Comments about ‘About 700 marriage licenses issued in Utah since judge's ruling’

Return to article »

1,500 rally to celebrate unexpected decision that led to gay weddings in Utah

Published: Monday, Dec. 23 2013 6:50 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
grj
Bountiful, ut

I'm wondering - - - where did all the children of those couples "married" under this new interpretation of the law come from? There isn't ONE - NOT ONE - of those couples who jointly created those little lives. And that is why boys can't "marry" boys and girls can't "marry" girls. Oh sure, they can show up at the courthouse and say their I do's and get a paper, but to call that relationship a "marriage" is irrational and unjustifiable given the entire history of civilized mankind.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Are the police going to confiscate the certificates if the Tenth circuit reverses. Will they use warrants?

let's roll
LEHI, UT

In the spirit of the 11th AOF, I suggest much of the rancor that seems to surround this issue would dissipate if we let all consenting adults decide how they want to define "marriage" just as we let folks decide how (or if) they worship God.

I agree with the principles set out in the Proclamation on the Family and believe the world would be a better place if all accepted those principles. I can invite others to follow those tenets but can't force them on anyone any more than I can force on anyone how (or if) they worship God.

Most importantly, I can't allow their decision not to follow those tenets to diminish my love for them as my brother or sister.

DEW
Sandy, UT

What is the big deal DN, KSL and the rest of our local medias. Can you guys just leave it alone and not put in paper and tv? I might as well not read or watch tv with you guys!

paintandestroy
Richmond/Cache, UT

Saying this doesn't have any effect on heterosexual marriage is like giving Harvard diplomas to high school graduates. Re-defining marriage to be something its not cheapens it.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Meckofahess
"Think there are any signs in the world that he is displeased with the behavior of his children?"

Nope, and considering that I almost slipped on icy sidewalks a few times today, I'm left wondering how many same-sex marriages we need to get a bit of salt to fall to take care of it.

@grj
"where did all the children of those couples "married" under this new interpretation of the law come from? There isn't ONE - NOT ONE - of those couples who jointly created those little lives. And that is why boys can't "marry" boys and girls can't "marry" girls. "

For a long time the idea was pushed that gay people should marry people of the opposite gender and try and force away the gay. Didn't work very well, resulted in a lot of divorces and some children. Some of those kids were adopted, for you see single people can adopt in this state, which of course includes single gay people. Some of those getting same-sex marriages are bisexual and so, well, you can figure that one out. Some of them are a result of in-vitro fertilization/surrogate mothers.

SignsoftheTimes
Apo, AE

The ruling is not the end of this. The next step is adding to the school curriculum that teaches such behavior is normal and to encourage such behavior. This is no less than a step toward total mind control where any whisper of support for traditional marriage is vilified and eventually criminalized. There is no Constitution. The 1st Amendment will be ignored in favor of today's view of the 14th Amendment. Mark my words...this is not the end.

Island Mom
Saipan, MP

It wouldn't surprise me to see Utah be the first state to get out of the "marriage" business-- and start issuing "licenses for legal union" instead. Then, if you want to get married, you take your paperwork to a church-- if you want a legal union-- you go to a legal official.

postaledith
Freeland, WA

I find it interesting that so many hateful comments towards the LGBT community get published and not denied.

Really???
Kearns, UT

Many of you can continue coming up with ways to insult and marginalize one another. As for me, I will pray for peace tonight. After all, isn't that what we supposedly celebrate this time of year?

I M LDS 2
Provo, UT

Oh, yes, and the sky is falling! And the End is here! And the halls of Congress are filled with Communists!

Wo! Wo! All bad things and stuff!

(end hyperbole and nonsense)

Here
Sandy, UT

This ruling will not solve the problem. Living the GLBT lifestyle is not natural, not divinely sanctioned. Never will be. Happiness will not be the result now or in the long run because of the conscience we all have and the lack of God's approval. I'm not talking about national, state, or local laws or which religions, people, or organizations support SSM. I'm talking about nature and universal laws of happiness that God, yes God, has revealed to us for our happiness.

Admittedly, there are sincere people on both sides of the fence. But I believe the GLBT community will find another way they are downtrodden and seek legal redress. They will not stop. In reality, they will not be truly "happy” till they do what is right. They will continue to fight those who try to defend traditional marriage and traditional values. From past history, it seems their "lifestyle" will not allow them to let it go at this.

Here
Sandy, UT

As one of you already stated, there are plenty of things that are legal but immoral. SSM is one of them. Some things don't change. Some do. Some activities bring eternal happiness. Some can’t. SSM is one that does not. That can't be that hard to understand. Some of us will never accept it as a normal, healthy lifestyle.

I ask all those of good faith to continue to discuss these issues. The dialogue is far from over.

Ronald Uharriet
SWun City, Ca.

Recently the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, on three different occasions, made three different earth shaking statements. (At least it shook my earth where I stand).
1. I do not believe in a Catholic God. I believe in a God (God of all).
2. I do not believe in a Centralized Roman Catholic Church. I believe in a Universal Catholic
Church.
3. I am not going to change the dogma in the Church. I am going to change the priority of
the dogma in the Church. We spend far too much time on issues of abortion, right to
choose, gay rights etc. We should be spending more time worry about the poor and what
we can do to make their lives better.

(I paraphrase only because I can not remember the exact words, however I think the Pope shows more sensitivity to those things most talked about with more examples in the Bible.

I think that our own Church is also improving in many ways in the same direction. I hope so.

Contrariusester
mid-state, TN

@ThomasJefferson --

"There are a few and one blogger in particular that use the same fear tactics of "harm" that those who oppose LGBT rights have used."

Nope.

There's lots and lots of good evidence concerning the harms associated with polygamy. I'll be happy to cite many sources on request -- though maybe not tomorrow, 'cause I'll be busy.

In contrast, there is NO good evidence of any material harm coming from gay marriage.

"It goes beyond hypocrisy! "

It's not hypocrisy. It's called reality.

Individual rights are always limited by harm.

Polygamy, incest, and so on are known to convey significantly increased risks of harm.

Gay marriage does not.

Look up the harm principle.

"have the integrity to use it completely and equally for all."

Absolutely. The harm principle applies to everyone equally.

@SoCalChris --

"You've made my point. Women's right to vote was dealt with in the 19th Amendment."

I've made the point that the Founding Fathers never intended a lot of things that we now consider constitutional rights. If that was your point too, then we are in complete agreement.

hankel
Butte, MT

Someone commented that this doesn't hurt anyone else. What about young people who are so impressionable?
The attitude that gay marriage is OK is sending the wrong message to them. It makes me think of Luke 17:2, which says "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his (her) neck, and he (be) cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Where is the sense of responsibility with these grown adults to obey the commandments of God, if, for no other reason, than to set the example for children and young people?

Contrariusest
mid-state, TN

@Here --

" Living the GLBT lifestyle is not natural"

Actually, many species of nonhuman animals practice homosexual behaviors out in nature. Therefore, it's perfectly natural.

@hankel --

"Where is the sense of responsibility with these grown adults to obey the commandments of God, if, for no other reason, than to set the example for children and young people?"

You are presupposing that gay marriage is a bad thing. Those of us who don't believe that it is a bad thing don't mind one bit if kids are exposed to the idea of equal rights for all citizens.

And btw -- there is no commandment that says "thou shalt not be homosexual."

sukiyhtaky
us, CA

I have to scratch my head when I read comments about this only being about love and why can't we allow others with different opinions about religion to just be left alone to lead their lives as they see fit. If this was true, why were two businesses singled out...the bakery and photographer...and forced to go against their beliefs and cater to the business of two gay marriages? After being assured that this would never happen...guess what...it happened! The religious views and rights of these two businesses were thrown out the window and everything they worked for all these years will go down as they lose their businesses defending themselves against two couples who were in it for 'love', but demanded the services of two people who did not support them. Where is the love and mutual respect there? Why would they even want to bring disharmony to their 'special day' if it wasn't a politically motivated activist statement? Marriott Hotels has for years reached out and catered to LGBT weddings...take your business there and leave other mom and pops alone instead of forcing them to bankruptcy...no love there.

Contrariusest
mid-state, TN

@SoCalChris --

"You've made my point. Women's right to vote was dealt with in the 19th Amendment."

I've thought about this more overnight, and actually IMHO this seems like a good question.

Why did women's right to vote require a new amendment? I dunno.

Nonetheless, the 14th has already been used in many other wide-ranging cases, old and new, like:

-- Roe v. Wade
-- Bush v. Gore
-- Brown v. Board of Education
-- Loving v. Virginia
-- United States v. Wheeler
-- Lawrence v. Texas
-- Romer v. Evans
-- Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
-- Skinner v. State of Oklahoma
-- and many others

And I bet the framers of this amendment didn't intend most of those applications, either.

Rev. Mike
Midland, MI

I am amazed at all the people that decry this as somehow anti-democracy. first lesson in civics folks, we do not live in a democracy. We live in a Constitutional Republic. The majority is constrained in many ways from what they can impose upon minorities.

Just becasue YOUR interpretation of YOUR religion says something is wrong, does not mean you can force that via law on others.

Those arguing against rights and inclusion are, as always, upon the wrong side of history.

We must all be equal before the law.

to comment

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