Quantcast
Utah

Court ruling has created 'chaotic situation,' Utah Gov. Gary Herbert says

Comments

Return To Article
  • Captain Green Heber City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    Judge Shelby made a huge mistake with his political activism, negating valid State law, and making new law from the bench, without State or voter approval. He should be taken to task for it. And hopefully this whole mess that he created will be resolved as 68% of the population in Utah want. Traditional marriage is and always will be the accepted norm throughout all the world. It is best for society and for individuals and it is what we want. We already determined that very clearly.

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    I don't get why I even vote or why they waste money putting issues on the ballot when the majority speaks and then one person says your opinion doesn't matter. Why vote?

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    I've written this over and over but it never publishes. Webster Dictionary puts new words in all the time. Why not "Pairage". Two people lawfully uniting. That way we don't change the definition of something that has existed for how many years and yet with "Pairage" a pair of people uniting, nobody is being denied any rights. Let's use some common sense (both sides)

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    "It is a false form of compassion to lead others to think that they can find fulfillment by living outside the will of God."

    Hate to break it to you, Sharonna, but it is not up to you lead me to think anyway about anything. I don't care at all about what you think about where I should, and how I should, find fulfillment. And I sure don't need your compassion.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:55 p.m.

    All men are created equal. With certain inaliable rights, among them, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not your place govenor, or your churches place to deny citizens of these united states their Rights. Hate and bigotry, have prevailed long enough! Your opinions are yours, but keep them in your church. If you dont want to marry a gay person,, then dont. This country was founded on the constitution, NOT the Bible,The book of mormon, or your interpretation of them. You may worship whom or what you may. But Please dont try to regulate other peoples beliefs for them. If you want to do that move to IRAN. You could live your life like a bigot, based upon the teachings of an old book that doesnt mean anything anymore. Wake up. Times, they are a changing. Either change with them, or get the heck out of the way! Religion is a farce! Thats why their are so many of them. Yours is No different.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    higv:
    "All laws are based on morality. Dallin H Oak's said that many times in his sermons and writings. So people without legislation can legislate there lack of morality?"

    I'm well aware of these teachings, and he is right that laws are based on morality. What you are missing and he has also explained is that constitutional law is based in the protection of our rights as citizens. When one person puts their rights before another and does harm to the rights of another that is, and will always be illegal. Of course these actions are also considered immoral...murder, stealing, extortion, etc are all immoral, AND illegal because the lack of morality in such cases infringes on the civil and human rights of other citizens. So the obvious question that follows is: how does gay marriage harm or infringe on your rights as a citizen?

    A church or religious doctrine should NEVER be allowed to dictate state and federal laws on their idea of Gods will. Why? Because we, as citizens worship different gods with different principles. Do you really want our government to decide "Gods will" and then create laws accordingly?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    @ wrz

    "Are you saying my 85yo grandfather can marry his 9yo granddaughter?"

    No. Do you not understand the concept of being a consenting adult? Just like our laws say you have to be a certain age to consume alcohol, or to drive, or enlist in the military, you also have to be of a certain age to enter into a marriage.

    It's irrelevant what the electorate in Utah want if the law or amendment they vote to pass is unconstitutional. If the ruling by this judge is unconstitutional than it was also unconstitutional to end slavery, segregation, and inter-racial marriage laws.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    @sharrona --

    "So you agree Christianity considers homosexuality a sin?"

    Of course not.

    Some Christians consider homosexuality to be a sin.

    Many Christians do not.

    Many Christian denominations are already happy to perform gay wedding ceremonies.

    Leave religion to the churches. Let the courts practice law instead.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:08 a.m.

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

    "Cite an example of harm re polygamy/incest in the Constitution."

    Not sure what you mean here. It's very easy to cite examples of harm from polygamy and incest. But polygamy and incest themselves are not specifically mentioned in the constitution, just as murder is not.

    "there haven't been any gay marriages in the US until recently. ..."

    Massachusetts has had gay marriage for 10 years. Canada has had it for 8. Several Scandinavian countries have had gay marriage and/or registered partnerships for roughly 20 years. There's been plenty of time.

    "Sorry, but Canada has but a few if any polygamy marriages. Too few for an informed judgement."

    There are millions of polygamous marriages around the world. It's very easy to see their effects.

    @logicguy --

    "If he denies their petition but sides with the gays with their petition it would make his arguments about equal protection under the law sound hollow. "

    No it wouldn't.

    Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Gay marriage does not.

    It's a very simple distinction.

    Look up the harm principle.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    When a people want something that is opposed to the divinely revealed and scientifically illustrated integrity of the family unit and demand it be put to vote, then lose the vote, and force their idea and understanding onto everyone around them, to what degree can their idea of "law" be honored or maintained? This is by far not only a problem in Utah and California.

    If everything were reversed; if the sanctity of marriage were enforced without regard to law or process despite the majority clammoring otherwise, would they not see a problem with it then?

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    RE: Contrariuserer, “Why do you expect anyone to care what the Christian Post writes? “
    So you agree Christianity considers homosexuality a sin? .e.g...

    Mother Teresa loved those who had same-sex attractions, but she still called them to purity. In fact, it is precisely because she loved them that she called them to practice chastity.
    It is a false form of compassion to lead others to think that they can find fulfillment by living outside the will of God.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    Good heavens. Why do so many people in Idaho, Arizona, etc. have such a stake in the outcome of a UTAH issue? It isn't a Mormon issue, it is a state issue.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    @wrz

    "Are you saying my 85yo grandfather can marry his 9yo granddaughter?"

    Can his 9yo granddaughter give consent? Is she a legal adult? Is this the most irrational question ever?

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 2:05 a.m.

    @logicguy
    TUCSON, AZ

    See: "rational basis"

    If Canada is right, and if huge opinion in the US is right, there exists "rational basis" for laws against polygamy rooted in protecting people, especially children, girls and women, from an inherent high risk for abuse.

    If Utah cannot establish such a "rational basis," then there is no reason not to decriminalize polygamy and Shelby should so decide.

    I tend to think that risk is real and significant. If it were possible to regulate out and protect against that risk, then polygamy should legalized.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 23, 2013 1:15 a.m.

    Noonday
    Salt Lake, UT
    "I am totally against same-sex marriage, although I well know the pull of same gender attraction. You "just say no!" and resist it, because any other course would be unthinkable. Yes, life's difficult. There aren't shortcuts to any place worth going."

    ... sorry, but that is a terrible example of not thinking things through. What you postulate has caused thousands of mormon men and women who married a Gay partner who was "fighting it" to live in a phony marriage and miss the passion that a marriage should have.

    Putting "what a church wants you to do" above what God put in your heart, due to family and community pressure, is living death.

    Children raised by two men or two women who loved each other enough to marry, despite society, are in a happy, loving home.

    Children in a mormon family that exists only because "resisting the attraction" is paramount, are in an environment that is innately a lie, and they can tell it.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:29 a.m.

    @TwoForFlinching:
    "The Constitution trumps the electorate every time."

    The Constitution says 'No state shall... deny to any person within its (state) jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

    Sounds like the document is talking about state law, not the Constitution. And the electorate of the states create state law... The electorate in Utah (and other states) tried to define marriage as between male/female. The judge's decision should be thrown out as unconstitutional.

    @Contrariuserer:
    "The concept of harm is inherent throughout the Constitution..."

    Cite an example of harm re polygamy/incest in the Constitution.

    "Every lawyer who has brought gay marriage cases before US courts has tried desperately to prove harm. They have all failed"

    Maybe because there haven't been any gay marriages in the US until recently. Too few for an informed judgement.

    "...reaffirming Canada's polygamy ban..."

    Sorry, but Canada has few if any polygamy marriages. Too few for an informed judgement.

    @im lds2:
    "Intuitively, don't you feel you have the 'right' to marry the person of your choice?"

    Are you saying my 85yo grandfather can marry his 9yo granddaughter?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:20 a.m.

    @ Bernard GUi

    Somebody else's marriage has nothing to do with your own.

  • logicguy TUCSON, AZ
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:18 p.m.

    I'm not advocating plural marriage, but actually I would like to see polygamists bring their case before Judge Shelby, and do it soon, and see how far they get. If he denies their petition but sides with the gays with their petition it would make his arguments about equal protection under the law sound hollow. And, I would like to see what the reaction of the gays would be to such a petition, or would they be insisting on "marriage equality" for us but not for them.

  • logicguy TUCSON, AZ
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:03 p.m.

    Doesn't a state's constitution have to be approved by Congress before a state can be admitted to the Union? If that is the case, then it seems that if any part of a state's constitution is to be disapproved by the federal government, then it would have to be disapproved by an act of Congress, not by one judge acting alone.

  • Hightek Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:02 p.m.

    Chaos is not what I see in the pictures from last Friday. What I see is joy, happiness and love.

    And to those on here who speak of the "will of the people", it is hubris and conceit to think that civil liberties can be denied/forfeited by the "will of the people". Read a history book and you'll see how flawed your thinking is.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 22, 2013 10:18 p.m.

    @wrz/etc. --

    "Cite an example of harm re polygamy/incest in the Constitution."

    Not sure what you mean here. It's very easy to cite examples of harm from polygamy and incest. But polygamy and incest themselves are not specifically mentioned in the constitution, just as murder is not.

    "Maybe because there haven't been any gay marriages in the US until recently. Too few for an informed judgement."

    Massachusetts has had gay marriage for 10 years. Canada has had it for 8. Several Scandinavian countries have had gay marriage and/or registered partnerships for roughly 20 years. There's been plenty of time.

    "Sorry, but Canada has but a few if any polygamy marriages. Too few for an informed judgement."

    There are millions of polygamous marriages around the world. It's very easy to see their effects.

    "Can you stop posting misinformation? "

    I've never started posting any misinformation, so it's impossible for me to stop something I've never even started.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 22, 2013 10:12 p.m.

    @cougsdawgs All laws are based on morality. Dallin H Oak's said that many times in his sermons and writings. So people without legislation can legislate there lack of morality?

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Dec. 22, 2013 10:03 p.m.

    Can someone cite me what's traditional about marriage - religious or secular?

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 22, 2013 10:02 p.m.

    @donn --

    “King was a man sent by God to do His will and there is no way that you can have that type of relationship with God and accept wrong as right,"

    Why do you expect anyone to care what the Christian Post writes?

    King's own family members are likely to have known MLK much better than any reporter, donn. And, of course, King himself worked closely with at least one openly gay man in his civil rights campaign, Bayard Rustin.

    @ThomasJefferson --

    " to say that gay marriage is different than plural marriage which is supported by many nations is.....bizarre to me!"

    What you do or do not find bizarre makes little difference in the grand scheme of things.

    Polygamy conveys a significantly increased risk of harm.

    Gay marriage does not.

    It's a very simple distinction.

  • Mexican Ute mexico, 00
    Dec. 22, 2013 9:59 p.m.

    As a member of the LDS Church, I sustain the General Authorities of the Church whenever they speak, ask God for direction, and follow it.

    This has led me to believe that in this case the GAs are right.

    My Reading of the Scriptures, specifically, 2 Nephi 2, Malachi 4, and D&C 2 confirm this for me.

    And I have seen how the Atonement can cause many people to change. Even gays.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 9:49 p.m.

    To those lds members questioning other lds members idea of prophecy and the inspired words of the proclamation, you need to step back and look long and hard at what you're saying. I am a faithful lds member and believe the words of our prophet and leaders to be true and right. Therefore I believe in the proclaimation, but here's the problem. We can't create laws to govern others based on OUR beliefs and moral principles. We don't want our government creating laws that dictate what our moral values are and how we should follow them, therefore why should we be asking our government to do such to those who seek same sex marriage? NOWHERE in our constitution does it suggest that the government should be the moral police and create laws based on moral principles. Allowing a government to do so will quickly allow for a totalitarian dictatorship like the middle age monarchies which were "annointed by God" according to the moral principles of the people at that time. Think about whether you want a government creating laws that tell lds members what is moral and immoral about their practices and beliefs.

  • Shelama SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 9:46 p.m.

    The court ruling hasn't created chaos, the state (and necessarily religion) have created chaos.

    It would be interesting and appropriate if Utah, paving and paying the way to SCOTUS, was responsible for eliminating all state bans on same-sex marriage in the U.S.

    Whether or not there's ever a stay, Herbert and the local religious and church opponents *MUST KNOW* what the ultimate outcome will be. And sooner rather than later.

    If this offends God, personally I'm more than happy to leave it and the consequence up to Him or Her.

    Meanwhile, society has *HUGE* problems. It will be nice to finally get this absolute nothing behind us so we can rationally attend to them.

    The fact is, same-sex marriage has *NO* negative impact on traditional marriage and family or their benefits, and *NO* negative impact on the state's ability to support and encourage them. The state can support and protect both traditional marriage and gay & same-sex marriage rights at the same time. As they'll shortly be doing.

    Traditional marriage and family have problems and could use some help but they certainly don't need defending or protecting from same-sex marriage.

  • Brown Honeyvale, CA
    Dec. 22, 2013 9:42 p.m.

    It is no coincidence that Judge Shelby's narcissistic, publicity-seeking ruling was released the Friday before Christmas, when many had already left on holiday.

    Surely, as an attorney and judge, he knows the process and knows what would be the best way for this issue to go through the courts for All of the people of Utah. To refuse to hear Oral Arguments to grant a Stay, Judge Shelby allowed the rights of the majority of Utahns to be trampled upon. And yes, there are other Utahns who have rights. If one man can change the law, tell me, why do I even vote? I don't even recognize our legal system; This judge should be impeached and removed.

    The silent majority needs to stop being silent.

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    Dec. 22, 2013 9:24 p.m.

    As someone recently said, the most important word in the constitution is Secure. The government has to secure the rights of the people. Gov Herbert is trying to secure the rights of the majority.

  • oaklandaforlife SLC, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 9:06 p.m.

    Baby steps, baby steps but Utah is starting to grow up. You never know, we someday may even have a lottery.

  • PA Gardener Towanda, PA
    Dec. 22, 2013 8:53 p.m.

    I know I'm an outsider looking in but here's my two cents. It has been many years since The Family proclamation was given. That was prophetic counsel foreseeing this kind of event. It is time to pull it out, dust it off, read and follow it ! The risk by not following it is to repeat history and perish.

  • Noonday Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 8:24 p.m.

    Speaking of chaos (and I'm against same-sex marriage), did you see the news?

    North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed a legal opinion last week confirming that the state does not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, allowing a man married to another man to come to North Dakota and marry a woman without divorcing his husband.

    Combine that with the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause... "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state,"

    and the Comity Clause... "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,"

    And what have we got? It serves us right.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 8:22 p.m.

    FYI: Currently 17 States have legalized gay marriage and with those we are nearing half the population of the Country live in places that allow gays to marry. At some point, a tipping point will be reached where it is no longer viable to have different laws in different States regarding marriage. Several examples: people legally marry in a State that allows it and then moves to a State that doesn't allow it. Is it still valid? What are the tax implications? Are people allowed to file as married in one State and not in another.

    The tipping point will probably not be reached when 26 States legalize it, but sooner or later that time will come and a Federal Court will order it and the matter will be concluded. Within a few years of that date children will study it in history class and wonder what the big deal was, since by then the oldsters who don't favor it will be dead and life (and opposite sex marriage) will go on without missing a beat.

  • Noonday Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 8:15 p.m.

    I am totally against same-sex marriage, although I well know the pull of same gender attraction. You "just say no!" and resist it, because any other course would be unthinkable. Yes, life's difficult. There aren't shortcuts to any place worth going.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 22, 2013 8:08 p.m.

    Those that claim to be members of the LDS church but don't think he cares about same gender marriage if you look at there sites and GC you know the church leaders don't support same gender marriage and do you believe they are called of God or not?

  • donn layton, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 8:08 p.m.

    RE: Contrariuserer "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream.

    The Christian Post that in studying King’s speeches, he could not conceive the civil rights leader heading a gay rights movement.

    “King was a man sent by God to do His will and there is no way that you can have that type of relationship with God and accept wrong as right," Peterson told CP. "In the scriptures it says that homosexuality is an abomination against God.”

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 7:33 p.m.

    re: "The concept of marriage is now meaningless. There is no longer a rationale to prevent any person or any group of people from entering into whatever they want to call "marriage."

    When did these symptoms start to appear? 20 years ago when the first same-sex marriage was performed? Or, in 2004 in Mass? What about California? Are the worse at a certain time of the month or in the mornings, afternoons or evenings? If someone else's marriage makes you feel this way, clearly your not in control of your own relationship. Time to schedule an appoint with a counselor?

  • Gram Cracker Price, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 7:30 p.m.

    It is amazing that so many "forward thinking" gay people WANT to get married, while other "forward thinking" heterosexual people cohabit and don't even bother to marry.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 7:28 p.m.

    @TexasCoug
    " Couldn't this be resolved if those who support gay marriage live in a place that the majority of people vote for legal gay marriage?"

    That's like trying to resolve the slavery issue in 1850 by telling those who hate slavery or being slaves to just move to New York.

    "I guess if the "interpretation" of the constitution mandates that all states within the United States to legalize gay marriage, then perhaps some states should secede and form a country that allows them to interpret the constitution how they want to."

    Oh please, nobody's going to secede over gay marriage.

  • dustman Gallup, NM
    Dec. 22, 2013 7:18 p.m.

    If the Utah law is unconstitutional then re-write the law. But if you like our constitution, and there is no way to write a law banning same-sex marriage, then maybe you should rethink what you're trying to do. Is changing the US Constitution worth a state's ban on same-sex marriage?

  • Bernard GUi Puyallup, WA
    Dec. 22, 2013 6:41 p.m.

    The concept of marriage is now meaningless. There is no longer a rationale to prevent any person or any group of people from entering into whatever they want to call "marriage."

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 6:10 p.m.

    Herbies stay just denied, didn't meet the requirements, the AG surely should have known better. Are the clowns running state government again?

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 6:00 p.m.

    I am surprised that with the repeated mention of George Wallace in these comments that no one has brought up Anita Bryant. For those too young to remember she was a beauty queen and minor celebrity back in 1977. When Miami passed a non discrimination ordinance to protect gay people, she started a successful "christian" campaign to repeal that got national attention. She became the spokesperson for Florida Orange Juice until gays mounted a counter campaign that brought a boycott of Florida juice and got her fired.

    Today she like Governor Wallace is largely forgotten and resides deeply in the dustbin of history as she lives out her life in obscurity watching as the Berlin Wall that blocks gay marriage quickly coming down. Governor Herbert has to know the game is up. He is simply keeping his ratings up with those that haven't figured it out yet.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 22, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    "let's not compare the Civil rights movement with the Gay rights movement."
    "Couldn't this be resolved if those who support gay marriage live in a place that the majority of people vote for legal gay marriage?"

    Oh, the irony.

    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."

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 22, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    TA1
    "I also believe that it is inappropriate to judge those Church members who supported the LGBT community in the quest for equality"

    Sorry to say, but the LGBT community will find themselves mostly alone. They will likely be shunned/ostracized by the straight community... especially when the straight community conjures procedures for LGBT marriage consummations.

    "To the posters whose oppose this ruling, presuming to know the will of the Lord with regard to those of us who have supported the quest for LGBT equality is simply wrong."

    I think the predominant Utah Church (LDS) has already printed the will of the Lord (Proclamation to the Family).

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 22, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    @TexasCoug --

    "let's not compare the Civil rights movement with the Gay rights movement. "

    Martin Luther King III supports a boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi because of their anti-gay 'propaganda' law. He has said, referring to his father, that "I think that as he worked to advocate for civil and human rights, he was talking for everyone, not just for people of color."

    One of the chief architects of MLK Jr's March on Washington was an openly gay man, Bayard Rustin.

    Rev. Bernice King. MLK's daughter, said in 2012 that civil rights included those who are "heterosexual or homosexual, or gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender."

    Coretta Scott King said in 1998: "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people".

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 22, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    Tom Johnson
    Spanish Fork, UT
    'Many who are attracted to the same sex call for gay marriage on the basis that they should just be allowed to do what they want since it doesn't concern the rest of us. Recently, I heard a faithful Mormon say he didn't mind if gays could marry because they should have their free agency. On that basis we should repeal the murder, theft, rape, and many other laws since these all interfere with people's free agency."

    ... Nonsense! Such acts damage other parties.

    "If homosexual behavior is a sin, which the Bible says it is in 18 different passages and the Church Handbook of Instructions says it is, our responsibility as Church members and citizens is to seek to enact laws that prohibit sin and to preserve laws that enable righteousness."

    ...It may be correct that those rules exist for mormons, but the USA is a free country, you cannot expect to enact them for all Americans.

    ...Most Americans now understand that Gay people are born that way and have a right to live as they please.

    ...US citizens who pay taxes but are Gay should not have the same rights as others??

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    @Tom Johnson
    "On that basis we should repeal the murder, theft, rape, and many other laws since these all interfere with people's free agency."

    There's a difference between keeping coffee legal (despite being against the WoW) and making murder legal. Same-sex marriage doesn't harm anybody so it's more like coffee.

    @BlackDiamond
    "Stop gay marriage before this place is going to be burnt like Sodom of old."

    Oh great, now when we get another "warmest year on record" it's going to be attributed to gay people rather than climate change...

    @desert
    "I do understand that gay and lesb. do have love for each other, but this love is a brotherly and sisterly love"

    Brotherly/sisterly love doesn't involve sexual attraction...

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 22, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    This is becoming a one world society, so it does not really matter what Utahns think.

    Does it really ? It does, because if you can stand up for civil rights and civil privacy,
    why should Utah not take a stand at what is right ?

    People are not afraid of neighbors and new life styles,
    they are afraid of who is going to be in charge to educate their children.
    If the mainstream is going to do that job, it gonna cost their children.
    It will hurt along the line of time and trust a lot.

    There used to be a religious party among the Jews, that did dominate all Israel at that time, they were the cause of much later trouble : Jerusalem was wiped away, history did change a lot. The Jews had to go elsewhere. Who are the Hypocrites today ?

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Dec. 22, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    I also am a member of the LDS Church, having been so for almost a quarter of century, and I support equal treatment of all people and am happy for all those have benefited from this ruling.

    I also believe that it is inappropriate to judge those Church members who supported the LGBT community in the quest for equality -

    To the posters whose oppose this ruling, presuming to know the will of the Lord with regard to those of us who have supported the quest for LGBT equality is simply wrong.

    When we all stand before the judgment bar - and we all will - it will be interesting to see whether - how we treated our brothers and sisters rates, verses how well we are able to cite Church doctrine.

  • TexasCoug Midland, TX
    Dec. 22, 2013 3:09 p.m.

    Let's not confuse constitutional rights with one's interpretation of constitutional rights. Also, let's not compare the Civil rights movement with the Gay rights movement. That is just disgusting to say that both groups faced the same discrimination. I would be embarrassed to use this rationale. Couldn't this be resolved if those who support gay marriage live in a place that the majority of people vote for legal gay marriage? Last time I checked multiple states have already done so. Let those who want gay marriage live in those states. Let those who don't support gay marriage live in other states without gay marriage. Then everyone can be happy. However, Some of the problem seems to be that those who are gay are concerned with how others who don't endorse their lifestyle view them. I guess if the "interpretation" of the constitution mandates that all states within the United States to legalize gay marriage, then perhaps some states should secede and form a country that allows them to interpret the constitution how they want to.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 22, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    @desert

    They say, it does not effect anyone.

    Now you see, it did.
    ---
    The question is not whether "effect", but whether "harm" or "injure" anyone.
    the appeal by Prop. 8 supporters was rejected by SCOTUS. why? because they could not articulate "a concrete, particularized injury" caused by gay marriage, that is why they lost in the courtroom.

    Amendment 3 lost in court, why? because the state attorneys could not explain how banning gay marriage would promote traditional marriage and how gay marriage would harm traditional marriage. If you can make better arguments, they can really use your help.

  • kvnsmnsn Springville, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 2:22 p.m.

    New to Utah posted:

    =Utah has spoken and they support traditional
    =Marriage 66% vs 34.%, One activist judge should
    =not over rule this.

    The problem with this is that the states of the United States chose unanimously, 100% to 0%, to ratify the US Constitution, and it looks to me like that Constitution gave that one "activist judge" the power to have the last word on what is legal and what is not. Well, not quite the last word; as the article said, the case is being appealed to a higher court. But if you want to keep activist judges from overturning cases voted in by a majority of the population, then that's going to involve revising the US Constitution. That's certainly possible, but I'm not sure you have the patience for that.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Dec. 22, 2013 2:13 p.m.

    This situation must be quite scary for those who have led a sheltered life.
    I am sixty-five year old individual. As a young child, I recall our wonderful neighbors, who consisted of moms, dads and kids; mom and kids: lady couples living together, gentlemen couples living together.
    Our neighborhood was a safe place full of people who could be counted on for support and life long friendships.
    This wonderful place, however, was not in Utah.
    Could this account for the fear many feel?

  • BlackDiamond Provo, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    Stop gay marriage before this place is going to be burnt like Sodom of old.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 22, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    @ desert

    Sorry this has to be .....that knowledge is derived from a far away time !

    and....." Man was also in the beginning with god, intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be." DC 93

  • donquixote84721 Cedar City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    I do not believe that it was an accident that this ruling was released on a week-end.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 22, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    Once the politicians step aside and let the clerks do their job, the chaos will end.

    Once the politicians step aside and cease feeding people's fears, reconciliation will begin.

    Once the politicians step aside, the good people of Utah will treat their Gay neighbors generously just as they did with the Black Community after the difficult Civil Rights struggle.

    Once the politicians step aside, people will realize granting equal rights to others isn't an attack on their own rights - marital or otherwise.

    Delay is pointless and petty. Whether its a year from now or tomorrow morning at 8:00 AM, Gays will enjoy the same rights as everyone else and the State of Utah will be better for it.

    This is a time for leaders to appeal to the Better Angels of Our Nature. If you can't do that - then please step aside.

  • Dawn22 Provo, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    Separation of church and state. All arguments based on faith of any kind are totally invalid. The proclamation to the family is NOT an argument and cannot be considered.
    The constitution of the United States was created to protect the natural, inalienable (in-a-lien-able) right of each individual against tyranny. This means that no matter how great a majority want something, they cannot impose it if it violates the rights of any individual.
    The US is NOT a democracy. We are a constitutional democratic REPUBLIC. We elect representatives who we entrust to vote and legislate on our behalf. Utah elected Senators Hatch and Lee, and they recommended judge Shelby. The purpose of the Judicial branch is to provide a 'check and balance' to ensure legislation is within the bounds of the US constitution. The state of Utah, via our elected representatives, CHOSE Judge Shelby. Judge Shelby ruled correctly.
    Defining marriage, based upon religious belief, is a form of religious tyranny. The same tyranny that this country was founded to avoid.

    Mormons, are so quick to forget that a short time ago YOU were the oppressed minority? How can you now do the same to others?

  • Red San Antonia, TX
    Dec. 22, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    I'm politically incorrect to say that our whole nation is trending downward in almost every way.

  • Tom Johnson Spanish Fork, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    Many who are attracted to the same sex call for gay marriage on the basis that they should just be allowed to do what they want since it doesn't concern the rest of us. Recently, I heard a faithful Mormon say he didn't mind if gays could marry because they should have their free agency. On that basis we should repeal the murder, theft, rape, and many other laws since these all interfere with people's free agency. If homosexual behavior is a sin, which the Bible says it is in 18 different passages and the Church Handbook of Instructions says it is, our responsibility as Church members and citizens is to seek to enact laws that prohibit sin and to preserve laws that enable righteousness.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Dec. 22, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    Why is something an unalienable right? God declared it to be so. But if we want to suppress the views of people anyone who isn't an atheist, then we can decide inalienable rights based on a majority vote. How did the people in Utah on the inalienable right that two people of the same gender can marry? They voted against it. 66%. So it isn't a right based on a majority vote.

    Herbert is on the right side of history. Fascist movements always fade away.

  • sunderland56 Moab, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal".

    It's a shame that some people don't believe in the Constitution.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 22, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    @ utah chick

    Your comment is well to be noticed.
    The Equality in loving all men is a love that includes knowledge god has about each one of us. That knowldege is not derived from a far away time.
    There was a time when we used to live with him, as daughters and sons of god in heaven.

    Loving his daughters is forward hope for their final state of being, this includes all of their gifts and talents inherite to being a female. There you see, god can never love man
    and women despite their gender but because of their gender. Women have more rights than man(plural) due to her special kind gifts of being a girl and mother. The same goes for man in other terms.

    I do understand that gay and lesb. do have love for each other, but this love is a brotherly and sisterly love, it is misplaced at some time and cannot fit into a bond called marriage. That is why the church wants to help, not judge.

    " Man was also in the beginning with god, intelligence, or the light of truth, was not reated or made, neither indeed can be." DC 93

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    @Mom of Six

    Wow six kids? I am just finishing paying for my third college education; I can't imagine having three more to go!

    As to your first issue, same-sex marriage has been widely discussed and debated for decades and in fact has been in existence for many, many years (a decade in Massachusetts for instance) so to not have anticipated it or be blindsided in any way means that you have not been paying attention to reality. You can simply look to Massachusetts, Iowa, or many other places where same-sex marriage has been legal for many years to answer your questions.

    Regarding your second question, I assume you are serious so I'll answer it. Many laws passed by majorities of peoples, or by their elected representatives, are not just. Slavery, is the most simple example. It was the will of the people in the southern states. The majority does not always rule (particularly when the rights of the minority are being trampled).

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    @Mom of Six
    "Will those who believe in traditional marriage, such as myself, be FORCED to perform these marriages?"

    No. Think of it this way. The LDS church is free to restrict temple marriages to those who aren't part of the church (for mixed-faith marriages) even though we have protections against religious discrimination. They'll keep the option to not marry same-sex couples (something asserted in the court ruling though it would be the case even if it weren't) because of the 1st Amendment.

    "Will people be labeled hateful and bigoted for believing in "old fashioned" marriage?"

    Same-sex marriage doesn't have to be law for that to happen.

    "Why not have a happy medium and give those who live an alternative lifestyle an alternative form to marriage that would give the same rights without compromising those who have religious values."

    Separate but equal is inherently unequal. Plus, for someone worried about your church being restricted in who they can/can't/have to marry, you sure have no problems indirectly going after other churches who do want to marry same-sex couples. They have religious values too you know.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    I applaud Governor Herbert for supporting Utah values. "Traditional Marriage Today! Traditional Marriage Tomorrow!
    Just like another great Governor, George Wallace while supporting similar traditional values said "Segregation Today! Segregation Tomorrow! The only thing Governor Herbert still needs to do is call in the national guard to help defend traditional marriage.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:38 a.m.

    If I understand correctly the 5th and 14th Amendments (Due Process and Equal Protection) were all ratified by the states and voters. The US constitution takes precedence over state laws and constitutional amendments. Now, can someone explain to me how Judge Shelby's understanding of Equal Protection is wrong? Please someone, explain it to me as a simple layperson.

  • utah chick cedar city, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't God supposed to love everyone? If God doesn't love everyone equally, I'm pretty sure God is not someone I care to associate with.

  • Mom of Six Northern Utah, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    I think the real issue here is two fold. The first issue is the fact that those who are religious such as myself see this path to be a very dark one. Where do the rights end? Will those who believe in traditional marriage, such as myself, be FORCED to perform these marriages? Will people be labeled hateful and bigoted for believing in "old fashioned" marriage? Those who are for gay marriage, will tell you "no". However in my lifetime of 40 years, I would have never thought gay marriage would be an issue, ever. I can see a long path ahead of force and coercion. The second issue here is a matter of a federal judge ignoring the will of the majority of Utah voters. The leaders of our country have let the states decide the fate of gay marriage. This is unjust and unfair to throw the will of the people out! Why not have a happy medium and give those who live an alternative lifestyle an alternative form to marriage that would give the same rights without compromising those who have religious values.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    I believe what the governor is trying to say is that the State's lack of preparation has caused a chaotic situation. Surely losing the case was a contingency that could've been prepared for. And since the State did not put up cogent arguments in the case, losing the case was likely. Blaming your own incompetence upon a judge is not becoming.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    They say, it does not effect anyone.

    Now you see, it did.

  • Big Joe V Rancho Cucamonga, CA
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    Now you know how we Californians feel. When the Government no longer respects the laws of the land, then it's integrity is compromised. Therefore the citizens may feel their respect of the of the government and the decisions it issues are null. Next step is anarchy.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    Dear Governor Herbert:

    Thank you for fighting for what's right and the will of the people. If the will of the people has no meaning, American has ceased to exist. Please continue and know that "We The People" support you and your efforts.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    Such hate comments directed at a successful governor (for a state with a thriving economy and an unemployment rate that has dropped to 4.3%), for his desire to make sure the First Amendment rights of his state's citizens are not being unduly overturned by one activist judge in preference for a small radical group.

    And to top it off, these comments are coming from those who complain about the lack of tolerance in our society. Maybe they feel tolerance is lacking because they don't feel it in themselves.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 22, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    "Here, it is not the Constitution that has changed, but the knowledge of what it means to be gay or lesbian. The court cannot ignore the fact that the Plaintiffs are able to develop a committed, intimate relationship with a person of the same sex but not with a person of the opposite sex. The court, and the State, must adapt to this changed understanding."
    Judge Shelby

    Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

  • BU52 Provo, ut
    Dec. 22, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    Since judge Shelby considers himself more powerful than the population of Utah, but he failed to rule that all the county offices had to stay open on the weekend and cater to this small minority. I do have a serious question: If marriage is so important to these folks why haven't they planned a holiday to Vermont or Hawaii and done the deed there? All of a sudden its such a catastrophy? Sorry I don't understand other than it being some symbolic thing.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 22, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    The arguments against same-sex marriage seem to be the poster doesn't like it, the poster's religion doesn't like it, it will legalize the abuse of animals and children, it will solve all the legal issues surrounding polygamy thereby making polygamy legal , and/or it will cause the apopalyptic end of the world.

    Not legally valid reasons for a law.

    When the State of Utah argued against same-sex marriage before Judge Shelby, the arguments were that the gold standard for families is married heterosexual parents and the primary purpose of marriage is stability for children conceived accidentally or on purpose. They also stated they allow infertile couples to marry because those coulpes may raise children who are not able to be raised by their biological parents.

    The State of Utah did not present one single reason why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry. They did not disagree with the facts presented by the same-sex couples.

    The only way Judge Shelby could have legally found for the State would have been to make up evidence not presented - which would have been activism and overstepping bounds.

    Why should the Judge do the lawyers job?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    66% approved Amendment 3….

    9 years ago.

    You want to push amendment 3 today? I dare you.

    'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011

    'For the first time since Gallup started studying the issue in 1996, the polling organization found a majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.'

    A clear and evident majority support gay marriage today. You cannot cite the 'will of the people' as majority of Americans support slavery.

    Today, we know better.

    Also, the constitution protects ALL it's citizens. Not ignore the ones people make a concentrated effort to keep as 2nd class, citizens.

    We talk of 'one person' over-ruling the will of the people (which, is actually supports gay marriage)…

    What is Herbert, if he puts a stay?

    One person, overturning the will of a majority of Americans, supporting gay marriage.

    That, is Tyranny.

    And Deseret news board, please publish findings from your own paper.

    'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011

    'For the first time since Gallup started studying the issue in 1996, the polling organization found a majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.'

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Arizona1

    I am surprised to read your arguments against calling marriage a 'right'.

    Intuitively, don't you feel you have the "right' to marry the person of your choice? If not, why not?

    The best legal minds in the country have repeatedly agreed that marriage IS a 'right'.

    Indeed, from the founding of the country it has been a principle of the Constitution that 'rights' in here in each individual, and cannot be granted by the Constitution or the Government - rights can only be protected by law. As such, each individual has an inherent set of "un-enumerated rights", including the right to marry the consenting person of their choice, and the Bill of RIGHTS clearly states:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    In other words, just because marriage is not 'enumerated' in the Constitution or its amendments does not mean individuals do not have it as a 'right'. By contrast, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention specific "(licensed) privileges", much less marriage as one of them.

    So, you are just plain wrong.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Dec. 22, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    "The reality is that the Constitution has been and continues to be interpreted by the prevailing judicial process without regard to Christian value."

    The reality is that the Constitution continues to be interpreted without regard for what it SAYS or what was INTENDED.

    Sadly Utahns never realized their vote on Amendment 3 was pointless. Apparently the (fill in the blank?)-given right to marry someone of your own gender has been enshrined in the 14th Amendment all along! Many of us were just too unsophisticated to see it. We shouldn't feel bad though. Even the drafters and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment never saw it!

    Seriously, the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause have been around for close to 150 years, and it is only NOW that we are finding out that SSM is required by them?? It takes an amazing amount of hubris to view one's own judgment as so much more enlightened and superior to the majority of a state's population, not to mention those who gave us the Constitution and all prior generations of recorded history.

  • Orem Social Worker Orem, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    Utah is not a theocracy! There is a clear line of separation in the Constitution of Church and State. A marriage license, has always been, since its inception in the early 1900's, a legal contract (mostly having to do with property ownership and transfer)between a couple and the State of issuance. Nowhere in the United States is it mandatory to have a religious ceremony in order to legitimize or legalize a marriage. Likewise, there is no legal standing for anyone to sue a Church over their decision to not marry anyone in particular, be they same sex or different religions or races. The Constitution protects both the secular and non-secular. This has nothing to do with the LDS Church or any other Church. It is a state issue and the sooner our government remembers they are not a ruling Theocracy the better. Not only will denying Utah same-sex couples the right to marry cruel and unjust, in the bigger picture, all the "rainy day money" Utah has saved to go to social service programs and education will be eaten up in lengthy, protracted lawsuits that they will lose, just like California did.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    The only real chaos is that opponents don't want the judge's decision to be implemented. Until a higher court overrules the decision, it is the law. You do believe in upholding the law, don't you, Governor?

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Dec. 22, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    Chaos usually follows when peoples bigotry has been turned on it's head. See Alabama in the 1960's for an example.Same sex marriage will be allowed in the entire country. It is only a matter of time. In the interim, those who value freedom and equality for all must remain vigilant. The reason is that the domestic enemies of this great nation are not dead yet, they are like a wounded animal. Stay vigilant until the last breath of bigotry has been exhaled.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    Most of us would not be here if we didn't care about members of the LDS Church.We would have left! We stay because of the people we love, despite the fact that so many people oppose us! Every day I work with Mormons and they know who I am! They helped me through some of the hardest times in my life and without words, I felt their support. It was so strong that I actually went around and thanked them. How do we make people see that we are only doing what we feel is right for us? We haven't demanded that anyone change their beliefs! Nobody can do that! I don't even try. We have to stand up for ourselves! I can't help it if someone believes that I am abomination! I will stand up and say "NO". I will not accept that definition of me! Some of take it upon yourselves to judge not only us, but other members for supporting us! A lot of pain is caused by doing that! I try not to do it. I do love the Church. People asume so much!

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 6:56 a.m.

    So sad that the governor is racing to take away the rights of a few hundred Utahns seeking to marry rather than deal with the millions in Utah facing the worst air quality in the nation and its health affects on tens of thousands of Utahns, including children and the unborn. Where are his priorities?

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 22, 2013 5:39 a.m.

    @wrz --

    "There's where you're going wrong."

    Nope.

    The concept of harm is inherent throughout the Constitution and our legal system. I'm sorry that you refuse to see it, but it's there nonetheless.

    And every judge of every court in this land understands it, despite your failure to do so.

    "How can you be sure? "

    Every lawyer who has brought gay marriage cases before US courts has tried desperately to prove harm. They have all failed -- and that's why their cases have failed in court.

    "there is 'harm' in some heterosexual marriages. ..."

    Again -- it's about increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage -- just as the legality of drunk driving is based on the fact that it's *more* dangerous than sober driving.

    "harm....is not from the marriage but probably from religious or other teachings."

    From Justice Bauman, reaffirming Canada's polygamy ban: ""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."

    And notice, there's that word "harm" again.

  • The Last Word South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 2:42 a.m.

    Long live Traditional Marriage! So tragic to see our society become desensitized at an alarming pace over the past couple decades regarding gay marriage. Our worlds become very good at justifying sin by claiming gay marriage to be a fundamental right. What will it be next? The strength of our society is collapsing before our eyes.

  • BroJoseph Ogden, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 2:30 a.m.

    Let us not forget those who have raised their voices for the Constitution. Those who proclaimed the standard of the Constitution, but failed to comprehend the day that the Constitution would one day become their own demise. All the talk of retaining the Constitution that would hang by a thread. The reality is that the Constitution has been and continues to be interpreted by the prevailing judicial process without regard to Christian value. Those who have promoted Constitutional value as inspired, did not understand that it applied to its conception and not what we have today. The Constitution of today legalizes abortions, denies prayer in school, allows citizens to arm themselves and enmasse munitions because of fear of their fellowman and now recognizing marriage as outside the law as the Creator subscribed. We have heard from pulpits and rallies "the Constitution"the Constitution", without the vision and forsight that laws regulated by undiciplined men who Amend the Constitution would become their nemesis. In the past it was "Communism" and Socialism as America, s enemy's, when the real enemy is its own political, religious and secular leaders and the lack of vision by its people.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 1:57 a.m.

    Why does everybody care so much if gay marriage is legal? If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married. It's that simple. Stop worrying about things that have no affect on you whatsoever.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 1:29 a.m.

    @ New to Utah

    Back in the 60's the majority of people in Mississippi supported segregation. Should that have stood too?

    The Constitution trumps the electorate every time.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 22, 2013 1:04 a.m.

    @Ricardo Carvalho: "If gay marriage is contrary to God's will, I am confident that He will deal with it in His own way in the hereafter."

    He's already dealt with it... in His Holy Bible: 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.' Leviticus 18:22

    @Bob K:
    "... there is no legal or moral justification to continue to put a group of tax paying citizens out in the cold to please churches."

    I think you're onto something... What you seem to be saying is, there's no justification to deny any types of marriage arrangements including polygamy, incestuous types, pedophilia types, etc... You name it.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 22, 2013 12:56 a.m.

    @Contrariuserer:
    "Now, look at the 'equal protection of the laws' part. This means, of course, that all citizens are equally protected. It doesn't mean that one group is allowed to do harm while another group isn't."

    There's where you're going wrong. Yes, the equal protection clause says all citizens are to be equally protected (have equal rights). It says nothing about harm, which is a subjective issue and not part of the cause. Therefore, under the Constitution, it's about equal rights only. Thus, all marriages are to be protected... including gays, polygamists, heterosexuals, etc.

    "Gay marriage does no harm."

    How can you be sure? Gay marriage hasn't been around long enough in any kind of numbers to make such determinations. Furthermore, there is 'harm' in some heterosexual marriages. Then should that form of marriage be banned?

    "Polygamy and incest do."

    If there's harm in polygamist marriage (and I doubt there is) it is not from the marriage but probably from religious or other teachings.

    As for incest, there are no incest marriages to make a study or judgement. And if it's about offspring, the government has no business being involved there.

  • Arizona1 Tucson, AZ
    Dec. 22, 2013 12:04 a.m.

    It seems like everyone in favor of "gay marriage" keep calling it a "right." Unfortunately, the word "right" is the most abused and misused word in politics. Why? Because if advocates for a cause can change society's vocabulary regarding a certain issue, they can change how people think about that issue.

    If people think it is a right to have free contraceptives, then shame one those who would deprive them of such an inalienable right. Many think abortion is about a woman's right to choose. It's not. A woman makes a choice when she chooses to have sex--something that can lead to pregnancy. Pro-lifers support a woman's right to choose, but with choices there are consequences. Many pro-lifers are even in favor of allowing a woman to choose an abortion if she was raped. Why? She didn't have a choice in the first place.

    As for "gay marriage" being a right? Abraham Lincoln said you could call a dog's tail a leg, but that wouldn't change the fact that the dog still only has four legs. In short, call it what you want, but that doesn't make it so.

  • collegestudent25 Cedar City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 12:00 a.m.

    Why so many liberals commenting on the Deseret news? You can go yead the tribune if you don't like what is written here. There they will tell you all you want to hear about how blind the rest of us are.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 11:54 p.m.

    @Ricardo Carvalho

    "I am a faithful member of the LDS Church ...If gay marriage is contrary to God's will, I am confident that He will deal with it in His own way in the hereafter."

    If you are a faithful member of the LDS Church, then you know full well that gay marriage is against God's will. Either you believe in revelation or you don't. The Proclamation on the Family isn't just some nice looking parchment you buy at Deseret Book to hang on the living room wall. 'Faithful' members of the LDS church had better settle this issue in their minds. We don't hate or hurt gay people. But we also don't help usher in something we know is against God's will. Either the President of the Church is the Prophet, or he isn't.

  • Arizona1 Tucson, AZ
    Dec. 21, 2013 11:40 p.m.

    In response to Baccus0902's comment that Governor Gary Herbert could be known as "immoral, bigoted and in (sic) the wrong side of history," I think the quote "When 40 million people believe in a dumb idea, it’s still a dumb idea" best describes what Governor Herbert is up against. If 40 million people--or more--view him as immoral and bigoted, so be it. At least he will be standing on a matter of principle. Let the chips fall where they may, Governor Herbert, if he makes a stand against judges legislating from the bench, will be on the right side of history for trying to uphold the Constitution.

    I might add that even Barack Obama has indicated on numerous occasions that "gay marriage" is an issue that should be decided on the state level--of course the chameleon might be evolving on that one too.

  • mpo South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 11:28 p.m.

    I applaud Gov. Herbert's attempts to allow the will of the people of this state rightly determine our laws, rather than one judge.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 11:16 p.m.

    Utah has spoken and they support traditional
    Marriage 66% vs 34.%, One activist judge should
    not over rule this.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 21, 2013 11:09 p.m.

    How can people claim to be faithful members of the LDS church while publicly disagreeing with what his servants said? I sustain the prophet but. What makes them smarter than people the Lord called to preside over them? Smarter than God himself.

    And why were people able to run to the county offices right away before another court rules. Hopefully the licsences will be revoked any case the laws of God won't say they are married and Religious people have as much a right to defend there rights as irreligious people. A higher court will overturn this law!

  • Bob in Boise Garden City, ID
    Dec. 21, 2013 10:53 p.m.

    It is a sad day for Utah and for our nation. Forget that the issue is same sex marriage. One federal judge should not be permitted to decide what the marriage law should be in Utah. If the amendment is to be overturned, it should be done through the political process.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 10:47 p.m.

    Ricardo: P.S. LDS leaders, those whom you say you support, refer to those things you support as quite the opposite of "Love." The Proclamation on the Family is quite clear. God will not recognize their relationship as "Love." In every case and reading of mine over many years, it is referred to as just the opposite. Repentance is the part of the here, as well as the hereafter. One has to recognize the mistake first,however. After a lifetime of living a certain way, I doubt those who have been living that way will even recognize what it is they need to do to change. Perhaps we will all end up in exactly the place we choose. In that sense, progress is stopped, which is also a good reason to stand up for what you know is right to give people a chance to make a choice.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    Fix the situation. The court ruling isn't the problem.

  • JoCo Ute Grants Pass, OR
    Dec. 21, 2013 10:25 p.m.

    Amen Ricardo. You make way too much sense for the state of Utah. Letting God do God's work is way too radical a concept.

    The Gov. need to get the Attorney General right on this. . . . oh wait Utah doesn't have one and the last two will be busy keeping their butts out of jail. Oh well political leaders in Utah will still play to the cheap seats, same as always.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 10:12 p.m.

    Probably wouldn't be so "chaotic" if not for the fact that same-sex couples know they very well have to get their marriage certificates in a matter of days before a stay is likely to be issued thanks to the appeal.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 21, 2013 9:56 p.m.

    I can see it now...the name of "Herbert" right alongside "Wallace" on that memorial wall of infamy...

  • Ricardo Carvalho Provo, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 9:56 p.m.

    Dear Governor Herbert,

    I am a faithful member of the LDS Church and a voter in the great State of Utah. I support gay marriage. If gay marriage is contrary to God's will, I am confident that He will deal with it in His own way in the hereafter. I don't feel that it is our responsibility to deprive our brothers and sisters of that most basic desire to see their love recognized through the formality of marriage.

  • ute alumni SLC, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 9:49 p.m.

    thanks out of staters for having such an interest in utah. let's see, California, Oregon, Virginia and Texas. wow!

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Dec. 21, 2013 8:34 p.m.

    This is the real world...not the little bubble of fantasy that much of Utah fancies itself.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 21, 2013 7:15 p.m.

    Dear Gov Herbert:

    One understands that you are compelled to attempt a quashing of the recent ruling, both by those who voted for you and your church.

    I respectfully suggest that the "chaotic situation" comes purely from you and other officials not preparing for the inevitable arrival of marriage equality.

    The judge really had no "wiggle room" NOT to rule for equality, due to several precedents, and because, especially with the Federal Government granting equality of benefits, etc, to same sex married, there is no legal or moral justification to continue to put a group of tax paying citizens out in the cold to please churches.

    The ruling was due no later than next month. Was everyone playing ostrich about the very real possibility that the judge would do his duty?

    On another DN thread, someone asked how the judge could possibly not follow the lds Doctrine of the Family, since it is so simple. Maybe you feel the same, but I believe Federal judges are sworn to follow the US Constitution, not my religion or yours.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 21, 2013 7:03 p.m.

    I hope this governor will spend more time on economy and creating jobs, instead of trying to take away same sex couples' right to marry. and frankly, no matter how he fights, no matter what kind of legal battles, even setbacks ahead, marriage equality will eventually win out and stay in Utah!

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 21, 2013 6:52 p.m.

    To Utah's Governor Gary Herbert,

    Sir, be wise with your place in history. Former Alabama Governor George Wallace is widely known for taking a stand that was immoral, bigoted and in the wrong side of history.