Quantcast
U.S. & World

US Court: Virginia marriage is for all lovers

Comments

Return To Article
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 4, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    To "Ranch" thanks for quoting my entire statement. The fact is love is not a legal requirement for marriage. If you think otherwise, please give me a reference to the law that states that you must love the person that you marry.

  • ConservativeSmasher Anaheim, CA
    Aug. 2, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    Ranch says --- "Polygamists ALREADY have those legal protections for their first, legal, spouse. That's all we're asking for."

    Gays ALREADY have those legal protections if they marry someone of the opposite sex.

    Why would gays get all those legal protections for their "marriages", while heterosexuals would not?

    If marriage is a fundamental right for gays, why wouldn't it be a fundamental right for heterosexuals.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    Redshirt1701 says:
    "To "Kalindra" but love is not a legal requirement for marriage. The reasons behind why a person marries is not a legal issue. The gays have made it an issue and a reason for marriage."

    --- Actually, heterosexuals marry for love. Children are usually an afterthought (or, aftereffect, rather).

    "If you are going for just the legal protections, why should gays get all of the legal protections of marriage and polygamists can't get the same legal protections?"

    --- Polygamists ALREADY have those legal protections for their first, legal, spouse. That's all we're asking for.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    July 31, 2014 5:52 p.m.

    Yes for all Americans including the state of Utah! Love conquers all!

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 31, 2014 5:12 p.m.

    @ Redshirt: You are right - love is not a legal requirement for marriage - and as soon as we start lining people up, boys on the left, girls on the right, and you marry the person standing across from you no matter who they are or what you think of them, then heterosexual marriage will be based on the same formula you want to force gays to use.

    I don't know if the US will have to allow polygamy - it depends on what reasons are argued for continuing to prohibit it verses what reasons are argued for allowing it.

    If the argument comes down to "but gays are allowed to marry!" chances are the courts will not find that valid.

    I am out of posts, since I only have the one log in, but keep arguing those red herrings and ignoring the questions posed to you!

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 31, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    To "Kalindra" but love is not a legal requirement for marriage. The reasons behind why a person marries is not a legal issue. The gays have made it an issue and a reason for marriage.

    If you are going for just the legal protections, why should gays get all of the legal protections of marriage and polygamists can't get the same legal protections? Why are gays acceptable and polygamists are not?

    Yes legal issues would have to be overcome for polygamy to be worked out, but you appear to agree with me that if you let gays marry then eventually the US will have to allow polygamist marriages also.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 31, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    @ Redshirt: When the Netherlands first wanted to recognize same-sex relationships, there were many who were opposed to having that recognition be called marriage (similar to here). The compromise was reached to call those relationships civil unions or domestic partnerships. However, those who opposed same-sex marriage also opposed giving same-sex couples something that was not accessible to everyone else - so civil unions/domestic partnerships were written to be available to anyone and the requirements and benefits are different than those of marriage.

    For a civil union/domestic partnership in the Netherlands, there is no requirement that you must be single or even unrelated - this is why a man and two women were able to enter into a union/partnership together (which is basically just a formal agreement - also known as a contract - to care and provide for each other).

    If the Netherlands had gone straight to marriage for same-sex couples, instead of detouring to unions/partnerships, that trio would not have had the option to join together.

    If polygamy comes to the US, it will be through similar means. Allowing gay couples to marry, without intermediary steps, will help protect against the legalization of polygamy.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 31, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    @ Redshirt: Before polygamy can be legalized, there are many factors that would need to be addressed - factors that do not come into play when you are discussing a couple, regardless of the genders in the couple.

    For instance, when a couple divorces, it is easy to split things, including child support, custody, and visitation. When you have multiple partners, it becomes more difficult. What about decisions related to medical power of attorney, or tax filing, or end of life issues, or many of the other over 1,400 benefits given to couples when they marry. How do those benefits spread among more than 2? All of these issues would need to be resolved before polygamy could be legalized, since they are federal benefits and would need to be uniform nationwide.

    You appear to misunderstand the recent Utah polygamy ruling. Bigamy - defined legally as having more than one legal or purportedly legal spouse, complete with multiple marriage licenses is illegal in all 50 states. Utah had a secondary definition making it illegal to live with someone while legally married to someone else - this part of the law was struck down.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 31, 2014 2:24 p.m.

    @ Redshirt: "Gays say they want to marry the person that they love, so why does that only apply to gays in a monogamous relationship?"

    Are you married? If so, do you love your spouse? Did you love him/her when you married? If you did not marry for love, why did you marry? If you are not married, why not?

    If heterosexual couples can marry for love, why not polygamist groups?

    The arguments for same-sex marriage are not that gays should be able to marry the one they love - the argument is that gay couples should have access to the same legal protections and rights as heterosexual couples. No one has been able to present a legally sound reason why those benefits should be denied to gay couples.

    As for polygamy, there is much speculation that legally sound reasons exist to prohibit it. Until and unless it goes to court, there is no way to know if those reasons are legally sound.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 31, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    To "MtnDewer" actually you haven't even considered the possibilities. You could also have 2 men and 3 women that are all "married" together. There is no limit to the combinations that you can have.

    But still, I do think the most difficult situation is 1 man with multiple wives.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    July 31, 2014 12:29 p.m.

    RedShirt

    USS Enterprise, UT

    To "Stormwalker" I don't have a problem with polygamy other than I fear for the guy who has multiple wives and the hen pecking he may have to endure. I also think it would be difficult for 1 man to handle the emotional needs of multiple wives.

    *****

    Oh, but how the laws have changed since we practiced polygamy! Today, not only would a man be able to marry more than one wife, a woman would be able to marry more than one man!

    Did you think of that? Or are you stuck in the Biblical definition of polygamy?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 30, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    To "Stormwalker" I don't have a problem with polygamy other than I fear for the guy who has multiple wives and the hen pecking he may have to endure. I also think it would be difficult for 1 man to handle the emotional needs of multiple wives.

    The question is do you believe that opening the door to SSM will eventually lead to legally recognizing polygamy?

    To "Frozen Fractals" that may not be the legal argument, but that is the basis of the argument. Gays say they want to marry the person that they love, so why does that only apply to gays in a monogamous relationship? If gays are denied the right to legally marry the person that they love, what about 1 man and 3 women that all love each other? Why is the argument any different for gays than for polygamists for legalizing their marriages?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 29, 2014 4:57 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    "if you redefine marriage to allow SSM because of they are in love"

    You seem to think that love is an open door to allowing any kind of marriage to be legal.

    Same-sex couples want to marry the person they love. That's a fact, and thus that's where the basis for your slippery slope argument comes from. However, same-sex couples weren't first. Interracial couples wanted to marry the person they love. Would you say that redefining marriage to allow interracial marriage because they are in love would lead to SSM, polygamy, etc? No, you wouldn't, because you support interracial marriage.

    The thing is, love is just a reason why they want to marry. The legal argument isn't actually "we should be able to marry the person we love". The argument for interracial marriage is that race should not be a factor excluding marriage options. The argument for same-sex marriage is that gender should not be a factor excluding marriage options. For polygamy, they'd have to argue that number should not be a factor in marriage options. It's not a love thing, not legally at least.

  • Copacetic Logan, UT
    July 29, 2014 3:30 p.m.

    @ Stormwalker:

    You confuted nothing. That just took a lot of few words to clearly indicate you obviously don't know how much you don't yet know.

    But keep working at it. Someday Biblical teachings might come together for you and make more sense... thereby fitting into and adding a more proper and germane perspective of life.

    Maintain that hope and keep trying. I'm confident you're a good person.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 29, 2014 3:17 p.m.

    To "Laura Bilington" I have not said that the anti-polygamy laws are unfair. I have always said that if you redefine marriage to allow SSM because of they are in love, you have to allow anything between consenting adults that are in love regardless of the number of people involved.

    You missed where I said that the Netherlands started out SSM using a civil union before they progressed to gay marriage. They have started the pattern again with polygamy.

    As the article pointed out, they have all of the same legal rights as marriage. Do you honestly think that it won't be a matter of a decade or less until polygamy is legalized in the Netherlands?

  • Numinous Richfield, UT
    July 29, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    @ Baccus0902:

    The intransigent attitude in your improvident reply ironically proves and validates my initial comment that was meant simply to be tutelary in nature.

    Simply put, you still don't get it, nor will you for the time being. Other things will have to happen first in order to open your eyes to the intent and meaning of others who don't currently share your particular beliefs in this matter. Perhaps we can try again then. To try to explain more to you at this point will only attenuate your current level of understanding.

    BTW: I've already seen and studied more of the evidence you alluded to than you probably even know exists, based on the minatory and otiose nature of that part of your comment.

    @ Laura Bilington:

    You have good and well-meaning intentions. But you are somewhat mixing issues and thereby unintentionally being desultory. The past circumstances you referenced are somewhat disparate to this particular issue.

    I'm familiar with mix-race adoptions from half a century ago along with the results. But I'm referring to an issues beyond just civil rights. Your idealistic views are admirable, but unfortunately not cogent nor peremptory.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 29, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    @Red Shirt:

    There is no reason for polygamy to be illegal. The problem is religious polygamy that claims "revelation" to treat women as commodities.

    As the pagan and secular polyamory communities are demonstrating, polygamous relationships that treat all partners as equals, with equal rights in the relationship, are very workable in many ways.

    Eliminating the monotheistic perversion of polygamy through carefully developed laws to address the various issues is a start. Social acceptance of polygamy, allowing it to be practiced in the open and not kept hidden is the next step - while there might be individual cases of abuse the system would not be abusive. And those cases where there are problems would have legal remedy.

    Because humans tend to be pair-oriented, polygamy would likely be practiced by a small minority. That is no reason to not legalize it and give those relationships reasonable protections. Legalized polygamy would have no negative impact on couple-marriage. And the children in those relationships would benefit by having more adults committed to their care and support.

    Why do you fear polygamy so much? It has a solid historical base.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 29, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    @RedShirt, since you and the multiple future Mrs. RedShirts want to get married, you should certainly sue the state of Utah to permit you to do so. You've written in this forum enough times that anti-polygamy laws are unfair; please do something about it besides rail about how unfair it is. Surely you can use the "it's only a matter of time" in your argument--then ask the judge to tell you why you have to wait.

    Secondly, the laws of the Netherlands do not permit polygamy. Even the Brussels Journal, which is hardly known for unbiased reporting, does not claim that they were married.

    "How long until we do the same here?". Since the trio weren't legally married, the answer is "probably never".

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 29, 2014 2:32 p.m.

    To "Laura Bilington" I have never seen any justification why polygamy should be banned. Where is your proof? Please give us some verifiable references showing that polygamy (not the religions that practice is) is dangerous.

    Why should the clan and I do what has already been done? You missed the fact that polygamy has been decriminalized and is no longer banned. It is only a matter of time until it is legalized.

    The slippery slope argument is valid. The Netherlands was the first nation to recognize SSM, first through gay unions, then through SSM. From the Brussels Journal we read "First Trio 'Married' in The Netherlands". They have already gone down the slope there, how long until we do the same here?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 29, 2014 2:06 p.m.

    @Copacetic

    I wasn't invited either, but...

    The Bible is a collection of tribal stories and myths shaped for a particular group of people to give national identity. While it has some good teachings, they are not unique to the Bible or to the Jewish people. One of the primary purposes of the Bible was to delineate membership in the tribe by setting out customs and beliefs that must be followed and rules to punish, shun or kill those who break the rules.

    In modern times the only group that follows the Bible are the Orthodox Jews. The Christian world takes the Bible cafeteria style, picking and choosing beliefs and practices to follow and blithely ignoring others. They do, however, follow one of the central tenants of the Bible - they use it to exclude, shun, punish, and condemn others while claiming that members of the tribe are loved by god because they are members of the tribe.

    The Bible has the same value as the Quaran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, the Writings of Confucius, and the legends of the gods of Olympus and Asgard.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 29, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    I have asked over and over again if anyone can show me one attack against "traditional marriage" by either side. Really? Has the LBGT community attacked traditional marriage....not once. Just kind of getting sad that now the only thing people say is it is against their religion. But many religions accept SSM. So what are you fighting about?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 29, 2014 2:02 p.m.

    @Copacetic;

    Thank you for the delicious word salad. I'm glad you find me predictable (it means I'm consistent).

    First of all, if you wish a private conversation, don't publish your comments online.

    Secondly, "moral issues" do not derive from your bible. The bible is actually not moral at all, in fact.

    Thirdly, the bible is nothing more than the superstitions of ancient people, which sadly, are continued on to our own time.

    Lastly, anyone who criticizes others for disobeying the bible's rules, while picking and choosing themselves which ones they'll follow is nothing more than a hypocrite (which, coincidentally is condemned by that very bible).

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 29, 2014 1:50 p.m.

    RedShirt, the reasons that polygamy is banned have been explained to you numerous times. But it seems that you don't think much of these reasons--so I would suggest you and the would-be Mrs. Redshirts all file suit against the state, claiming that you are being discriminated against. See what happens when this comes up in court. Perhaps then you will stop the slippery slope arguing.

  • Copacetic Logan, UT
    July 29, 2014 1:46 p.m.

    @ Ranch:

    You are so predictable that I could respond to your comments before you even write them. You specialize in the art or mixing and confusing issues while imprecating others who don't go along with your beliefs.

    First of all, you've jumped into a dialog between two people that didn't involve you. I can't see where either specifically asked for your biased input.

    Secondly, you are trying to mix moral and social issues from the Bible, which never works well. They are contextually quite different. And using that approach, your inveigling won't convince many sincere people who approach this or other issues objectively. Sadly, there are quite a few on-line who don't.

    Neither A Quaker nor Numinous mixed issues nearly as much as your comment did. You can't possibly ascertain with certainty which specific places in the Bible Numinous was referencing, since he (or she) didn't specifically mention them. However, they are there for earnest seekers. You obviously are not, since your propounding keeps trying so hard to mix apples and oranges.

    To clarify your intentions, do you mind explaining whether or not you actually even believe in the Bible?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 29, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    @ Numinous:
    You wrote:
    "My original comment was not religiously based, but social in nature. This is very much a social issue which hasn't yet had time to evidence the long-term implications"

    Your declaration defeats your intention. If this "social issue hasn't had the time enough to evidence the long-term implications, then why are you opposing it?

    You are claiming "Guilty". Shouldn't you be claiming innocent until proven guilty?

    However, let's use your logic and give you the benefit of the doubt. You need to accept that there is a 50% chance that "The long term implications may be beneficial, Right?"
    If you really care for the children read the many studies in this field, you may be surprised.

    But you and I know that you don't want to see the evidence that SS couples have been successfully raising children for a long, long time. Because as you said "It's obvious that rhetoric will not change the feelings of most people which are lapidary in nature. You and others here are apparently of that group".

  • Sagacious Logan, UT
    July 29, 2014 1:05 p.m.

    I've never been able to fully determine why a social issue that over 98% of society doesn't take part in is such a polarizing and ultra hot-button issue to so many people.

    Some people with obvious political agendas have been willing to utterly ruin the lives of others who feel differently than they while pushing their strong feelings for this issue... while sometimes even ironically advocating love for others.

    Is it because it has moral implications?
    Is it because it delineates opposite political spectrum ends?
    Is it because they know and/or care about people who have been personally affected by it?
    Is it because its so contentious in nature that it causes people to jump in?
    Is it because it's a combination of many different facets of political correctness?

    I honestly don't know. It's undoubtedly a combination of possibilities. I simply can't claim to understand very well the full extent of the ultra-strong feelings this issue continually generates, along with the overriding explications that are yet to be seen.

    The more I read applicable comments, the more convinced I am that very people actually do understand very well.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 29, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    @Numinous wrote, "This is very much a social issue which hasn't yet had time to evidence the long-term implications. Unfortunately, it will take substantially more time to significantly bear those contentions out. By then, much irrefutable and irreversible damage will be done."

    You may not remember, but the same thing was said about interracial adoption in the 1960s. You are half right--there will be long-term implications of treating gays like they are human beings deserving of civil rights. "Gay" will cease to be a slur, just like the crude slurs for Italian, Polish, and Japanese have largely disappeared from use. A new generation of people will be leading the scouting organizations and conservative churches, and they will quietly drop their differential treatment of gay couples. And our children--sitting next to children with gay parents-- will read about this in school and wonder what the fuss was all about.

    Serious question--where did you ever get the idea that "much irrefutable and irreversible damage" is going to happen? It was predicted for school integration, lowering the age of majority to 18, and interracial marriage. It hasn't happened yet.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 29, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    @Numinous;

    Eating shellfish is clearly an "abomination" according to the bible. Do you eat any?

    Wearing mixed fabrics is also an "abomination". I'd be very surprised if your shirt isn't a cotton/poly blend at this moment.

    You're going to tell me that "Jesus fulfilled the law". Guess what 'fulfilled' means; either he 'fulfilled' the entire law or none of it (it is an all-or-nothing word). Now Paul, who never actually met Jesus apparently continued to preach the "unfulfilled" law.

    You can't just pick-and-choose your "abominations" in the bible, they're either all in force or none of them are in force. How do you take your bible, "cafeteria style"? Which is it?

    As for "long term implications", gay couples have been living together for decades (if not centuries). If that isn't enough time for your "implications" to be discovered, then there aren't any.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 29, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    To "christoph" why is polygamy wrong? They are adults that love each other and have chosen to form a family headed by more than 2 adults. Why do you want to deny them their right to marry the person(s) that they love? Why do you hate them?

  • Numinous Richfield, UT
    July 29, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    @ A Quaker:

    I didn't bring God into this dialog. That's something you've done in trying to conflate the argument. But in essence, you're only equivocating.

    But since you've opened that door, let's briefly address it. I don't know which God you believe in. But assuming you believe in the Bible, the only references to homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments are very negative in nature. It consistently calls homosexuality (and similar acts) abominations unto God. It's very plainly stated. If you can't find the Biblical references using the index, ask and I'll give them. But I would assume a Quaker knows his or her way around the Bible.

    My original comment was not religiously based, but social in nature. This is very much a social issue which hasn't yet had time to evidence the long-term implications. Unfortunately, it will take substantially more time to significantly bear those contentions out. By then, much irrefutable and irreversible damage will be done.

    It's obvious that rhetoric will not change the feelings of most people which are lapidary in nature. You and others here are apparently of that group.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    July 29, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    Anyone who wants to learn why these bans are being unanimously struck down by state and federal courts should read Judge Zabel's ruling in Florida circuit court from July 25th. It's unusually well written, very easy for non-lawyer to understand, and not only cites from many of the recent rulings but clearly explains why these bans are blatantly unconstitutional.

    Unfortunately if you only read the Deseret News you wouldn't be aware of that ruling since they made no mention of it.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    July 29, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    Re: "As God is alive ..."

    Then why doesn't he come out of hiding and speak to us, not through texts of questionable authenticity, not through hints, whispers, and burnings in the breast, not through priests, popes, prophets, or other middlemen, not in clouds or in shadow, but directly, face to face, in the noonday sun, as one honest man speaks to another?

    Thomas refused to believe in Jesus's resurrection until he had seen Jesus with his own eyes and touched him with his own hands. This policy has never been improved upon, and in a world full of liars, charlatans, and other deceivers, we would all be wise to adopt it.

    Re: "... laws of the country are founded and based on his judgements and laws, then surely judges belonging to the human race are in breach of those laws themselves by ruling against what He has ordered."

    It's irrelevant what anybody's god allegedly ordered. The United States is not a theocracy. The Elder Edda, the Koran, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and all the other holy texts in the world do not override the Constitution, and in fact they have no legal authority whatsoever.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 29, 2014 10:21 a.m.

    @Californian
    "This is about the definition of what is the foundation of a family and what is in the best interests of children"

    Here's the thing... we're talking about marriage. There's three statuses of children when a couple gets married.
    1. They don't exist because they haven't been born yet.
    2. They are the child of one of the two parents, and you're trying to deny them a stepparent.
    3. They are the children of both the parents (not biologically if we're talking same-sex couples of course) and you're denying them the benefits of parents marrying.

    There is no logical "for the children" reason to be opposed to same-sex marriage, there's no situation where a marriage harms them. What you really seem to oppose is same-sex adoption. However, I don't see you all rallying to ban single people (which includes single gay people) from adopting (I'm sure this is allowed in California as well as Utah) so there's an inconsistency. That inconsistency shows that this children argument is just an excuse to ban same-sex marriage, but it's not a good reason.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 29, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    "Every child deserves a mom and a dad, ...confirmed that at the ballot box when they approved a constitutional amendment that " BANNED GAY MARRIAGES.

    --- Banning LGBT couples from marrying does absolutely nothin, to ensure that every child has a mom and a dad.

    "...he expects a direct Supreme Court appeal, since there is little reason to expect a different outcome from the full circuit..."

    --- Keep tilting at windmills.

    Californian#1@94131 says:

    "This is about the definition of what is the foundation of a family and what is in the best interests of children..."

    --- We are also families; your definition applies to you; the best interest of OUR children is that we are married. You don't get a say about OUR families. End of story.

    @hilary;

    Odin IS alive and he is great. You aren't banned from using his name if you want to you know. Also, did you not know that the US is not a theocracy? God doesn't make our laws.

    @Numinous;

    Pray tell, how is this "worsening society"? Whatever makes you think you have "foresight" or that it it even correct?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 29, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    @Hilary, @Numinous: It's a pity you haven't ever met God, heard His voice or been joined by Him as you sat in worship. If you had, you'd understand that there's a very big difference between His will and what it seems that you've been told is His will.

    Come sit with us in worship some time, open your heart and listen in silence, and you just may hear.

    Meanwhile, try to remember we live in the United States. Our Constitution guarantees the freedom for us to practice our respective religions, but not to impose them on anyone else. Laws are administered by our civil government on an entirely secular basis.

    If your religion teaches you that government is there to do the bidding of your church, you're living in the wrong country for that. You cannot live in the United States without a civil/secular life in addition to your spiritual one. There will be neither Caliphate nor Dominion here.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    July 29, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    @ Numinus: Interesting thing about lemmings - they don't really do that. The myth of lemmings jumping off cliffs and committing suicide was created by movie photographers who wanted to add excitement and forced lemmings to behave in ways counter to their natures.

    (I guess humans are kind of like lemmings - suicide rates for LGBT individuals are higher when they are shamed and forced to act against their natures.)

    @ hilary: There are many "laws" in both the Old and New Testaments that are no longer adhered to for various reasons - why are you so hung up on this particular situation? There are many more "laws" that deal with the correct way to treat strangers and the poor, those are violated at a much higher rate, yet many of those who condemn homosexuality have great respect for violators of poverty and stranger "laws". Kind of brings to mind the whole more and beam parable, if you ask me.

  • Numinous Richfield, UT
    July 29, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    It's so ironic to read naive comments celebrating government rulings that will eventually lead to the worsening of their own society. Sadly, foresight isn't always a given to the masses.

    It somewhat reminds one of a big group of lemmings ignorantly getting excited while continuing to follow one another as they approach the edge of the cliff, all the while thinking they are headed for the promised land.
    Then when a few start getting concerning and don't want to keep going, the rest start criticizing and bomblasting them for objecting and not staying in line with the rest.
    No matter how much the few try to explain, the majority refuse to listen as they laugh with excited anticipation while steadily and naively continuing their march toward their own eventual demise.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    July 29, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    "In all these cases challenging state marriage laws, our office along with other attorneys general and state attorneys across the country have made about every legal argument imaginable. All the federal courts have rejected these arguments each and every time. So it's time for the State of North Carolina to stop making them. Simply put, it is time to stop making arguments we will lose and instead move forward."
    The above are quotes from yesterday from North Carolina's Attorney General Roy Cooper. If only we had someone with the same intelligence and sense of realism.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 29, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    Our state slogan: "Virginia is for lovers" is quickly becoming a reality for all.

    Virginia has some of the strongest laws against LGBT couples. Many of us never thought that Virginia would be one of the states that would help to brake all barriers and make SSM an option.

    Thank you to the judges that were able to overcome political ideology, cultural bias and voted according to their legal minds and constitutional duty.

    It is a good day to be a Virginian!!!

  • hilary nottingham, 00
    July 29, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    As God is alive and laws of the country are founded and based on his judgements and laws, then surely judges belonging to the human race are in breach of those laws themselves by ruling against what He has ordered.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 28, 2014 11:23 p.m.

    I should have read that before I posted. I got interrupted, and basically said the same thing twice, in a poorly formed sentence. Sorry about that.

  • Mike702 Hamilton, 00
    July 28, 2014 9:43 p.m.

    Every state in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Circuits already has same-sex marriage. The 4th and 10th Circuits have struck down bans on same-sex marriage. Every state in the 6th and 7th Circuits either has same-sex marriage, or the ban has been partly or completely struck down in District Court. More than half the states in the 9th Circuit either have same-sex marriage, or the ban has been struck down in District Court. I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court declines to take a case.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 28, 2014 8:09 p.m.

    Freedom is slowly eroding away the old fears and hatreds are slowly being eroded by freedom. This is good news and should be on the front page, not buried in the 'US & World' tab.

  • Bendana 99352, WA
    July 28, 2014 7:58 p.m.

    Why Archibald? Because it's getting harder and harder to keep blaming 'activist' judges for ruling in favor of marriage equality? 29 courts in a row have ruled in favor of SSM, you had better get used to disappointment. Or just maybe look a little harder at yourself and try and understand that these rulings are not going to effect you at all, but will effect the children and families of LGBT in a great way.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 28, 2014 7:48 p.m.

    The Attorney General of North Carolina gave a press conference this afternoon. That 4th Circuit decision affects his state, as well. He said he's convinced that there's no longer any point in trying to defend those sorts of bans. Constitutional law, and the courts just can't support them anymore.

    He went on to say that every state with laws like this on the books has already tried every conceivable argument (with support from every socially conservative organization) to justify denying marriage equality to gays and lesbians, and not one single court has bought one. The last year has brought an unbroken string of decisions tossing out discriminatory laws, over 20 so far.

    There just aren't any more arguments to bring. Not a single one that the best "pro-traditional" minds in the business have presented has been accepted as pertinent by a single court. Those arguments that the anti-gay commenters here keep repeating? The courts have rejected every one of them. The kindest thing you can say about them is that they're... unconvincing.

  • Berkeley reader Berkeley , CA
    July 28, 2014 7:38 p.m.

    Encouraging

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    July 28, 2014 7:27 p.m.

    I am surprised that the DN did not change the headline on this AP article to:

    "Activist judges rule against God's Will and that of the people of Virginia"

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    July 28, 2014 7:17 p.m.

    North Carolina has decided not to fight the ruling. Too bad Utah wasn't that smart.

  • Californian#1@94131 San Francisco, CA
    July 28, 2014 7:14 p.m.

    "Uncomfortable" has nothing to do with it. This is about the definition of what is the foundation of a family and what is in the best interests of children, not just what some adults want.

    How comfortable are these judges with polygyny, polyandry, or plural marriage with multiple male and multiple female partners? If marriage is for "all lovers," someone is going to apply for a license to "marry" their daughter, son, brother, sister, both parents, and a man and woman who are already married to each other, and they are all consenting adults, so who is gonna interfere with their "constitutional right" to "equal treatment under law"?

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    July 28, 2014 7:00 p.m.

    Polgamy is wrong. End of sentence. If you want to reform society, start by re-arranging your furniture, then get a hobby, then get a library card, then take up art, and science and literature and philosophy, and then start 10 companies and give away your money to the poor. There is plenty to do in life, we don't need to give up on the Bible.

  • Mike702 Hamilton, 00
    July 28, 2014 6:59 p.m.

    ... or that they did.

  • Archibald SLC, UT
    July 28, 2014 6:59 p.m.

    Disappointing

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    July 28, 2014 6:39 p.m.

    It looks like the Court did not read the editorial in yesterday's Deseret News...