Quantcast
Utah

Appeals court denies stay on same-sex marriage ruling pending hearing Monday

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    re: Cats page 1

    As Nixon said, "The moral majority is neither."

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 26, 2013 6:24 p.m.

    worf
    Mcallen, TX
    "Using the word "Discrimination" is way over used.
    It's become an excuse for promoting permissiveness."

    ---- America was founded on a form of permissiveness -- the rights to be free, say what we want, worship as we want, to be ourselves and pursue our dreams.

    Blacks and women can vote because of "permissiveness"

    Mormons can worship in all 50 States because of "permissiveness"

    etc

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 26, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    Using the word "Discrimination" is way over used.

    It's become an excuse for promoting permissiveness.

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 24, 2013 11:40 p.m.

    @PLM --

    "...the ancient cultures you mentioned was once a world power but is no more. "

    They each lasted for around 1000 years. We should be so successful.

    And Rome didn't fall til roughly 300 years AFTER they outlawed same-sex marriage.

    And do you really believe that China or India aren't world powers?

    "China's acceptance of homosexuality as a norm before 1840 is disputed. "

    Not really. Check out, for example, the book Tongzhi: Politics of Same-Sex Eroticism in Chinese Societies.

    Excerpted from the first chapter: "Same-sex eroticism has never been a serious social, political, or scientific concern in China. In Confucian and Taoist thought, sex is not treated as the central feature of life, but rather is seen as an integral part of life that should not be segregated as an independent sphere of study. Strictly speaking, there were no heterosexuals, bisexuals, or homosexuals in Chinese history. The concept of sexual orientation, i.e., dividing people by the gender of their erotic object choice, did not exist."

    "would any rational thinker say ancient Rome, Greece or the others existed without violence and force? "

    No major culture has existed without violence or force.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 12:11 p.m.

    To Contrariusester,

    Every one of the ancient cultures you mentioned was once a world power but is no more. The Hindus also practiced human sacrifice, please don't promote them as paragons of human virtue. China's acceptance of homosexuality as a norm before 1840 is disputed. As to their happiness and success, without conquest and slaughter they wouldn't have lasted as long as they did. Seriously, would any rational thinker say ancient Rome, Greece or the others existed without violence and force? The definition doesn't fall within the parameters of "successful and happy. " Homosexual culture has no ability to perpetuate itself naturally. Self-sustainability, no.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 24, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    @PLM --

    "Can anyone find a precedent for a successful, happy society that survived the ages?"

    Ancient Greece -- survived for more than 1000 years -- homosexual relations encouraged
    Ancient Rome -- survived for more than 1000 years -- homosexual relations encouraged
    Ancient China -- and China is still surviving til this day -- homosexuality a normal part of life until the West invaded
    Ancient India -- still surviving til this day -- even some of the Hindu GODS were born of same-sex unions -- homosexuality accepted until the West invaded

    Please name a single civilization that has ever fallen due to acceptance of homosexuality. Even one.

  • Kora Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    Cougsndawgs- so what you are saying I s that you are a good Mormon, but oppose doctrine from the First Presidency. I can't wrap my head around that. The First Presidency has made it clear that they support a ban on gay marriage as a part of doctrine. After this ruling the Church has stated that the Ruling by Judge Shelby should be overturned. Until they state differently, you are opposing Church Doctrine. I suspect the Prophet understands agency.

    As for the Constitutionality of this, theSupreme court did not declare gay marriage a Constitutional right when ruling on the California case. Why did it not do that if it felt that way. We actually have constitutional scholars among the Church's Apostles, Dallin H Oaks to name one. LDS leaders are not an uneducated bunch of bumpkins.

    Contraries- Explain how a polygamous marriage between consenting adults is more harmful than gay marriage. I have never seen any reports to verify this. You state it but provided no evidence. I can understand how polygamy amongst adult and child can be dangerous, but how is it with consenting adults any more harmful, and defensible to deny than gay marriage for you.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    I wish the argument was about the love and sacrifice that accompanies successful marriage. Maybe that is what defines marriage and the laws need to be in place to uphold it. All the pushing seems to be about rights and entitlement. If the majority understands what it takes to be married and contributing to the well-being of society, the courts need to listen. The voice of the majority of the people won't normally choose wrong, but when that happens, watch out.

    Can anyone find a precedent for a successful, happy society that survived the ages? Perhaps the traditions of correctly practiced Christianity do hold the answer. Love, sacrifice, strong families started with a monogamous marriage between a man and a woman. What a strangely sad and ironic day that we live in that this is not considered politically correct.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 24, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    @oaklandforlife So one judge overruled will of people and we have to be quiet? There are higher courts to go too that hopefully will uphold will of the people. And the majority of people never supported slavery or segregation in this country anyway. Us quick to end those practices.

    Constitution gives us right to speak our minds and take things to court that are wrong. Even overrule lower court judges. How can a judge declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional? Like people saying Jesus is not being Christlike. oxymoron.

  • oaklandaforlife SLC, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:27 p.m.

    Hey all,

    Enough with all the quoted scriptures and the so called "legal beagle" bologna. The courts have ruled. Move on, and let's all get back to basics which are so duly needed. Stop being so divided everyone. Don't let this ruin the holly money exchange holiday.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 6:48 p.m.

    @1aggie --

    "Is not polyandry same-sex union? In polyandry, you've got multiple men and women married/sealed to each other. "

    You're a little bit confused about terminology.

    Polygyny -- one man, multiple women
    Polyandry -- one woman, multiple men
    Polyamory -- general term that covers all sorts of combinations
    Polygamy -- technically the same as polyamory, but in everyday speech it's usually used to refer to polygyny.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 5:01 p.m.

    Is not polyandry same-sex union? In polyandry, you've got multiple men and women married/sealed to each other. For that matter, isn't polygamy also a form of same-sex marriage? Aren't the sisters in a polygamous marriage members of one big family (rather than a bunch of separate families)?

  • Turtles Run Houston, TX
    Dec. 23, 2013 4:26 p.m.

    @CooginIN

    Your version of morality is just that....your version. Many people believe that is immoral to deny consenting adults that love each other the ability to marry and enjoy the same benefits that are enjoyed by others.

    Unfortunately, for you the laws in the land do not often take in to account personal morality.

  • oaklandaforlife SLC, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    The ruling should come as no surprise to anyone. And to our precious elected officials, do not spend one more minute or one red cent trying to defeat this ruling. You already know that you would lose.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "Thus, it is STATE law that is to protect people's rights."

    And the US Constitution trumps state law.

    Period.

    " SSM, polygamous, incest, pedophile marriages."

    Nope.

    The courts understand the harm principle, even if you don't.

    "There are laws that need changing including LGBT marriages and informed consent laws."

    You're absolutely right that many current LGBT laws need changing. As for changing informed consent laws.....have fun trying. LOL!

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 23, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    @Schnee:
    "We have judicial review in this nation where courts are supposed to throw out laws that are unconstitutional."

    The US Constitution says nothing about marriage, gay or otherwise. So, gay marriage proponents have to cite the 14th Amendment which says... 'No STATE shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

    Thus, it is STATE law that is to protect people's rights. In the State of Utah, marriage laws say if you care to marry you must marry someone of the opposite sex. This applies to all whether you are heterosexual, homosexual, polygamist, incestuous, a minor, etc. All are equally protected re the issue of marriage.

    @pragmatistferlife:
    "Last point is I can guarantee you the world, America, and Utah will look different in 20 more years than it does now."

    Right... we'll have SSM, polygamous, incest, pedophile marriages. We will become like the animals, as one poster suggests, mating with whomever they will... killing and eating each other.

    @Contrariusiest:

    "No she can't. Look up the concept of informed consent. It requires much more than simply mouthing words."

    There are laws that need changing including LGBT marriages and informed consent laws.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    @The Big Deal --

    "So are you saying that purpose is irrelevant?"

    In terms of the legal issue, yes, it's absolutely irrelevant.

    The legally relevant issues are:

    1. do people want to do it

    and

    2. does it cause a significantly increased risk of harm, compared to other forms of marriage.

    We know that people DO want to have gay marriages. And not a single person, attorney or otherwise, has been able to show evidence that gay marriage will harm anyone in any way. Therefore there is no valid legal argument for preventing it.

    " It seems to me like we should know more about the reason behind something before we start calling it a basic right or change laws to accomadate it."

    We already know that marriage is a basic right, based on many decades of Supreme Court rulings. And your personal opinions about purposes are, again, irrelevant to the law.

    "Does the homosexuality cause the love nature or is it the other way around? "

    Again -- irrelevant.

    "Also, the bonobos are an endangered species. They would probably be better off if they had more heterosexual relationships..."

    LOL!

    I promise you, their endangerment has nothing whatsoever to do with a lack of reproduction.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 2:00 p.m.

    Amazing how some seem to prefer a theocratic state based on their own beliefs to the detriment of others. And they claim to revere the Constitution?

  • The Big Deal Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    @Contrariusiest

    "We don't need to know "the" purpose of natural things to know that they do have some purpose. Do you know the purpose of your appendix? No? So what? Do you know the purpose of the little divot between your nose and your lip? No? So what?"

    So are you saying that purpose is irrelevant? It seems to me like we should know more about the reason behind something before we start calling it a basic right or change laws to accomadate it.

    And your monkey business seems kind of like a chicken or egg thing. Does the homosexuality cause the love nature or is it the other way around? Also, the bonobos are an endangered species. They would probably be better off if they had more heterosexual relationships...

    Just sayin...

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    john d says:

    "...and the lord destroys it."

    --- If you're afraid of a little fire and brimstone raining down on SLC, maybe you should "get out of town" and don't forget, do NOT look back, the Great Salt Lake really doesn't need any more salt. :)

    @jarka-rus;

    Please do expound on how the equal treatment of same-sex couples is going to infringe on your rights?

  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    Beard trimmer admits, "I dont care about your religious convictions...", which should have read

    'I don't care about people with religious convictions.'

    That message has been stated clearly to bakers, florists, pastors, churches, church members, voters, etc.

    Schnee - regarding taking the nuclear option on judge appointments, you have never met me, so I won't take it personally that you think I am dumb enough to believe that no judges were blocked for reasons of blatant bias and corruption. And, with the nuclear option, the judges presented will be even more corrupt and purchasable. Heck, the president has even said he won't wait for congress to make the laws. He and the democrats will rule any way they can, and what could be easier than having their liberal judges write the laws for them.

    It sure worked in Utah, didn't it?

    It's not that hard to figure out.

    And while you wink and cover for this behavior, I hope you like is as well when the conservatives are in power.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    This is an extremely dangerous situation. Justice Kennedy has been the "swing vote" on the U.S. Supreme Court for "states' rights". This issue has to do with "abortion" which is sitting in the wings. One judge cannot overrule the will of the people in the name of inherent rights. Murderers are a sociological class of individuals who are judged as violating the rules of society. Are they to be judged as being discriminated against and the "true victims" of an unjust economic society? A sociological standard and interpretation of justice is not the prerogative of the judicial system. The people make the laws and the judiciary interprets them. The judiciary does not make the laws and make the people subservient to their vagaries. It is the role of the "fourth estate" to enlighten the people and influence their decision making ability in light of the ideals of the Constitution.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "Perhaps Shelby should complete the task and authorized polygamous marriages"

    Yet again -- individual rights are always limited by harm.

    Please look up the harm principle.

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

    Gay marriage does not.

    It really and truly is a very simple distinction. And courts all across this country -- and other countries -- are fully aware of that distinction, whether you refuse to see it or not.

    "They can marry...so long as the marry someone of the opposite sex..."

    Yet again -- this argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work any better now.

    "They can just sorta ask each other (boy/girl) for their hand in marriage on the spot."

    How does encouraging fraudulent marriages do anything at all to support "traditional" marriage?

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    Kora:
    "Why do so many people on here supporting gay marriage call themselves "Mormon"? "

    Well I do because I am Mormon. Because I believe in a God that has shown me what it means to truly love my fellow men and women. I believe in a God that didn't allow Lucifer to establish a plan that made people comply with Gods laws and thus took away their agency...sound familiar? I don't believe homosexuality to be morally right, nor do I believe same sex marriage to be morally right...just like you I believe they violate Gods laws. So the question is do you, as a Mormon believe it's appropriate to take away their agency to choose how they will live? If their choice doesn't harm my rights under the constitution, then creating laws that ban their choice and agency sounds a lot like what our true adversary wanted. Think about which side of the line you're actually on.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    @Serious --

    "it's the complete dismissal of biology."

    See my comments to The Big Deal.

    "Biologically, it makes no sense at all."

    Just because it doesn't make sense to YOU doesn't mean that it actually makes no sense in the Real World.

    @El Chango Supremo --

    "Children who likely would have gone to a home with a mother and a father will no be deprived of one"

    Baloney.

    Thousands of children age out of the foster system every year -- because there simply weren't enough parents to go around. And there are millions upon millions of orphans around the world.

    Nobody is somehow stealing children from happy straight homes. That idea is pure fear-mongering.

    @ti_v_benone --

    "can we draw a line so that sodomy, incest and bestiality do not soon follow? "

    Sodomy is already legal, and has been for years. For incest, polygamy, etc., it's very easy to draw a line.

    Look up the harm principle.

    Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey a greatly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage. Gay marriage does not.

    It's a very simple distinction.

  • jarka-rus Layton, Utah
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    Everyone screaming about equality yet if you have YOUR own beliefs that don't condone same sex marriage you're labeled a racist bigot, soulless person etc. etc. Yeah equality goes both ways. Oh wait

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    @El Chango Supremo:
    "Because all same sex marriages are infertile, those couples will be waiting in line at the adoption agency. Children who likely would have gone to a home with a mother and a father will no[w] be deprived of one of those valuable relationships."

    The only shortage of adoptable children is for those who want healthy white infants. Meanwhile, there are thousands of non-white babies, older children of all races, and special needs children of all races languishing in foster care while families ignore them in search of the "perfect white baby boy." Since the most recent peer-reviewed studies show that children in SSM's do just as well as in conventional families, wouldn't you agree that any stable family is going to be better than being shuttled from one foster home to another until being aged out of the system and left without a family at 18?

    In addition, half of the same sex marriages are between women, and it's quite commonplace for them to use artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization to have their own baby.

  • john d REXBURG, ID
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:05 p.m.

    any liberal latter day saint whose support gay marriage is comfortable if they took it a step forward like forcing bishops and clergy to married them or temple sealing or does it end here. I believe in the bible and book of Mormon the bible condemns homosexuality and the lord destroys it. is the bible repeating it self all over again before the lord comes with more revenges before his coming. boy god help us all

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    @The Big Deal --

    " Or are you saying that because it occurs in nature it's ok for humans to do to?"

    Nope. Being natural doesn't mean that something is good or bad. It's simply natural.

    We don't need to know "the" purpose of natural things to know that they do have some purpose. Do you know the purpose of your appendix? No? So what? Do you know the purpose of the little divot between your nose and your lip? No? So what?

    In the case of homosexuality, there are many theories about its purpose or purposes out in nature. Some studies have shown that relatives of homosexuals may be more attractive to prospective partners; some postulate that homosexual pairs may be able to defend "adopted" offspring more aggressively than "straight" pairs; some show that homosexual behaviors increase social bonding and cohesion. In fact, those bonobos -- the ones that show so very much same-sex behavior -- are widely known for the peaceful ways they deal with intragroup conflicts. They are literally lovers, not fighters.

    There are many possible "purposes" for homosexuality. But we don't need to prove any of them to justify equal protection under the law.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    "Shelby's analysis is mostly correct. Marriage is a fundamental right which cannot be infringed without a compelling state interest..."

    Yes, marriage is a fundamental right... provided it's not a polygamous marriage.

    Perhaps Shelby should complete the task and authorized polygamous marriages, as well. And while he's at it, marriages between consenting siblings, mother/son, father/daughter, etc. Compelling state interest? Yes... filing joint tax returns, passing assets upon death, etc.

    "What about the people in Utah who were 'disenfranchised' by the passage of Amendment 3. You know, the LGBT couples who would like to marry?"

    What? They can marry...so long as the marry someone of the opposite sex... just like anyone else. How is that discrimination? Besides, per the picture in the article, there appear to be dozens even hundreds, thousands of LGBT's. They can just sorta ask each other (boy/girl) for their hand in marriage on the spot.

    "The statute defining the duties of the county/city clerks in this state say they can issue marriage licenses to one man and one woman."

    Good point. Clerks issuing the licenses are violating state law. The Governor should tell them to cease and desist.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    @wrz --

    "Of course she can."

    No she can't. Look up the concept of informed consent. It requires much more than simply mouthing words.

    "You don't have to be an 'adult' to agree to something."

    You do have to be an adult to make informed consent, however. Look it up.

    "Furthermore, any law that limits any human being from marrying is unconstitutional... "

    Baloney.

    Harm always limits individual rights.

    Polygamy and incest convey a significantly increased risk of harm. Gay marriage does not.

    It's a very simple distinction.

    Look up the harm principle.

    " Do you see anything in the US Constitution that limits 9 year olds in any way?"

    Do you see anything in the US Constitution that limits murder in any way?

    Shall we therefore legalize murder?

    "The issue it to put that into the State's constitution. "

    State constitutions must comply with the US constitution. Utah's didn't.

    "(Leviticus 18:22)"

    Leviticus also says that eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10). Shall we ban that too?

  • occams_beard_trimmer Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    @ big bubba:
    "These concerns arise from deep Christian religious conviction, the kind of convictions that apparently many gay marriage advocates could care less about."

    Now you are getting it. I dont care about your religious convictions nor are they a factor in our secular republics laws.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
    8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

    10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
    11....And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:7-11)

    "As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down.

    Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment."
    (LDS org Newsroom 2010)

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    Kora
    Cedar Hills, UT
    Why do so many people on here supporting gay marriage call themselves "Mormon"? If you disagree with LDS doctrine you are not really Mormon, so don't call yourself such in an effort to try and legitimize this issue as something not really against the Church.

    10:40 a.m. Dec. 23, 2013

    ========

    Of all the self-righteous, pompous remarks?
    THIS is why the brethern [and the Lord] are struggling to keep good Latter-Day Saints IN the church.

    How can any one supporting the Republicans call themselves "Mormon"?
    If you disagree with LDS doctrine you are not really Mormon...

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    There is a certain amount of humor in this whole matter of the defense the State is using to deny the plaintiff's petition. The States attorney claims that a gay union is unable to procreate children therefore should not be allowed to be given a marriage license by the State. No mention is made of people of beyond childbearing years or with no intention to have children easily obtaining a license. Finally, compare this defense with the their defense in the polygamy case. The man who brought the case has 23 children and yet there was no mention of this procreation issue in that case.

    We really do need to increase funding for education in Utah. Logic is really lacking here even from those with advanced degrees.

  • The Big Deal Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    @Schnee

    "Does it matter? Marriage isn't the same as sex and there's plenty of heterosexual sex that has no biologically useful purpose."

    Are you seriously going to say that there is no purpose to homosexuality? That seems like a low blow....

  • ti_v_benone Kearns, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    Now that we have swallowed this perversion and normalized it, can we draw a line so that sodomy, incest and bestiality do not soon follow? In a effort to spare feelings we are encouraging and embracing a wickedness and unnaturalness that will canker and destroy individuals and societies.

    Wickedness never was happiness. I will do my best to love the sinners and pray for mercy for them and myself but this trend truly horrifies me because of how far from the designs of God we allowing ourselves to wander.

    Sexuality is so casual and disrespected - we expect no more discipline to ourselves over that power than we would animals in the street

    Merry Christmas to all - may God above grant us his Grace

  • Cowboy Joe Encampment, WY
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    People need to stop using Church doctrine to support their political beliefs. Research Racism and the Priesthood on the lds website and see. The LDS church teaches the ban on blacks for priesthood offices was set up by Brigham Young and that all the teachings of why the ban are wrong. This is 90 years of prophets and apostles teaching wrong doctrine.
    Research Bringham, Harold B Lee, Benson, Kimball, McKonkie's stances on race, they were nothing short of racism, and the church now says those teachings are wrong and not church doctrine.
    That is why you should not mix your politics with your religion.If you are either for SSM or against it fine just don't mix your politics and religion.

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    Furthermore, same sex marriage will bring harm to others. Because all same sex marriages are infertile, those couples will be waiting in line at the adoption agency. Children who likely would have gone to a home with a mother and a father will no be deprived of one of those valuable relationships. I love my Mom and Dad very much, I love them both equally. But they are different relationships. A male could not replace what I gained from my Mother. Likewise, a female could not replace my father.

    My Wife and I love our children. My relationship with them is quite different than my wife's relationship with them. What gay marriage is, in my opinion, is a war on gender differences and the unique characteristics each gender brings to the relationship. Gay marriage is bizarre and backwards in that each marriage will be missing a vital ingredient... the opposite gender!

  • Serious Rexburg, ID
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    It's not the religious argument that bothers me, it's the complete dismissal of biology. It bothers me when people start talking about God's law in public policy. Murder is forbidden in the ten commandments but it is also intrinsically wrong. Coffee is against the Word of Wisdom, but is not inherently evil, so I wouldn't support its prohibition. Same sex marriage, in my view, is intrinsically wrong. Biologically, it makes no sense at all.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:12 a.m.

    Interesting how the rainbow bends among the different understandings of various scriptures and legal interpretations. There are a lot of innocent people out there, who do not know what they are doing.

    For the Monday and Tuesday drama now, I would suggest to keep it down and let the forces at law play out their power.
    No matter what is going to happen next, we are to accept each other on Utah terms, as that would mean, nice and easy. Am I right on this one ?

  • Cowboy Joe Encampment, WY
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:12 a.m.

    If people and politicians were proactive they would have allowed for same sex marriages; while protecting the religious freedom of people.
    Because they were not proactive same sex marriage is here to stay and religious freedoms are going bye bye.

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    Judge Shelby has overstepped his bounds as a Federal Judge. He has decided to legislate from the bench which is not his responsibility. Amendment Ten says that certain powers are regulated to the Federal Government and certain powers are regulated to the States. Who gives you a marriage license? My license was given to me by my County and the County comes under jurisdiction of the State. With that being true, the State of Utah has the right to decide their marriage laws so when Utah said that marriage is between one man and one women that is the law in Utah and that is a power granted by the U.S. Constitution to the State of Utah.

  • The Big Deal Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    @Contrariusiest

    "Many, many nonhuman species practice homosexual behaviors out in nature. For example, more than half of all sexual activity in bonobo chimps (our closest relatives) is between females -- and one quarter of all black swan pairs are males. And there are many more examples.

    Homosexuality is simply part of the natural variation in behavior out in the natural world."

    I'm not sure I understand your answer. Is this the biological purpose for homosexuality, or a positive scientific purposes? Or are you saying that because it occurs in nature it's ok for humans to do to? If that's the case, are humans allowed to do anything and everything that animals do? That seems like an awful way to run a society...

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    @ Big Bubba

    Marriage is not a moral issue. It's a legal contract between consenting adults. It has NOTHING to do with religion as far as the U.S. government is concerned.

    @ wrz

    You have to be of legal age to sign a marriage contract. Otherwise that legal document becomes null and void. Haven't you ever seen "Liar, Liar"?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    @ gittalopctbi

    So if we amended our state's constitution to make it legal to own slaves, a judge would be an "activist" and out of line if/when he struck that amendment down?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    @Independent Cuss:
    "The Governor referred to the overturned amendment as 'in defense of traditional marriage.'"

    He's simply saying state law re marriage (man/woman) needs to be defended. That's his job.

    @BYU-2000:
    "Oh, and I can't wait to go to more weddings that celebrate commitment and love, a Christian virtue."

    Love, for sure is a Christian virtue... but homosexuality including gay marriage is not a Christian virtue... says so in the Christian Bible: 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.' (Leviticus 18:22)

    @Patrick Henry:
    "I have reviewed the Constitution 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."

    Try the 14th Amendment... which states: 'No state shall... deny any person within its disjunction the equal protection of the laws.' This simply means states can make laws and persons within the states shall be equally protected. Utah has marriage laws and it applies to all citizens equally... i.e., if you marry it has to be with the opposite sex... not polygamy, or incestuousness, or with children, etc.

  • One of a Few Layton, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    I don't know whether the court's decision will be upheld. But the beauty of the decision is it's based in the simplest of explanations - due process under the 14th amendment. That trumps the 10th amendment and any law the state or feds see fit to enact outside of an amendment to the US Constitution, including state constitutions and amendments. What's even more interesting is that if the state could come up with even one rational reason to uphold a 'Defense of Marriage Law" they would win this in a flash. I don't know if they can. But if they are going to they better hurry. Trotting out the same old arguments doesn't seem to be going well. E.G. how many times can you argue marriage is for making babies when you've given cousins the right to marry only if they can't make babies. What the state needs to do is hire Andrew Lloyd Webber to come up with a tune that works because the state's part time wise guys sound like something out of Hee Haw.

  • Kora Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    Why do so many people on here supporting gay marriage call themselves "Mormon"? If you disagree with LDS doctrine you are not really Mormon, so don't call yourself such in an effort to try and legitimize this issue as something not really against the Church. Being "Mormon" is not genetic or cultural, it is purely based on religious beliefs. If you don't believe in the religious teachings, don't use the name of that religion to push a political or personal agenda.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    @orem_man_am-i
    "To all of my fellow Mormons who support judge Shelby' s ruling the 'large and spacious building' and its inhabitants are calling you to join them."

    For a people who a large percentage spent 1.5-2 years trying to get people to agree with them on something, some of you show a surprising lack of tact sometimes.

    @The Big Deal
    "Is there a long term biological purpose for homosexuality, or even any positive scientific purposes?"

    Does it matter? Marriage isn't the same as sex and there's plenty of heterosexual sex that has no biologically useful purpose.

    @gittalopctbi
    "Amendment 3 was just that--an amendment to Utah's constitution. A judge is out of line to rule an amendment to a constitution as "unconstitutional.""

    The federal judge ruled that Amendment 3 was a violation of the U.S. Constitution, which supercedes the state constitution.

    @spokaloo
    "I post his only to give insight into why LDS people are worried about the the ramifications of this."

    If the LDS church and people want to continue to try and intrude on marriages of people outside their own church, people are going to criticize you more the longer you persist.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    @ Patrick Henry

    So what you want is "separate but equal?" We tried that once, I don't think it's going to fly...

  • Jason Williams Los Angeles, CA
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    This is a simple legal case to decide. The courts have ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental right. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
    Constitution guarantees equality under the law. To deny same-sex couples the right to marry - as the Utah Constitution does, due to voters so amending the state constitution, is an unlawful, unconstitutional discriminatory provision. Further, understand that - in the long run when legally challenged - voters cannot vote away fundamental rights. Judge Shelby made the correct decision. Our government is a constitutional republic - not a theocracy where rights are determined by religious beliefs. I do not understand why the governor and candidates for the vacant state attorney general's position do not seem to understand the basic principles of our form of government.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    @ pragmatistferlife,

    You say that my religious beliefs stem from a "personal belief-like god." I sometimes think it would be easier if my God suddenly accepted gay marriage, but he does not, so I do not.

    The God I follow is not one of my own choice or making. I worship the true God of heaven and earth, the same God who has made his views on homosexual relationships very clear in the Bible.

    You say that the morals of the majority decide what sort of marriage is acceptable. Well the majority of Utah has decided the issue with a constitutional amendment, but a tyrannical judge has overthrown the majority's definition of a moral marriage. It appears the the very small minority gets to decide what is a moral marriage in Utah.

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    @gittalopctbi "An amendment IS the constitution"

    You are confusing Constitutions here. The federal judge found that the Utah amendment was unconstitutional under the United States Constitution, the document which takes precedence over all individual State Constitutions.

    In order for the folks opposed to marriage equality to prevail, they must come up with a legally sustainable argument to deny law-abiding tax-paying gay US Citizens equal treatment under civil law. Thus far, no one has produced a shred of such an argument, thus 50 state gay marriage appears inevitable. Their only other hope would be to pass and ratify an amendment to the US Constitution. And even the most fervent anti-gay activists understand that this is an impossibility.

    Once this blows over and anti-gay people realize that same sex marriage doesn't affect them in any way, most will wonder what all the fuss was about. In states where SSM has been legalized for some time, support for legal SSM continues to dramatically increase. If you don't believe in same sex marriage, fine, don't have one. No church has been nor ever will be required to perform ANY marriage it doesn't want to for any reason.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    Somebody please acknowledge my problem, taking a stand on the definition of marriage, how is that not political, how is that not religious ?

    Am I to devide myself to please others ?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    I am surprised to see so many on here who support Sharia Law - after all, if we allow laws to be made based on Christian values, we have no grounds to oppose laws based on other religious values.

    There is a reason the US Constitution requires laws to be based on principles other than religious beliefs - namely because the best way to protect religious beliefs is to keep them separate from civil rules and laws.

    You are free to have your religious beliefs, and contrary to the many unproven claims made on these comment threads, gays - as a general population, there may be a few exceptions as there are in any group - have no desire or intention of forcing religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages. Although this in no way should be confused with expecting the same public accommodations or government services all other citizens are entitled to.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    @ Candide,

    So who is right? Your god who accepts gay marriage or my God who does not accept Gay marriage? I would like to know where your god says that marriage between same sex persons is acceptable. I can find lots of places in the scriptures where my God says that homosexual relations are unacceptable.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    @Yorkshire
    "Or if they can be honest enough to admit maybe its just because the 66% think heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman---and couples practicing same sex--is two different things."

    Then why did they also ban civil unions? (Amendment 3 clause 2: No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.)

    @4 word thinker
    "This is why the senate took the nuclear option to ramrod through judges that will rule the liberal way,"

    The Senate took the nuclear option because Republicans were blocking judges for reasons that had nothing to do with the judges themselves, like that time Lindsey Graham put a hold on every nomination because he wanted yet another Benghazi hearing.

    "Smitty says there are no good arguments against SSM. So if there is no argument against, why are the SSM proponents afraid to be have the case heard by a panel of judges?"

    Not counting chickens before they hatch. I'm confident, but I'm straight, I don't have anything to worry about.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    If 2013 is remember for anything, it will be remembered as many more Americans better understanding government, civics and enduring principles that continue to guide us.

    Marriage and family - life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness - realized by many more. Equality and justice - understood by so many more.

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    God's law is what it always has been. No matter how many people choose to fly in the face of it by living sinful lifestyles, He isn't going to change that law. Christian people everywhere need to stand firm in defending this.

    With that being said, calling homosexuality a sin is no more hateful or bigoted than calling adultery a sin. That sentitment doesn't in any way express hatred toward any person. It is simply condemning the behavior. The fact that some individuals have chosen to identify themselves by their behavior and lifestyle choices is sad, because it then becomes difficult to separate the person from that choice. Christ loves everyone, but He hates sin. Those of us who profess to follow him are merely trying to do the same thing.

  • giniajim King George, VA
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    There are so many examples of the "will of the people" being used as a cudgel to deny rights to others. Slavery was the will of the people. So was segregation. So were "black laws". Its a long and dreary list. If you don't think same sex marriage is right, fine, don't marry someone of your same sex. That.is.your.right! But don't force your beliefs on someone else and take away their rights. And don't start silly yapping about a "slippery slope" and other red herrings. Same sex marriage is about consenting adults. Period. End of story.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    I guess we used to call out for Liberty and Government' involvment according to what we used to understand. Now are we going to redefine liberty and government as well ?

    Before any apostasy there is a new meaning to an old saying, as always !

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    "Can his 9yo granddaughter give consent?"

    Of course she can. When she stands before the judge all she need do is to answer 'I do.' This ain't rocket science.

    "Is she a legal adult?"

    You don't have to be an 'adult' to agree to something. Furthermore, any law that limits any human being from marrying is unconstitutional... at least that's what we here from homosexuals. And they're probably correct because it says so in the US Constitution's 14th amendment (Equal Protection Clause). Do you see anything in the US Constitution that limits 9 year olds in any way? If so, please post it. And please don't cite any state law, or even federal law because the US Constitution tops all state and federal law per the Supremacy Clause.

    "Is this the most irrational question ever?"

    Well, I'd say that both your questions were irrational. None the less, thanks for posting them.

    "They may not like the law but they must follow it."

    Utah's law says marriage is between a man and a woman. The issue it to put that into the State's constitution. Clerks issuing licenses are violating the law.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    I hope the federal judges overturn NSA spying. If they don't do that, it is total hypocrisy just picking and choosing.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    It is so awesome to have the gay community come out in support of all forms of marriage, including polygamy , bigamy, and I suppose a few others not named. it is great to see that they are more tolerant than we have supposed.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    The governor is fighting hard to deny constitutional rights to people just because they're unpopular with his lot; we need to stand up for the constitution.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    @gittalopctbi --

    "Amendment 3 was just that--an amendment to Utah's constitution. "

    You are forgetting the difference between the Utah STATE Constitution and the US Constitution.

    All state constitutions must comply with the provisions in the US Constitution. Judge Shelby invalidated Utah's marriage provision because it VIOLATED the US Constitution.

    "concerning the 2% of homosexuals in this country"

    First, the LGBT population is roughly 5%, not 2%.

    Second, Mormons make up less than 2% of the US population. Do you really want to start making arguments based on population size?

    Third, yes, LGBT are a small minority of the population. Which makes all these protests about gay marriage somehow endangering straight marriages sound even more ridiculous than they already do.

    95% of all marriages will continue to be straight marriages, with or without legalizing gay marriage. The species will not come to an end because of 5% gay marriages, and the institution of marriage will not be threatened by 5% more marriages occurring. The sky is not going to fall.

  • RichisLDS Brush, CO
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    Mosiah 29:32 "And now I desire that this inequality should be no more in this land, especially among this my people; but I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land, yea, even as long as any of our posterity remains upon the face of the land."

    Doctrine and Covenants 134: 9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    With Shelby's decision, same sex marriage is fully legal in the State of Utah. Just as legal as owning a home or a business; just as legal as getting a driver's license and driving a car; just as legal as taking one's spouse to a movie and holding hands in the back of the theater.

    I cannot imagine taking the initiative to interfere with another couple's legal attempts to purchase their own home; I shrink from the idea of interfering so that some strangers I have never met don't get to have a driver's license or drive a car; I cringe at the notion of going to the back of the theater and breaking up the cuddling and handholding of two complete strangers - just because I don't agree with THEIR beliefs?

    So it seems particularly perverse for anyone to take any actions, to go out of their way, to put forth any efforts to try to make it so hundreds of complete strangers are DENIED their legal right to obtain a marriage license.

    That is the WORST kind of Wedding Crashing imaginable!

    What kind of people would do that?

  • spokaloo White Salmon, WA
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    I love the comments about polls and gay marriage. That does not sway those who are against gay marriage for moral reason one bit. If the reasons for opposing it are because one thinks that God has ordained marriage as only between a man and woman, then of what consequence is public opinion?

    Issues such as this will always be contentious because on one side you have a group that uses human rights, equality, and other compelling arguments. On the other side you have a group who believe deeply that "thus sayeth The Lord" on these issues. If I believe that God wants marriage only between man and woman, then opposing this ruling makes sense and in no way makes me a bigot by itself. If I don't believe that God defines marriage as between man and woman, then it makes perfect sense to support this ruling.

    A concern I have is the denigration and belittling of those who have a religious conviction. You can, and many do oppose gay marriage and love and respect others.

  • BoringGuy Holladay, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    Let freedom ring. Let liberty prevail. And get government out of our love life.

    This means allowing adults to marry and love who ever the heck they want.

  • Grandma 20 Allen, TX
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    orem_man_am_i
    orem, UT
    To all of my fellow Mormons who support judge Shelby' s ruling the 'large and spacious building' and its inhabitants are calling you to join them. You are making a conscious choice to go against God's will. Your support of this activist judge's decision further destroys the moral fiber of our nation. Please re-read 'the proclamation on the family since you obviously don't understand it.

    Thank you for your excellent comment. I couldn't agree with you more. It makes me sad to see so many of our brothers and sisters being deceived by the devil and he is dragging them down to his level with chains around their necks and they don't even realize it. I love the, but can never support their life-style.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    @Ulvegaard: "We have family in Europe where already this issue is effecting the religious rites of people. Various religions are being forced to perform gay marriages."

    That is nonsense and fear-mongering. As a European well aware of the legal situation of churches in Europe, I can tell you your statement is not true. In a few countries, ministers from some state churches have civil authority to marry, but even there they are not obliged to perform gay marriages. On the other hand, many ministers from various Christian churches are happy to provide the service to gay couples, with true respect for their personal choice.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    @The Big Deal --

    "Is there a long term biological purpose for homosexuality"

    Many, many nonhuman species practice homosexual behaviors out in nature. For example, more than half of all sexual activity in bonobo chimps (our closest relatives) is between females -- and one quarter of all black swan pairs are males. And there are many more examples.

    Homosexuality is simply part of the natural variation in behavior out in the natural world.

    @3grandslams --

    "marriage is not a right, it's a religious ceremony."

    Sorry, but you're simply wrong.

    Millions of couples have been legally married with no religious ceremonies whatsoever.

    Also, many Supreme Court decisions have affirmed that marriage is a civil right protected by our Constitution.

    -- Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'..."
    -- Zablocki v. Redhail -- "the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals"
    -- Meyer v. Nebraska -- the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment "without doubt…denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children..."

    And many others.

  • spokaloo White Salmon, WA
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    I don't live in Utah, but this issue for most LDS people is has nothing to do with how we feel about LGBT individuals. I am a principal of a school and have many LGBT students in my school who know that I care about them. For Most LDS people it comes down to what we believe. In Mosiah 29:26-27 it says:

    26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
    27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

    I post his only to give insight into why LDS people are worried about the the ramifications of this.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    The arguments being proffered here regarding the legal process taking place regarding gay marriage are pretty much the same ones I heard over and over in the southern states back in the 1960s when so-called "activist judges" were finding laws upholding segregation and prohibiting interracial marriage to be unconstitutional. Fear-mongering, appeals to the perceived "will of God", tradition, and insistence that the "will of the people" should control the issue were pretty much the same ones we're hearing now.

  • gittalopctbi Glendale, AZ
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    One of my favorite quotes, which I think is dead-on concerning the 2% of homosexuals in this country, not all of which are in favor of SSM:

    "It's one thing to be compassionate toward people who are exceptions to the norm. It's another thing to redefine the norm."

    David O. Coolidge

  • Noah So Ogden, Ut
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    Excuse me here if I'm not seeing this as unlawful....I happen to agree with the Governor. The reason? I learned that the judges only rule on the lawfulness of an issue, not make law. It is the responsibility of our lawmakers (legislators, senators, congressmen)to make and pass laws not judges. So tell me why after this particular judges' ruling Salt Lake County allowed marriage licenses to be issued and couples allowed to marry. This seems to me they broke the current law and that their marriages are invalid. We need to get back to the way our Constitution is written and process issues in order. If we disagree with the Constitution and our laws, we must go though the legal process to change these laws, not change the laws because one group or another disagrees with the law.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:29 a.m.

    @jskains: " Lastly, what will your positions be when the government next forces the LDS Church to perform gay weddings in the temples? "

    This is clearly a straw man argument, as the government isn't (and cannot be) in the business of deciding who can and can't be married in your temples, or in any other church. Do you see government lawyers arguing that you have to perform temple marriages for gentiles or for Mormons who lack a temple recommend? This is no different, and the government has never tried to rule on who can or cannot be married in a particular church any more than it would issue a ruling on who is eligible to receive sacraments, baptism or other church rites.

    Fear-mongering is just that; an effort to use emotional reactions to override reasons in support of a position when logical arguments fail.

  • gittalopctbi Glendale, AZ
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    For those who say that the judge acted correctly because it is a judge's responsibility to determine what laws are constitutional are absolutely wrong. Amendment 3 was just that--an amendment to Utah's constitution. A judge is out of line to rule an amendment to a constitution as "unconstitutional." A judge can rule if a LAW is unconstitutional. An amendment IS the constitution. It is irrelevant whose side you are on with SSM issues--this "ruling" is an activist ruling. He just ruled that part of the constitution is unconstitutional. Judges cannot rule on what is the makeup of a constitution. The electorate can change the framework of government--the constitution--just like a builder can add to or change the frame of a house. The addition or change to the house framework is still part of the frame. This is basic US government, people. This is activist judge rule. If he or the 11th Circuit allow this to happen, then it will be an egregious disregard for constitutional principles.

  • The Big Deal Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    Hey, just wondering if anyone can help me with a question I have. Is there a long term biological purpose for homosexuality, or even any positive scientific purposes? Call me a "Debbie Downer" but I can only see negatives. Thanks!

  • heavyhitter Lehi, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    One reason many of us are concerned about institutionalizing same-sex marriage is because by doing this, it cuts against the Judeo-Christian morality on which western society is based. Given the obvious direction this is going (I have no hope that Shelby's decision ultimately will be overturned), Western society will soon be just another society relegated to the scrap-heap of history, just like every other society that loses its moral underpinning. The more you undercut values and morals, the more difficult it is to have a law-abiding society--because now only public opinion guides lawmaking (which is a very fickle compass). This is an issue of morality being eliminated in making and interpreting laws, plain and simple.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    EW: Judges are not "legislating behind the bench." One of the duties of the judiciary under the Constitution is to rule on the constitutionality of laws, statutes and regulations to be sure they do not conflict.

    Big Bubba: Your religious beliefs (and mine) regarding marriage and what God wants of us have nothing to do with the question before the court of whether Utah laws are in conflict with the US Constitution. As a Jew, for instance, I believe that eating pork and shellfish is a violation of God's law and an affront to Him, but I also believe that it would be wrong to demand that our civil laws prohibit it or that it should be forced on those who believe differently. Every religion has beliefs that aren't supported or enforced by the law of the land, and that's how it should be in a free country. If your church doesn't want to marry a couple, it doesn't have to. Civil laws regarding marriage, however, have to do with their rights and privileges under the US Constitution and the country, and have nothing to do with our religious beliefs.

  • orem_man_am_i orem, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    To all of my fellow Mormons who support judge Shelby' s ruling the 'large and spacious building' and its inhabitants are calling you to join them. You are making a conscious choice to go against God's will. Your support of this activist judge's decision further destroys the moral fiber of our nation. Please re-read 'the proclamation on the family'since you obviously don't understand it.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    Unless you have traded 4 head of cattle for a spouse…

    you are already in a 'non-traditional' marriage.

    As for child-rearing.

    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly different from those of heterosexual parents.
    They show no increased incidence of psychiatric disorders, are just as popular at school and have just as many friends. While girls raised by lesbian mothers seem slightly more likely to have more sexual partners, and boys slightly more likely to have fewer, than those raised by heterosexual mothers, neither sex is more likely to suffer from gender confusion nor to identify themselves as gay."

    'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10

    - AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)

    *'Pediatric Group Supports Same-Sex Marriage – Time magazine – 03/21/13

    'The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says it’s “in the best interests” of the children.'

    There. I am not using 'God' in my claims. I am not forcing my beliefs upon anyone else. I am not vilifying opposition. So I would ask that the Deseret news finally allow this information.

    Thank you.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    More sources showing what the majority want…

    'Poll: New High Of 58 Percent Support Same-Sex Marriage' – By TOM KLUDT – By Talking Points Memo – 03/18/13

    'At a time when the Supreme Court prepares to take up same-sex marriage and the Republican Party determines the best approach to the issue going forward, an ABC News/Washington Post poll released Monday showed a new high-water mark in support for the right of gay and lesbian couples to tie the knot. 
    The poll found 58 percent of Americans now believe marriage should be legal for same-sex couples, while just 36 percent said it should be illegal.'

    As for the consequence of gay marriage, lets look to MA. Ten years after they allowed gay marriage.

    'TEN YEARS later, 85 Percent of Massachusetts voters say NO HARM from Marriage Equality' – 09/27/13

    'Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, same-sex families now enjoy full legal protections….'

    You can disagree with information.

    But do not try to SUPPRESS information, and claim you are a 'news' paper.

  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    This is why the senate took the nuclear option to ramrod through judges that will rule the liberal way, so they could have a single person make laws (wording from a liberal poster) from the bench, and bypass the congress which has conservatives in it.

    Smitty says there are no good arguments against SSM. So if there is no argument against, why are the SSM proponents afraid to be have the case heard by a panel of judges? Is it because they don't own all the judges on the panel? Seems like they are afraid because they know there are very coherent arguments against SSM that they will have to confront on a fair and even playing field. That must be truly scary.

    Gay marriage has existed for decades. There are many women, mostly older, named Gay, who have been married. Too bad so much of society insults their name with a sexual reference.

  • Dave Sommers Smyrna, TN
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    I heard Phil Robertson ain't so "happy" bout this... He isn't as concerned about this minority as much as those others using this movement to forward their passions still hidden in the closets of secrecy, and desiring added company & acceptance.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    Is the Deseret news purposefully trying to suppress information?

    I have tried to post this story previously, written by the Deseret news, and they do not allow it. Why?

    '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.'

    'Poll: Support for gay marriage UP among Catholics' – By Jillian Rayfield – Salon – 03/08/13

    “Catholic voters are leading American voters toward support for same-sex marriage,” Peter A. Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, wrote in a statement.

    'A Majority of Young Republicans Support Gay Marriage' - —By Tim Murphy – Mother Jones – 03/08/2013

    'The short of it: Even young Republicans think conservatives are fighting a losing battle.'

    The 'will of the people' has spoken.

    If some people would only take their fingers out of their ears.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    @Big Bubba,
    Let me hit all the straw men that religious conservatives bring up in regards to gay marraige. Cousins and siblings marrying, ok so that one is pretty easy, first of all, in many states(including Utah) it's allowable to marry a cousin, after both spouses have passed child bearing age, and that's the reason it is different that gay marriage, there is real science that shows severe birth defects from siblings/cousins procreating. Ok, so now pedophiles, People under 16 can't get married without permission until they are 16, courts don't really consider people under that age able to enter into legally binding documents, or adults. So were OK there. Now animals, same as young kids, no consent. The second my dog can say I do, sign the marriage license, and comprehend what it means then we might have a problem, Until then I think we're ok there as well.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    If the majority ruled in the South, the U.S. would still be segregated.

    The judge did not legislate. He interpreted the law in the context of the Constitution and stare decisis.

    Conservatives love judicial activism on their issues. We saw it with the 2nd Amendment and campagin finance cases. So please, don't whine about something you love when it goes in your favor.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:05 a.m.

    I'm sorry Big Bubba but I appreciate your right and even personal responsibility to live by what you view as correct standards. But when those standards originate from a personal belief like God, you should have no expectation that the rest of us will accept them.

    You ask, " Whose morals decides what is wrong and what is right? Yours? Mine? " The answer is simple "we" decide as a people through our legal processes. We've done it for 250 years and this situation is no different.

    Last point is I can guarantee you the world, America, and Utah will look different in 20 more years than it does now. You can choose to interpret the new circumstances as you wish, but we will decide as a people how we deal with it through the lens of the constitution and our current laws, not through the lens of a particular groups version of inevitability.

  • bruz Saint George, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    Should one agree that the STATE CORPORATION has an actual authority to govern by statute and subsequent license the lives and activities of members of the Republic, there is no longer a Republic. The arguments about marriage have nothing to do with being constitutional or not.This due to the fact that the corporate courts are outside of the Republic.
    The point is: licensed marriage is a corporate construct. "We the people" have no "legal"say in what the members of the private STATE CORPORATIONS pretending to be public trustees.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    Patrick Henry makes a very good and valid point. He'll probably be called a homophobe and intolerant because of it.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    Dec. 23, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    @Commodore and Patrick: Your posts were effective in describing the legal issues, but it unrealistically proposed that all laws in 50 states that mention the word Marriage be amended to refer to a Civil Union instead. This would take time and money, and a great deal of political capital.

    It would be easier and cleaner to change popular vernacular to say "Holy Union" when we speak of a binding, heterosexual union that adheres to the commandments of God. This would only require the changing of world literature, historic documents, and virtually every love poem and Hallmark card.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    @Big Bubba
    My God approves whole heartedly of same sex marriage. So who is right, my God or your God? Since our Gods don't agree maybe a secular constitution that protects all is best. The founding fathers were bright men and kept church and state separate for a reason.
    'Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
    ― Thomas Jefferson

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    from article--“If the state is going to get involved in some type of legislative or governing social policy, we should be doing it under the umbrella of love and understanding and not hatred and bigotry."

    I am curious if those who agree with SSM HONESTLY THINK that those who disagree with them do so BECAUSE OF "hatred and bigotry"......... Or if they can be honest enough to admit maybe its just because the 66% think heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman---and couples practicing same sex--is two different things.

    I, for one, am all for anyone doing their own choosing in how to live and being responsible for those choices.

    Gays and lesbians have been living together and having same sex for a long time now.

    Anything Utah decides is not going to change that.
    I am all for them continuing to do as they see fit and being responsible for those choices.

    But it is not 'hate or bigotry' that defines what (or what not) marriage is, in Utah or any other place.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    I'm surprised we haven't heard more rantings from the nuts and dolts on the Eagle Forum or in the legislature.

    @Cats
    "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 have judicial review in this nation where courts are supposed to throw out laws that are unconstitutional.

    @Big Bubba
    "These concerns arise from deep Christian religious conviction, the kind of convictions that apparently many gay marriage advocates could care less about."

    The problem (for your side) is that making our laws based on religious rules needs non-religious reasons, otherwise we're just doing the equivalent of adding pieces of a Christian Sharia Law equivalent.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    We keep reading the argument how gay marriages are not going to affect my heterosexual marriage. To me, the importance of my heterosexual marriage is based on its religious implications. We have family in Europe where already this issue is effecting the religious rites of people. Various religions are being forced to perform gay marriages. Something which we keep being told is not the agenda and will not happen here.

    After all, the United States has not European connections and is completely isolated from the rest of the world. Please, in the arguments, stop trying to refer to those who prefer traditional marriage as irrational, bigots, hate filled and paranoid. We have legitimate concerns as we watch this unfold around the world.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    @ NoodlekaBoodle,

    I appreciate your point of view but wonder about what kind of morality is used to draw the line on what type of marriage is acceptable. For example, at one time in this country gay marriage was viewed as morally unacceptable. Now it is not. What about marriage between 1st cousins and siblings. Right now these marriages are viewed as morally wrong by the majority, but what if that changes just like gay marriage. Whose morals decides what is wrong and what is right? Yours? Mine? This is why God is so important. God has provided the moral standards for all of us to live by. When we toss out His standards of what is right and wrong as mentioned in the Bible, then anything goes.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    What is the matter with the Tenth Circuit, this do the right wing core is vitally important. They do not want to continue to lead the way into this issue. It is like California proposition karma.

  • Crossfire5 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    The best way to undermine American society is by using our own Constitution. The cleverest way to disarm values is by engaging them with falsehoods disguised as values. Utah has now had the spectacle of gay marriage forced upon it, a lie that masquerades under "marriage equality", and constitutionality. We are being accused of bigotry, intolerance and extremism for opposing a redefinition of marriage. It is Utah's turn to demonstrate to the rest of the nation that it is possible to stand up to the tide of worsening values in America.

  • McMurphy St George, Utah
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    @ Cats

    You have it backwards. America will cease to be America when it ceases to be a nation of laws and becomes a nation of popular opinion

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    Corruption in the courts is making the rule of law obsolete. It's interesting that these judges with a social agenda not in line with the will of the people are abusing the very power that gives them that opportunity. The societal breakdown in the Book of Mormon was facilitated by corrupt lawyers and judges. Sound familiar?

  • Christmas Carole LAS CRUCES, NM
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    “No we’re not irrational. We don’t hate anyone. We just understand marriage differently, and we think that’s a valid viewpoint in the public square.“

    AMEN! & AMEN! Bill Duncan...well said and EXACTLY as the majority of Utahn's feel(was one for many yrs and have many family members still there & was there for the vote!!)

  • ThinksIThink SEATTLE, WA
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    The attorney general needs to produce evidence to support its arguments against gay marriage. Just claiming to have a burning in the bosom that gay marriage is bad is not evidence.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    @Commodore and Patrick Henry: probably the best thing I have seen on here dealing with the issue. Good stuff.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    @Big Bubba,
    While I understand that religious conservatives believe that, the united states wasn't formed to pass laws that are only in place due to religious conviction. There also has to be a secular need for the law to exist. For example, murder is against god's law, and secular law. But I can make a pretty strong argument as to why murder should be illegal, without once mentioning religion. Gay marriage is only bad in a religious sense, that's why it should be legal, regardless of religious conscience. The way it's supposed to work in this country is that religion can believe and practice what they want, separately from government, and people who don't believe in that religion don't have to follow their rules.

  • Manny Saint George, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    So what's the point of voting on issues if an Activist Judge can strike down or void out a decision made by the citizens?

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    Why would the Governor and AG try and obtain an "emergency" stay when there is a hearing scheduled for Monday morning. This is political grandstanding.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    Where is Utah's elected and sworn in Attorney General that was inefficient due to his lack of integrity and dealings with people in a non-protected manner. He left our State of Utah unprotected due to his protectionist attitude about himself. The other 3 elected State executives could have done their duty and job but it appears that others have things they want to protect from the past, such as $13M and $85K. Ethics, integrity and personal dealings that impact on our State at least have some say from the House of Representatives. Their actions helped put pressure on the former AG. We have so much at stake in our government in dealing with the federal laws that the Attorney General can provide.

    Hopefully, the Governor can undue some of the damage by putting a person of integrity, honor and upright to that Office that has been blighted for maybe 13 years or more. We need honorable people in office and not controlled by outside interests.

    Senator Bennett was not perfect but got routed by a group that has no guidance system for our State of Utah. The Oregon people with Freedom in it's name is opposite of freedom.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 23, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    Where in the constitution is the right to marry someone of the same gender? Something some judges found that is not in there.

  • KTC John Wetumpka, AL
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:52 a.m.

    Let's talk about what is actually "constitutional." Here is perhaps the most modernly ignored constitutional provision and it has direct application to the controversy. The 10th amendment was required by the states (not just southern states) in the beginning before the states would accept the federal constitution. The 10th amendment was designed to prevent central government over-reach by any of the three federal branches. It reads:
    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since the constitution is silent on the subject of marriage, the laws of the respective states take priority. As court cases substantiate, states' rights prevailed on the subject of marriage from the earliest days of our nation. There is no federal constitutional right to same sex marriage based upon the plain language of the constitution---which, like I say,is mostly ignored.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    The majority that has the rights the minority wants cannot possibly argued the are being persecuted or accuse the other side of intolerance.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    "Isn't the real issue here the unconstitutional tendency for judges to legislate behind the bench?

    The answer NO. In fact the it is the specific responsibility of a federal judge to determine the constitutionality of laws including state laws. So right or wrong it was the responsibility of Shelby to make a decision.

    "So what good does it do to vote?? If a Judge turns down the will of the people??" The will of the people is not the arbitrator of the constitution. That job belongs to the judicial system.

    I disagree with Lex Loci, that a different opinion by the Supreme Court would demonstrate activism (used as a pejorative) on Shelby's part. This is in fact the process, law, circuit court, supreme court. So he's just doing his job as outlined by the constitution. He gave his opinion and it's different than the law. What's wrong with that?

  • Visitor from California Berkeley, CA
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    For those arguing against marriage equality on religious grounds, are you aware that there are many religious denominations in this country that welcome same-sex couples and that do want to celebrate their marriages? What about their religious liberty (as well as that of those who don't have a religion)? Especially for those of you who are LDS, beware of arguing that your particular religious beliefs should be public policy and govern what others do. Remember, you're still a minority too, and you wouldn't want the majority's religious views imposed upon you! There's a good reason for all of us that there's a separation of church and state. Here's to equality for all citizens, in Utah and in every state in this country, regardless of religious views!

  • HEADS UP SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    Mr. Duncan's logic that 66 percent of of voters favor the ban will not sway the court. The court's ruling is based on law which also includes that federal laws override state law.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    The prophets have repeatedly told us not to support laws that sympathise with same gender marriage. Don't commit crimes against them and be decent to them but support traditional marriage. How many athesists say I think same gender marriage is ok but I don't want to impose my lack of morality on people. All laws are based on morality.

    Heber J Grant repeatedly told the saints not to support repeal of 18th amendment but Utah was 36th state to do so. Spoke out against ERA too. The Lord does take a stand on moral issues so we should use our influence for good.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    @Cats: If you think you are tiring of "the intolerance and constant bullying that goes on by the supporters of same-sex marriage."(Which is clearly not the case, but for arguments sake) How do tired do you think underrepresented minorities including (LGBT folks) are of the intolerance and constant bullying(and far worse) that has been going on by the supporters of "Christianity" for the last several hundred years in this country? Chew on that for a while and see how it tastes.

  • 5 Orem, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:24 a.m.

    The statute defining the duties of the county/city clerks in this state say they can issue marriage licenses to one man and one woman. That was not addressed in the opinion or the appeal. If the state will enforce the statute it will prevent the confrontation until it can be addressed in the legislature.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:23 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi;

    What about the people in Utah who were "disenfranchised" by the passage of Amendment 3. You know, the LGBT couples who would like to marry? They don't count?

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:21 a.m.

    What's unconstitutional is judges ruling from the bench. This is a republic and the people spoke, as constitutionally outlined, against a practice calculated to destroy foundational rights outlined in the First Admendment, Freedom of Religion.

    Admendment 14 is reserved for those caught in criminal behavior, not for those who want to experiment with sexual behavior. Finally, marriage is not a right, it's a religious ceremony. If churches can't justify it doctrinally, they and citizens with the same conscience, should not be forced to support it. That's freedom of religion, the first civil right protected in the Constitution.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:17 a.m.

    Grant equal tax rights, and in all ways remove discrimination against gay couples. But don't destroy the meaning of the word marriage. Marriage is more than love, friendship, even undying commitment. It is a word that defines the essence of family, biology, and links generations. Call it Domestic Partnership, Domestic Union, and grant whatever equal protection is required. But don't destroy the meaning of the word marriage. It has stood the test of time (inspite of those who commit crimes within its bonds), and is at the core of who we are. Human beings. Too few are born within the bonds of marriage these days. But don't destroy that opportunity for even more by destroying the meaning of the word.

    Don't discriminate against individuals who are gay. But don't destroy the meaning of marriage for the rest of us.

  • Matt9898 Salt lake, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:10 a.m.

    You know, I don't think the governor really cares about this issue particularly. I suspect his efforts at the stay/appeal were weak and half hearted, one reason it was so easily dismissed by the 10th circuit. Why waste tax payer $$ on a losing proposition.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:04 a.m.

    The 10th Circuit should allow the State their day in court. These liberal judges have an agenda that they are shoving down the throat of over two million people, without due process. This is too important of an issue to allow one judge to determine.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Dec. 23, 2013 7:03 a.m.

    @Two For Flinching: "There isn't a single valid argument against gay marriage."

    Welcome to the forum. It is nice to see new participants coming on line.

    If we call anything and everything 'marriage' then we have diluted the importance and value of the institution as a means for society to send a message that the best environment for children is being raised by their biological parents and that men should be responsible for their procreative choices.

    In addition, there are a lot of civil liberties issues. For example, a lot of people in Utah have been disenfranchised by this ruling.

    It is great to have you join us. See, your views are being broadened already.

  • Little Andy Tremonton, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 6:51 a.m.

    So what good does it do to vote?? If a Judge turns down the will of the people??

  • lex loci Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 6:42 a.m.

    Good law bad process.

    Shelby's analysis is mostly correct. Marriage is a fundamental right which cannot be infringed without a compelling state interest, which has not been shown here. He goes too far in his discussions about demeaning gay couples because there is no interest in "dignity."

    He also goes too far in getting out in front of the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court determines that states are entitled to regulate marriage to the point of banning gay marriage then his activism will be demonstrated.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Dec. 23, 2013 6:43 a.m.

    In 1995, fifteen prophets/seers/revelators said "we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." And in context, by "family" they did not mean gay partners. So, Two for Flinching, and many others, there ARE valid arguments against gay marriage. (Unless you don't consider calamities a valid argument.) It is NOT just a "religious" thing. It may not directly affect my hetersexual marriage but it will affect society. Now, there are many other attacks on the family; gay marriage is just one of those. By itself it will not be our downfall. But it contributes to it.
    Tolerance is a virtue, when not taken too far. But tolerance just for tolerance's sake has fooled many people into equating it with the highest morality. Even the very elect will be deceived. But don't be deceived; don't call evil good and good evil. Enjoy your "high moral ground" now, gay marriage supporters; but the prophets will be vindicated.

  • jskains Orem, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 6:30 a.m.

    I hope everyone here who keeps saying to let this go is ok with the fallout afterwords. Like little boys pretending to be girls and using the girl locker rooms, or the graphic depictions of homosexuality thrust at their kids at school. Or perhaps the businesses being forced to promote gay weddings, etc. without any ability to say no. Lastly, what will your positions be when the government next forces the LDS Church to perform gay weddings in the temples? Are any of you actually following what has happened in the 17 states before us?

  • CooginIN Southern, IN
    Dec. 23, 2013 6:16 a.m.

    For all who argue that allowing same-sex marriage does not harm them or their marriages, I believe that they will find that it will indeed affect them. As the decline of moral standards increases, all of us will feel the effects.

  • Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 5:54 a.m.

    Sorry, but no rational argument has been made against gay marriage. The State argued that traditional marriage is about having children, but it begs the following questions: What about marriage couples who can't have children? What about marriage couples who have no plans of having children?

    Gay marriage is on the side of reason. Religious beliefs against gay marriage are not on the side of reason. You have free to have those religious beliefs, but you aren't free to impose them on other people. Individual freedom has won.

  • Physics27 Cedar City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 5:54 a.m.

    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.

  • EW HENRIETTA, NY
    Dec. 23, 2013 5:21 a.m.

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

  • Patrick Henry West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 1:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Commodore West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 1:49 a.m.

    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
    Dec. 23, 2013 1:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 23, 2013 1:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Commodore West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 1:44 a.m.

    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.

  • RedneckLefty St. George, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:10 a.m.

    Cats:

    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.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:10 a.m.

    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.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:08 a.m.

    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.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Dec. 23, 2013 12:06 a.m.

    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.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:48 p.m.

    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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:44 p.m.

    Discrimination is not a family value.

  • BYU-2000 Highland, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:38 p.m.

    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.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:34 p.m.

    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.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 11:18 p.m.

    @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.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 10:51 p.m.

    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.

  • Independent Cuss Waldoboro, ME
    Dec. 22, 2013 10:47 p.m.

    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.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Dec. 22, 2013 10:40 p.m.

    Equality will prevail.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 10:33 p.m.

    "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?