Deseret News | California court denies Shurtleff request to delay same-sex marriages

Reader comments
California court denies Shurtleff request to delay same-sex marriages

142 comments | Read story

DICK | 2:21 p.m. June 4, 2008

Trust Shurtluft to stick his nose into something that does`nt concern him.

I-survived-roe-v-wade | 2:23 p.m. June 4, 2008

Guess what is next? Polygamy has to be legalized. Don't they have rights as well? Once gay marriage is legal, polygamy will be next.
With liberals killing their babies(abortion) and not procreating, give it a few years and there will only be conservatives left. you watch...

YBU | 2:26 p.m. June 4, 2008

Why do we call it "traditional marriage" when it has changed so much just in the last century. Women are not property any longer and polygamy has been outlawed. Real tradional marriage was a polygamous one. It changed with the Roman Empire. So, really people are just saying, "keep it like it was when I was born."

Comments continue below

YBU | 2:28 p.m. June 4, 2008

Or more like I want marriage to be what I was taught it meant.

Open your minds, people.

Anonymous | 2:28 p.m. June 4, 2008

Same sex marriage is a sad perversion of nature, it reminds me of the sick and delusionaly idea that the universe is controlled by a human like man. The only way either of these illogical concoctions can endure is if they are taught to childen beginning at a very young age. I feel ever more alone amongst my fellow American citizens.

my 2 cents | 2:28 p.m. June 4, 2008

How many words have more than one meaning? Lots and lots. We have different kinds of marriage already:

civil marriage

church marriage

temple marriage
and now

same-sex marriage

It does not change the defination of temple marriage to add same-sex marriage. It does not change anything but add something more to a lot of people's lives.

Heck of a comment | 2:29 p.m. June 4, 2008

There was a comment above about a Gay Relocation Program where we could send them all to California free of charge. Kind of their own big giant Sodom.

I am all for this idea and I want to know how I can donate to this noble cause.

Someone get this up and running I would be more than happy to serve as General Legal Counsel free of Charge. I just can't get over the genius of this idea.

My observation....... | 2:39 p.m. June 4, 2008

After reading through everyone's comments, I can't help but notice how much hatred there is in the world. As I recall Pres. Hinckley said love the person not the sin. For those of us who are "Mormon" think of the signs of the times, and just be at peace. For California, they have always done what they want regardless of the society "norm." So why do we think it would change with this? Financially, Utah had an argument! As for anyone who tries to sue Utah based off of California's ruling, they aren't very intelligent trying to fight the most conservative state in the Union. To everyone who thinks that every republican is a conservative bigot, don't stereotype because of experiences you have had especially when it comes to "Mormons," not all of us are republican. Also, I would like to point out that "Mormonism" is not the only religion against gay marriage, do your research, most religions condon gay marriage.To those of you who wish to get married, best of wishes. You are just helping me further determine what is right and wrong in my life.

RE I survived 2:23 | 2:44 p.m. June 4, 2008

Then what are you worried about? Let the gays marry, they will die off since they can't breed and those who do are aborting their offspring so there won't be any replacements. If anything by legalizing samed sex marriages you could speed up the whole process and have your own little conservative Xanadu that much sooner.

To: NorCal | 2:46 p.m. June 4, 2008

Ainï¿½t it the truth?

I turned down a lucrative transfer to SLC from CA because I knew I wouldnï¿½t be able to stomach the theocratic politics and lifestyle---not to mention I was concerned for the social lives of my non-mormon kids. Utah has no business in CA politics. So glad the CA courts kicked Shurtleff and the others to the curb.

@ anon 2:28 | 2:46 p.m. June 4, 2008

HOW exactly is marriage "natural"? It's a legal commitment between two people with religious over tones. What is natural about either legal commitments or religion? Especially when religion and nature seem to collide. It seems to me you have your illogical concotions confused. Probably happened at a very young age.

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 2:55 p.m. June 4, 2008

I have no problem with gay civil unions. My best friend is gay and he is a good man, but I do not think gay people should be allowed to have the same rights as a man and a woman's civil union.

Is this really gay bashing? | 3:13 p.m. June 4, 2008

This is not all about opposing gay marriage in California. This is also about the legalities of recognizing such marriages in other states. There are a lot of unanswered question with the legalities involved in all this - and your state taxes will be go into answering them. That may be good, that may be bad, but it is a sure bet now that states will be spending money on the resolution of these issues. Best use of our tax money at this time? That is the issue. They are talking about the same thing with the Jordan school district split. Postponing any action(s) till after it can be arranged for the government to minimize all the legal cost involved in applying the will of the people, or court, or whatever. This is more about administration than amore.

To: NorCal | 2:46 p.m. | 3:25 p.m. June 4, 2008

Thanks for not moving to Utah. Preciate ya.

RE Heck | 3:34 p.m. June 4, 2008

NEWS FLASH!! Unlike the early members of the LDS church, this gay guy WON'T be driven from my home. So go ahead and pass the hat, raise your money so those who want to can move, but remember that not all the gays will be going. OH, and by the way, what was one of the big reasons for the early pioneers to be driven out? That's right, Plural Marriage. Good luck, hope you can find a little bubble to live in that doesn't get popped ny the real world.

Anonymous | 3:40 p.m. June 4, 2008

When you live in California, why would you want to live in Utah?

tyranny | 3:47 p.m. June 4, 2008

I thought California previously voted against gay marriage. To me, this ruling is another example of "judicial tyranny" (the courts going against the will of the people). I think the judicail branch of government should stick to interpreting the law not legislating it.

John Lambert | 3:53 p.m. June 4, 2008

To understand the poll we need to know the exact wording of the question. You get vastly different results based on how questions are worded.
Also, what was the margin of error in the poll? ANyway, just because someone is identified as a voter in a poll does not mean they will actually come out and vote in November. On the other hand, it is not yet deadline time for becoming a voter so a lot of things can happen between now and then.

fr1nk | 3:59 p.m. June 4, 2008

Someday gay marriage will be a fact, even here in Utah. As the old die off they young will not continue the retarded prohibition of gay marriage. Just like it took until the 60's to rid our government of laws that didnt allow blacks to marry whites. If you are under 40 and against gay marriage, prepare to be in the minority.

John Lambert | 4:05 p.m. June 4, 2008

I would say to my fellow Latter-day Saints that we should accrue less hate against homosexuals. People can and have over come this state. Also we must remember that there is no sin in homosexual feelings, only in acting on those feelings.
I wish to reach out the hand of help and fellowship to anyone who is dealing with these attractions.
However we can not change the law to support and give government sanction to relationships that are an abomination. I am from now on going to try and ignore the people who mock my position instead of trying to think about it.

Anonymous | 4:12 p.m. June 4, 2008

"Children suffer when they are confused about their identity. It may be because their parents or friends choose an alternative lifestyle.
"

I think you're projecting what you *want* to believe. I've known two gay families with children. The children, ranging in age from about 4 to 14, had no apparent difficulty identifying with their families, friends from conventional families or the conventional families of their friends. I think in each case, the kids were happy and I judged them fortunate to be in loving homes instead of the alternatives of foster homes or with mentally unstable "straight" parents.

Gary L. | 4:13 p.m. June 4, 2008

Ok fellow Utahns. Everyone gets the point. We're homophobic. That's fine--we've made the message clear. No need to send out any more proclamations to the world or have our attorney general meddle in California's affairs. Let's go back to talking about how great the 2002 Olympics were. Geesh, was this really the headline story for the day?? There seriously was nothing more important going on in China or Myanmar?

Not quite right | 4:18 p.m. June 4, 2008

Someone suggested that gay people can NOT reproduce. That may have been true in the past, but nowadays artificial insemination is certainly possible for any female who is willing to pay for it.

And who knows what alternatives might be possible in the future--perhaps we will simply clone our children by then.

The times they are a-changin!

Jon B. Holbrook | 4:18 p.m. June 4, 2008

The decision coming out of California is disappointing. This is just another case of judicial activism over-riding the will of the people. The role of judges is to decide on the constitutionality of a law and not make law. The California Supreme Court shou;d never have taken this case to begin with but referred it back to the California legislature. When homosexual marriage was mainstreamed in Denmark, the institution of marriage collapsed. Children need to be raised in a stable two-parent home with a mother and a father. When the family is weakened so is society. Unless the people return to God's Law regarding the sanctity of marriage and the family, our civilization will be destroyed as other civilizations who followed the same path.

kev | 4:21 p.m. June 4, 2008

to circus

remember the the US constitution does not allow a low to be retroactive so even if the people of California pass an amendment (Which I do not think they will) they will never be able to take away the marriages that will be preformed in california

Anonymous | 4:23 p.m. June 4, 2008

Californians and younger people all over the country are more tolerant and open minded. Furthermore, the measure on the Nov ballot will be a constitutional amendment with a much higher threshold for passage. People don't feel good about legislating discrimination.

I'm with the previous Californian who said we don't need to be lectured on morality by states that have looked the other way and permitted polygamy for 100 years. Think of the welfare of *those* children and attend to your own morality!

Get Ready for Change | 4:27 p.m. June 4, 2008

Change is certainly coming. Our nation is experiencing a mind-shift that simply can't go back to the past. What I'm wondering is how much time, money, and energy people will be willing to waste trying to stop the inevitable.

I sincerely hope that Churches in California won't waste millions of dollars on this issue instead of using it for those who truly need help. After all, you can only spend that money once--and then it is gone.

I hope we won't look back with regret over the choices that were made.

K.C. | 4:30 p.m. June 4, 2008

J.B Holbrook: "The California Supreme Court shou;d never have taken this case to begin with but referred it back to the California legislature."

The California legislature has voted TWICE to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Our governor vetoed and said the decision should properly be made by the CA Supreme Court.

RangerGordon | 4:31 p.m. June 4, 2008

Oregon: Nobody claims that gay marriages are "biologically equivalent"--whatever that means--to heterosexual marriages. Nobody needs to.

Marriage is not a statement of "biological equivalence." It is a set of legal rights and responsibilities.

The state does not grant marriage in order to allow childbearing--pregnancy may occur whether a state-issued certificate is there or not, and a state-issued certificate is no guarantee that pregnancy is even possible.

Men and women are not "biologically equivalent"--and yet, in the eyes of the law, they must receive equal treatment. The skin pigmentation of people of different races is not "biologically equivalent," either, and yet the last time somebody tried to use that fact to restrict a person's legal rights, it was ruled unconstitutional.

So, Oregonian, go ahead and argue about "biological equivalence." We don't claim or want such equivalence. We simply demand equal treatment under the law.

Idea | 4:39 p.m. June 4, 2008

Government gets out of the marriage business altogether. Marriage is then vows taken however people want, if they want. The legal profession then fills the market niche by providing an affordable service to establish unions that grant rights in almost a menu style (you know, pick what you want - hospital visitation, funeral planning, who, what, when, where, and how, etc). Then go to a national sales tax, no more tax issues. A little tweaking of how social security benefits are paid and the soon to be enacted national health care after the November elections put the Democrats in and voola, problems solved! Complete separation of church and state. I don't see that society respects marriage very much anyway as it is mocked on all sides, half end in divorce, and 30% of children are now born out of wedlock. When you start to slide, it is always downhill. Peace!

TO: NorCal 1:30 pm | 4:41 p.m. June 4, 2008

Sorry pal, that horse is way out of the barn.

Your state sold it's soul to the secular heathenist years ago.

Change is good | 4:42 p.m. June 4, 2008

Lead
Follow
Or get the (blank) out of the way!

Life isn't like the movie "Pleasantville" where people are paranoid of everything different from them and nothing exists beyond Elm Street.

NorCal | 4:46 p.m. June 4, 2008

To - Who are you people? | 2:17 p.m. June 4, 2008 ï¿½

I do worry about California, thats why I donï¿½t want the Golden State to be turned into a theocracy. Donï¿½t worry, I will never move to happy valley.

typical liberals | 4:55 p.m. June 4, 2008

With liberalism the people never decide. Superdelegates decide who will be the nominee and judges overrule the voters' decision to ban gay marriage. Typical Liberalism

We the People | 4:54 p.m. June 4, 2008

California already voted on this issue.The judges though have disregarded the will of the people. Government for the people and by the people? Yeah right. Government for the people by the Supreme Court of Dictators.

Attitudes are changing... | 4:55 p.m. June 4, 2008

Think of this--has your own attitude toward gays mellowed a bit in the past ten years? Has the nation's? Our attitudes are changing. Are you going to cling to the past or move forward with the rest of the world?

Anonymous | 4:59 p.m. June 4, 2008

Tell you one thing, when and if there are protests against gay marriages in CA I'll advise everyone I know to look for garmie lines. We won't be railroaded by the LDS again like we were in the ERA era.

You've wrecked the Boy Scouts. We're not going to let you wreck the rest of the country with your narrow minded holier-than-thou agenda anymore.

ExMoWeHoMo | 4:59 p.m. June 4, 2008

A dream of mine would be for California to secede from the U.S. and become it's own country. We have the sixth largest economy and then we could progress without the constant bleating of the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging religious whack jobs who are intent on dragging the country into another dark age.

Times change | 5:02 p.m. June 4, 2008

Let's face it, the main reason given against gay marriage is taken from a very, very OLD book that has recently lost a lot of it's credibility.

People are no longer willing to accept all the laws of the Bible as being the literal word of God. People no longer want to stone their kids or their neighbors who break a simple rule. People want to eat pork and shellfish and play with footballs.

Are we getting wiser or what?

One Mom and One Dad best for kid | 5:12 p.m. June 4, 2008

Its about children. And you're wrong. They best evironment for raising kids is in a home with a mom and a dad. All the research supports it. The only research that doesn't was the questionable stuff reported by the rainbow colation. Not your most credible source for valid, reliable reserach.

Anonymous | 5:14 p.m. June 4, 2008

Once again, people who can only take direction from old white men are trying to hold back everyone else.

Anonymous | 5:15 p.m. June 4, 2008

Ever been to California?
Do you understand just how wonderfully liberal they are there?
Do you want to know why everybody wants to live in California? (And I'm not talking about those who cannot afford it)

Anonymous | 5:18 p.m. June 4, 2008

To the poster talking about the Bible:

There are monumental differences in The Old Testament God and the New Testament God.
The Old Testament God says "an eye for an eye."
The New Testament God says "turn the other cheek."
Big, big differences it seems to me.
I prefer the New Testament God myself.

Ed H | 5:20 p.m. June 4, 2008

This is terrible news. The fact is that two men or two women who vow to love each other and to take care of each other will make family fall apart and the sanctity of my marriage is now compromised. My goodness, what next? At least gay California couples now have the same opportunity to deal with divorce attorneys like the rest of us. One last thought; It is interesting that our Attorney General is concerned about two consenting adults doing something that affects nobody except themselves and then give guarantees to the poligs (who marry underage girls and kick young boys out into the street) that he won't harass them.

We aren't worthy :-) | 5:23 p.m. June 4, 2008

Utah may follow someday when a Utahan figures out how to transform gay marriage in to a multiple level marketing scam. Until this day, Utahan will point their shake their fingers pointing west in a disparaging manner.

California will not be worthy of the high standards imagine having.

The gay relocation program has bought many talented gays to California like California entices much of Utah's most creative people away. If you really do well in school and Utah universities Utahans can acquire more wealth in a nice climate.

Welcome to California were there's always coffee or wine waiting for you by a welcoming public.

To One Mom and One Dad | 5:25 p.m. June 4, 2008

People used to say mixed-race marriages were bad for the kids. Now one of them is running for president of the United States.

"the more things change..." | 5:27 p.m. June 4, 2008

...The more they stay the same." Many pro-gay arguments center around the idea that homosexuality is somehow progressive. BUT, there's nothing new or progressive about it. Homosexuality has existed and proliferated for centuries. Those who claim people are "wired" to be gay miss the point. I am "wired" to be attracted to the opposite sex. Whether I act on those urges is still a choice. When I get married, I make a commitment to my spouse to act on those urges only for her, to control my urges, biological or otherwise. There is nothing inherently, modern, or even healthy about homosexuality.

ExMoWeHoMo | 5:32 p.m. June 4, 2008

@One Mom and One Dad best for kid
"Its about children. And you're wrong. They best evironment for raising kids is in a home with a mom and a dad. All the research supports it. The only research that doesn't was the questionable stuff reported by the rainbow colation. Not your most credible source for valid, reliable reserach."

GUESS WHAT???? There are no laws preventing gay people from reproducing and raising children together. Gays can even adopt children in California. Denying gay people the right to marry WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to assure that children have a mother and a father. The only thing it would do would be to prevent any children in the marriage from having the same benefits as a traditional family. So what you're essentially doing is punishing the children because their parents don't see eye to eye with your absurdly ridiculous religious views that you're trying to impose on society. So don't even try to cloak your hate as concern for the children.

Oregon Man | 5:32 p.m. June 4, 2008

Ranger Gordon - Yes, marriage is a set of legal rights and responsibilities as defined by law. And Marriage isn't solely about procreation. Neither is it solely about love or mutual affection. It just happens to be proven by research that the reproduction of our species is optimized when children can be conceived and raised by heterosexual parents who commit to one another in a legally recognized relationship. Indeed, heterosexual marriage is the quintessential unit for perpetuating our species. It establishes the perfect framework for potentially bringing out the best in human relationships. And, ideally, the laws should be written to enforce natural consequences that enable the long-term survival of our society. Otherwise, why have laws?

Of course, all of this is based upon choice and free will. Just because marriages end in divorce or children are abused does not mean that marriage has failed. Rather, people have failed marriage.

So, because marriage is about love and commitment and legal rights and responsibilities, AND procreation, it is a institution that should be enshrined and protected by law. For this reason, homosexual unions are not the equivalent of heterosexual marriage.

Anonymous | 5:33 p.m. June 4, 2008

One Mom and One Dad per child per family would be the perfect fit.
But don't tell that to Utahns.

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.