Comments about ‘Judge declines to issue stay in same-sex marriage ruling’

Return to article »

Governor, state attorneys say decision leaves Utah in 'chaos'

Published: Monday, Dec. 23 2013 11:20 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Potsdam, 00

It has been most amusing to read all that fight about it,
the article is very informative to me, and even my comments kicked out once in a while,
it seems to me that we are entering a new time in Utah, some do suggest to calm it down and get back to basics.

I would advice DN and other folks of this kind to open up more,
that each one of us get enough information in this ongoing shift of society.
I do not believe in keeping quiet, just because it might sound better,
this issue must be kept alive.

To get back to basics, means to keep up with our awareness !!all the time!!

Woodland Hills, UT

And great was the fall thereof

Southern, UT

I just hope all of those newlyweds had the opportunity to update their income status on the ACA exchange (maybe that's why the deadline was extended). After all, they are no longer single income moms/dads. The sword cuts both ways in marriage, some things are in a married couple's favor and some are not.

Vince here
San Diego, CA


You're kidding right?

Gays get married - for the most part you do not know who those gays are - and where their marriages are taking place, but you feel attacked?


You probably don't agree - I don't know - with other kinds of marriages --- i.e. first cousins getting married, cohabitation, etc. --- chances are --- you have no idea where those are taking place --- and you feel attacked?

It's live and let live.

(I may not agree with a lot of people and how they live their lives --- but my life is the furthest from being attacked).

Murray, UT

@milojthatch Your statement is pure hyperbole. There is no war on religion. The Government is not forcing any religious organization to conduct same sex marriages, the military is not breaking down churches the stop people from worshipping. This is simply a movement in offering all adults the same property and wealth rights heterosexual couples currently enjoy. It's simply a matter of equal rights, anyone who thinks this is a war on religion really needs to take a moment and reflect on facts and not their emotions.

Vince here
San Diego, CA

Better now, Utah - to be State #18 than to be State #50 to grant same-sex marriage --- save the agony.

slc, UT

Sorry that should be lucky

Dan Maloy
Enid, OK

Article title: "Judge declines to issue stay in same-sex marriage ruling".

Quote from Heber C. Kimball: "The time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a saint from the face of an enemy to the people of God. Then, brethren, look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall...."


Wise people know the answer to that question.

South Jordan, UT

I guess what really bothers me is that there are so many fingers pointing at the LDS church by those whom I highly doubt have ever really listened to the teachings of the modern prophets and church leaders.
Having close relatives that are gay I listen intently to talks particularly on this subject. As I think is the case many times here, my relatives don't listen to conference, they listen for what is said about conference by their friends who are out to take offense to the least of anything that is said.
I would challenge anyone to go on-line, listen to any of the talks given by leaders on the subject and see if there is anything mean and hateful said about gay people.
IMHO, the church has done much lately to encourage tolerance and love of all our brothers and sisters no matter their differences.

Bob K
porland, OR

Cedar Hills, UT
re:Bob K

A large percentage of teachers in the 1950's were gay??
....NO - I wrote that many of the best teachers have always been Gay. Maybe those in Utah moved out, cant tell you, but bet you just never knew

Children are best taught and nurtured by a mother and father - that is why God created and ordained the family unit as a Father, Mother with children and with NO exceptions.
....So, as a Christian, do you want to leave all the kids Gays would adopt in orphanages?
And should a man whose wife leaves him have his kids put to death?

unless of course you attempt to quote scripture and then you get fired by the God-less left!!
....Quoting Scripture in a secular situation, such as work or a court, is rude, and it is stupid and unkind. People who won't shut up about their religious views at work should be fired, as should anyone who monopolizes the job with an outside issue.

I know many here think of Utah as a guided only by mormon doctrine, but, in order to be a State, you cannot pass unconstitutional discrimination.

Ogden, UT

@Justmythoughts 4:31 p.m. Dec. 23, 2013

1 judge > the will of Utahns. That is the only way something like this would ever pass. I'll bet he is real proud of himself.


Actually that should read as follows -- let me correct your statement: THE CONSTITUTION > the will of Utahns.

And rightly so. I've read the decision. It is well-reasoned and argued, and firmly based on the Constitution and case law reaching back to the 1880s. Good job, Judge Shelby!

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Judge Shelby made a horrible ruling.

The question before us is what is marriage. Is marriage an institution designed to focus as much as possible child rearing into the actions of their own biological parents, or is it an institution about adult relations and desires?

The problem is that the people who have the latter definition refuse to recognize that those who oppose the redefinition of marriage do so because there is a cogent current definition of marriage that is undermined by their redefinition.

Their hateful attacks on their opponents and unwillingness to recognize that their opponents have legitimate views have destroyed any change of developing logical marriage law.

Marriage is a public policy decision, and how it is implemented should be a public policy decision as well. The state has presented cogent arguments, the only problem is that Judge Shelby has too fully embraced the ways of the radicals who call their enemies haters and will not listen to the arguments of others, and assumes just because he does not see an argument as valid it is not.

The very fact he admits others will rule should compel him to stay the ruling.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Tomsic's hateful comparison of Herbert to Wallace is also not accurate. This probably shows that Tomsic does not know her history. Wallace was not stopping a school girl, he was stopping an adult male.

Brown v. Board was in the 1950s and from Kansas. Wallace's actions were in the 1960s in Alabama. They also connect with the University of Alabama, not a K-12 school.

Herbert is right. One judge should not be able to overturn the established law and then ignore that there will be an appeal. Especially when he engaged in fraud to confuse people as to when he would make the ruling to prevent the state from properly anticipating him.

Tomsic has made a sickening attack on the memory of those who fought for African-American civil rights. The memory of Emmet Till and many others who were lynched and whose lynchers never faced justice has been insulted by this description.

Defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman is central to its function and meaning. It is about marriage meaning what it is meant to, not about animus towards any individuals.

Anderson Island, WA

I am amused by all the whining about "one activist judge". First of all, let's admit that the words "activist judge" always and only apply when one doesn't agree with that judge's decision, nothing more. It's simply an infantile expletive because you think that you know better than the judge.

These matters receive the benefit of the entire judicial hierarchy. No one judge gets final pronouncement on anything, so your dismissal of all things you don't like being due to an "activist judge" are ridiculous.

Let's look at the long litany of cases to date. Virtually every pro-equality decision has withstood appeal. SCOTUS did an elegant job of telegraphing where this is headed in the Windsor decision. Anti-gays won ANYTHING lately?

Clearly, legal same sex marriage is coming to all 50 states. NO one has been able to produce a legally sustainable argument to deny gay citizens equal treatment under civil law. And despite all the (typically) vague dire chicken-little predictions of doom, NONE of these has come true. All the whining and prognosticating just comes off as pathetic, especially since it's consistently shown to be without any substance.

mid-state, TN

@John Pack --

"The memory of Emmet Till and many others who were lynched and whose lynchers never faced justice has been insulted by this description."

Let's see --

Gay people in the US are still eight times more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people. LGBT people are still beaten to death on the streets of our cities with their attackers yelling homophobic slurs at them.

In some countries, gays can literally be put to death just for being gay.

I was living in Knoxville just a few years ago, when a man stormed into a Unitarian church gathering there and shot nine people just because he hated "liberals, Democrats, blacks, and gays".

We see continuing violence against gays all over the world -- like those mobs in Russia and the the Republic of Georgia, some of which have been led by priests.

Civil rights for LGBT people is **literally** a matter of life or death.

I think the comparison with lynchings and racial civil rights is quite apt.

(Oh, and btw -- one of the leaders of MLK's civil rights movement, Bayard Rustin, was an openly gay black man.)



"I would challenge anyone to go on-line, listen to any of the talks given by leaders on the subject and see if there is anything mean and hateful said about gay people."

Of course there is nothing mean and hateful said about gay people, but that is not the standard. There was nothing mean and hateful said about black people for 100 years while they were being denied the priesthood (for no valid reason). There is never anything mean and hateful said by leaders out loud.

J. S.
Houston, TX

@John Pack Lambert of Michigan

segregation used to be widely supported in the south. and the supreme court had the nerve to struck it down, against southerners' will? how dare they?

Phoenix, AZ

"There is no basis anywhere for this belief that same-sex marriage is a 'fundamental right...'"

Marriage is a fundamental right. So why can't polygamists, pedophiles, incestuous persons marry? This judge, Shelby, has some more ruling to do re other marriage arrangements.

"equal protection under the law"

The US Constitution's Equal Protection deals with state law. And the Supreme Court ruled the federal government has no jurisdiction in marriage (DOMA). Therefore it's up to the states to define marriage which the Utah did... between a man and a woman... not same sex, not polygamy, not incest, not child/adult, not siblings, etc.

"This is just another Obama-appointed activist judge (Shelby)..."

He should be impeached, and immediately!

@Jason Williams:
"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equality under the law."

That's right... state law. And Utah State law says marriage is between a man and a women.

"A state constitutional amendment preventing same-sex couples from marrying is discriminatory and illegal/unconstitutional. CASE CLOSED."

Wait a minute... what about polygamy, incest, child/adult, siblings, etc., marriage? If same-sex is allowed so must all combinations of marriage be allowed under 'Equal Protection.'

Utah Businessman
Sandy, UT

Here is a thought to consider:

Next week, a judge may rule that the legal definition of "honest" applies to people who tell lies. If he does, most of us will do our best to abide by that ruling. However, the new "honest" is a very different animal than the old "honest".

This is also true of SSM--it is a very different animal than the old "marriage".

mid-state, TN

@wrz --

"...why can't polygamists, pedophiles, incestuous persons marry?"

Here we go again.

Individual rights are always limited by harm.

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

Gay marriage doesn't.

It's a very simple distinction.

Look up the harm principle. Courts understand it, even if you don't.

"...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but) does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships....the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. ..." -- In re Marriage Cases, slip op. at n. 52, 79-80.

Justice Bauman of the Supreme Court of BC, reaffirming Canada's polygamy ban: "I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm,"... "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

to comment

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