Times are changing"...
Sure, times change but certain things don't. For example, homosexual marriages cannot produce children. No matter how much we try to pretend that things are changing, this fundamental rule of nature slaps us in the face and reminds us that some things are not changing at all. Just as true today as it was at the beginning of the human civilization.
Sure, times change but certain things don't. For example, homosexual marriages cannot produce children. No matter how much we try to pretend that things are changing, this fundamental rule of nature slaps us in the face and reminds us that some things are not changing at all. Just as true today as it was at the beginning of the human civilization.
K.C. | 1:37 p.m. June 4, 2008
california voter: - "Your 51% statistics are based on polling which of
course is VERY error prone. Don't assume that a majority of us are pro gay
marriage ... Let's wait until November."
california voter is correct. I expect this is going to be a nasty fight over the next 4 months or so. California voter, I assume will be voting FOR the amendment. I, another california voter, will be voting against it.
I'm very curious to see what official involvement, if any, the LDS church will pursue.
california voter is correct. I expect this is going to be a nasty fight over the next 4 months or so. California voter, I assume will be voting FOR the amendment. I, another california voter, will be voting against it.
I'm very curious to see what official involvement, if any, the LDS church will pursue.
Oregon Man | 1:41 p.m. June 4, 2008
Let's get an undeniable fact straight: The partnership of two males or two
females is not the biological equivalent of the union of a male and female.
Only a heterosexual union can reproduce our species. In the effort to receive
equal treatment what will homosexual partnerships tell the children they raise?
Will they deny them their right to know their biological heritage? How will
they confront this when their children ask? Is the reproduction of our species
to become something unnatural, or in other words, not to proceed in the manner
nature has intended since our species has been on this planet? Or will the
homosexual community try to create a new world order where children are
propagated for placement in any type of union?
Don't suggest to me that a homosexual union is biologically equivalent to my heterosexual one. To say otherwise is biologically indefensible.
Don't suggest to me that a homosexual union is biologically equivalent to my heterosexual one. To say otherwise is biologically indefensible.
CA voter | 1:44 p.m. June 4, 2008
The tend in California is an increase in voters changing to pro gay marriage at
a rate of 1.3% a year. If this tend keeps up. Nearly 52% will vote in favor of
gay marriages in November. Living in California I've passed through
Bakersfield so I know California has conservative strong holds. Living in
California do you really think we in California need to be lectured on morality
by the state the gave America its most scandalous Olympics?
Anonymous | 1:52 p.m. June 4, 2008
This is shaping up to be another Roe vs. Wade deal.
And after all the moralizing, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, family values BS, the US Supreme Court will rule it isn't really anybody's (blanking) business but the private parties involved.
But neocons hate to be told what to do. Especially if its a live-and-let live thingy.
And after all the moralizing, holier-than-thou, sanctimonious, family values BS, the US Supreme Court will rule it isn't really anybody's (blanking) business but the private parties involved.
But neocons hate to be told what to do. Especially if its a live-and-let live thingy.
Go California!! | 1:58 p.m. June 4, 2008
...and take Massachusetts with you!!
@California Voter (2) | 2:00 p.m. June 4, 2008
Your argument against homosexual marriages not producing children is a lame
argument that has been hashed over and over again. If the sole reason to allow
marriages is based on ability to breed, I have a brother and sister in law who
should have never been allowed to marry. They had to adopt their kids, and I
work with a guy who he and his wife don't want children. I'm sure if
you try, you can come up with a better argument to be against gay marriage than
the continuation of the species. Besides, an earlier post by a person in a gay
relationship stated that they too had managed to have children.
To: NorCal | 2:03 p.m. June 4, 2008
HA!! I had Coke come out my nose!! Great comment, and oh, so true. Utah needs
to worry about Utah. Don't we have some Polygamists that are breaking the
marriage laws here?? Maybe the Attorney General for Utah needs to look into
THEM!! Shouldn't they be rounded up ala Texas justice style??
Kids need loving families too | 2:13 p.m. June 4, 2008
There are a tremendous number of kids in the foster system or otherwise
unwanted. If two "dudes" want to take them in, love them, and pour
their hearts into raising a family - then why can't they be a legal family?
I understand that the Church won't accept them; but, the State should.
It's not all about "reproducing". Also, research suggests the kids turn out to be happy, healthy, and normal.
It's not all about "reproducing". Also, research suggests the kids turn out to be happy, healthy, and normal.
Who are you people? | 2:17 p.m. June 4, 2008
Who are all the freaks commenting on this story?
Why are all these gay California people commenting on a Deseret News story in Utah?
And now I am surely going to be called a bigot by all the gay people. No, I have a right to an opinion protected by the Constitution - GAY Marriage is not protected by the Constitution (except for the recent change in MA) and this would cause the Founding Fathers (including John Adams who drafted the MA Constitution) to not only roll over in their grave but also to vomit in disgust. I do not have to "accept" your decision to be gay, and be "okay with it".
It is one of the most unnatural freakish, disgusting things in the world.
NorCal said: "Utah needs to worry about Utah"
Perhaps NorCal should worry about California.
Why are all these gay California people commenting on a Deseret News story in Utah?
And now I am surely going to be called a bigot by all the gay people. No, I have a right to an opinion protected by the Constitution - GAY Marriage is not protected by the Constitution (except for the recent change in MA) and this would cause the Founding Fathers (including John Adams who drafted the MA Constitution) to not only roll over in their grave but also to vomit in disgust. I do not have to "accept" your decision to be gay, and be "okay with it".
It is one of the most unnatural freakish, disgusting things in the world.
NorCal said: "Utah needs to worry about Utah"
Perhaps NorCal should worry about California.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Tiger opens with a 66 in Australia 1:18 a.m.
- Crash kills Utah County man 1:12 a.m.
- UCAT cheaper education option 1:12 a.m.
- Post office to be named for Rex Lee 1:11 a.m.
- Police probe synagogue vandalism 1:09 a.m.
- New charges added in fraud case 1:09 a.m.
- Mom takes plea deal in girl's beating 1:08 a.m.
- Drug trafficking operation busted 1:07 a.m.
- News yule writing contest starting up 12:59 a.m.
- Alpine District school honored 12:59 a.m.
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
- Utah Jazz have a problem at point
- 'Love story' of crash victim ends
- BYU football recruit turning heads
- Alta's Ohai is Ms. Soccer 2009
- Prep football: Felt's Facts Week
- 12 Utes return to Texas
- Cougars' defensive hoops clinic
- Wyoming writer amazed by BYU
- Long days for BYU interns
- House passes health care bill
287 - SLC council OKs gay rights policies246
- TCU showdown has big implications193
- Senators want food tax restored157
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys155
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd119
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections109
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges101
- Letters: Strange breed in Utah92
This week, I'm compiling my annual list of restaurants serving...
Advertisement
Latest comments
Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh get the audience they deserve and vice versa. ...
I find the rule,very discriminitory. I am not gay, I don't understand what...
I understand we were outmanned last night. However, this effort was awful....
My advice to Jonathan is shoot it when they pass it to you as soon as you...
Maybe they should try drafting a shooting guard who can shoot from outside ....
The sad thing about it is that there are actually people out there that are...
Thank you TCU and BYU. Your wanting to beat Utah so bad has to drive you...
Play fes and koufos. Look to the future. It looks like we will have two...
Oh come on. Obama's a horrible president, but I couldn't care less which...
"We had the best soccer of any place in the state. There's no disputing...
Advertisements