Comments about ‘Utahns react with questions: What happens next?’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 26 2013 11:10 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Christopher B
Ogden, UT

God only recognizes one kind still.

Alameda, CA

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, actually, She recognizes at least two.

Alameda, CA

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?


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.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

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.

Springville, Ut


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.

Austin, TX

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.

USS Enterprise, UT

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.


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?

Salt Lake City, UT

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

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

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.

Salt Lake City, UT

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?

Alameda, CA

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.

Trust Logic
Brigham City, UT, 00

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! ;-)

Sugar City, ID

"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?

American Fork, UT

This is good.


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.


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.

Wise, VA

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

to comment

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