Comments about ‘Same-sex couples flock to S.L. County offices in wake of Amendment 3 decision’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 20 2013 8:55 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Leesburg, VA

Congratulations to all Newly Wed in Utah!!!!

Salt Lake City, Utah

Congratulations to all the happy couples!

JoCo Ute
Grants Pass, OR

On no! There goes one of the last institutionalized and church (note the small "c") supported prejudices. Civil rights reforms have taken away sanctioned racial bigotry and equal rights have let women out of the home. What's next studies that show that the "Welfare Queen" is a myth, oh wait that one went down earlier this week.

Pretty soon we're going to run out of people and groups to feel superior to and we might have to take a good look in the mirror.

American Fork, UT

What a great gift to everyone who has waited so long. I hope as many people as possible can take advantage of it before some sort of appeal or stay is applied.

Provo, UT

Legal isn't always moral or right.

Where's Stockton ???
Bowling Green, OH

What an embarrassment to the State of Utah...



"Legal isn't always moral or right."

"Right" is objective. That is, never changes. "Moral" is a subjective compass that changes direction from person to person, place to place, time to time.

The problem is some people insist that we make laws based on what is "Moral" rather than what is "Right".

Merry Christmas to the newlyweds and to those intending to wed!

mid-state, TN

This is fantastic news. I wish I was there to see it.

Congrats to all the Newlyweds!

Miss Piggie
Phoenix, AZ

@Where's Stockton ???:
"What an embarrassment to the State of Utah..."

Truly stated. Your state (Utah) is among the first to put the knife to and kill the institution of marriage. Sad day for Utah and the rest of the country.

Salt Lake City, UT

Utah will be brought into the 21st century, kicking and screaming.

Just like a parent who brings a child to an amusement park, before the child realize they wanted this.

Sandy, UT

Yeah Governor " you had better get the Attorney General on it "
I feel better now...

Bob K
porland, OR

As for the challenges that the Governor and AG MUST put through to try to stop this
---- I say "must" because they have no choice but to act as if they can stop it, or lose a majority of Utah voters.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision by Judge Walker and the Appellate Court, which made it clear that the only objections being given to marriage equality were:
A-- Trying to mix religious views into law
B-- Trying to keep a group of taxpaying citizens from having the same rights as everyone else.

Thus it is quite dubious that an order staying the right of marriage will be granted pending appeal, and there is no legal ground whatever for an appeal to win.

So sad to see people who say they love Jesus look down on their fellow taxpaying American citizens with rude and cruel public comments!

Sorry if you do not understand that there is NO Federal right for the people to vote on any issue, let alone the rights of others.
Sorry if you do not see the fairness.
Sorry if you do not see the love


Are these newlywed couples serious about fidelity to their spouse?

You know, NO sexual relations except with the person to whom they are legally and lawfully married?

Bob K
porland, OR

"Are these newlywed couples serious about fidelity to their spouse?

You know, NO sexual relations except with the person to whom they are legally and lawfully married?"

...Are we implying that lesbians who have been together 40+ years are loose women?
Maybe we are projecting an idea that Gay folks are sinners, or of poor character.

May I respectfully suggest that such a suggestion seems to prove the case that opposing marriage equality is often about personal disapproval?

Will you please provide evidence that marriages performed in Utah in the past, including temple marriages, always, 100% of the time, have zero infidelity?

But, of course, there is the idea that what other people do in their marriage is none of my business. State law requires no restrictions at all on behavior in marriage.

Phoenix, AZ

"Utah will be brought into the 21st century, kicking and screaming."

As will the rest of our country, the way things are going.

Let's see.. the laws against homosexual marriage can't possibly be discriminatory. Anyone, including so-called homosexuals, can marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

If the ban on same-sex marriage is to be lifted under anti discrimination provisions of the federal constitution's 14th, here's some other 'bans&' that should be lifted as well:

Polygamy [just think, a certain FLDS leader (who has to remain nameless to get this comment past the DNews monitors) can finally go free and join his flock]
A mom to her son
A dad to his daughter
A brother to his sister and vice versa
An aunt to her 10 year old nephew
An 59 year old geezer to his neighbor's 12 year old daughter, maybe even both daughters

Get the picture?

spring street

@ iron&clay: How many heterosexual couples that marry are serious about fidelity to their spouse? Approximately 17% of divorces are caused by infidelity - and many couples stay together after infidelity and try to work it out.

Why should there be a different standard for same-sex couples than for heterosexual couples?

Surfers Paradise, AU

Just a matter of time before a judge compels the church to open the temple doors for gay marriages too. whoo hoo, party on folks!

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

These actions are irregular and highly suspect. This attempt to force the change almost by mob rule is disturbing. The decision will be appealed and to act as if one person can make a final decision is nonsense.

mid-state, TN

@wrz/Miss Piggie/Neanderthal/Mr. Bean --


Here we go again.

There are at least two criteria for the legal recognition of any individual right.

1. There are actually a substantial number of citizens who want to do it;


2. Legally allowing them to do it won't significantly increase the risk of harm to other citizens.

Look up the harm principle.

Gay marriage does not significantly increase risk to anyone, compared to other forms of marriage.

Polygamy, incest, and so on DO significantly increase risk.

Therefore gay marriage is becoming legal -- and those other forms are not.

"...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but) does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships....the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. ..."

In re Marriage Cases, slip op. at n. 52, 79-80.

Concord, MA

If you are going to have laws giving special privileges like tax breaks to married couples you cannot restrict marriage based on sex.

Equal Protection Under the Law.

to comment

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