Quantcast
Utah

Utahns react with questions: What happens next?

Comments

Return To Article
  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 30, 2013 6:26 p.m.

    @Richland, WA

    "President Obama will implement Federal recognition of same sex marriage aggressively via an.executive order to all agencies. It will recognize marital status for Federal purposes regardless of the law of the current state of residence. Military units in Utah including the National Guard will be ordered to give family medical benefits and housing and increased pay
    . Government contract law will prescribe that all companies contracting to sell goods or services to the Federal government certify that they give equal spousal benefits to same sex couples married in other states. Education and.highway funding will be tied to the same kinds of requirements. The Dept of Education will require students be taught that same sex marriage is moral and that disagreement is hate speech as a condition of grants."

    I prefer my scenario: An Large Solar flare hits the earth knocking out power and communications to a large portion of the United States for the next two years. Effectively sending us back to the 18th century. No electricity= no fuel for transportation. No modern communication capability. Same sex marriage will be the least of our concerns then.

  • coltakashi Richland, WA
    June 30, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    President Obama will implement Federal recognition of same sex marriage aggressively via an.executive order to all agencies. It will recognize marital status for Federal purposes regardless of the law of the current state of residence. Military units in Utah including the National Guard will be ordered to give family medical benefits and housing and increased pay
    . Government contract law will prescribe that all companies contracting to sell goods or services to the Federal government certify that they give equal spousal benefits to same sex couples married in other states. Education and.highway funding will be tied to the same kinds of requirements. The Dept of Education will require students be taught that same sex marriage is moral and that disagreement is hate speech as a condition of grants. The Veterans Administration will require it of colleges that want to enroll students using veteran education benefits. The full power and funds of the Federal government will be used to pressure Utah to conform.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 28, 2013 5:08 p.m.

    Let the marriages begin!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 28, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    Is this better moderators?

    @voice;

    Lot's tale was about gang rape, not homosexuality. BTW, please explain how it was "righteous" of Lot to offer his virginal daughters to the mob to be gang raped?

    @trekker;

    What makes you think that a same-sex couple's relationship just must be based on lust instead of love like your perfect heterosexual marriage? (rolls eyes).

    @worf;

    Bigotry is evil. Discrimination is evil. Guess what, you are practicing evil when you practice bigotry and discrimination.

    @JPL;

    Focus your own marriage on children, let others choose what they'll focus theirs on. How about that? It's called "minding your own business". You might give it a try and find out just how refreshing it is.

  • AC_68 Provo, UT
    June 28, 2013 2:10 p.m.

    Concerning marriage: Christ clearly states that there is no marriage in heaven and in the resurrection, we are neither married nor will we become married ... but we will all be as angelic children. St Paul clearly states that 'due to the present crisis' (societies 40%+ divorce rate) that he recommends one to remain single; to not marry.
    Our LDS faith is in clear contradiction. It is a very poor balm to say, "Those parts are mistranslated or are misleading." For if such clear instruction is wrong ... then the entire darn Bible cannot be trusted! Indeed, it becomes a dangerous book.
    I will not side with members of my faith on this issue. I will have to side with the Bible. The 'family', 'marriage', is our golden-calf ... and our ideas of marriage as a necessary requirement to the Celestial Kingdom is as dated as the ideas of the necessity having multiple-wives.
    I long for the day that my faith repents of their marriage worship and worship of the family; for in this we imply that single adults have a spiritual problem that only marriage can fix. St. Paul is offended in this.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 28, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "outside of the FLDS culture..."

    Sorry, Red, but your personal beliefs are not what matter in Constitutional issues. Facts, expertise, and law are the things that matter.

    Supreme Court justices -- whether American or Canadian -- do a heckuva lot of legal and factual research on these issues before they make their court decisions. If you disagree with them, take it up in court.

    "With nearly 50% of gay relationships experiencing violence and abuse"

    This simply isn't true, Red. Please stop misrepresenting the facts.

    From a National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center paper, "Violence in Lesbian and Gay Relationships":
    -- "In a study asking about whether a same-sex relationships had suffered from physical abuse, 7% of 706 lesbian couples and 11% of 560 gay men couples indicated physical abuse had occurred."
    -- "Sexual abuse by a woman partner was reported by 1% of lesbians, but 20% of lesbians indicated having been sexually abused by a male partner. "
    -- "Design flaws in many studies also may exaggerate prevalence rates, e.g., when asking lesbians about abuse in previous relationships, some fail to distinguish between same- sex violence and previous violence by a male partner."

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 28, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    To "plainbrownwrapper" that is in the FLDS culture. Again, outside of the FLDS culture, you don't have the child bride issue or the hyper male dominance problems so the abuse, violence, and neglect problems don't exist.

    Justice Bauman doesn't know much about polygamy or people that have lived in it. His comments, like yours, show that you only know the FLDS and similar sects use of polygamy.

    Read Psychology Today's article "The paradox of polygamy II: Why most women benefit from polygamy and most men benefit from monogamy" There are also many other first person histories written about women in polygamy, and they report non of the problems that the judge claims.

    The biggest question is this. With nearly 50% of gay relationships experiencing violence and abuse, why were those legalized when the violence rate is less in plural marriages?

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 28, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "how is polygamy a danger to citizens?"

    From Chief Justice Bauman's decision:

    -- "The prevention of [the] collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial,"

    -- "Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse" .

    -- "Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

    "it isn't polygamy that is the problem, but the FLDS culture that is the problem."

    Justice Bauman stated: "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

    "then why do we allow gay relationships? "

    Because they don't present any significant public safety concerns.

    "that court case is Canada, not US law, so a ruling there does not apply here."

    It shows that Constitutional courts recognize these distinctions. Canada has equal protection just as we do.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    To "plainbrownwrapper" outside of the religious sects that have child brides, how is polygamy a danger to citizens?

    If you bothered to understand what causes the problems that the judge cited in that case, it isn't polygamy that is the problem, but the FLDS culture that is the problem.

    If being a danger is a reason to deny it, then why do we allow gay relationships? They are more likely to be abusive, and gays have higher rates of suicide. Using your argument, homosexuality should be banned.

    Also, that court case is Canada, not US law, so a ruling there does not apply here.

    So, tell us, if you had polygamy outside of the fringe religions that practice assignmed mariages and child brides, how is it harmful?

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 28, 2013 8:45 a.m.

    @just wrong --

    "Anyone now can choose to "marry" whom ever they like."

    Nope.

    1. polygamy -- polygamy creates concrete dangers to citizens. Public safety has always been a valid legal argument for limiting personal freedoms.
    -- For details, look up the 2011 case in Canada, which easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban -- even though they've had gay marriage for years now.

    2. adult incest (adult siblings, adult parent/children) -- illegal in every state because of public safety concerns. Not only is there the question of undue influence/coercion amongst close relatives, but also the risk of genetic defects in offspring is very high (roughly 30-40%).
    -- For details, look up any of SEVERAL recent court cases, in both state and Federal courts, which have very clearly and uniformly declared that homosexuality rulings DON'T apply to incest.

    3. child incest/pedophilia/bestiality -- children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore, they can't sign marriage contracts. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of all our contract laws. It can't be removed.

    4. In contrast, gay marriages **don't** convey any special risk to public safety.

    The courts easily distinguish between these different practices -- even if you can't.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 10:07 p.m.

    Marriage needs to be in a form that affirms child creation. Man/woman marriage is that form. This is an issue of broad forms, and the outer limits the law places. Only the outer limit of man/woman marriage upholds the broad form and the focus of marriage on the good of the children.

  • AC_68 Provo, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:39 p.m.

    At 40 to 50% divorce rate, "traditional" marriage has long died long ago. We must fix marriage first ... make it resilient to divorce. This gay marriage amendment is a not what to focus on. What needs resolved is the 40-50 percent divorce rate.

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 5:28 p.m.

    Been a lot of quoting of scripture...it does fulfill prophesy when you have have the "Gay Pride" as a label to those who chose to live in an alternative life style considered an abomination to God. Deut 23:17: '..there shall be no..sodomites of the sons of Israel.'

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 27, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    Obama's re-election, health care, and now gay marriage.

    There is climate change in our country. A free prosperous society cannot exist with these three items. We will be ruled.

    I forecast a major storm, and by 2016, the new United States of America will not resemble the one of the past.

  • just wrong Sacramento, CA
    June 27, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    No real thought was given to all future challenges. Anyone now can choose to "marry" whom ever they like. As for taxes, just get rid of them all, no married, file together or separate. Everyone files as a single individual. Got kids, tough; if you are stupid enough to not have any means of supporting yourself or education, to bad. The idea that someone else should be responsible for you is 'obviously' out dated, correct? Government should get completely out of the marriage business-as the gay community and supporters argue; then lets do just that. No government in who lives with who. So second husband-Ok, 4 wives-Ok, old man-young kid---Ok.
    Like i said, no thought was given to future implications.

  • ray vaughn Ogden, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    @RedShirt. It ha been the GOP for years saying lower taxes leads to more economic growth. An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office showed an overall increase in revenue due to more individual money availaqble for consumer spending.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 27, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    @Voice --

    "concern for a sibling - brother or sister - who's literally risking their life in an extremely high-risk sexual lifestyle, is now "Holier Than Thou"?"

    If you were truly motivated by concern for someone "in an extremely high-risk sexual lifestyle", then you would SUPPORT gay marriage -- which encourages **stable monogamous relationships**.

    Your failure to do so betrays your true motivations.

    I really don't understand that, btw. Anti-gay people constantly harp on what they see as a "promiscuous lifestyle" and condemn "sex outside of marriage" -- but then they turn around and try to deny gays the tools they need to encourage STABLE, MONOGAMOUS relationships WITHIN marriage. That doesn't make any sense at all.

    "people supporting traditional marriage are actually motivated by what they believe is right"

    People in the KKK are also "motivated by what they believe is right".

    Incidentally -- I've tried several times today to post the Biblical rebuttals to your Bible claim, but for some reason the DN moderators refuse to post it -- even though they've posted the same comments before, in other threads. Hmmm. So I guess you'll have to look through older threads for those, sorry!

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:11 p.m.

    Ezekiel 16:49
    Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

    Ezekiel 16:50
    And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

    Definition of Haughty: Someone who is haughty is arrogant and full of pride. When you're haughty, you have a big attitude and act like you're better than other people.

    So he repeats verse 49 and you all assume he's taling about gays?
    He's talking about zealots being the downfall NOT sexual attraction.
    Can you even understand that the references you use to defend your argument is a misinterpretation?
    Lot also got drunk and slept with his daughters, being the only righteous man left on Earth?

  • Voice ofReason LAYTON, UT
    June 27, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    Contrarius,

    So now, concern for a sibling - brother or sister - who's literally risking their life in an extremely high-risk sexual lifestyle, is now "Holier Than Thou"? Wow...so when a gay activist really DOES get their hollier-than-thou groove on and wants to "educate" me on "correct views of homosexuality" I suppose you will apply the same logic and call that "holier than thou" as well. Yeah, didn't think so.

    You may not agree with me, Contrarius, but grow up a little and at least recognize that people supporting traditional marriage are actually motivated by what they believe is right...you're free to think us wrong or misguided, but nobody with half a brain truly thinks we're motivated simply by a "bare desire to harm gays", as the SC so stunningly said yesterday. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you're motivated by your view of what's right...can't do the same for me? Or is gay marriage so logically vulnerable that it needs to villify its opponents and shoot the messenger first instead of meeting their arguments on their merits?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    June 27, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    What is right, or wrong? Good, or evil? Opinions of this don't matter.

    For a correct, non bias answer:

    "Look at the state of our country, and world", and observe-

    Right & Good = prosperity, and independence

    Wrong, & evil = poverty, and little freedom

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    We strive to build up our lives and you do everything to tear them down! It isn't hard to see your disgust. Gay agenda? How about being happy. To be with our families. Is that such a bad agenda? We don't have to accept some degraded ideas of who we are! No! No! No! No! WE deserve much better than what you give! The saddest thing is that our agenda includes all the people we live with in this society! We are not garbage! We will never accept the role you have given us! This is not right!

  • trekker Salt Lake, UT
    June 27, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    Maybe we should come up with the Utah compromise let the Church practice the law of plural marriage if Utah will let gays marry. personally for me I believe in God, He will be the one to determine what marriage is valid when Christ comes again. I just feel bad for gay Mormons who think the church will allow it one day, it is not like the blacks and priesthood. the churches main doctrine of the "plan of happiness" revolves around a man and woman or women being sealed together to make an Eternal family unit. If homosexuals can not procreate naturally here on the earth I doubt they can on the other-side and create spirit children. Personally I hope that people with sexual attraction issues or feel they wee born in the wrong body will be healed when Christ returns. their orientation is a temptation that must be overcomed and it can I know people who have not given into it. but their relationship with their spouses of opposite gender is based on love not lust.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 27, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi --

    "When the Netherlands legalized same gender marriage the number of in wedlock births dropped from 40 to 25 percent."

    Actually, the rate of unwed mothership in the Netherlands has been increasing on a smooth parabolic curve since the **1970s** -- loooooong before registered partnerships in that country. There's a nice graph of this fact over at procon.org, if you'd like to look it up.

    Also, the change in unwed mothers before and after partnerships was the SAME in other European countries that did NOT at that time have partnerships.

    Furthermore, heterosexual marriage rates actually INCREASED after partnerships in those Scandinavian countries. As of 2004 (the date of Kurtz's article on unwed mothers), Denmark had its HIGHEST marriage rate since the 1970s. Other Scandinavian countries with partnerships also had higher marriages rates than before the partnership laws.

    Please try for more facts, and less hysteria.

    @Voice --

    "It comes from truly heartfelt love for our nation, and our SSA-struggling siblings who want to rise above their dangerous urges."

    Holier than thou, much?

    The only thing inherently "dangerous" about homosexuality is the widespread prejudice against it.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    LeslieDF,

    I have no ill will towards you or any homosexuals, which shouldn't come as a surprise despite the stunningly mean-spirited attempts by many to constantly label me as "hateful" for merely acting in good faith on my conscience...just as you are. Of course Roe v. Wade is different; but it's a social issue that highlights political fault lines just as the DOMA/Prop 8 cases do. And the fact that you haven't changed your mind hardly discounts the statistics showing that a lot of others HAVE changed their minds over time, a well-established pattern that comes with life experience for many...your case only proves that not ALL people change their minds.

    I'm glad you're happy, I really am. I just wish you could at least attempt to understand the REAL motivations for why I, and millions of Americans, defend traditional marriage. It comes from truly heartfelt love for our nation, and our SSA-struggling siblings who want to rise above their dangerous urges. Absolutely zero of that motivation comes from hatred. None of it.

    Get to know us and our families, and maybe you'd stop viewing us as devils.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    amazondoc,

    If you want to try to say that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, you've got a HUGE rewriting job ahead of you...and don't forget to rewrite the original Hebrew and Aramaic, which makes it even more crystal clear. Example:

    "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them." Genesis 19:5

    Lot goes on to offer his daughters(!) instead of these angels, which doesn't win Lot any Father-of-the-Year awards, but here the Bible is CLEARLY condemning homosexuality. The original Hebrew leaves nothing to the imagination either on the meaning, modern fringe gay revisionist efforts notwithstanding. The later passage in Ezekiel 16:49-50 is clearly referring to ALL the things Sodom & Gomorrah did wrong, which clearly includes homosexuality.

    "The courts can easily tell the difference between homosexuality polygamy, etc., even if you can't."

    That's strange, since 5 SC judges obviously couldn't see the difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality when it comes to marriage. When polygamists acquire the same political power & influence that gays do, we will see legalized polygamy. Bank on it.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    June 27, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    "Voice of Reason":

    A Supreme Court decision about marriage rights for same-sex couples has no relationship to Roe v Wade. Gays couples do not have unintended pregnancies, married or not. No "shotgun" weddings for gay couples.

    This gay couple - I'm 64, my husband's 75 - in great health and lifelong contributor's to our community, disprove your theory that seniors and people as they age will change their minds - abandon the principle of marriage equality.

    There's no harm to you, or society, or anyone, anywhere because we are married. There is, in fact, great good that has come from our 38 year relationship. Next week, 4th of July, our 39th year together starts. Happy 'Independence' Day!

    (You might want to read up on public support and opposition before and after Loving v Virginia 70% opposition before SCOTUS decision, little to no opposition after. That’s the relevant case to look at for a shift in public support. That case outlines what to expect.)

    Before our 40th anniversary begins, well over half the US population will live in about 45% of states that recognize marriage for same-sex couples.

    The only "fireworks" will happen on the 4th, in the night sky.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 27, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    @DonO:

    In re: Sodom --

    "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Ezekiel 16:49-50

    It does not actually say "they were evil homosexuals" in any translation of this passage.

    @TRUTH --

    "it will take years before gays will be marrying in calif."

    Sorry, Truth, but ya got it wrong.

    SCOTUS refused to hear Prop 8 for lack of standing. This means that the Federal court ruling stands -- and both the Federal court and the trial court ruled AGAINST Prop 8. Prop 8 is dead. Gay marriage will recommence in California in about a month, from what I last heard.

    "Since same-sex "marriage" is legal, it is inevitable (and only fair) that polygamy and bestiality be legal as well between consenting members of whatever species."

    For the thousandth time -- NO, this is NOT TRUE.

    The courts can easily tell the difference between homosexuality polygamy, etc., even if you can't. Please stop spreading hysteria.

  • seansarto Ballston Lake, NY
    June 27, 2013 5:52 a.m.

    The Supreme Court portends that Americans are not interested in building a society anymore but instead building a museum. This decision was not about homosexuality. It was about deconstructing America's utiliarianism.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 27, 2013 4:20 a.m.

    @Shelama:

    "Traditional marriage is not the least bit threatened by same-sex marriage. Virtually nobody is opposed to traditional marriage. Gays and gay couples, whether married or not, will continue exactly the same to support and honor and celebrate traditional marriage among family and friends and society at large."

    When the Netherlands legalized same gender marriage the number of in wedlock births dropped from 40 to 25 percent.

    When I look on this site and I see people saying the government should get out of the marriage business altogether, I see that traditional marriage is threatened. I have seen the bad name that gay rights activists have given to diversity, multiculturalism and human rights and it is easy to see that making marriage into a gay rights issue will mess up marriage as much as diversity has been messed up.

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    June 26, 2013 9:46 p.m.

    This decision echoes those opinions written by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor whose legal principles were based on strict Federalism given sovereign states much leeway in dictating what powers they retain and reduced the intrusive power of the Federal Government. It is likely that Anthony Kennedy's following in her footsteps created a status quo situation that legalized the existing individual states' position on marriage and likely other policy matters. This opinion really doesn't change anything except allowing those gay marriages in those states that have legalized it to begin receiving both the benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

  • ? SLC, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:58 p.m.

    DonO:

    You're right. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for all that was listed in verse 49 of Ezekiel chapter 16. However, if you continue on to verse 50, you'll see vageorge is also right.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:47 p.m.

    Wait a minute........the scotus did not rule on prop 8? prop 8 is still the law in California, until some one challenges it and sends it back to the court and ultimately the California Supreme Court..... It is still the law! Jerry brown has no power to issue marriage licenses until prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional........the scotus threw out the ninth circuit decision in prop 8 and sent back the case because the state of California refused to back it even though the people voted for it...it will take years before gays will be marrying in calif.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    June 26, 2013 8:38 p.m.

    This is just the latest successful step towards removing the traditional moral and legal boundaries which helped this become the greatest nation in history, the most tolerant, most giving, and most helpful to the downtrodden.

    It is becoming a hedonistic, self-centered, amoral mess, in which "if it feels good, do it" has replaced the role of respect for the family, which has been the basis for western civilization. It is acceptable, even encouraged to become dependent on others for your daily needs. Out of wedlock birth is no longer shameful to the mother nor expensive for the sperm donor, and random coupling leaves the resulting children confused, unsupervised and misguided as to how to behave.

    Since same-sex "marriage" is legal, it is inevitable (and only fair) that polygamy and bestiality be legal as well between consenting members of whatever species.

    Our nation has changed drastically in the last 50 years, to the delight of some, and dismay of many. It has changed so much, that the bonds of the societal compact that held us together are undone. We may not be our brother's keeper, but I refuse to enslave myself to others to support their destructive choices.

  • Rand Ogden, UT
    June 26, 2013 7:58 p.m.

    vageorge,
    Your comment is precisely why I cheer every time I see a new survey showing a decline in the number of people who believe in organized religion. You could live 100,000 years and you would never see your fictional doomsday forecast come true.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    June 26, 2013 7:04 p.m.

    The 800 pound gorilla in the room is that this is almost certainly the high water mark for gay marriage support in America, at barely over 50% or under, depending on which survey you consult. That figure is almost entirely driven by the inexperienced young. The great unspoken reality that many - at least the smart - gay activists fear more than anything is the fact that people get more conservative on social issues as they grow older for a very good reason: with more life experience comes a better understanding that sexual license leads to self-destruction and greater social ills. That's why the twenty-somethings of the 70's supported abortion-on-demand more than any other age group (almost 30%), but today they are now the sixty-somethings who support it LESS than any other group (15%)...HALF of the supporters back then grew to understand that abortion-on-demand is wrong. Inevitably, the same thing will happen over time on gay marriage, and support for it will begin to turn just as support for abortion has over the years.

    I just don't know if our society can afford another Roe v. Wade 40-year adventure in progressive license.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 26, 2013 6:55 p.m.

    No doubt, it is gay marriage that will be on the 'trash heap' of history, along with all other immoral behavior and activities.

  • SportsFann Bountiful, UT
    June 26, 2013 6:16 p.m.

    why bother voting? it has no meaning these days.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 26, 2013 5:49 p.m.

    Yes, vageorge, Sodom and Gommorah was destroyed for.. wait for it.. not taking care of the poor and needy. Hrm.
    "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." Ezekiel 16:49

  • Gregorio Norco, CA
    June 26, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    Marriage is a title. The Family: A Proclamation to the World is it's great voice for everyone.
    All of have inclinations. Inclinational behavior for a civil society must be regulated by values.
    Our founding fathers foresaw the vulnerabilities of a Republic. Maintaining our form of self-government would require a Bill of Rights to ensure individual liberty and constant vigilance by "We The People."
    Vigilance comes first from an understanding of the Constitution. Our first amendment right of the people is to peaceable assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of greivances.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    June 26, 2013 4:47 p.m.

    What happens is that gay marriage will eventually be legalized at the federal level by the voice of the people's representatives. Then the judgments of God will be in force against this country. As Mosiah said, the majority voice of the people usually does not vote for something that is wrong, but when it does, that people will suffer the consequences.

  • vageorge Wise, VA
    June 26, 2013 3:39 p.m.

    There is always a price to pay for sin. Remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? The US is now in the category thanks to a Godless administration

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    When same-sex marriage is legal throughout the USA, including Utah (as we all know it will eventually be), then traditional marriage will still comprise at least 97-98% or more of all marriages.

    Traditional marriage is not the least bit threatened by same-sex marriage. Virtually nobody is opposed to traditional marriage. Gays and gay couples, whether married or not, will continue exactly the same to support and honor and celebrate traditional marriage among family and friends and society at large.

    To the degree that marriage and family is the foundation of society, it will continue. The only difference is that there will now be gay marriages and their families contributing their strength to that foundation.

    There'll be a short transition period dealing mostly with trivial issues and nothing really damaging or overly disruptive.

    The children will do just fine. The sky will not fall. The moon will not turn red as blood.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 26, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    IMHO several of the statements made in the DOMA decision will make it much easier to overturn state gay marriage bans in future court cases. They specifically mention equal protection and animus, and other considerations which weaken the states' arguments just as much as they did the Feds' arguments.

    It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out in the next few years.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 26, 2013 1:22 p.m.

    This is good.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    June 26, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    "This is a dramatic day. This Brown v. the Board of Education," said Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake, the Utah Legislature's only openly gay member.

    No it isn't. It may be the day when lights went out in the Federal Government. We simply cannot depend on the them to listen to the governed so what else can we do?

  • Trust Logic Brigham City, UT, 00
    June 26, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    There is a simple solution: remove all governmental privileges for being married! There won't be anything left to argue about. If you follow the logic the Supreme Court just bought into, why should anyone who chooses to get married have anymore privileges than someone who chooses not to. Isn't that just as unfair? We shouldn't be giving more privileges to more special exclusive groups, we should just eliminate them. Why should a spouse have more access to their partner's money than me. Why should they get special visiting rights?

    Of course it will be the unraveling of civilization and the beginning of the end of moral society, but hey, at least it's fair! ;-)

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    June 26, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    RedShirt: The Congress has known since 2004 that the government is LOSING about $1 billion (B) a year by NOT recognizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

    CBO Publication 15740, June 2004: The Potential Budgetary Impact of Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages

    In terms of Social Security you are wrong again. Most same-sex households are two income earners without children - so the outlays for same-sex married couples will be much less that traditional different-sex couples where a wife (or husband) and dependent child(ren) draw on one earner's account.

    You're running out of excuses for denying equal rights. The equal benefits? That does not change. Different couples (straight or gay) get different benefits, DEPENDING ON THE REALITY OF THEIR SITUATION.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    Re LeslieDF's scenarios:
    Before the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967, did an interracial couple legally married in one state moving to Virginia get to file a joint federal tax return or collect survivor benefits? The same question applies to first cousin marriages today. Do first cousins legally married in Utah (or 24 other states) retain their various legal benefits attached to marriage when they move to one of the 25 states that prohibit first cousin marriages?

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 26, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    I have not been proven wrong. To provide artistic services to a same-gender commitment ceremony is a act of speech. This is not a question about giving service, it is a question of the government compelling speech.

    The refusal to recognize that individuals have the right to chose what sort of speech to make is a very disturbing expansion of government power. People no more give up their rights when they enter the marketplace then when they go through the school house door.

    The fact that the florist has consistently provided services to all clients when the services do not involve directly endorsing things they object to makes sense. If the person just wanted to buy flowers it would be one thing. However being a florist for a wedding involves large amounts of work and interaction, and if the person morally objects to the service, the state should not compel participation.

    I would hold the same view if a person objected to marriages in Mormon Temples and refused to be a photographer for any couple that chose to get married in a Mormon Temple.

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:13 p.m.

    AG Swallow won't defend anything vigorously, as he won't be in office much longer.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:11 p.m.

    John says: The rights of people who do not wish of religious grounds to participate in same-gender marriage are already under attack.

    Someone is forcing you to participate in a same-gender marriage? How is that even possible?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 26, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    I was just thinking, did the Feds consider what this will do to the SS trust fund, and tax revenues? This means that there will be less inheritance tax revenue, and the SS trust fund will be depleted just that much quicker.

  • RDJntx Austin, TX
    June 26, 2013 12:01 p.m.

    The Government (both feds and state) need to get out of the marriage business. Let them issue a "certificate of Civil Union" form both same-sex and opposite-sex couples that bestows all the LEGAL rights currently defined as "marriage". then let the various religions perform the religious ceremony per the tenenants of their own faith. If a LGBT couple wished to marry let them find a church that will do so if theirs won't.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    June 26, 2013 11:58 a.m.

    John,

    You've been proven to be wrong time and again, yet you continue to bring up events in Washington. You have already been rebuffed. Repeating misinformation does not magically make it right. The law of the land since the 60s has been that businesses cannot discriminate. Please, come up with different factual evidence to support or your argument.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 26, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    People who think these ruling show the courts will force same-gender marriage onto the people do not get it.

    The rights of people who do not wish of religious grounds to participate in same-gender marriage are already under attack. Events in eastern Washington should be a clear wakeup call to show to believers that having the government proactively endorse things they religiously object to is a bad idea.

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    Everybody except, perhaps, Gayle Ruzicka knows that same sex marriage will eventually come to Utah, too, with full Constitutional protection. Many of them are in denial but they know it's coming.

    I know some other people who are also obsessively self-righteous, judgmental and frequently wrong and none of them are happy, pleasant people either.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    June 26, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    A military couple with children, married elsewhere, is to be stationed at Hill Air Force Base in Utah.

    Do both individuals have custody of their children while living in Utah? What happens, if one is killed in combat? Is the survivor still a legal parent?

    A corporation wants to relocate an employee who is married to Utah, but cannot. The additional state taxes paid as singles, preclude the "promotion."

    Guess Utah has a "proud tradition of" . . . something. What's it called?

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    Christopher B, actually, She recognizes at least two.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    June 26, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    Attorney General John Swallow said he will "vigorously" defend Utah's voter-approved law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, though he doesn't believe Wednesday's decision will have much impact on the state. “In a nutshell, DOMA will not affect us.”

    So a gay couple married in California moves to Utah. When they apply for a federal tax subsidy under the Affordable Care Act in the state of Utah's Health Insurance Exchange, are they married (household income excludes them from subsidy), or are they two individuals (individual state status give each a federal tax subsidy with the blessing of not being married in the state of Utah)?

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    June 26, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    God only recognizes one kind still.