Comments about ‘Appeals court denies stay on same-sex marriage ruling pending hearing Monday’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Dec. 22 2013 10:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
slc, UT

"The governor said he will be working closely with the attorney general’s office to work through the confusion caused in county offices since Friday." There is no confusion for the county clerks they need simply complywith their legal duty which at this time includes issuing marriage licenses to gay couples that request them. They may not like the law but they must follow it. You do not get to ignore a law just because you don't agree gov hurbert or did we not learn anything from the swallow fiscal?

Vince here
San Diego, CA

Equality will prevail.

Independent Cuss
Waldoboro, ME

The Governor referred to the overturned amendment as "in defense of traditional marriage".
Neither he, nor anyone else, has presented any evidence that the unions of same sex persons in any way requires "defense of traditional marriage". I am a married heterosexual, and what goes on between my homosexual neighbors, marital and otherwise, has nothing to do with my own marriage.
Why try to defend something that needs no defense? Ahhhhh.... small-minded fear. Well, that's no basis for law, even if a majority of citizens share in the irrationality.

Somewhere in Time, UT

I'm so tired of this intolerance and constant bullying that goes on by the supporters of same-sex marriage. No one can disagree with them without constant name calling and viciousness. You know it's interesting. There was a time when the gay community argued in favor of tolerance. Now all they fight for is intolerance.

The will of people of Utah should be upheld. If "We the People" can be overridden by judges with their own agenda, America has ceased to be America.

Sandy, UT

@Cats. The will of the people can not supersede the US Constitution. If you read the judges ruling and the case law he used to make his decision, such as Loving v. Virginia you would find it eerie how the state of utah used the same arguments that the state of Virginia made against interracial marriage.

You are or any one is still free to feel gay marriage is wrong or a sin but you can not deny a citizen the same right you have based off tradition or religious beliefs.

Kearns, UT

Hate to break it to you, but the gay community is part of "We the People." To me, that phrase means that the people of our great nation will look out for everyone--not just those they think are acceptable.

Highland, UT

This is what make America great. The majority cannot rule the minority. Women, blacks, the disabled, etc. have all received rights against the wishes of the majority.

Another step forward for fairness, equality, and the American dream. Oh, and I can't wait to go to more weddings that celebrate commitment and love, a Christian virtue.

Salt Lake City, UT

Discrimination is not a family value.

Potsdam, 00

Am I confused about who is tolerant and not, or am I being made to believe ?
Looks to me, that arguments of intelligent deceptions are going to win.

Wonder how many waking Utahns will go back to sleep because of fear about tolerance.
Be nice to a new minority, but be strong to say NO.

Big Bubba
Herriman, UT

There are a lot of arguments from supporters of gay marriage that read like "How is gay marriage going to hurt heterosexual marriage" and "I don't care what homosexuals do." Let me enlighten these people. Religious conservatives are concerned about the effect that sanctioned gay marriage will have on our country's moral standing. They are also concerned about widespread, blatant disregard for God's marriage laws and the effect this will have on society as a whole. These concerns arise from deep Christian religious conviction, the kind of convictions that apparently many gay marriage advocates could care less about.

Wilf 55

As a Mormon I feel that sustaining marriage equality is showing tolerance and acceptance. I understand that my church sets rules for its own members, but it cannot impose those rules on others. As a heterosexual married man, I cannot see how same-sex marriage could hurt my marriage. Let judge Shelby's rule stand, and let the whole issue rest for the happiness of all.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

There isn't a single valid argument against gay marriage. Not one. Your religious beliefs cannot be applied to others. They are your beliefs, and your beliefs only. Being able to conceive is also completely irrational because that is not, and never has been, a prerequisite to get married. This ruling will stand, and freedom will win once again.

St. George, UT


It's not "bullying." It's people disagreeing with you. Pushback against your ideas is not "intolerance." Scrutiny of your grounds for a law is not persecution.

Also, you say "The will of people of Utah should be upheld. If "We the People" can be overridden by judges with their own agenda, America has ceased to be America."

"We the People" is the phrase at the beginning of the Constitution. The Constitution says that "We the People" do not get to decide every issue by majority vote. We have multiple branches of government, each with different obligations and powers that serve and checks and balances on each other. The whole point of the judicial branch of government laid out by "We the People" in the Constitution is to have branch of government that looks at issues simply on the basis of their rightness and their constitutionality, *regardless* of what "We the People" might think in terms of popular vote. If "We the People" voted for something as an overwhelming majority, but the thing we voted for was in defiance of the Constitution, it would be the solemn duty of the judicial branch to strike down our popular vote.

West Jordan, UT

Part 1:

Historically marriage has had both religious and State implications.

Religious implications exist because for much of recorded histories these unions were officiated by some sort of religious figure (Priest, Monk, Minister etc.). In these ceremonies the marriage contract (Aka marriage covenant) served to legitimize their sexual behavior before God ( or whatever Supreme Deity they worshiped). It also served to make promises between persons and God. Interestingly enough, the State has no legitimate interest in regulating religious contracts or covenants between persons and their Deity. People - consenting adults- have the Constitutional right to believe what they may and to associate with others in whatsoever manner they desire; Government has no rationale basis to intervene unless the activities are a threat to public safety or national security, involve minors, or are not consenting.

Implications of State exist because the historic marriage contract/covenant has also represented a legal contract between persons. And what exactly is that contract? In short, the State's idea of the contract is that the two shall hold and possess all things in common.

Bob K
porland, OR

I see that the DN has not taken down or modified the opinion piece about "Judicial Tyranny"
-- which, in my view, solidifies the idea that the DN is all about holding on to the oldest and most conservative of its audience.

To many of us, there is simple logic in the decision:
A suit came before a judge to be handled, the parties claiming injury gave proof of the injury, the parties claiming Amendment 3 should hold had NO legal arguments whatsoever in terms of defending it, only moral and religious arguments.

To others, the moral issue is so strong that they overlook the damage to the plaintiffs.

To still others, the "right of the people to vote" is so strong that they not only overlook that damage, but that laws conflicting with the Constitution are subject to being struck down.

If there were a valid legal argument, Prop 8 would be in effect. Note that when the 9th Circuit reviewed Walker's decision, ONLY the mormon judge living in Idaho dissented (In my view, he violated his oath to not disturb his place in his community)

It is OKAY not to like the decision -- but please don't lie.

Patrick Henry
West Jordan, UT

Part 2:

They will be equal partners in material goods and offspring, if any. And the contract implies a division of property will occur, should the union break apart. And the State has a vested interested in the enforcement of that clause of the contract. Therefore, the State is the impartial body which decides how assets and children shall be fairly divided between former partners. Now, let us consider that marriage also served the role of assuring the community and State that the offspring were legitimate - meaning they were legally deserving by default to inherit the property currently held by their parents - and that they had legal guardians who would provide for their needs. Again, interestingly enough, organized religion has no interest in regulating this State recognized contract regarding the ownership and possession of goods and children. And this is the case because organized religion may not have any say on the enforcement of legal contracts; we do not live in a theocracy.

West Jordan, UT

Part 3:

Because the State has no legitimate interest in regulating religious contracts between consenting adults and God and likewise organized religion has no legitimate interest in regulating contracts of State between consenting adults, why not divorce the concept of the marriage covenant from that of the contract of the Civil Union?

What do I mean by this? I mean allow civil unions for all consenting persons and reclassify all currently married adults as in a legal contract known as a civil union. Religious organizations will have the privilege, should they choose to, to provide religious ceremonies where two people will be allowed to make a marriage covenant between themselves and God.

When people speak of being MARRIED it will communicate to others their sincere belief in a higher being and that their civil union is also under a covenant- meaning a relationship of promises involving promises between two and God. On the records of the state it will say CIVIL UNION. On the records of their church it will say MARRIED.

Patrick Henry
West Jordan, UT

Part 4:

When people speak of being UNIONED it will communicate to others that their relationship is recognized by the State only. If they wish to make their relationship be recognized by whatever deity they worship, they can find an organized religion to do so.

Sidenote: I have reviewed the Constituion and I can find no rationale basis for the federal government to allow the 50 states to legally deny a legal union between consenting adults. If people want a legal argument to deny a legal union between man and man or woman and woman it will require an amendment to the US Constitution. I personally think homosexual relationships are wrong, but legally I cannot argue against them. I believe God frowns on these types of relationships, but I cannot find a legal argument - based on how our laws and Constitution are currently written - for not providing equal protection of the law for homosexuals seeking a State recognized union. Does this mean that Government may force religions to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexuals? No! Religions are private organizations and may selectively choose, on whatever basis they will, what they will and will not offer their members.


Isn't the real issue here the unconstitutional tendency for judges to legislate behind the bench? This is bigger than the gay marriage question.

Cedar City, UT

The same rights are afforded to everyone in this country. What I gather from many posters is that I am an uneducated, unintelligent, intolerant, idiot. This is not an equal rights issue, as many want to make it. Right now this is about the minority ruling the majority.

to comment

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