Quantcast
U.S. & World

Supreme Court: DOMA is unconstitutional; Prop. 8 does not have nationwide standing

Comments

Return To Article
  • Cougar in Texas Houston, TX
    July 1, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    plainbrownwrapper (from another article since apparently I cannot comment more than twice)

    My point about bisexuality and committed relationships still stands, apparently.

    From the BC polygamy case summary: "The subsequent trial heard from a range of academic experts, former polygamists and current plural wives, focusing ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY on Bountiful and the FLDS". This was the judges' sole frame of reference.

    Also from the article: "It (the ban) also shouldn't apply to common-law relationships involving more than two people, Bauman wrote, as long as the people involved don't formalize that relationship in a ceremony or have it sanctioned by a church or other authority." So, polygamy IS legal as long as there is no record of it?

    And then there is the repeal of Prop 8 predecessor, Prop 22, where the CA Court specifically cited the 1950s overturning of anti-miscegenation laws as a precedent to allowing gay marriage. So, 60 years ago, the people and courts distinguished between inter-racial and same-sex marriage while today they do not. The same will occur over time with polygamy. There is no reason for it not to. And many of your gay marriage allies agree.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 7:16 p.m.

    "LEVITICUS 26, is a real eye opener, of destructions that are comming to pass, for BREAKING God's Laws. "

    So what you guys are saying is that you want me to base my political believes on your fairy tales.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 28, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    Little Kahuna,

    In spite of your opinion, The U.S. Supreme Court is the supreme law of the land.

    Let the marriages begin!

  • kaysvillecougar KAYSVILLE, UT
    June 27, 2013 1:27 a.m.

    To use a football analogy, it seems like Chief Justice Roberts would easily be an exceptional punter. It's been disappointing to see him avoid some difficult decisions. Maybe he is wiser than I give him credit, but this is one of his disappointing decisions.

  • small town granny small mining town, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:35 p.m.

    Sodom and Gomorrah here we come.

  • Little Kahuna Rexburg, ID
    June 26, 2013 9:06 p.m.

    In spite of everyone's opinion,religious or otherwise, the fact remains that we have a system of checks and balances in America. That was violated today.

  • wigguynyc New York, NY
    June 26, 2013 8:18 p.m.

    Wow! It's almost like the Supreme Court said that the Constitution of the United States says that there is such a thing as "SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE.". * shudder* gasp* What's next? The Supreme Court will rule that "All men are created equal"??? Oh, my ! the blasphemy!

  • TN Cougar Johnson City, TN
    June 26, 2013 6:55 p.m.

    We are continuing in the moral decline of the United States. To be a successful country, we need to return to the Christian ideals that made our country great.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    June 26, 2013 5:50 p.m.

    Mark 12:31 says: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

    Matthew 5:44 says: "Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you."

    Matthew 7:12 says: "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets."

    If you go to a business, how do you want to be treated? Do you want to be refused service because the owner doesn't like your race, gender, weight, hair color, sexual orientation, religion, etc.?

    I doubt it.

    Then why would you want to refuse service to those who come into your business? Is that how you demonstrate your love for your neighbor (or your enemy)? Is that treating others as you would want them to treat you?

  • Fashn4LaDieS Tracy, CA
    June 26, 2013 5:07 p.m.

    1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. Leviticus 26 is an eye opener of a list of disasters that are happening, and will continue to happen if we break God's laws. Examples are destruction of hurricaine Sandy, sinkholes in Florida and Clear Lake, CA. Earthquake of 5.7 in Greenville, floods in Mississippi, and fires in Colorado.

  • Fashn4LaDieS Tracy, CA
    June 26, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    LEVITICUS 26, is a real eye opener, of destructions that are comming to pass, for BREAKING God's Laws. Compare that list to the destruction of Hurricaine Sandy, sinkholes in Florida & Clear Lake, Ca, 5.7 Earthquake in Ca, floods in Mississippi, fires in Colorado. Christians are trying to avoid a repeat performance of destruction, like Soddom & Gommorah's, and trying to avoid losing our tax exempt status, if we refuse to marry gays in our Temples.

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    June 26, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    re: Mr. Bean

    **@RanchHand:
    "If you own a business you should be required to obey law relating to non-discrimination."

    Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish... except for race, religion, national origin, etc.**

    So? Not everyone is what you are saying?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 26, 2013 3:48 p.m.

    @Mr. Bean – “It's not a matter of decision making capacities... it's a matter of Constitutional rights.”

    Agreed – and the laws regarding what children can and cannot do have been made, by the people, for many many years, so I’m not sure what your point is.

    Are you saying that if two children want to get married, contrary to all laws in every state (i.e., the overwhelming will of the people), the SC should find that right in the Constitution and allow the marriage (somehow based on today’s precedent)?

    Sorry, I’m just not following the dots you’re trying to connect…

    @Mr. Bean – “The point being... the Constitution says nothing about marriage or abortion.”

    Exactly – and so in both cases today the S Court essentially kicked it back to the states (as they should have done in R v W).

    Again, not sure what your point is… and I’ve reached comment limit so feel free to make whatever final points you want and I’ll try and follow along.

  • kosimov Riverdale, UT
    June 26, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    @Eliot: "I am genuinely interested in how LDS people reconcile their personal ideas on homosexual marriage with the doctrinal declarations of their church."

    It is OK for you to make this statement and to have this interest; I have no problem with having my actions and beliefs put under the microscope.

    Please, please, though: remember that the personal statements of belief made by one member of the LDS Church, who has not been authorized to speak in behalf of the entire Church, but only "authorized" to speak for one member: himself, remember not to take that belief as the belief and doctrine of the entire church. That happens far too often in public discourse, and it always bothers me. So, if you will remember this one thing, I will not hassle you for observing what LDS people do vs. what their church leaders say the Lord has instructed them to say. Those members who oppose their leaders on something so vital as this should have no difficulty seeing for themselves just where they stand in relation to the God who they claim to worship and obey.

  • JonathanPDX Portland, Oregon
    June 26, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    While members of the Church understand the significance and importance of the Church's stand on the sanctity of marriage, they must also understand that they cannot force others to live by their beliefs, standards, or desires, but obey the law of the land regarding the rights of others.

    This does not mean that the Church must perform or recognize same-sex weddings, or that the fabric of society will crumble, but simply that the government must recognize them for what they are: legally binding contracts, and behave accordingly.

    We live in a mortal world where celestial thoughts, desires and actions often run afoul of mortal realities, and while we must recognize that our brothers and sisters are not always perfect, they are trying to find happiness.

    I hope that we can allow our "better angels" to shine through and remember that our actions toward those we may disagree with may affect their future decision and acceptance of gospel principles, and that we choose to follow Heavenly Father's example of loving our brothers and sisters, regardless of their differences.

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    The first wedding recorded was not in Rome, but in the Bible: Adam was given Eve. A Bride is
    given in marriage by her Father.
    The premise that God "Made Us", is just not so. We are co-eternal with our Father. We are the product of our own decisions. Our Father is the protector of our Agency, our choices, even He
    will not force us to follow his Will.
    The human status can be affected by many things, but to think that God has given us our 'handicaps' is against the law of Agency.
    Same sex attraction is a condition. Sexual behavior is a decision.
    The study of history testifies to the destruction of civilizations because they fail to heed the warnings of their Creator. To many the commandments are considered optional, failing to realize
    that they are given out of compassion and love and to prevent the end results of breaking them which are eternally set.
    Should be interesting when the SC Judges stand before an even more Superior Judge than themselves, and it is reveals to them the depravity of some of their decisions.

  • kosimov Riverdale, UT
    June 26, 2013 2:28 p.m.

    It is OK for the federal or state governments to rule regarding the temporal assets of a couple, whether gay or hetero. I don't recall God getting involved with such things at all; I do recall Jesus saying (paraphrased):"give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, give unto God that which is God's", when asked about paying taxes etc.

    It is also OK to enact laws that govern the tax status of couples regardless of religious beliefs about marriage, as long as those laws cover only "that which is Caesar's". However, what has been done by these rulings is to make a statement about homosexual behaviors which has never been acceptable to any orderly society. NEVER. Homosexual marriage only makes sense when considered on the basis of the sexual relationship of the partners. Otherwise, it is simply sharing a domicile. These decisions are forced by homosexuals who, in my opinion, want to make homosexuality equal to heterosexuality beyond the issue of temporal laws, and that is impossible. One is a natural act, the other is not. Why can't we just focus on financial rights of couples under the law? That would be OK with me.

  • Mr. Bean Pheonix, AZ
    June 26, 2013 2:22 p.m.

    @PortlandOregon500:
    "Gays who get married in one state where it is legal.. and then move to another state where it is NOT, must now be recognized as being married."

    Not so. When I moved to another state I had to get a new driver's license and hunting and fishing licenses in the new state.

    @RanchHand:
    "If you own a business you should be required to obey law relating to non-discrimination."

    Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish... except for race, religion, national origin, etc.

    @amazondoc:
    "Every citizen of this country must live by the laws of the land..."

    Where you getting this nonsense? There are folks today who do not obey immigration laws... In fact, there are leaders in our government who turn a blind eye and let them do it.

    @Tyler D:
    "If cannot make any distinction between the decision making capabilities of adults vs. children, then you desperately need..."

    It's not a matter of decision making capacities... it's a matter of Constitutional rights.

    "Why would you assume that I agree with the R v W decision?"

    The point being... the Constitution says nothing about marriage or abortion.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 26, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    @zoar63 --

    "polygamists can hammer the courts with lawsuits...."

    That's their constitutional right. However, that's unlikely to change what the courts already know -- specifically, that both polygamy and incest cause high risk of harm to others, while homosexuality does not.

    @Voice ofReason --

    "1. An old, cynically legalistic argument..."
    -- Homosexual couples "conceive" by the same means that infertile heterosexual couples do. You can't invalidate one without invalidating the other.

    "2a. Gays suffer STDS at orders-of-magnitude higher rates. "
    -- which would be a reflection of lack of protection, not homosexuality.
    2b. "They suffer depression, suicide and self-harm higher than normal, and highest of all where it's most accepted."
    -- It isn't actually true that they suffer more problems in areas with more acceptance. The preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that emotional problems of gays are subject to societal prejudice.

    "3. They die 20 years sooner... "
    -- I don't believe it, but even if true -- how would laws against gay marriage change it?

    "4. Studies showing gay-raised kids do OK are fatally flawed...."
    -- Sorry, but this simply isn't true. Regnerus' "study" was ludicrous -- it compared stable straight homes with unstable gay homes, and had a predictable result.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 26, 2013 1:19 p.m.

    @Mr. Bean – “Why do the marriage partners have to be 'consenting adults?' What about the Constitutional rights of 'consenting children' to marry?”

    If cannot make any distinction between the decision making capabilities of adults vs. children, then you desperately need to crawl out of your Wittgensteinian rabbit hole of illogic (dug by Rush Limbaugh, no doubt) and rejoin the world of reason and rationality.

    @Mr. Bean – “Where in the Constitution is there any mention, explicit or implied, of abortion?”

    Why would you assume that I agree with the R v W decision? Personally I think it was an overreach and a big stick in the turning spoke of democracy and States rights.

  • Voice ofReason LAYTON, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    Contrarius,

    1. An old, cynically legalistic argument easily discounted. Virtually everyone knows that a man and a woman are inherently necessary to conceive a child. “Non-natural” means still follow or reflect that immutable pattern. In every single case, without exception. Even “clones” are really just identical twins with the same father and mother.

    2. What harm? Seriously!? Gays suffer STDS at orders-of-magnitude higher rates. They suffer depression, suicide and self-harm higher than normal, and highest of all where it's most accepted. They die 20 years sooner than normal. So-called "homophobia"; causes none of that. If disapproval really caused gay suicide, then why don't we see conservatives offing themselves en masse in San Francisco?

    3. You need to read more on this. Studies showing gay-raised kids do OK are fatally flawed because they use self-selected study samples, i.e. only highly politically motivated gay parents "applied" to be in the studies. More rigorous studies have found that children in gay households suffer higher rates of depression, self-harm, suicide, and later-life divorce and relationship problems just as their gay parents do.

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    June 26, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    This is so very sad for all the children who will not have the right to know who their father and mother are. Genealogy pedigree charts will really be confusing. And the work to fix all the confusion and to break all these families up in the next life will be greater. God continues to protect our agency and this is how we thank him. 5-4 votes by the Supreme Court show how very agenda-oriented we are being steered, rather than by law or principle.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 26, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    @bandersen --

    "Will you now stand by the court's ruling that marriage can be defined by a state?"

    Of course I will. Why wouldn't I?

    I will also stand by the provisions of the court's decision on DOMA which make it very likely that state bans on gay marriage will be declared unconstitutional in the very near future.

    I will also use my constitutional rights as a citizen of both this state and this country to overturn existing state bans.

    "Polygamy wasn't forced on anyone, unlike Gay marriage."

    Nobody is forcing you to get a gay marriage, b.

    @Tators --

    "Since Reagan was an avowed right to life person, this would not be a happy day for him"

    What does right-to-life have to do with gay marriage??

    I recently read a statement by some old friend of Reagan's, saying they believed he would have supported gay marriage. I don't remember who said it, but if I think of it later I'll try to look it up.

    @zoar63 --

    My apologies. In a previous comment I mistakenly attributed quote to you which were actually made by Redshirt. I'm reading these comments too quickly!

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 26, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    Contrarius,

    Well I guess the people who are polygamists can hammer the courts with lawsuits until they finally relent. After all, the road to same sex marriage was a long and slow process.

  • Mr. Bean Pheonix, AZ
    June 26, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    @MGB: "... than polygamy and incestial marriages must also be legal as long as they are consenting adults."

    Why do the marriage partners have to be 'consenting adults?' What about the Constitutional rights of 'consenting children' to marry?

    @TA1: "To all who claim that the will of the people in California was overturned - please remember we live in a Republic not a Democracy and not a Theocracy."

    We also live in a country run by majority... Or at least, we used to. That's why we go to the polls and vote on people and laws.

    "We live in a land where all should be treated equally. And we are moving down that road - finally."

    There are many who hope you're right... polygamists, people who want incestial marriages, etc. Their rights continue to be denied... Grossly unfair.

    @Tyler D: "... where in the constitution is there any mention, explicit or implied, of the Federal government's authority to regulate marriage?"

    Where in the Constitution is there any mention, explicit or implied, of abortion?

    @amazondoc: "Courts have proven they can easily distinguish between homosexuality and both polygamy and incest.

    Courts have often been wrong.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    TA1 says,
    "To all of those who are arguing about whether or not these legal rulings impinge on religious freedom - photographer, baker, etc – they do not - if you operate a business in the public place, you cannot pick and choose your customers - period."

    That is, in fact, almost completely opposite long-established constitutional precedent. The constitutional freedom of association, and the right to refuse service, is inclusive, not permissive. This means you can refuse service to whomever you want in your store, with only a few very specific, narrowly defined exclusions on which you cannot discriminate, as defined in the Federal Civil Rights Act: race, color, religion, or national origin. And even among those there are exceptions, i.e. the LDS Church doesn't have to let nonmembers into their temples, etc. Also, the ADA requires reasonable accommodation for the handicapped.

    A tiny handful of states, including California, have unfortunately raised one particular sexual behavior (homosexuality) to the level of a protected class, forcing tyrannical situations like the wedding baker who is forced by government to subjugate their conscience to someone else's sexual behavior.

    But other than those narrow exceptions you most certainly CAN pick and choose your customers.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:39 p.m.

    Contrarius: You seem so certain about following the constitution. Will you now stand by the court's ruling that marriage can be defined by a state? Or does the constitution only work when it coincides with your opinion? Exactly! I would prefer polygamy a thousand times over Gay marriage. Polygamy wasn't forced on anyone, unlike Gay marriage.

  • fmalad Malad, ID
    June 26, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    Thanks Ronald Reagan for Appointing Judge Kennedy. Now is the time to step across the line and love are gay brethren. I hope we can soon attends some gay and lesbianism weddings in this state!

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    To fmalad and mormonmeuk:

    It seems rather pathetic that you and other like-minded people are now passing judgement on others for having spent their own money in ways that were (are) personally important to them and consequently using your "shame" thing on them for "wasting" their money, just because it isn't in alliance with your ideologies.

    I'm proud of my fellow traditional marriage backers for being willing to stand up for their beliefs by spending their time and money in doing so. It's never a waste of money to use it to further causes that are important to you. It should be "shame" on anyone else who would deny them that right and criticize them for doing so.

    And don't be thanking Ronald Reagan and Thomas Jefferson for decisions they previously made that are now being used against their original intent. Since Reagan was an avowed right to life person, this would not be a happy day for him, nor would he be happy about this specific vote of Anthony Kennedy.
    Also, there was no homosexual marriage issue when Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal". Therefore, you are likely misinterpreting his original intent.

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    June 26, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    "The purpose of marriage is to link men to their children and encourage their participation in child rearing." John Lambert

    John--you are too smart to use that reasoning. Stick to arguments that actually make sense. There is no one purpose of marriage. Given this logic, sterile people or those who don't want kids shouldn't get married. Among other things, marriage conveys many legal rights.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 26, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    @Ohio-LDS

    "Also, the Proclamation is not scripture. It is a policy statement."

    Were the conditions met when the proclamation was proclaimed?

    "And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

    And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." D&C 68:3-4

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    I wonder what Brigham Young or Joseph Smith would say to someone who thought that marriage between a man and a man was superior to Polygamy? How anyone for Gay marriage could say that it is superior to polygamy defies not only logic but exposes an intolerance that Joan of Arc would turn away in shame!

  • starwishes20 sonora, CA
    June 26, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    I am happy this is happening. I don't see how people think that gay couples can't become a "family"...my cousin gave her baby up for adoption to a nice gay couple and her little boy seems like he's doing just fine (it was an open adoption). I think that things like drugs, alcohol, and child abuse would have more of an adverse affect on children than being razed by gay people anyhow!Even if a person thinks being gay is wrong i still think there is much, much worse things they should be worried about.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 26, 2013 12:09 p.m.

    @wrz and zoar --

    wrz: "Good news for polygamy, and a variety of other abhorrent marriage combinations. They can now be judged legal."

    zoar: " Polygamy is must now be accepted in any form that a person wants to define it."

    Dream on, guys.

    The courts are quite capable of distinguishing between homosexual rights and polygamy -- and incest as well. They have made these distinctions in the past, and they will continue to do so in the future.

    For polygamy, refer to the 2011 case in Canada which easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of Canada's polygamy ban -- even though gay marriage has been legal there for years now.

    For incest, refer to SEVERAL US cases, both at Federal and state levels (including in California, btw), which have very clearly declared that homosexuality rulings do NOT apply to incest.

    zoar: "why does that mean that only 2 people can love eachother enough to be married"

    Because some forms of marriage cause no special risk of harm to others (gay and straight monogamous marriage) while other forms of marriage do (polygamy and incest).

    Cmon, guys. Let's all try less hysteria, and more rational thinking. These issues are NOT the same.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    Ok, lets look at everything that this ruling leads to:

    1. The 10th ammendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." since marriage was never listed in the Constitution California defined it by the will of the people, and now that has been invalidated.

    2. Polygamy is must now be accepted in any form that a person wants to define it. If the purpose is to allow 2 consenting adults to marry the person that they love, why does that mean that only 2 people can love eachother enough to be married?

    3. Anybody who does not agree with Gay Marriage can now be punished under the law.

    To the LDS that think this is so great, lets look at the eternal picture of what you are supporting. You are saying that you want your gay friends and family members to have their progression stopped. An eternal marriage is necessary for progression, and God has stated that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Would you encourage your kids to only get civil marriages?

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 26, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    @atl134
    "According to Lds doctrine,"Gay marriage" will not be recognized in the eternities.

    Since I'm not LDS you don't think any future marriage of mine (which would be a heterosexual union) would be recognized in the eternities either since it won't be in the temple."

    Actually all Christian churches to my knowledge with the exception of the LDS Church see marriage as ending when a person dies but correct me if I am wrong. I would be interested to see any information If other Churches perform marriages for Eternity. The wedding vow says “Until Death Do You part”

  • my two cents777 ,
    June 26, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    @Germanygator: a Drunk driving down the wrong side of a road has what to do with Gays being allowed the freedom to love one another? I don't get your perception that these two subjects have anything to do with one another. A drunk- driving down the wrong side of a road has the chance of hurting someone else, mortally. A Gay who loves and is loved by another Gay is harming no one. There is no common ground on those two subjects, whatsoever.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 26, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    @Voice of Reason --

    Your "real reasons" all fail miserably.

    1. protection of natural human reproduction
    -- Many heterosexual couples reproduce through "non-natural" means -- artificial insemination, surrogacy, adoption, and so on.

    2. avoidance of harm brought by homosexuality
    -- WHAT harm brought on by homosexuality? The SCOTUS has already determined, for example in the Lawrence decision as well as in today's decisions, that there is NO public harm brought about by homosexuality.

    3. encourage beneficial presence of both mother and father for children
    -- a. all reputable groups of child-development experts agree that children grow up just fine in gay-led households.
    -- b. gay couples can and do raise children with or without marriage.

    4. strong desire to help our SSA-struggling children overcome their challenges
    -- WHAT "strong desire"?? More than half of the country supports gay marriage. We don't think gay people need to overcome ANYTHING -- except for prejudice.

    5. "animus" -- In the legal sense, it simply means "ill will, antagonism, or hostility usually controlled but deep-seated and sometimes virulent". IOW, not rational or logical.
    -- All your "real reasons" fail the test of logic, Voice. They are indeed powered by animus.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    June 26, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    Good news for polygamy, and a variety of other abhorrent marriage combinations. They can now be judged legal. And, yes, good news for incarcerated polygamists. When they get out of jail, which should be soon with this SCOTUS ruling, I suggest they sue the government big time for denying your right to marry whom you will.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 26, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    The right of people to refuse to support something they object to on religious grounds should be respected.

    In the Washington case the florist involved had knowingly provided floral services to openly homosexual people for a long time. Their refusal was clearly linked to their views on marriage and what it should be, and their feelings about proactively affirming such a relationship that they objected to.

    If those who want to redefine marriage would not try to use its redefinition as a method to force everyone else to proactively affirm their views things might be different. However the whole project has always been about forcing a change on the views of people.

    That is actually the most disingenuous part of some of the arguments. It is those who want to redfine marriage at least as much as those who want to preserve its current definition who see marriage law as a moral teacher. Both sides see that moral and ethnical principals are taught by the form of marriage a government recognizes. In this case there is no way for the government to avoid sending a moral message.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    A victory for States' Rights. Perversion will be held at bay in Utah. Go California! DOMA was futile to begin with and not according to the constitution. States' Rights won a victory here. It is the people that decide the law, not the Supreme Court. Now, we can have all those who want gay marriage to move to California. Utah has a chance to stand out, rather than being the sheep following the pied piper.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 26, 2013 11:36 a.m.

    Eliot – D&C 134, "[w]e do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government."

    The way I live my life is informed by my faith in the LDS Church. I served a mission, married my wonderful wife in the SL Temple, and do my best to treat everyone with love.

    The way I interact at a secular, civil level is informed by the COTUS and laws that flow from it. I would never force anyone else to serve a mission and I would never force anyone else to live by my precepts of what constitutes a marriage.

    The Proclamation is what is “ordained of God” per our personal convictions and it is therefore antithetical to our perspective of “free will” for us to utilize civil means to force said beliefs onto others. I can only speak from personal experience but I find people are far more receptive to my personal beliefs when I give absolute merit to their perspective and fight my tail off to ensure they are treated with the same level of respect as us. Gay couples deserve every legal right/protection that you and I enjoy.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 26, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    People who think multiple definitions of marriage can coexist do not understand what is at stake.

    What is at stake is the very meaning of marriage. Anyone who thinks that marriage other than between a man and woman is workable with the Proclamation on the Family does not understand the proclamation.

    Marriage is about obligations and responsibilities, not validating individual desires.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 26, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    The question before us is not about civil rights. It is a debate about what the purpose and meaning of marriage is. Those who favor Proposition 8 see marriage as a system set up to create the best situation for child rearing and that it needs to be in such a form. For them marriage is not about rights but about responsibilities. It is also as much about the children as the parents. Marriage is the union of two people, but impacts more than just those two.

    Those who oppose Proposition 8 see marriage in a fundamentally different way. For them to act as if their view is the only possible one is to negate the reality that there are different views.

    The defending of the true form of marriage is important in the long run. It is better to focus on large structural issues at some time, and having a proper structure of marriage is very important.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    I'm grateful that all of my gay relatives can now come out of the closet and get married. Well, actually I don't know if any of them are gay, but if they are, I'm glad they now live in a country that is more supportive of the rights of all.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 26, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    @The Deuce --

    "the ruling indicates that you can have whatever type of union you want"

    Nope, the ruling does not actually indicate any such thing.

    In comparison: Canada has had gay marriages for years now. Nonetheless, in 2011 Canada very easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of its ban on polygamy.

    If the same issue comes up in US Federal courts, the result will be the same.

    Polygamy and homosexuality (and also incest) are all separate issues. The legalization of gay marriages does NOT require the legalization of any other sort of marriage.

    @PortlandOregon500 --

    "Yes.. I do get to decide what I feel the "true sense of the word" is."

    But you shouldn't expect anyone else to listen to you. ;-)

    @PHolley --

    "Marriage is not simply about love; it is primarily to procreate and bring children up with both a father and a mother."

    1. infertile couples are allowed to marry, despite their lack of procreation.

    2. gay couples can and do raise children with or without marriage. The only difference that marriage will make is that those children will get to grow up in more stable homes. And that's a GOOD thing.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    I have read both Supreme Court opinions, and these bare majority decisions (both only won 5-4) are utterly chilling in their rationales. On the DOMA opinion, the majority comes out and actually says that Congress - and by extension the historic majority of millions of Americans - acted out of a "bare desire to harm" gays. That's the SC's way of saying hate was the only motivation for DOMA. Nobody in this country truly thinks that traditional marriage supporters are motivated by purely "hate", unless they are irredeemably ignorant. Every minimally well-informed gay activist, and presumably every Supreme Court justice, knows the real reasons we support traditional marriage: protection of natural human reproduction, avoidance of harm brought by homosexuality, encourage beneficial presence of both mother and father for children, strong desire to help our SSA-struggling children overcome their challenges..."hate" nowhere to be found. "Hate" is, of course, merely the left's cynical political hammer used to smash any opposing reasoned argument, so no one has to actually hear it. It's just very chilling to see actual Supreme Court justices play along with the lie.

    Just read Justice Scalia’s blistering and ingenious dissent. It pulls no punches.

  • Mormonmeuk London, 00
    June 26, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    I look forward to '8 : The Mormon Proposition - Part 2' - With the happy ending.
    Will the "Church" refund the $20 Million its faithful wasted?

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    The court has been wrong in moral areas before. How long was slavery constitutional and women' s franchise denied before these issues were corrected? history shows that a proliferation of culturally-approved homosexuality was not in the best of strong sustainable societies. Unfortunately the 3 percent of Americans that are requesting the legal rights of marriage to be applied to their unions have not studied history or the ramifications of their actions. I am not anti-gay, I am pro- Bible. Californians and the rest of Us have the right to determine the laws they live under. The courts are once again legislating from the bench; not constitutional and very self-serving and corrupt.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 26, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    The purpose of marriage is to link men to their children and encourage their participation in child rearing. Marriage needs to be in a form that represents the child creating process.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    June 26, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    To all of those who are arguing about whether or not these legal rulings impinge on religious freedom - photographer, baker, etc – they do not - if you operate a business in the public place, you cannot pick and choose your customers - period. That principle was established long ago. If you want to operate privately - than a different set of rules may apply. Not a difficult concept and it has nothing to do with religious freedom.

  • Ohio-LDS NE, OH
    June 26, 2013 11:12 a.m.

    (Eliot – Part 2)
    3) "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."

    Again, this speaks to heterosexual couples and I 100% agree. For gay couples, children are entitled to be raised by the mothers or fathers that brought them into the world. Personally, I believe we all have many mothers and fathers - anyone who serves as a righteous example that points us towards our heavenly parents.

    4) "Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

    Could not agree more. I am greatly troubled by the decline of marriage in my community. It is causing real harm. I take strength from both straight and gay couples who work to build strong families. I am particularly inspired by gay families that stick together despite so much opposition from the world. They are truly a light on the hill.

  • Ohio-LDS NE, OH
    June 26, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    Eliot, here is my reconciliation. I don't speak for other members and certainly not for the church. Because of word limits I will split this into two posts.
    As a general point, the Proclamation is not the final word, just one of many limited and imperfect statements during our journey. Also, the Proclamation is not scripture. It is a policy statement.
    1) "We . . . solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

    God's approval of heterosexual marriage does not exclude approval of homosexual marriage.

    2) "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

    God only allows for sexual relations between married committed couples who strive to become one. At the time of the Proclamation, marriage was only open to heterosexuals. Now it is open to homosexuals too. In my experience, I have seen God bless gay marriages just as he blesses mine. I believe the general church membership is also seeing this truth.

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    June 26, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    First, we have a significant historical ruling regarding the legal rights and the definition of what marriage means. I first want to say that this opens the door for a new understanding of what marriage is. Therefore, I do not want to hear anything from anyone on this site regarding polygamy, as this is now open as the ruling indicates that you can have whatever type of union you want and the Fedearl Government will recognize this for legal purposes. You can no longer discriminate based on having more than 1 wife or more than 1 husband. The second thing that impressed me as a US citizen, is that both the Fedearl Government as well as the State of California can decide which laws they will and will not enforce. Both agencies in this case would not support the current laws on the books. I like this new freedom as it allows me to do the same. I can now decide for myself if I want to support and follow a certain law if I believe it is unconstitutional. I like this new freedom that anything goes now. I support equality for all.

  • PortlandOregon500 Portland, OR
    June 26, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    @ amazondoc

    Yes.. I do get to decide what I feel the "true sense of the word" is. I am tired of people telling me that the definition of marriage that has been defined as being between a man and woman.. is now no longer valid. The small minority get to change the definition. So when you change the meaning of the word I declare.. that is not marriage. If it is... then it is a slang word because the true definition of marriage is and will always be between man and woman ONLY!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    If the Supreme Court says DOMA is "Unconstitutional", then it's Unconstitutional.

    We are a country based on the "Rule-of-Law". So when DOMA was passed... it was "the law" and I can accept that. And when a higher court rules it Unconstitutional... I can accept that. It's how rule-of-law works.

    I am dismayed that yet again our "legal scholars" ended up with a split down ideological or party lines (with the 5 liberal judges going one way, and the 4 conservative judges going the other). IMO the court should almost never be divided along political lines. Their decisions should be made ONLY by applying the Constitution to the question they are given (not their political biases).

    Obviously political and social biases are a significant factor in Supreme Court decisions, or we wouldn't have so many rulings where the 5 liberal judges see it one way and the 4 conservative judges see it the opposite way. We have ONE CONSTITUTION.... The decision (IF based on only the Constitution) should almost always be unanimous. But it's not. So much for the Constitution being the only factor they consider. That's all that bothers me.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 26, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    @RBB --

    "No it is not equal protection - it is the selective application of rights."

    Sorry, but your Constitution, your courts, and your government in general all disagree with you.

    "I do not have the right to tell you cannot do something"

    That depends on what it is you are telling me not to do.

    You certainly do have the right to tell me not to break the law.

    "but you have the right to force me to do something I do not wish to do?"

    Nobody is forcing you to get gay-married.

    We DO have the right to "force" you to act in a legal manner.

    "Equal protection applies to the government, not to individual businesses."

    Sorry, you'll have to tak up that argument with all the Supreme Court decisions on civil rights -- starting more than 50 years ago.

    @Fern RL --

    "Marriage has a long tradition of being a religious issue"

    Marriage was actually a CIVIL issue long before it was a religious issue, if you want to talk about history.

    In Western civilization, the first officially recorded marriages were in ancient Rome -- and they were CIVIL marriages, not religious ones.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    On DOMA, it's fascinating to see the liberal SC justices suddenly become Courageous Warriors for State's Rights. Quite a switch from virtually every opinion that liberal SC justices have issued in recent years. I guess no intellectual backflip is too big for them, as long as it gives them the chance to say "Gay Is Great!" (in sophisticated legalise, of course)...never mind the actual best interests of children and SSA-struggling citizens as expressed by the thoughtful, well-reasoned judgment of the People.

    As for the Prop 8 ruling, I guess the Governor of a State can now overrule an ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, passed by the People, by just saying they won't defend it in court. That means, officially, the People now have absolutely zero recourse, nada, if the Governor and his Attorney General say nyet to a law or constitutional amendment. If that isn't literal, factual tyranny then I don't know what is.

    Modern-day tyranny is evolving in an intriguing way this time around. Today, intolerant tyranny dresses itself in the sheep's clothing of "tolerance for difference". Congratulations; tyrants now have something that can be used to literally force anything on society.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    @defender
    "According to Lds doctrine,"Gay marriage" will not be recognized in the eternities."

    Since I'm not LDS you don't think any future marriage of mine (which would be a heterosexual union) would be recognized in the eternities either since it won't be in the temple. Good thing we don't base laws on what you think is a valid marriage for the eternities.

    "but don't ask us accept something we feel deeply is not right."

    Nobody is arguing that you need to perform those marriages in your churches/temples.

    @Charlemagne
    "Deciding the DOMA issue as a civil rights matter is wrong! Homosexuals can get married the same as everyone else but so-called "Same sex marriage" is not real marriage. "

    So did they decide Loving vs Virginia wrong because people could all get married the same as everyone else before that decision (i.e. marrying someone of their own race)?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    June 26, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    Unsurprising decisions today, narrow, specific and limited. Today marks a step towards equality, but only a step.

  • PHolley Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    Marriage is not simply about love; it is primarily to procreate and bring children up with both a father and a mother.

    You don't need a piece of paper to love someone else. If "rights" are a concern, in my opinion there should be a union for adults, regardless of sex or number of people, for them to enjoy many thing married people have. Then marriage should be completely separate, something for heterosexual couples to raise children in. That way, children have optimal protection and rights, whereas those that don't choose to have children can still enjoy benefits in a contracted relationship

    Children deserve a father and a mother. This in my opinion would be an optimal situation.

  • Civil Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    Thanks for all the kind comments.

    I am fully supportive of couple's rights, but as a group, a class, heterosexual and homosexual couples are not the same.

    Congress and/or the Court could grant the legal rights mentioned in the decision while recognizing that heterosexual and homosexual couples are different. Logic and observation show this.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    Dose any one here find it ironic that most of the people making comments about wanting the Government to intervene and stop Gay Marriage are usually the same people who want less Government in their lives?

    Congratulations to those who now have the same rights as an American as I do.

  • dalefarr South Jordan, Utah
    June 26, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    Given the LDS Churh's large commitment of funds and resources to pass proposition 8, it should have made a similar effort in the judicial system. It did not and mostly left it to others.Good lawyers make a difference. The case put on by the lawyers defending prop. 8 was pathetic and almost non-existent. Now its too late to do anything about the outcome. A lot of time and money was wasted.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    June 26, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    Oh how precious! One more reason for Heavenly Father to smile down on our nation. The state (government) arbitrarily decides AGAIN, who gets special treatment, and who doesn't. Marriage rights have been equal for everyone, for decades. Yeah, gays may not have been happy about it, but it was equal.
    We don't hand out drivers licenses equally, just ask my 14 year old! We don't give out building permits equally, just ask my neighbor down the road who is ready to build! We don't even admit college students equally, so why is this such a big deal?

  • Mack2828 Ft Thomas, KY
    June 26, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    And we as a society continue our ever accelerating slouch towards Gomorrah. Even just one generation before us could not have fathomed how rapidly this could happen. And all so cleverly packaged as "equality". Wow. It's breath taking. These are interesting times indeed. Hold on tight, I think there is much more of this to come...

  • ReadMineFirst Ft. Collins, CO
    June 26, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    Dear fellow readers: On the outset, let me say that I am just an ordinary person ...just a common member of the Church. Many of you will not like my post, and I know that I will receive a lot of negative comments about what I am about to say. I don't really care. This is how I truly feel. Today I want to say that I am more grateful than I have ever been in my life for the knowledge that I have that I know that President Monson is a Proohet of God. I am grateful for this last General Conference where Elder Bednar spoke about chastity. As for me, I am going to strive to live the commandments even more strictly so that this nation will not perish, and to repent of those things which The Lord will show me I still need to repent of. There are those who may change the laws of the land, but they can never take from me the laws that are written in my heart.

  • amagnetick AV, CA
    June 26, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    It is interesting to me just how misinformed most of you people are. You really need to do a bit more research before claiming this is over, don't take the MSM's word for it.

  • Fern RL LAYTON, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    Marriage has a long tradition of being a religious issue; and religions, in a land where religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution, do not need to explain why they do what they do.

    Marriage has also been a governmental issue, but there has to be a compelling reason for legal involvement. It is logical that the state should have a means of identifying paternal responsibility for children that are being born. There is also an unequal biological burden of childbirth, recovery, and childcare for women. For all this work and extra involvement, there is no Social Security benefits, or consideration for what is "non-qualifying work." Women who have invested a large portion of their lives bearing and raising future tax-payers deserve a time of preferential treatment by society.

    If LBGT couples wish to obtain children outside of the biological way, let them pay their own price, knowing it is a price that also must be borne by childless Hetero couples. If Hetero couples wish to use birth-control that is also their choice, a situation where same-sex couples do not share the equal burden with Hetero couples.

    In short, marriage is a benefit for women.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 26, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    @Arizonaboy --

    "Every individual business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone and not be punished."

    Businesses have not been legally allowed to discriminate since the days of the lunch counter sit-ins. There is nothing new about that.

    @PortlandOregon500 --

    "Gays who get married in one state where it is legal.. and then move to another state where it is NOT, must now be recognized as being married."

    No.

    That's a different section of DOMA. The court ruling today ONLY applied to section 3, NOT to section 2.

    I'm confident that this issue WILL be going to court in the near future -- but that is NOT what SCOTUS decided today.

    "Two gay people will never be married in the true sense of the word"

    You don't get to declare what the "true sense of the word" is. Many many people disagree with you, and their views are just as valid as yours.

    "Yes.. people will be forced to accept this lifestyle on a legal level."

    Every citizen of this country must live by the laws of the land -- whether they agree with them or not. That's what a constitutional democracy is all about.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    @Arizonaboy;

    I suspect you also believe that blacks should be required to eat at different establishments than whites and drink at separate water fountains.

    What a sad existence you live.

    As for those crying "sodom and gomorrah" - that was about how the people treated the poor and needy amongst them.

    If you own a business you should be required to obey law relating to non-discrimination. How would you feel if some "Christian" baker said: "I won't bake you a wedding cake because you're a Mormon"?

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    As in Biblical times, so it continues today...

    "The wisdom of man is foolishness unto God."

    That has never been more evidenced as with these particular court decisions and with so many of these posts who think these decisions are so wise and right. What is actually right never can nor ever will be determined in a popularity contest... whether from a court or in a newspaper blog.

    It's rather amazing (and this time sad) to think that so much in our society can be determined by the difference of just one vote on a court. Just one vote the other way and the entire nature of most of these posts would be completely different.

    Some day the real light of knowledge will actually shine and the contempt of mankind's foolishness will be shown for what it really is. People are not nearly as wise as they sometimes think they are. And a lack of humility keeps that from being understood.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    @amazondoc

    No it is not equal protection - it is the selective application of rights. I do not have the right to tell you cannot do something, but you have the right to force me to do something I do not wish to do? That is the typical leftist agenda. Keep your laws off my body, but I will use the law to regulate every aspect of your life. It is not really about equality, as the two are not equal Where A does not equal B, 2A cannot equal A + B. Two men or two women is simply not the same thing as 1 man and 1 woman. They are different.

    Equal protection applies to the government, not to individual businesses. If gay people do not like the business owner they can boycott the business but the business owner does not have the right to say "thanks but no thanks" to participating in conduct which he or she finds objectionable? Perhaps the black musician should be forced to entertain the local KKK, or the local Christian Church should be able to demand that a muslim restaraunt cater its ham bake. Freedom for Some! - its such a great motto.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    June 26, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    I woke up in SoCali at about 5:00am today. The night sky was fading as the Sun began to rise as it normally does at this time of year. My commuter train was running on its normally late schedule behind the Amtrak train coming in from Chicago. Yes, part of California will eventually break off of the Continental United States but not because of the DOMA and not because of Proposition 8. I think of all the California LDS members who were asked to make financial sacrifices to help Prop 8 pass. I'm sure there is a bitter taste in their mouths this morning. It will be interesting to see how the Church welcomes Legally and Lawfully married Gay and Lesbian couples at the Sunday Block meetings.

  • David Gale Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    This is wonderful news for civil rights. And the nice thing about this is for those who do not believe in same sex marriage, for religious reason, this does not force them to get married. And this has nothing to do with sacramental marriages that are performed by different religious institutions so for those who believe that marriage should be sacramental, they can continue to thrive. I've never understood how this would destroy the institution as it only adds to more folks getting married. The REAL discussion should be why so many marriages end up in divorce. This is something that should be addressed towards the heterosexual community. Statistics have shown that in those states and countries where same sex marriage is allowed, divorce is lower with same sex folks than heterosexual. The articles indicate heterosexuals take marriage lightly whereas same sex know the right has been a long struggle and don't enter into the institution as lightly. God Bless America and our Contitution.

  • defender TWIN FALLS, ID
    June 26, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    You cannot both claim to stand with the prophet and the brethren and be pro gay marriage. Pick a side. Please be very careful!

  • WON84 PLANO, TX
    June 26, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    The Supreme Court has gotten it right two days in a row? Never thought I'd see the day!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    There are quite a number of people on this thread who would just love to live in a theocracy based on their comments. I'd wager they'd scream bloody murder if the theocracy that won out in the contest here in the USA were Hindi or Muslim. Hypocrites. Fortunately for the rest of us, equality will eventually prevail.

    For those of you crying "the sky is falling on religious freedom" google "Paul Brandeis Raushenbush - I Do Gay Marriage" and see what an ordained minister of 15 years has to say. Here's a brief excerpt:

    "...there are thousands and thousands of clergy who feel that our religious rights (and rites) have been inhibited by DOMA and laws that limit the legal implications of the marriages we have performed between same sex couples.

    Today is a clear victory for religious freedom as it maintains the rights of clergy who say 'I Don't' to gay marriage, but liberates those of us who say 'I do.' "

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 26, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.
    (Alma 10:27)

  • PortlandOregon500 Portland, OR
    June 26, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    @amazondoc

    One needs to think ahead. Just because a court rules today that something is illegal.. does not mean that tomorrow.. they can change their mind and now make it legal. Funny thing about people in power.

  • Arizonaboy PRESCOTT, AZ
    June 26, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    I do not agree with the court, though why should our gay friends not have the same right to pay alimony and child support? Just because they adopt a child doesn't mean after they divorce they are free from the financial obligation. Our constitution was set up to protect the rights of ALL citizens. What worries me is the people who hold Christian beliefs who refuse to do business with such an allegiance will be fined by a government who feels it has the right to do so. Every individual business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone and not be punished. The gay right supporters however will not fell that this right should be granted. Welcome to Sodom and Gomorrah our new country.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    June 26, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    A little like watching a train wreck. It leaves a similar pit in my stomach.

  • PortlandOregon500 Portland, OR
    June 26, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    DOMA was more than just recognizing gays to have a married tax status. Now comes the real problem. Gays who get married in one state where it is legal.. and then move to another state where it is NOT, must now be recognized as being married. Two gay people will never be married in the true sense of the word.. that word has just become a slang word.

    Yes.. people will be forced to accept this lifestyle on a legal level. Yes.. forced! Another Godless decision.. it is like lifting the quarantine of a killer disease while the infection is still raging. The spread of the homosexual lifestyle being made morally and legally acceptable is sickening. What a sad day!

    It is becoming more apparent that this country and its leaders and decision makers are morally corrupt. Yes.. the people of this land are dwindling in unbelief.

    This is not justice.. but evil that has won today! These are the last days as prophesied. Oh how things quickly change and the hearts of a people turn away from their God. The wrath of God will happen and we can expect something along the lines of the Cleansing of America.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    The left may be cheering this on.

    But they have no idea what these decisions will actually do.

    They are cheering that government has given itself more power over you, over bedroom, over your church.

    They are cheering on that they just let the government into their bedrooms and their churches.

    They are cheering that government has place in their marriage, in their bedroom, and in their church.

    They have no idea the negative impact this will have on them personally, the increase of power the government has over them personally.

    They are cheering now, but have no idea of the insidiousness of these decisions, and misery they will bring.

    They would have had true freedom and liberty if they had desired the government get out of their marriage.

    But they have choosen otherwise.

    They are cheering now....

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 26, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    Deciding the DOMA issue as a civil rights matter is wrong! Homosexuals can get married the same as everyone else but so-called "Same sex marriage" is not real marriage. No single consenting adult should be kept out of the game but that doesn't mean they have the right to have the rules changed just to fit their preferences!

    Ruling that those defending Prop 8 have no standing is also wrong! Prop 8 is a lawful amendment to the California Constitution passed by the majority of voters. Allowing it to fall merely because the California State AG disagrees with it gives the AG a veto over the lawfully expressed will of the people!

    This is just one more step in the moral decline of this once Christian nation!

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    Much ado about nothing, a pyrric victory for "Gays". Homosexual marriage directly affects only a tiny minority of social deviants. Now they can legitimately enjoy all the headaches and heartaches of marriage - as if the law ever made any difference to those in question.

    Too bad the Court cannot correctly adjudicate something important.

  • Eliot Santaquin, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    I am very curious about some of the comments that have been made here. Specifically, Ohio-LDS, I am confused by your statement that you display the LDS Proclamation on the Family, while at the same time saying "There is no conflict between heterosexual and homosexual marriages." How do you reconcile your "no conflict" statement with the following statements in the proclamation?

    "We . . . solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

    "We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

    "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."

    "Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

    I am genuinely interested in how LDS people reconcile their personal ideas on homosexual marriage with the doctrinal declarations of their church.

  • fmalad Malad, ID
    June 26, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    Thank You President Reagan for appointing the historic Judge Anthony Kennedy! Thank You Thomas Jefferson for your influence in the Declaration of Independence stating that all men were created equal and all have the right in the pursuit of happiness etc. I don't recall him saying that happiness and equality is just for heterosexuals. Shame on the religious Zealots teaching bigotry in their sermons. Shame on you LDS church for wasting money on Prop 22 and Prop 8. You could have spent that money on food shelter and clothing for the needy.Shame on you Utah for not hearing and passing an equality law! It is a basic Human need to have companionship regardless of ones sexuality. Thank You Ronald Reagan and Anthony Kennedy!

  • defender TWIN FALLS, ID
    June 26, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    Those who are celebrating right now would have us change the definition of marriage. "Gay marriage" is not marriage. Call this counterfeit institution what you will, but don't pretend it is equal to marriage ordained by God. According to Lds doctrine,"Gay marriage" will not be recognized in the eternities. Those who profess to believe in the church must reconcile this truth. Those that don't believe in the church have a right to their point of view, but don't ask us accept something we feel deeply is not right.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    June 26, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    I applaud the ruling that will go down as a landmark decision.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 26, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    @MGB --

    "If homosexual marriage is leagl since there is no more definition of marriage, than poligamy and incestial marriage must also be leagal as long as they are consenting adults."

    Nope. Courts in both the US and Canada have already proven that they can easily distinguish between homosexuality and both polygamy and incest.

    Look up in particular the 2011 polygamy case in British Columbia, in which Canada reaffirmed the constitutionality of its polygamy ban.

    Look up **several** US cases, in which both Federal and state judges in several different states reaffirmed that homosexuality rulings do NOT apply to incest. If you're really interested, I can post some specific quotes in future comments.

    Cmon, people. Stop the hysteria. This is NOT the end of the world, and it is NOT the end of marriage. This is ONLY a step towards full equality for gay people.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 26, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    "We have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation."-Scalia

    What a hilariously ironic statement given how he decided the ACA case earlier this year. At least in the ACA’s case one can find justification for it in either the Commerce Clause or Congress’ taxing authority (which the court did).

    In the case of DOMA, where in the constitution is there any mention, explicit or implied, of the Federal government’s authority to regulate marriage?

    If nothing else Scalia at least used to be consistent in his jurisprudence – the man has now become a parody of himself.

  • tomof12 Provo, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    I think it regrettable that a democrat choice to acknowledge something important about the kind of relationship that keeps children and the people who made them together should be struck down. I find it in no way obvious that the "marriage debate" has to be about personal affirmation--that seems thin--but such is the turn this has taken.

  • FT1/SS Virginia Beach, VA
    June 26, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    Yep. Just like the great prophet Isaiah wrote in his book. Babylon in the latter days will lead itself down a path of self destruction. I wonder how many poster's on here stating to be lds or any other christian faith have read the bible, and understand it?

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    June 26, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    To all who claim that the will of the people in California was overturned - please remember we live in a Republic not a Democracy and not a Theocracy. We live in a land where all should be treated equally. And we are moving down that road - finally.

  • germanygator Apo, AE
    June 26, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    @my two cents777-

    It is also understood that alcoholics are "born that way", too. I suppose it's okay for someone to drive up the wrong side of the road just because that person was born that way. At least that's your logic.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 26, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    I'm glad my Gay friends here in California may now marry. There was a great deal of hysteria generated by the Proposition debate - most of it generated from outside the State.

    On mature reflection, the people of California concluded long before this ruling that allowing homosexuals the same marriage right the rest of us enjoy does not harm anyone. I hope the State writes a proper law into California's Constitution validating that reality, rather than relying on the Courts, however. This is as much about acceptance as it is about rights.

  • MGB Saint George, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    If homosexual marriage is leagl since there is no more definition of marriage, than poligamy and incestial marriage must also be leagal as long as they are consenting adults. We are in a sad state of affairs.

  • Igualmente Mesa, AZ
    June 26, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    Unconfirmed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork is rolling in his grave. Slouching Towards Gomorrah indeed.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 26, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    @RBB --

    "The greatest irony here is that the very same people who assert the "civil rights" of two men or two women to have a "marriage" will not support the right of freedom of association for a baker who does not wish to make a wedding cake for the gay couple, or a doctor who does not wish to do artificial inseminate a lesbian couple. "

    Discrimination by businesses has not been allowed legally since the days of the lunch counter sit-ins. There is nothing new about that. It's a part of what "equal protection" is all about.

  • Doc1895 Chassell, MA
    June 26, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    Homosexual marriage will end up infringing on religious freedom. The moment homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, all sorts of First Amendment freedoms involving the free exercise of people's religion will likely be infringed upon as a consequence. No pastor should be forced to marry a homosexual couple. No wedding photographer, cake maker, caterer, or wedding planner should be forced to be involved in these weddings. No church or any other location should be forced to be the site of a homosexual wedding. Children will be taught in schools that homosexual marriage is normal, legal, and moral -- and it directly contradicts the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. To create this special privilege for homosexual Americans would mean impinging on the First Amendment rights of more than 300 million Americans

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 26, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    @Stalwart Sentinel:
    "We do not live in a theocracy therefore theocratic arguments carry no weight in a civil discussion about a fundamental civil right."

    I would like to live in a progressive liberals society so if we strengthened marriage rather than redefining it we, as a society, could send the message that fathers should be responsible for the children that they father. We would have children being raised in stable families, less crime, less angry young men, less prisons.

    How is that a theological argument?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Good. Nice to see this move forward.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    The greatest irony here is that the very same people who assert the "civil rights" of two men or two women to have a "marriage" will not support the right of freedom of association for a baker who does not wish to make a wedding cake for the gay couple, or a doctor who does not wish to do artificial inseminate a lesbian couple.

    What you do in your bedroom is your business, but you have no right to compel me or anyone else to participate in any way with what you do whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.

    The second great irony here are those of you who purport to be mormons and then cheer on a decision that goes directly against the position taken by their Church. If you claim Thomas Monson is a prophet it seems a little odd to be happy when his position is rejected.

    Finally, the standing issue is a cop-out that should frighten everyone. The people of California. The State refused to defend the vote of the people. Now no one has standing to defend it. In other words, citizen initiatives are useless if the government does not like them.

  • Doc1895 Chassell, MA
    June 26, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    A worthless bunch of political appointees have overruled a majority of voters. The social and moral disintegration of the American Society continues.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 26, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    A great day for equality and a great day to be LGBT citizen.

  • my two cents777 ,
    June 26, 2013 9:20 a.m.

    For a long time I, too, was anti-gay and wrongly thought it was a choice made by those who are gay. Some years ago I had an "epiphany" and realized that many, many Gays are born that way. They were created by a loving Heavenly Father just the same way that those of us who are not Gay were created. Thus, who , among us, has the right to condemn them (or anyone) for having been created by our perfect Father? It is HIS plan and HE is perfect and who are we to go against Him and his creations? All things will be divulged in time- maybe this is the Time for this particular issue to come forth. Until HE tells me not to- I will be in favor of allowing anyone who loves another to flourish and grow- legally. The world NEEDS more love and less condemnation.

  • Ohio-LDS NE, OH
    June 26, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    Tekakaromatagi - as a child of the south, I can attest that Jim Crow laws were ananthama to progress. Jim Crow was an attempt to hold onto the racial divisions that the law previously allowed, but which were undone by the 13th/14th amendments.

    As to history bending towards justice, I could not agree more. Today is a big step in that progress.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    June 26, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    @Ernest T. Bass: "Prop 8 appears to be done as well!"

    The right of the people of California to decide things is done as well. Good-bye, rule of the people.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    re: Ernest T. Bass

    "After yesterday's horrible decision, they made a great one today."

    to Riverton Cougar

    There are some who live in a version of reality where moral/ethical (for lack of a better term) should *NOT* be legislated. The irony is; this is a center-right court.

    Overturn Citizens United & Kelo v New London and we'll be getting somewhere.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    "We have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation."-Scalia
    Ok, So Justice Scalia, what is you job then? If it's not to determine if legislation is valid under the constitution, what do you do? Maybe you think this law is not unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean the Supreme Court shouldn't be making decisions about laws. It's what we pay you to do.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    I can't help but wonder about the history of Sodom and Gomorrah and want they might think of these rulings, both before and after their demise. As a nation we can't afford to bring down the wrath of the heavens upon us, can we?

    Well, each at least has her/his agency to determine what to do so in that regard I suppose the rulings are a good thing, but be careful when going contrary to the advice of one's Creator. It will have lasting consequences.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 26, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    "What a pity, it could have been spent to help the needy."

    I disagree. Strengthening marriage rather than redefining is a social, liberal good. Children have the right to be raised by a father and a mother.

    There is all this talk of history. I am sure that White Southerners in the South in the 1890's viewed Jim Crow laws as progress. Eventually, the road of history bends towards justice.

  • Moabmom Moab, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    A hollow victory victory for those who choose the State as their moral authority.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    DOMA ruling in my opinion? No real surprise

    Specifics of Prop 8 ruling? No real surprise there either

    What did surprise me? Judge Scalia voted with the majority in striking down Prop 8 while Judges Kennedy and Sotomayor voted in dissent.

    Big, big surprise there.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 26, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    Riverton Cougar - As a fellow member of the Church, I disagree; I think this is great news. "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" is, as you can clearly see in the first sentence, referencing our view of marriage as "ordained of God." It is not speaking about marriage as a civil institution, there is a difference. We do not live in a theocracy therefore theocratic arguments carry no weight in a civil discussion about a fundamental civil right. Further, the last sentence is actually upheld via the two SCOTUS rulings today. Granting the ability to marry to more citizens further solidifies our Nation's commitment to allow people, of all backgrounds, to marry the person they love and start a family. Indeed, if you want to argue that a gay couple getting married in CA will somehow "cheapen" your marriage or your perspective of family, I would submit that the problem is not the gay couple.

    To be sure, I know I am in the minority among my fellow Church members but, despite the terrible rulings from earlier in the week, consider me one happy Mormon.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 26, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    If anyone needs further proof of the hypocrisy of the so-called “constitutionalists” on the SC, this case should put to rest any further discussion.

    The four dissenters have long been champions of States rights and have made careers out of checking Federal power – I guess all that goes right out the window when the Federal government wants to forbid something (beyond their enumerated powers) that either goes against these justices’ religion or that they just think is “yucky.”

    What little respect I had for Roberts after the ACA ruling is now gone as he and his three ideologues have revealed themselves to be agenda driven dictators.

    As flawed as Libertarianism is as a modern governing philosophy, at least it is a consistent ideology that can be squared with the Constitution - and the only champion it has on the SC today is Justice Kennedy.

  • Ohio-LDS NE, OH
    June 26, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    What a great day. The sun is shining in Ohio. So very happy right now. I just congratulated my co-worker. She and her wife are married under DC law and are raising a son together. Today their family is finally recognized by our federal government.

    I also proudly display the Proclamation in my family's living room. There is no conflict between heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Both strengthen each other. This is a great day for all families.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 26, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    By a 5-4 vote, the justices held in Hollingsworth v. Perry that the traditional marriage activists who put Proposition 8 on California ballots in 2008 did not have the constitutional authority, or standing, to defend the law in federal courts after the state refused to appeal its loss at trial.

    “We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “We decline to do so for the first time here.”

    Roberts was joined in his majority opinion by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor.

  • Ophelia Bountiful, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    Happy Day! Especially thrilled for my dear gay friends and their partners, and my beloved gay son and his partner. Congratulations!

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    SoCalChris: "Welcome to the rule of judges in California."

    Wrong.

    Welcome to the end of a majority being able to vote away the civil rights of a minority.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    June 26, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    and to think, all the money, time energy spent to fight Prop 8 could have been put to good use... I don't know, maybe feeding the poor? Ministering to the sick? You know, things that Jesus would have done?

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 26, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    Hurrah! The witch of DOMA is dead!

    Prop 8 was dismissed due to lack of standing. It will be interesting to see how the implications of both these decisions play out.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    Prop 8 is gone too which means same sex marriages can start again in California. All that money spent to stop equality. What a pity, it could have been spent to help the needy.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    June 26, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    Welcome to the rule of judges in California.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    Anyone who has read "The Family; A Proclamation to the World" knows that this is NOT good news. Read especially the last paragraph. This is NOT good news.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    Yay!! A great day for equal rights!

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    "we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation."

    But apparently the Voting Rights Act is fair game.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    Prop 8 appears to be done as well!

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    After yesterday's horrible decision, they made a great one today.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    @Civil

    I guess my heterosexual marriage isn't worthwhile in your view since we could not conceive. I thought two people in love, committed to each other, and sharing a life was considered a "family." I guess I was wrong.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    This is wonderful news!! Now waiting for the Prop 8 decision.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    I'm sure the elderly and infertile, appreciate your "civility" that invalidates their relationship because procreation is what binds a couple together instead of love.

    They made the only decision they could in a country that doesn't need a version of sharia law to govern.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 26, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    Excellent decision. As it should be.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    Marriage is about two people make a life commitment to each other. Some have children, some adopt, some are childless.

    It's none of your religion's business.

    DOMA: good riddance to bad rubbish.

  • Civil Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    Government gives a "right" or "status" that nature has not -- the ability to create a "family."