Comments about ‘Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Jan. 6 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
American Fork, UT


Could not be happier with this decision.

Unfortunately though, I think it's only a matter of time before Gay Marriage sweeps the entire country. In fact, with the recent court rulings, I think it's only a matter of time before Gay Polygamy marriage sweeps the country too.

In trying to explain this gay marriage issue to my children, I had to tell them that our objection to gay marriage is based on God's Word (scriptures, prophets). And when speaking to someone who supports gay marriage, my argument simple falls on deaf ears - because the homosexual community does not even understand that argument. their logic is based solely on "man's rights". God has no place in their decision making.

Because if He was part of their decision making, and they were truly honest with themselves and others, they would admit that homosexuality is a sin. So you can't argue God's law with someone that only believes in "Man's rights".

And for that reason, gay marriage is destined to sweep this country...


No matter what you personally think is right or wrong, or what your moral stance, it is not fair or right to use a state constitution to deny another human being a basic right that everyone else enjoys. So you think marriage is sacred? Do you have a problem with atheists getting married? You should. So you think marriage is about the children? Do you have a problem with divorcees who are parents? People who can't conceive? Widows who are parents?

Marriage is supposed to be a personal choice to share a life together. It should be about love. How narrow the view to think that your world will be turned upside down because more people get to share their lives in love. How horrible that must be to live like that.

So many went on with their lives over Christmas as if nothing had changed for them. Because nothing did! If you aren't gay this doesn't change anything for you. Let it go. Let other people be happy. Let them marry.

And for the record, I am otherwise conservative member of the LDS faith.


It is common for the trial judge to issue a stay in cases where it is apparent that an appeal is going to be made and where the ruling is "new ground" with little precedent. You can't ask for a stay until after a ruling - since you wouldn't know what needs to be stayed. The process is functioning the way that it always does. A stay doesn't mean that there is a leaning on one side of the other as far as the merits go. Shelby's ruling was threadbare on precedent - ignoring the rule of "stare decisis" ordinarily required of judges in making rulings. We will all stand by and see how it all turns out.


@Jason Williams

You make a decent argument, except for the CRUCIAL fact that California (and most other states) voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. If you truly value our constitutional freedoms and rights, then you will agree that the voice of people is to govern. I'm all about equal rights for all. I think that same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into binding civil unions that offer the EXACT same rights as marriage. The problem is that now 5 judges can completely overrule what the people voted for. That is wrong on any level. Bottom line, the govt (state or fed) should have no business of being involved in marriage period. If they can completely diminish the voice of the people because they disagree, then we no longer live in a republic, but an aristocracy.

Honolulu, HI

Once the legal process plays out right-minded americans can only hope that equality triumphs over the bias of the religious majority . . . at least the religious majority in Utah. Most members of the Church stand steadfast with the leadership and their statement that "what God has said is immoral cannot be made moral by man's law". The problem with that statement is "who said GOD is against marriage equality?" If you believe God's word is handed down from the pulpit at general conference, then what's to argue? However, this country is not bound by the pronouncements of the brethern in Salt Lake City. It is not immoral for gays to seek love and companionship in this life . . . and marriage is what is recognized by the US government as an expression of that commitment. Once gays achieve marriage equality, the Church will likely continue to oppose these unions, but life will go on. And for the better.

Fort Wayne, IN

Historical attack on the definition of Family, originally husband and wife, (see legal-dictionary and Family+Law).

Historical Background. Most of the changes made in family law in the late twentieth century have been based on overturning concepts of marriage, family, and gender that go back to European Feudalism, canon (church) law, and custom. During Anglo-Saxon times in England, marriage and divorce were private matters. Following the Norman conquest in 1066, however, the legal status of a married woman was fixed by Common Law, and Canon Law prescribed various rights and duties. The result was that the identity of the wife was merged into that of the husband; he was a legal person but she was not. Upon marriage, the husband received all the wife's Personal Property and managed all the property owned by her. In return, the husband was obliged to support the wife and their children.

This legal definition of marriage continued in the United States until the middle of the nineteenth century, when states enacted married women's property acts.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

As a supporter of equality, I will admit to some disappointment, but can't say it was a surprise. To reject the state's application for a stay would have projected bias by the Court in a case they will ultimately decide.

But, let's look on the bright side. This temporary stay may give LDS Utahns a chance to calm down. You could smell the panic-sweat all the way from New York. Perhaps now there will be a chance to lower the adrenaline level and have an intelligent conversation. I don't hold out much hope that the Church hierarchy will moderate their hard-line stance in the next several weeks, but perhaps some rational thought and discussion will take place in the media.

Meeting some committed gay and lesbian couples was all it took for me to see that allowing them to marry was only just and right, and that there wasn't anything to be afraid of. I hope Utahns get that same opportunity.

Lehi, UT

This makes my day!

Provo, UT

Now, if only the South can have its legal right to enforce slavery again. I mean, the majority of its citizens voted to legalize slavery but the North insisted on invading the South and denying the citizens there their right to majority rule. I suppose the rights of black people meant more. Of course, Christian and Mormon heretics in Utah will continue to shove their religion down the throats of the minority in the state, and that's a dang shame. No wonder the Church struggles to get new converts from the state of Utah. Utah religious extremists are a poor example of God's love to those who have WAY different religious and political views than they. I feel bad for Utah residents who live such sheltered lifestyles because they never figure out how the real world works, just what's important in their small little worlds.

Salt Lake City, UT

"Actually sotomeyer is one of the more liberal judges on the scotus and this indicates where the court itself probably falls on the issue. "

Nope. How'd that stay on Prop 8 turn out for your side? It's pretty common for them to be issued (that's part of what made your side so annoyed it wasn't granted).

West Richland, WA

Don't get too excited, opponents of equality. This is just dotting i's and crossing t's. This way, another full appeals court (in addition to the 9th) is likely to get behind equal marriage, adding to the momentum.

When enough circuit courts have chimed in, and I believe they will chime in on the side of equal marriage, it will make it virtually impossible for the SCOTUS to finally decide for any other option but full equal marriage rights. It's slow and laborious, but this way no one can (legally) claim in the aftermath that steps were skipped, rights were trampled, etc. Sotomayor is playing it smart.

Jefferson, Thomas
Bluffdale, UT

It becomes mandatory for the Governor to stand up for a change and void the same-sex marriages that were rammed through by a single Federal judge. He has the US Supremes on his side without a single dissenting vote. Those marriages, according to the Supremes, should never have taken place like the were. He most likely doesn't have the backbone to do it but it sure would be nice to see a politician with that kind of backbone.

Fort Wayne, IN

From US Census dot gov. Unmarried couple or married couple is between a husband and a wife.

Definition of Unmarried couple: An unmarried couple is composed of two unrelated adults of the opposite sex (one of whom is the householder) who share a housing unit with or without the presence of children under 15 years old. Unmarried couple households contain only two adults.

Definition of Married couple: A married couple, as defined for census purposes, is a husband and wife enumerated as members of the same household. The married couple may or may not have children living with them. The expression "husband-wife" or "married-couple" before the term "household," "family," or "subfamily" indicates that the household, family, or subfamily is maintained by a husband and wife. The number of married couples equals the count of married-couple families plus related and unrelated married-couple subfamilies.

get her done
Bountiful, UT

Only a matter of time.

Sugar City, ID

The court should recognize that this is a biological issue. The purpose for sex is reproduction: 1) to unite the sperm and egg; and 2) to help the zygote to develop into a mature individual. In the human species permanent heterosexual pair bonds have evolved because it takes such a long time to train humans into mature, responsible, productive adults. Humans who grow up in a home where there is a strong heterosexual pair bond are more likely to mature into well-adjusted adults than if the heterosexual pair bond is damaged, corrupted or missing. In the past this heterosexual pair-bonding has been called marriage. Changing the definition of marriage will not change the biological reality of the need for strong, heterosexual pair bonds if we want well-adjusted children and a strong, healthy society. If we legalize homosexual marriages or unions, the biggest victims will be more children raised in dysfunctional environments resulting in more crime, school dropouts, poverty, social unrest, disease and misery. We already have enough social problems so whatever our personal desires may be, the responsible thing to do is to maturely and unselfishly behave in a way that will not undermine our society.

Cheyenne, WY

@ Father of Four
So I assume you will never read the bible again? Homosexuality is condemned in that text.
Now I do not condone the homosexual lifestyle, but the question lies does the constitution ban the right of same-sex marriage? That I don't know and it is up to the courts. If they rule that according to the Bill of Rights that same sex marriage is valid, then we have to live with it.
If it is not an unalienable right then it won't be allowed. If it is not then the voting citizens of any state should be able to decide what the people of the state want.
Father of Four it is hilarious you blame this on the LDS population, California voted against gay marriage and they are not LDS dominated.
That is similar to saying I am never going watch or attend an NBA game of any sort because the Millers own the jazz. It show incognizant knowledge.
The judge should have stayed his ruling pending appeal, it is incredibly rare that judges do not stay a ruling such as this. That in my opinion was grossly negligent on the judges part.

orem, UT

I find it interesting that one of our local radio talk show hosts is using Facebook poll as "the tide has changed" in Utah. How scientific....

I also find it interesting all of the "pro" gay marriage folks crying about the $2 MILLION DOLLARS WASTED! Oh the humanity. Really, two million is peanuts in terms of our State budget.

As a member of the predominant faith I support The Proclamation on the Family which concludes with - "WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. 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 invite all of my Mormon friends to re-read the Proclamation and re-think what side of this argument they are really standing on.

Pleasant Grove, UT

As with any state, not just Utah how marriage is defined in each state is up to the state and its residents. If a state and its residents vote to keep a law traditional marriage between a man and woman the courts should not overturn it. Likewise if a state and its residents vote for a law to allow same sex marriage it shouldn't be a decision even brought to the Federal Government or appellate courts. If a state truly defines what a marriage should be, then the California law should have not been overturned nor should the Utah law. IF marriages in a state were a Federal decision then all 50 states would be told to allow same sex marriage. As far as the commenter who posted about the non traditional marriage law of polygamy before 1890, that was then, this is now. 124 years ago, really? There were a lot of unconventional laws on the books in all states back then. Things and times change. In my opinion though, the marriage that really counts in the eyes of God is the sealing in the temple.

Palmyra, NY

Marriage is not a human right. The government regulates and prohibits all sorts of marriages. It does this as an expression of the will of the people. Government regulates underage marriages,close relatives, and multiple spouse marriages. Why does the law regulate marriage between people? Because it would not be good for them. And when enough people do things not good for them then it begins to affect everyone. No state has voted for same sex marriage. It has been enacted by single persons. Judges, county clerks, Governors, or city government. It is ALWAYS permitted against the will of the people. If you call an apple an orange it will still be an apple no matter what is permitted by law.

American Fork, UT

Finally we can get this heard properly, put all the noise about procedure behind us, and get the ban overturned properly so we can move forward, ideally in all states, with same sex marriage. 900 couples got married here in the freedom window, however, and I think that's fantastic. They're not going away.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments