Quantcast

Comments about ‘Gay couples wed after federal judge overturns Utah's same-sex marriage ban’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Dec. 26 2013 10:33 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Candide
Salt Lake City, UT

Finally liberty and justice for all.

Shaun
Sandy, UT

Lets just move to civil unions and get the government out of condoning one ideal over another.

Fred T
PHOENIX, AZ

Seems team-obama is getting more and more judges to legislate from the bench.

How can a judge redefine marraige?

Woe, woe, woe is us.

orem_man_am_i
orem, UT

Hey DesNews - you guys are so worried about an occasional off-color comment seeping out that you make it impossible to comment on breaking news.

What the heck is up with that?

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

My thoughts turn to my gay students and friends in Utah. I know the pain they endured in the past and what the Court's decision means for their future. I know there will be many concerns about this ruling by the citizens of the State. I also know the people of Utah are a kind and generous people when touched by the better Angels of their Nature. I saw the same thing happen during the Civil Rights Era. The State will be stronger for this.

cougarsare1
Las Vegas, NV

This means all states will fall. And the more brazen attacks against religion will begin.

Vanceone
Provo, UT

I actually wonder if Utah is still part of the United States. Why? Because now that the judges are legalizing polygamy and SSM, Utah's enabling state document, the one that made us a state, conditioned our statehood on Polygamy forever being banned.

Now that it's been legalized, one would think that Utah is no longer a state, because we don't qualify under our statehood act.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@fred

It is not legislating it called doing their job of insuring that Laws based do not violate the federal constitution or law. "The court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has traditionally been the province of the states, and remains so today. But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United States."

8plex
Alpine, UT

What do you expect from an Obama appointee and someone who clerked for Judge Greene? This issue was in the bag the moment this judge took the case. Why they wasted their time on a trial is a mystery because everyone knew what the verdict would be when he was appointed --- notice no one voted for him.

Kimber
Salt Lake City, UT

To clarify what happened last week:
It did not become legal to marry more than ONE other person. (It was stating that if polygamists wanted to live together without being married and if they are keeping the law, they have that right) And this law is also for TWO people (but gender doesn't matter)
It will not ever become legal to marry a close family member (it's illegal to marry first cousins because of the genetic problems that can occur in children)

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

not sure what to say other then wow. I am sure this is far from over but wow.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@Brave Sir Robin
Last week it became legal to marry a second wife.
This week it became legal to marry your same gender.

=================

As long as everyone is a consenting adult, and I am allowed to personally believe what I choose, why should I care who does what with whom? Is it really any of my business? Your business?

I thought we wanted less government, not more.

Observation Deck
American Fork, UT

Here is a reasonable solution:

The states have found that the legal unionization of two parties implies rights and obligations that must be addressed in times of separation, death, etc. LEGAL matters are those of the state or other municipalities. So when two parties want to unite themselves - male and female, male and male, female and female - they must go to their state/local government and receive a Civil Union certificate that legally unites them in all things temporal... shared property, health benefits, social security, death benefits, in short, any benefit administered BY THE STATE/FEDS.

In addition, if that party wishes to enter into a marriage covenant within the religion of their choice, then they can take their Civil Union certificate to their religious group and participate in a religious marriage ceremony. Religions would perform those ceremonies for members meeting that religious group's requirements.

In this way, the states are allowed to legally unite/divorce two parties and all of their assets without discriminating, and religious institutions can perform their ceremonies without the threat of governments or couples with different belief systems forcing them to provide ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs.

Vanceone
Provo, UT

It is time for Governor Herbert to say something like "I will follow the example of President Obama, and ignore the Courts on this one. If Obama can flout the Constitution, then clearly I can too. If it means nothing to the liberals anyway, then 10th Amendment time"

worf
Mcallen, TX

No problem!

There are many other states where gay couples may live.

sid 6.7
Holladay, UT

Classic! People are already predicting Armageddon.

The God I believe in, you know the one who loves all of his children and the one who tells us to love one another the one who tells us not to throw stones and to judge ye not lest ye be judged, I think that God would be smiling over this ruling.

Congratulations to all of the Gay's and Lesbian's of this state.

Noodlekaboodle
Poplar Grove, UT

Many of you are misinterpreting the polygamy ruling. What the judge said is that if you only have one legal wife, but live with other women and call them your wife it's not illegal. This was due to the fact that it isn't illegal to cheat on your wife, or be in an open relationship, or have children with multiple people. So why would it be different if some of these extra women called themselves wives when the legally weren't lives.

RG
Buena Vista, VA

Kimber, in about 25 states, it is legal to marry your first cousin.

It is one thing to be friendly to all, gay or otherwise. It is another to redefine marriage, and that will contribute to the downfall of our nation. Maybe not directly, or quickly, but it will just the same.

daodejing
ogden, UT

This was inevitable given the supreme court's rulings, most recently on DOMA. Equal protection means equal protection. The government simply cannot deny rights to groups of people based on their innate physical characteristics, including sexual orientation.

The LDS church actually accelerated the process of equalization through its work on Prop 8. That campaign focused national attention on the issue and led to a long period of introspection in which people around the country decided that they no longer wanted to discriminate against non-heterosexuals. Watch: there will be no nationwide reaction against the courts.

That the church used its political clout, pressuring Mormons to put money into the anti-gay effort in such a blatant way, and violated campaign finance laws by under-reporting its own direct involvement, raised the separate issue of whether the country is comfortable with a tax-exempt organization intervening in matters of public policy. Preaching against a practice, or even a group of people, is one thing; manipulating the political process is another.

Because of the church's involvement, the United States will get marriage equality a decade earlier than would otherwise have been the case. God works in mysterious ways.

Brahmabull
sandy, ut

cougarsare1

No, the states aren't falling. And nobody is attacking religion. It is always the religious trying to push their religious view into politics, and push their values onto those who don't think the same. Hence the reason Utah doesn't allow the lottery - the states top religion has alot to do with that. I'm surprised they sell liquor here.

to comment

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