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
Potsdam, 00

For the ongoing debate there is something left out here.
The original term "marriage" and the State Solution to it, or the asumed traditional interpretation of the Constitution or ...etc....but :

There is one law that is not found in any book, that is the law of conscience.
People just know what is right, they just love to twist things for entertainment.

Who would not know what marriage is all about by looking inside of your head and inside of your feelings to do best for others ? We just celebrated Christmas, and with it the birth of a newborn, a child with parents. Who can deny such thing ?

So whatever the ruling will be, we all know very well what it is supposed to be.

St.George, Utah

One must wonder if the state of Utah is being teased a bit.
Remember the analogy of the crab in the barrel? The crab(Utah) just about makes it to the top of the barrel, only to again fall back to the bottom of the bucket.
Numerous states are doing just fine with SSM. There are more on track ready to initiate the law in their states.
This clarification by the Supreme Court was necessary so there will be no more hiccups as the law is initiated throughout the country.
Patience, my friends, all will work out for the United States to show the world we are the leader in equal rights for all.

City, Ut

WEST VALLEY CITY, UT said "This is just one more reason why I will never, ever walk into an LDS church ever again."

Is Justice Sotomayor LDS?
Is any of the rest of the Supreme Court who issued this stay LDS?

This has nothing to do with the LDS Church.

Leesburg, VA

>>Free Agency
>>Freedom of Choice
>>THAT is the plan of salvation and is doctrinally sound.

I think you misunderstand the role of free agency in God's plan. Free agency isn't license to choose to do whatever you want. Rather, it's the freedom to choose to submit your will to God. That's really the only choice we have in this life. All of our other important "choices" are really just tactical decisions about how we're going to implement the first one.

Of course, you're free to choose not to submit your will to His; but you're not free to demand that He (and His followers) redefine His gospel to accommodate your choice. He sets the terms of what constitutes a righteous life. You just get to choose whether you're going to accept the terms.

Leesburg, VA

>>Whose marriage was demeaned because a loving bride married another or a groom became another man's husband?

But that's not the only yardstick by which we should measure a change in society's moral standards. What will the effects be on society writ large over the longer term?

The problem is that, from a sociological perspective, we don't know. Gay marriage hasn't been around long enough for sociologists to develop tests and measures to determine its larger effects (positive or negative). Traditional marriage supporters can't prove empirically that it will be harmful; but neither can gay marriage supporters prove empirically that it will be helpful or neutral.

So when anyone asks, "who does it hurt?" the appropriate response is "how are you defining 'hurt'? What's your metric?"

Salt Lake City, UT

Children are the victims of those who desire to destroy the command "....Be fruitful,and multiply,
and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion ..."
Abortion prevent the birth of a child, and homosexual marriage cannot produce a child. Both are
intend to negate the commandments given by God when this earth was formed for the purpose
of bringing forth children, forming families.
There is only one individual who would desire this effort, he who was cast out of Heaven, Lucifer.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@Tekakaromatagi: Mark Regnerus basically lied about who was in that "study." He wasn't looking at same-sex households. Instead, he studied troubled opposite-sex marriages where one of the partners also had same-sex relations outside the marriage. That's hardly the same thing and his conclusions have been rebuked by most sociologists.

@Ranch: As a member of a denomination which stresses peace, love and equality, I'd like to take issue with your blanket statement that religion is the root of all evil. Without religion there would still be evil committed by evil people, they just would hide behind some other banner while doing it. Fascism, nationalism, xenophobia, racism and tribalism have caused more deaths than religion. Well, maybe altogether.

To Traditional Marriage "supporters": Look. Knock off these tortured redefinition arguments. Just come out and admit that you're opposed to letting homosexuals marry because you don't like homosexuals. Sex and birth occur outside marriage, lots. (41% of US births are out of wedlock.) Many straight marriages produce no children. There's no birth requirement on a marriage license. THE TWO ARE NOT LEGALLY RELATED, so you can't use that as an excuse.

Here, UT

mhenshaw says:

"Gay marriage hasn't been around long enough for sociologists to develop tests and measures to determine its larger effects (positive or negative)."

We've been around since the dawn of man. We've had relationships since the dawn of man. We've raised children since the dawn of man.

If that isn't "enough time"; it will never be enough for you.

Provo, UT

People are going to get these "rights" no matter what happens. It's only a matter of time. Where the tide of public emotion and opinion carries the blind crusade for "justice" next is anyone's guess. It doesn't really matter. It will overcome everything in its path.

Those opposing these causes have nowhere to stand that anyone else other then themselves will find credible. Whether there is a God in heaven or not; or whether or not he speaks; and whether or not you actually know what he is speaking matters not. You can't prove it. No one has ever "proven" such things. Perhaps the truth that governs the universe will be made clear sometime.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ duckhunter: The State of Utah failed to request a stay before the original ruling was issued - that is the stay to which I believe Cats was referring. ("Shelby should have immediately placed a stay while the decision was appealed.")

And yes - stays can be requested before rulings are issued. That is actually standard procedure in cases like this. If Utah wanted a stay of the ruling before it went into effect, it was their job to request one - at the very latest/least, they should have indicated to Shelby their intent when his office called to state he was about to issue his ruling.

When the State finally got around to requesting a stay, Judge Shelby refused it - but the State should have requested a stay prior to the ruling.

As to stays requested after the original ruling - the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals also refused (3 times) to issue a stay. The first two times they refused were based on procedural issues - the third time was because they do not think the State has a chance of winning.

As you stated, "Do you really think that pretending inconvenient facts don't exist makes them really not exist?"

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ Tekaka: One activist individual has stated that she believes marriage should not exist at all and you assume she is speaking for all homosexuals? I know men who believe women should not have the right to vote - are they speaking for all men? I know Mormons who believe same-sex marriage should be legal - are they speaking for all Mormon? You live in Saudi Arabia - when you speak do you represent all Americans in Saudi Arabia?

One person - or even several people - espousing an idea does not mean they are speaking for anyone other than themselves.

And, by the way, I know several heterosexuals who think marriage should not exist. Do they represent all heterosexuals?

As for the Regnerus study - Regnerus himself states that his study should not be used when determining the issue of same-sex marriage. There is nothing in the Regnerus study that addresses children being raised by parents in committed same-sex relationships - the study questions only pertain to dating relationships of the parents.

Likewise the Canadian study does not examine married same-sex couples.

All the studies prove is that broken homes are bad for children - and most broken homes are, by default, heterosexual.

Salt Lake City, UT

"@Tekakaromatagi: Mark Regnerus basically lied about who was in that "study.""

I am sorry but this statement is simply not true. I have read his study and the LGBT critics of the same. I encourage anyone who has the time to read his study and even the critics of it and come to their own conclusion.

My daughter who works in the medical profession working with abused and neglected children in California has found that a disproportionate amount of her patients come from same-sex couples and single parent households. She is only 25 and more strongly opposes same-sex marriage and changing the definition of the family than I do.



False. Until there is a ruling there is no stay to request. The judge issued his ruling on Thursday the 20th and immediately commanded it to be in effect before any request for a stay, other than a verbal one, could even be submitted. Utah immediately requested a stay and the judge waited around a few days and let a bunch of marriages be performed befor ethen denying the stay. You need to educate yourself not just on what actually happened but also on how the process works.

Now the judge could have automatically put a stay on his ruling knwoing it was going to be appealed and let the process play out but this judge did not do that, he ordered the gay marriages to commence immediately.

That you don't even know the most basic facts of this case, and apparently have no clue about legal procedure, makes your "points", well you don't actually have any real "points". Try again.

Riverton, UT

A commenter made this statement:

"Utah made $50,000 in just 4 days when it allowed gay marriage. Now, utah will spend $2 million dollars to fight it.
When conservatives raise the 'false flag' of complaining about national debt? I am going to remind them, of Utah".

I say to this,, some things were worth fighting for back when and some things are worth fighting or now... This statement reminds me of the Politician pitching the income on taxes for Alcohol, Tobacco and now Marijuana,,,, We see where the first two took us,

For the Majority of Uahn's,, I am sure they are supportive of the expenses.. As far as the National Debt,,,, irrelevant in this discussion..

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The United States does not issue marriage licenses nor does it issue birth certificates or insurance licenses or teacher's certificates. All of those things are issued by the State, as required by the 10th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is not about issuing a marriage license. There is no inequality in marriage laws in Utah. A man may marry a woman and a woman may marry a man. It does not matter his race or his ethnic origin, nor does it matter for the woman. There is no discrimination. ANY man is permitted to marry ANY woman (excepting those who are too close genetically).

There is no provision in the Constitution to allow those who feel that a doctor made a mistake when the doctor declared their gender, using all available physical evidence, that that person should think that he or she has been treated unequally because that person feels different about sex acts than others.

If the Supreme Court declares that "feelings" define a person, then watch out. There will be those who "feel" that because they were not invited to ride on Air Force One, that they were discriminated against.

Wailuku, HI

The logic some commentors propose is that God's law is not always man's law. The question is, who is God and who speaks for God. Religious freedom dictates that everyone has a right to the God of their choice. Why should one religious group get to use their opinion of what God says to trump the civil rights of other people that do not belong to their religion? Is this a theocracy or a constitutional democracy? We live under a constitution that establishes basic civil rights that no church or legislative body should have the right to take away from others, even if a disfavored minority.

aunt lucy
Looneyville, UT

My experience has shown me there are three groups of gay people: First, those who were born that way; secondly, those who have been abused and struggle to deal with all that comes with that; and thirdly, those who just choose it as they would choose a dinner item off the menu. The main problem I have with all this "live your life and let me live mine with the same rights" logic is that it only increases the numbers in group number three. The gay and lesbian groups have been very active to change the public's view of SSM as just a personal choice issue to the point that most today would just say "it's their life." You see many today who marry a same sex partner only to announce they are done with that and now have fallen in love with heterogeneous partner. Still all of this would be fine with me if I didn't feel a responsibility to bring my children and grand children up in the ways of God. Sorry, but that's the deal breaker for me. I will continue to love the sinner and hate the sin.

Here, UT

I don't recall reading anywhere in the scriptures of any religion where Jesus said: Discriminate against the "sinners" and make them behave the way you want them to.

@aunt lucy:

"I will continue to love the sinner and hate the sin."

Therein is proof of your disregard for your fellow men. Demeaning others as "sinners" in order to justify legislating away their equal rights shows animus. You would classify LGBT as "sinner", yet, according to your God, you fit into that category quite well yourself; in fact, according to the Bible, every human ever born is a "sinner" due to the fictional "Adam".

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Happy days are hear again. Shelby has been shown to be an irresponsible activists judge who has no respect for the orderly enactment of the law.

I am not sure what the actual outcome in the 10th circuit will be. I hope it will be a victory for Utah, Man/woman marriage and the one form that will allow us to connect marriage to child rearing. However, this is at least a victory for orderly development of the law, and the fact that radical rulings should not be implemented before they have been properly appealed.

salt lake city, UT

Bigotry and prejudice won a small battle today but the probable results of the war being fought seem obvious. The times they are a changing.

to comment

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