Gay marriages are 'affront' to Utah, state argues in appeal to high court


Return To Article
  • Matt9898 Salt lake, UT
    Jan. 4, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    Mormons have a history of suffering discrimination and persecution because their beliefs and way of life was viewed by others as an "affront". I would think this harsh past treatment would make them loath to do the same to others.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Jan. 3, 2014 4:49 p.m.

    @ Candide,

    "I still have not heard any cogent argument about why same sex marriage is harmful. Any takers?"

    My big concern is about school children. They should not have to learn about homosexuality at a young age. They will have plenty of time to learn about it as they grow older. I see no way around it legally with SSM. In fact, if gender is irrelevant, it would be discriminatory to not teach young children about SSM. Stories about moms and dads or princesses and princes would have to have same sex counterparts. Many on this thread may think that's wonderful. But it's certainly rational to see it as a bad idea.

    There was a same sex wedding on float in the Rose Parade this year. How is that good for young kids? That kind of thing will be unavoidable with SSM.

  • DWmFrancis LEHI, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    What is really unfortunate about all this is how convoluted and polarized the arguments on both sides have become. The more extreme the positions get, the easier it is to fall into stereotypical exaggerations of basic, indisputable, facts and resort to applying overly broad generalizations in an effort to "prove" one side or the others' position. Do all people have a basic right to be treated fairly and equally under the law (equal protection)? Yes. Are all people equal or the same? No. Are sexual preference and orientation a constitutionally protected right? That depends on the interpretation of the constitution. Is irreparable harm done when couples of any sexual combination are allowed to enter into a legally bound relationship? That depends on how they treat each other and any children they may have responsibility for. The farther we allow the argument to drift from basic scientific facts, and the more the arguments turn on fluid definitions of "man" and "woman", "marriage" and "family", the greater the chances of truly irreparable harm being done, not just today, but for generations to come.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 3, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    Here is a better title for this article. Utah's opposition to same sex marriage is an affront to liberty, freedom and the Constitution of the United States.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 3, 2014 3:34 a.m.

    @RFLASH I'm so sorry to hear you feel the way you do about Mormons. It's simply not true. To disagree with one's lifestyle does not equal hate. I suggest you read up on what the LDS leaders have said over the past few years. There are many members with same gender attraction who have chosen to not give into those feelings and who are full, temple recommend holding members of the church. But even if some have given into the feelings, they are still loved and valued as God's children. Always welcome at meetings and socials even if you've been excommunicated. Surely, having served a mission, you know why homosexual relationships and marriages go against the church's beliefs. Give us a try again and I would bet you'd find more support and love than you expect.

    @ Ranch... Oh please! Spare us the condescension.

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 1:38 a.m.

    @bandersen."Gay marriage is an affront to the will of God". Possibly my God disagrees Sir. Are we as a society to base our morality on what your God solely believes? Possibly you need to clarify more clearly?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:14 a.m.

    @ bandersen

    There was a time when the majority of the people of Mississippi and Alabama supported segregation, yet the judicial branch struck that down. Was that an example of the Constitution ceasing to exist, or was the Constitution protecting the rights of US citizens?

    We enjoy many wonderful rights in this country. But voting away somebody else's rights is not among them. Making something illegal that has nothing to do with you, and that has caused no harm is not freedom. It's tyranny. Not everyone believes the same way you do, and that's okay. Diversity is a good thing.

    Lastly, we did have an election. The people of Utah choose Lee and Hatch to represent us in the Senate. BOTH of our Senators helped to appoint Judge Shelby. That's how a Republic works.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 6:49 p.m.

    the ignorance of our constitution is astounding. name me one article in the Constitution that overrules the will of the people and the
    Legislative branch? where? the ultimate authority in this country is the states and Legislative branch? The Judicial branch is weakest branch of government and for good reason. anytime the judicial branch overrules the legislative, the will of the people has been subverted and Constitutional has ceased to exist! if the states and the legislature decide to make illegal gay marriage, that is freedom and the law of that land. get with it Americans! if unelected judges can subvert the will of the people, why have elections? Support Constitutional government and states rights? gay marriage is an affront to the will of God and the will of the people? simple, but only if you understand the Constitution!

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    Jan. 2, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    To TruthBeTold in SLC in regard to you comment: "So, I ask those outside my state to show some respect and please refrain from coming onto a local news outlet and tell Utahns what they should think or do, let us do that for ourselves. And if a Utahn comes to your local media, you should respectfully ask the same of them."
    Sadly, too late. California Prop 8's largest supporter, by far was the Mormon church and it's members. I will pay attention (and comment) on matters from Utah because of the vast amount of money the Mormon church has and the vast resources the Mormon church can garner when it chooses to preach politics from the pulpit.

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    Jan. 2, 2014 5:37 p.m.

    To all of you who are seriously worried that SCOTUS will force the LDS church to perform same sex marriage, I refer you to your bishop and your organization's rules about who can and who can not enter the temple. No judge or anyone else for that matter could or would force the LDS church to perform opposite sex marriage in the LDS temple. You are simply being ridiculous.

  • Mr. Whim Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2014 4:29 p.m.

    People who disagree with you aren't "trolls".

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 3:16 p.m.

    Re: "Time to start worrying about your own sins and stop trying to remove the mote from someone else's eye."

    The irony of such a statement, by anyone other than the only One who has ever lived His life with no mote in His eye, is simply delicious.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    I think that instead of saying that gay marriage is an affront to the State of Utah, it would be better to say that it is an affront to the Mormon Church. It is the people who insist that gay people are offensive to God! I grew up here, was blessed as a baby in the Mormon Church. I even went on a mission! Face it, they hate gay people! All of us that were raised in the Church know that. Just listen to our stories and you will find out just how much we weren't wanted! What do we say? Are we suppose to crawl into a hole and die? " Affront " what an insult! We are really so offensive to others? I think that we have established that gay people are human beings! I understand people have beliefs, but how hard is it to respect others? Is it that damaging to some Mormon that I have a husband? No, none of my neighbors have cared about us in 15 years, so why should it bother them now? Isn't that ridiculous? I think it is sad!

    Jan. 2, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    What is sad is that our society has so distorted the concept of "equal protection". Laws have been necessary to protect those with different characteristics; race, gender, disability, etc.

    Now we protect behavior. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a characteristic. Same-sex attraction may be a characteristic, but it does not need to be acted on. There is a choice to be gay and live a gay lifestyle. The entire human genome has been mapped, and no "gay gene" has been found by any honest and competent geneticist.

    Thousands and thousands have overcome SSA and live lives with an opposite-sex spouse and children. And I speak from personal experience here.

    There is room in our country for all lifestyles if we quit trying to redefine things to fit our opinions and beliefs. Civil Unions provide all the benefits of marriage while allowing religions to maintain their beliefs.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 1:36 p.m.


    As a committed homosexual, I have never heard of "Masha Gessen". I'm sure she's not the spokesperson for us, nor the "Al Gore" of the equality movement.

    Time to start worrying about your own sins and stop trying to remove the mote from someone else's eye.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 2, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    To HV Heretic... I was simply addressing a post by Candide, not the whole article. There isn't a need for a study on this. It's pure logic. One day a child adopted into a gay or lesbian home will realize that they don't have a mom or dad and will wonder what they have been missing or who that missing parent is. That may be the extent of the impact. But logic and knowledge of human nature tells us that many of these children will be affected in a deep, painful way. It may not show up as a problem for them until they are adults. I never said this doesn't happen in hetero marriages and families, too. But I did say it is completely avoidable in the case of gay marriage.

    When my children are fighting and say, " She started it!", I tell them I don't care who started it, only who is willing to be grown up enough to end it. When I hear pro-gays say the same thing, " Well heteros destroyed marriage first", I think, " and that makes it all OK?

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    As time goes on, I'm becoming more and more of a "libertarian." We now have government entities and government "authority" destroying our personal freedoms and productivity, our lifestyle and our choices. I don't see the necessity or economy of spending public money (which we don't have)and public power to keep people from doing what they want to do, or trying to rehabilitate or control the customs and preferences of others. Government already does way too much of what it shouldn't do, and can't seem to do the basic things right at all. A good example is how we're spending hundreds of billions and thousands of lives trying to remake the Middle East, but failing to protect our own homeland from the ongoing invasion of unidentified and uncontrolled populations. The fruitless "war on drugs" is another example . . . but we can't seem to keep the impaired drivers off our roads. Let's start focusing on the right things, and let people make their own choices as long as those choices aren't hurting or costing the rest of us.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    @ morganh

    "This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values...."

    No it was not. It was founded on the idea the everybody should be free, regardless of their beliefs. Check out the First Amendment sometime....

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    To "Eliyahu" but this is more like the head of the DNC declaring that they are now communist. They not reflect the views of all their members, but they have stated what the goal is for the organization. In this case we have one of the more prominent and well known leaders declaring that the fight for gay marriage is just a lie so that they can accomplish their goal of destroying marriage.

    This is not coming from a fringe group, but from a mainstream group.

    FYI Masha Gessen is like the Al Gore of the gay movement. Or do you consider Al Gore to be a left fringe extremist too?

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    One of the comments on here said that Utah's new tactic is to bug and bug the court until they can get there way. Isn't this what the proponents of same sex marriages have been doing when ever a law gets passed that they don't like? Judge Shelby's ruling is denying a State its right to define the definition of marriage in that state. The liberal media has done a very good job of convincing young people that marriage between a man and a women is outdated. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and our founders believed in a God who created a man and women as the first two people to inhabit the earth.

  • ThinkAndAnalyze Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    In its appeal to the US Supreme Court, the State of Utah has argued that same-sex marriages undermine society because it "substantially increases the likelihood that any given child will be raised without the everyday influence of his or her biological mother and father".

    Let me point out the astonishing hypocrisy in that argument: In cases of divorce, the State of Utah does not presume shared and equal custody arrangements to be 'in the best interests of the child(ren)'. It is nearly universally accepted that mother custody and non-resident father financial benefactor is.

    Having made that point, I would like to turn the state's words back against it: Your attitude towards fathers in divorce and custody proceedings 'substantially increases the likelihood that children will be raised without the everyday influence of their biological father'.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    "The idea that "gay marriage isn't an affront to destroy marriage" is a lie. Go to "Lesbian Activist’s Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is a ‘Lie’ to Destroy Marriage" at the Blaze and LISTEN to a LGBT activist declare that the purpose of gay marriage is to destroy traditional marriage."

    Not even going to bother hunting for it, unless you can convince us that one extremist is representative of everyone. If I give a cite for a Christian white supremacist making a speech that declares that blacks are inferior and should all be shipped off to camps for extermination, does that represent the views of all white Christians? You can easily find speeches by nutcases who claim to represent mainstream views on virtually any subject, but that doesn't mean they represent anyone but themselves.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    O'really said:
    "Yes, gays can have a baby made, but never without hurting that child psychologically, even if it's in the smallest perceptible way. The child will be hurt at some point as they realize why they are missing a parent. And it's a completely avoidable situation."

    Could you cite any study or is this just more fear mongering, ignorance and hatred?
    I would suggest your anger should be directed at "traditional marriage" that has a divorce rate of more than 50% leaving children without both parents, a crime by your comments. When are you going to set up a committee to decide who can, should, be allowed to be parents and who should be sterilized or not granted a license to procreate.

    You realize all your points about children, have nothing to do with the marriage argument, since marriage is between two people who love each other, not a license to breed.

  • iPWNblAX Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 12:33 a.m.

    What is the harm being done by SSM? To the religious people who are against SSM, it harms their belief and thus their egos. All religion preaches tolerance and acceptance yet religious people that are against SSM simply ignores the main theme of religion and selects a verse from the Bible that Jesus never said to justify their views on intolerance.

    I might not like Gays kissing or holding hands in public but it's their right and it's also their right to marry who they want.

    The "66% majority" of people that voted for Amendment 3 in 2004 should be below 50% in 2014. The old intolerant religious people that voted in 2004 have passed away while the college kids that didn't vote in 2004 are now mature adults whose views on the world aren't narrow like their parents and grandparents.

    Higher education creates more liberal citizens.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:33 p.m.

    @ O'really, Idaho Falls, ID, 6:16 p.m.

    Your attempt at a rationale for why SSM is harmful to children is pretty weak. I mean, when you consider the scope of harms a child could sustain in a family of any make-up - physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, neglect - the worst you can come up with is that it might be perceptibly harmful for a child to learn that one of his/her parents is not a biological parent?

    Gay children today are being harassed, bullied, assaulted, humiliated, and told that something is wrong with them because of the mistaken beliefs and attitudes that you have illustrated here. Often the perpetrators of these abuses are heterosexual children who are being raised by people with similar views. So who presents a greater risk of harm to our children?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 8:41 p.m.

    There seems to be a few themes running through the comments here. Let me fix some of the ideas that the pro-gay marriage crowd are spouting.

    The idea that "gay marriage isn't an affront to destroy marriage" is a lie. Go to "Lesbian Activist’s Surprisingly Candid Speech: Gay Marriage Fight Is a ‘Lie’ to Destroy Marriage" at the Blaze and LISTEN to a LGBT activist declare that the purpose of gay marriage is to destroy traditional marriage.

    Next, those that say "what is the harm in gay marriage". Well, here it is. It destroys the economy and stability of society. When gay marriage is implemented, marriage rates among heterosexuals does not increase. Gay marriage only cheapens marriage, so you end up with fewer children born into families where parents are committed to each other. That leads to increased poverty levels and increased crime rates as fathers do not care for their children.

    Third, when you strip this down to its core, the problem that we are seeing here is a battle between the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 7:52 p.m.

    If the state's people are not willing to stand up for its laws, then we should eliminate all police and prison funds, not to mention state and local prosecutors, and judges. No need for any of that frivolous expense if upholding our laws is not important enough to pay for it.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 1, 2014 6:16 p.m.

    @ Candide

    I don't know the circumstances of your life but it appears your child isn't living with at least one of it's biological parents. Though this circumstance isn't at all uncommon, it's not ideal. Yes homosexuals can raise children but they will never ever be the product of the two adults living in it's household. Many times, the child will never be able to know or reap the benefits of living with, learning from and loving both it's biological parents.

    Millions of adoptions are necessary for innocent children. Orphans can result out of unavoidable situations. Blessed are those willing to take these children into their homes to love and raise them. But a large portion of children raised by homosexuals are not being raised by at least one of their biological parents due to the selfishness of the adults. Yes, gays can have a baby made, but never without hurting that child psychologically, even if it's in the smallest perceptible way. The child will be hurt at some point as they realize why they are missing a parent. And it's a completely avoidable situation.

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    Jan. 1, 2014 6:01 p.m.


    The problem is, amendment 3 not only bans SSM, but also bans civil union. that is exactly why it is unlikely to pass constitutional scrutiny. 10th circuit or SCOTUS may choose not to decide whether there is a fundamental right for SSM, but still rule amendment 3 unconstitutional, because it went too far. that is why amendment 3 is doomed in court.

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    Jan. 1, 2014 5:49 p.m.


    Please take a look at Loving v Virginia before drawing your "state right" conclusion.

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 5:18 p.m.

    Apparently this newspaper will only allow posted comments by blind neo-cons. My screen name was even too much for this State to handle! Correct me if I'm mistaken but is not quality and accurate journalism take into consideration both sides of the issue?

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 5:01 p.m.

    @Worf...Could you define in detail the meaning of a "real Supreme Court"? Does this mean because you don't agree with the ruling therefore SCOTUS is bogus? How many of these current judges were appointed by Republican presidents?

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 4:54 p.m.

    @Patriot...I suggest knowledge in case law as well as a degree prior to posting in the future. Judge Shelby's ruling will not be overturned and then you can all post more regarding "activist judges". This is obviously the new neo-con term being used to deny others basic civil rights.

  • mytymouse09 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    Yes, "atl134", that is exactly what the gay (a misnomer as far as I'm concerned) community has done. Complain, and whine, and protest, and demonstrate, etc., etc., etc. until they've gotten their way. I look at being gay as a current fad, that will in time diminish as it sinks in with individuals who have chosen that life style the mistake they've made. Our society will certainly pay for the perverted choices of people, whether their choices are gender related or for our corrupt politicians, the violence, or whatever other choices that go against the will and word of God. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and He will never condone gay "marriages". Yes, he loves all of His children, but there are consequences to our actions, and all of us will be need to pay those consequences whether in this life or the next.
    Before I get ridiculed for being a bigot, I need to make it known that I have a gay son, who I love dearly, but I am so sad for the choice he made, and that he is missing the experience of being a father and having a traditional marriage.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 3:09 p.m.

    Many gays are awesome, but gay marriages are an affront to every State where the people have voted against them. Gays already have the right to vote, work, live, love, etc. but the activists who are forcing the taxpayer (We, The People) to pay for, and promote homosexuality against our wills, our laws, and common sense, is Tyranny. Pretending that gays are an oppressed race is also offensive to many Blacks who largely built this Country without any rights, while many gays have sought to destroy what America stands for and have sought to destroy the first amendment and have taken many rights etc. It's not completely unlike what homosexuals did in Germany last Century when they rose to power and took the rights of religious people who supported traditional marriage.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 1, 2014 2:40 p.m.

    @patriot "All these illegal and unconstitutional marriages will soon be changed to civil unions as the Utah constitution is upheld and this wrongful ruling is reversed."

    But the Utah constitution also bans civil unions.

  • Archie1954 Vancouver, BC
    Jan. 1, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    I always thought that the Constitution required separation of church and state. If that is true how can the state take a religious position and expect the courts to approve it?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 12:55 p.m.

    All these illegal and unconstitutional marriages will soon be changed to civil unions as the Utah constitution is upheld and this wrongful ruling is reversed. The Utah AG and Gov will not stand for this heavy handed federal activist judges ruling.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 1, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    Oh how wonderful,what will happen next is the supremes will allow samesex marriages in all 50 states and who will get the blame from all those homophobic churches like the baptasta and the catholic church, it will be the MORMON church. Get ready for another great broadway hit!

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 1, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    The fact that the traditional understanding of "marriage" is union between a man and a woman means only that we have held a discriminatory belief for a very long time! Length of time does not make something right, moral, or just.

    In the past our ignorance prevented us from doing right by our fellow humans. We don't have this excuse now.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    Marriages do not produce children, procreation does. You do not need to be married to have a child. Gay people reproduce. I have a daughter that was conceived prior to my same sex marriage in California before prop 8 went into effect. Other gay couples have children they have adopted. Allowing gay parents the same marriage rights as hetero parents protects their children. Your argument does not hold water.
    For the others that consider homosexuality sin; religion creates a hole in your heart and offers to sell you the remedy to fill it. If you don't buy the remedy they are selling they say you are sinful.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 1, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    Just a seldom observation about those LGBT comments in here.
    What they never do is read the intent or are willing to agree to anything being said.
    I wonder if LGBT is all they want ?

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    I didn't understand if i was reading a political speech or a legal brief. It might work with Scalia but not Sotomeyer. It sounds like a think tank white paper prior to a request for donations. Maybe the Governor has turned down the $2,Million and they are getting ready to launch a Prop 3 here in Utah. I thought Utah had more class than that. Besides, I got a letter from the Church stating that we all "love and respect" our gay brothers and sisters. It didn't mention anything about them being an "affront". Certainly doesn't sound very lawyer like to me.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 1, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    "This battle is not about faith and the bibel [sic], it is about keeping our language pure."

    This "purity" nonsense in our discourse these days is just an attempt to justify intolerance to other viewpoints. Really? It's more important to protect language - a thing - than it is to protect and support our fellow human beings? I'm sorry, but I find this idea obscene. (Synonym: impure.)

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 1, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    "The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has an Equal Protection Clause that guarantees equality under the law."

    The 14th Amendment applies to State law, not federal law or the US Constitution. And Utah's marriage law meets the 'equal protection' clause. Utah's marriage law says all marriages must be between one man/one woman. And there are other restrictions such as age, polygamy, and close relatives. These restrictions apply to all citizens equally.

    It you're gonna say that gays can marry each other you must also remove any other restrictions to marriage such as polygamy, close relatives, siblings, juveniles, etc., else you truly have discrimination.

    "The court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has traditionally been the province of the states, and remains so today."

    So, you're saying that states are authorized to define marriage but the supreme court will tell the states how to define marriage? Does that make any sense?

    "But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United States."

    Tell us how it doesn't comply. And don't say it violates the 14th Amendment.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    If Amendment 3 was so unconstitutional, why didn't the government shoot it down when Utah voted for it, 10 years ago?

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    How does one get on the Gay Movement list to receive those blogging assignments? It's certainly inconceivable that individuals posting here might all be acting of their own accord, expressing their personal opinions in a public forum. Should we assume that the anti-gay faction posting here is, similarly, taking their marching orders from the Eagle Forum, each receiving a quota of posts to be made in public fora to create the impression that they're in the majority when it comes to public opinion? Given the history of the Eagle Forum in state politics, that's much more believable.

  • Jakers! American Fork, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    @Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    from a non-religionist pro-life advocates perspective. Marriage is a state sanctioned organization. IT is in effect the basic building block of society. From it future citizens are reproduced. In truth their is no citizen yield from a homosexual relationship. For a government to sanction a non fruitfull union shows a shortsidedness of the future. A here and now perspective. A living organism is defined by its ability to react to stimuli, maintain homeostasis, grow and develop, and reproduce. Using this definition A gay marriage is a nonliving entity as it cannot reproduce passing on the genes of the partners. My being is proof of a living fruitfull relationship between my parents. For the government to recognize a non living entity as a basic building block of society is for it to acknowlege its own death and demise.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    While you may view DN as a house organ for the LDS Church and feel that the comments section should be a rubber-stamp forum to support the Republican Party, you'll find that there are liberals in that church and they have a right to express their opinions just as you do. Please provide us with cites from the BoM or D&C holding that liberals must sit quietly in the corner and keep their mouths shut. Consider this: Brigham Young and most of the pioneers were essentially socialists. Would you have told him that if he didn't like conservative politics, that he should go back where he came from or shut up?

  • CDL Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 1, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    Sotamayor isn't likely to even give a fair consideration to Utah's viewpoint let alone give a stay for gay marriage in the state. It isn't in line with her own viewpoint nor politically advantageous to her or her side. And to 'Really"" in Kerns, though I don't believe that every gay couple is out to destroy 'families' I watched a video of an interview with the head of the LGBT organization a couple of years ago where it was stated that the ultimate goal was in fact to do away with marriage altogether, and that people should be able to move around being with whom ever they want at any time. So maybe you ought to be a bit more careful not to dismiss the viewpoint of others.

  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    Jan. 1, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    This isn't going to work, but they're more than welcome to try. State-licensed marriage is on an inexorable course in a direction Utah does not want it to go. Instead of trying to redirect the train, they should just get off of it instead. They've already legalized polygamy, after all, anyway.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    " If we are legally allowed to marry, where is the sin?"
    Not everything legalized is the right thing to do, especially if it is against God's Plan to do so.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    @Miss Piggie;

    What is offensive is being told you aren't "good enough" to be treated equally. You haven't answered my question from the other day yet, how would YOU like it if WE required YOU to marry someone of the same-sex?


    The LDS Church was involved in every single state that passed an anti-marriage amendment. Not just Utah, California and Hawaii.


    Isn't it time to just be gay? Accept who you are and try to find a loving, committed partner. Love is so much better than being alone.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    @Cats, et. al;

    We're fighting for our rights. You never had the right to deny them in the first place. Your personal beliefs don't get to affect the lives of others. (Wow, you guys are really paranoid).

    @midvale guy;

    The "affront" has been to LGBT citizens. It is an affront to have the majority vote to take away our rights.


    Insular are we? Personally, I welcome their opinions; and I am from Utah.

    @Mike Richards;

    As a "Constitutional expert", you should know that while the legislature can make laws, it is the role of the judiciary to determine the law's Constitutionality. Amendment 3 was ruled Unconstitutional. Accept it. That is how our government works.


    The ONLY way to "get there" with civil unions was to overturn Amendment 3. It banned those as well as marriage.

    "We ... by offering civil unions." --- Excuse me? You're "offering" us? Who do you think you are to "offer" anything to other citizens? Rights are rights. They're ours, and yours, without your "offering" a subset of them.


    We may be a "minority", but we're still American citizens. You forget that part.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    @ Meckofahess
    "I want to see legitimate rights for my gay friends and acquaintances respected, but I do not want to rights of others taken away in the process."

    Dear Mechofaness,
    Your statement sounds reasonable and totally agree with it.

    Let bring your statement to reality, because, I wonder if my perception of what you wrote is the same as I understand it:

    You:" I want to see legitimate rights for my gay friends and acquaintances respected":
    Baccus: I read equal rights for LGBT people.

    You: "but I do not want to rights of others taken away in the process."
    Baccus: It has never been the intent of the LGBT community to take away anything from anybody.
    Actually, I you could name one or all of those things that are being taken away, we may try to resolve those issues. We don't want want to be harmed anymore and certainly we don't want to cause harm either.

    I would sincerely like to have your insight.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    When did an "affront" become a Constitutional issue?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    This comment has been denied twice, but maybe the third time is the charm. I hope the Deseret News isn't trying to hide what really still happens to gay men and women in our communities.

    "We tolerate your belief system by offering civil unions."

    Actually, when Utah citizens voted to ban gay marriage, we also voted to ban civil unions. That's part of the reason Amendment 3 was shot down. I, as a gay LDS man, am ashamed to admit that I allowed myself to be pressured into voting for this bad law.

    And, by the way, I am so glad everyone tolerates me so well. I guess that's why I was assaulted while jogging alone in a park this past summer and called a derogatory word that cannot be repeated in this newspaper. I guess that's why my house and car were vandalized one night with homophobic slurs. Oh, I am well aware of the tolerance others offer me. This was all directed to a man who has still tried to be active in his church and not be sexually active.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    It's an 'affront'? That's the two million dollar defense...we've been offended? I read the article on the CNN site this morning, and it makes Utah look like it's throwing a fit of the 'hissy' variety.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    What this really comes down to is some people want a legal means to continue reminding our LGBTQ neighbors, brothers, and sisters that we are sinners. You see, sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful, but if we are legally able to marry, where is the sin? This isn't about protecting traditional marriage, this is about providing a segment of our communities excuses to continue reminding homosexual men and women how "defective" we are.

    Before you deny that, go back, read the comments on here, and see what people have written. After that, I would ask us all to ponder whether or not we really believe the same way others on here do and then get on your knees to pray to your God about whether or not these are Christlike attitudes. Perhaps many of us will need to ask for a change of heart and forgiveness.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 8:48 a.m.


    We do realize how important this cause has become as we see that a minority of the population may not feel a need to respect the freedoms and opinions of other citizens. We see the expenditure of the $2 million as legitimate to defend the voice of those who spoke their will in Amendment 3 to the Utah State Constitution. We feel it is only fair that our voice is heard too. We want fairness to all people including our gay friends in the community. I hope they feel the same way about our opinions?

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    Desert: "This battle is not about faith and the bibel [sic], it is about keeping our language pure."

    I understand you would like to protect the meaning of "marriage" as reserved for a man and a woman. But the lingual argument of "pure" language makes no sense. The meaning of words evolves all the time. "Husband" (= German "home-owner") originally had nothing to do with marital status, except that home ownership made husbands extremely desirable marriage partners in the 13th century. Also back in the 13th century "gay" meant “joyous” and a century later it meant “bright and showy”. It was first used to refer to homosexuality in the 1930s. And a "girl" was originally a child of either sex. One cannot stop semantic change. And thus, unstoppable, "marriage" is becoming "the socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them" (already in Wikipedia).

  • Visitor from California Berkeley, CA
    Jan. 1, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    As a Californian who spends 10 days a year visiting your beautiful state with my family, thereby supporting your local economy (I cheered last fall when Utah managed to get the national parks reopened just in time for our visit -- that's when I started following Deseret News), I find it ironic that anyone in a state that depends so strongly on tourist dollars would object to out-of-staters commenting. I've followed this issue closely because I happen to love Utah, and I'm thrilled your state is now more welcoming, and all your citizens finally enjoy equal rights to commit publicly to those they love. Besides, given the millions of dollars Utahns spent fomenting prejudice in the Prop. 8 campaign that took away rights in my state, it only seems fair that a few Californians get a chance to comment. I'm heartened to see the many comments from Utahns who also recognize the importance of equality and support this step forward into the twenty-first century.

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    Jan. 1, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    I wonder if she does not agree to the stay will the State of Utah realize how futile this whole legal process will become. Maybe they could consider taking the $2 million and feed our homeless.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    @worf 3:54 p.m. Dec. 31, 2013

    A real supreme court would rule against gay marriage.

    If not, it would be a an inferior court.


    Your statement is incorrect. Let me correct it: A real Supreme Court would support the constitution an affirm Judge Shelby's decision.

    If not, it would be a [sic] an inferior court.

    Judge Shelby's decision is a well-constructed decision and in total agreement an support of the Constitution. It supports the civil rights of ALL citizens/residents of Utah, not just the majority. From the decision: "The court agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has traditionally been the province of the states, and remains so today. But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage or any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United States. The issue the court must address in this case is therefore not who should define marriage, but the narrow question of whether Utah’s current definition of marriage is permissible under the Constitution." He found that Amendment 3 did not comply. He was right, and his decision was right and just. It should be affirmed on appeal, and a true "Supreme" court should do so.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 1, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    I post on a newspaper outside my state because these events are not yet happening in my state. I post because I want religionists to stop harming my LGBT family members, friends, and co-workers with their discriminatory actions. I post because I want to see shattered the lie that unthinking "faith" is something to be revered; is something that makes one immune from criticism; is something that magically makes sacrosanct what would be discrimination in any other context.

    I post because this is the U.S.A. where I have a right to voice my opinions and participate in the public debate about what we want our nation to look like. I want it to look like something that will welcome and support my nephew rather than revile and reject him.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 1, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    Wilf 55

    You might not be a Utah Mormon of the average type.
    A real Mormon is very tolerant and respectful, this is not the issue here.

    It is about taking away from any people in the state the legal understanding about a Real Marriage.
    What you want to perceive of reality and what we do think of reality has nothing to do with religion.
    Marriage is not a religious term, it is a human term.
    It is the equal right for every one to be married to a spouse of the opposite sex.
    Twisting terms will not help here. Twisting the intent of the church not either.

    This battle is not about faith and the bibel, it is about keeping our language pure.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 7:55 a.m.

    IMPORTANT: Those who are concerned about the lack of tolerance being showed toward conservatives by the gay community should check out FAIRTOALL.ORG. The rights of all citizens should be considered, not just the rights of a loud and vocal minority (gay community) who would preserve only their rights and force the rest of us to cave to their demands. I want to see legitimate rights for my gay friends and acquaintances respected, but I do not want to rights of others taken away in the process. Let us demand equal rights for those who are for traditional marriage too. Please go to FairToAll.Org for some fantastic information about respecting all peoples rights!

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 1, 2014 3:18 a.m.

    Lehi, UT (and others who commented similarly)
    "This should be handled legislatively, not through the courts. When courts start making these types of actions, it tips the balance of power in favor of the courts. An important part of our freedoms is the balance of power between branches, and that balance is slipping."

    ---- There is NO branch of goverment called "by popular vote". That is a modern invention in some States.
    ---- However, the judiciary is there to address grievances of the people. In this case, folks sued due to discrimination by an unconstitutional law.
    ---- And you are 100% correct that the Utah legislature should have moved to get rid of the discriminatory amendment, but they did not

    "What happens when judges are appointed with a personal agenda. They have all the power. They cannot be voted out. No matter what is done legislatively, the judge can over turn it. What if you are on the wrong side of that judge's personal agenda?"

    ---- What happens when citizens who don't like a decision simply slander the highly qualified judge, rather than bothering to read the law, the articles, or the facts of the case?

  • Jason Williams Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 1, 2014 2:13 a.m.

    It is Amendment 3 that is an "affront" - to the United State Constitution, the highest law in the United States. Utah is one of our 50 states, of course, and as such, it must comply with the federal constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has an Equal Protection Clause that guarantees equality under the law. I do not understand why the state of Utah has to hire legal help from Idaho. I will say it again, most any high school U.S.
    government student knows that - in the long run when legally challenged - the voters of a state may not vote away the fundamental rights of its residents. Utah's governor and attorney general need to level with the people of Utah and stop offering them false hope of overturning Judge Shelby's constitutionally sound decision. The political game playing is getting tiresome. It is time to move on and fully comply with Judge Shelby's decision.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 1, 2014 2:07 a.m.

    "The 14th Amendment makes it very clear that not allowing SSM's is a violation of the 14th Amendment."

    If Utah's laws are in violation of the 14th Amendment why do you not favor allowing polygamists, close relatives, juveniles, people of vastly different ages, etc., to marry?

    And why is it that the government required the state to abandon polygamy in order to become a state back in the late 1800s, huh?

    The 14th Amendment is about state law, not Constitutional or federal law. And the state of Utah's marriage laws legally and rightly limits marriage to between one man and one woman... for everyone.

    "What's the standard being used? Pretty sure everyone will admit that they're flawed."

    Almost everyone is flawed in some manner (except the Man who resisted all temptations put before Him). Same sex attraction is a flaw. The wondering eye of the teen heterosexual seeking sexual satisfaction outside of the bonds of marriage is a flaw. Everyone must deal with their flaws and bring them under control... and that includes the same sex attracted. They, like everyone else must get their 'feelings' or whatever you wanna call them, under control.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 1, 2014 1:13 a.m.

    "I mean, what could be more complimentary than to be told that the most significant day in your life, your wedding day, is offensive??"

    Weddings are not offensive. What's offensive is that a federal judge can overrule a state's majority and contradict a SCOTUS ruling that marriage is to be defined by state law. If states can decide about marriage what is there to be decided other than who can marry whom? Can polygamists marry? No. Can juveniles marry? No. Can close relatives marry? No. Can so-called same sex attracted marry each other? No. This is the state's call and the call has been made.

    @Vince here:
    "If Utah is not anti-gay, but they want to secure the definition of marriage, why didn't they extend gays rights before?"

    Marriage is extended to gays... they can marry anyone they want provided the person is of the opposite sex, just like anyone else.

    Many same sex marriages taking place since Shelby gave his ruling are not gay marriages. They're people who can't find someone of the opposite sex that will have them for one reason or another. So, they marry their friend.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 1, 2014 1:02 a.m.

    "Arguing that same-sex marriages being performed in Utah are an "affront" to the will of the state and its residents, the Utah Attorney General's Office asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday to stop them pending its appeal of a controversial ruling."

    Going like this, crying like a baby 'I have been hurt', will not work.
    All these rights and equal rights matter a lot in these days, pushing against that is useless. If they would be plain legal, not using wishful words, chances are better.

    Why they can't do, I don't understand at all. The vote in Utah on marriage and the clearance to definitions on marriage for the future should do.

    It is now to see what the US will be, a country of correct definitions, or at loss like a boat with a leak.

    Are they going to leave a leak, the boat as compared to the Constitution ?

  • psittacus Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 1:01 a.m.

    Conservatives & liberals don't seem to enjoy hearing from each other. Is apprehension about gay marriage & homosexuality naturalistic in origin? Probably - just as is religion (ref. Danial Dennett's work).

    As a first hand observer of gay culture for several years via a gay nephew I do share some of the expressed concerns about gay marriage. On the other hand there is now a sufficient number of people who feel their own "moral zeitgeist" has moved far enough along such that they feel they can justify, legally now, gay marriage existing.

    So even if we can express concerns, there is not much you can do now, except perhaps: advocate that everyone be a bit less selfish. Advocate that everyone value life, legacy, and the long term survival of our species and of this planet. However note that in my view people who choose to not have children due to environmental concerns are highly misguided & stunted. In my view both conservative preachers & politically correct liberals need to be rejected. What is the bridge between liberals & conservatives? Freedom of speech & thought perhaps. Good luck.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 12:58 a.m.

    TruthBTold: "I ask those outside my state to show some respect and please refrain from coming onto a local news outlet and tell Utahns what they should think or do, let us do that for ourselves."

    As a Utah Mormon I am glad Deseret News accepts comments from all Utahns, including from those who break through parochial and short-sighted views. Moreover, Deseret News, including Church News, is more than a local news outlet. It is read online by Mormons around the world.

    The present anti-gay-marriage reaction is an embarrassment for the Mormon church in all developed countries worldwide. A religion should not impose its rules on non-members and discriminate against them. I do not want my church to be perceived as the Taliban of the West. Please, let us be tolerant and let this small minority of LGBT marry for the law. Then it becomes a non-issue.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 12:08 a.m.

    I used to quickly and arrogantly dismiss anyone who protested gay marriage as homophobic or bigoted. This allowed me, essentially, to ignore them. That is, until overhearing a conversation in Starbucks in which a woman expressed her fear for the future given what she perceived as the moral disintegration of our nation. I scoffed at her and rolled my eyes. However, I soon noticed that she was visibly shaken, truly suffering, as a result of her fear. In that moment I felt nothing but empathy for her despite the fact that we are at opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue. I was humbled. I pray that we can all open our hearts a little bit more and recognize the common humanity that binds us all together.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:48 p.m.

    @ TruthBTold

    My dear TruthBTold,

    My parents are Mormons, My brothers and sisters are Mormon, my nephews and nieces are Mormon. More than that I am still a registered member of the LDS church. As I wrote in answer to another post with a similar grievance, because Salt Lake City and Utah are places dominated by "our" church, the legal outcome and position of the church are important to members around "The World".

    From outside Utah may be seem an small and insignificant State. But, the truth is that 15 million people around the world look at Utah for guidance. The politics of Utah, the GOP majority, the scandals of your AG office, have no importance to the rest of the world. However, This issue transcend politics.

    The LDS church took a very active role in this issue, particularly in Hawaii and California. Because of the Church's role in the political debate many faithful saints blindly took the political position in agreement with their spiritual leaders.

    Unfortunately you cannot mix religion and politics and still expect your religious exemptions.

    As an LDS and a LGBT man I still would like the church to be a refuge for all souls.

  • ReadMineFirst Ft. Collins, CO
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:15 p.m.


    You hit the nail smack dab on the head. I have thought the same thing for some time. Thanks for telling it like it is.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:10 p.m.

    Utah has lost its last opportunity to win a stay, by arguing on religious grounds rather than on legal grounds. "Outrageous! Insulting!" will not sway six Catholics (Pope Francis: "Who am it to judge?") and three Jews. What would have worked is an appeal to reason. "We think we will win this appeal, but even if we lose, our Legislature has been passing laws for more than 100 years assuming marriage will always follow the traditional definition, so give us time to consider the consequences and prepare for them."

    It's not difficult to count to five. That's how many justices you need, if the request for a stay gets past Sotomayor. Which one of the five who voted for Windsor, do you expect to vote for a stay in this case? And does any competent Utah lawyer with appellate experience believe that the state's chosen approach is what will persuade that justice?

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:10 p.m.

    r.e. Candide
    It is difficult to anticipate the problems or unanticipated consequences associated with same sex marriage but a real possibility is multiple partner marriages (MPM) e.g.several men marrying each other or several women marrying each other or three men and two women marrying each other. After all, all they have to say is that they love and care for each other and they should have the legal civil right to marry. Social chaos associated with MPM (who gets the child if there is a divorce? Lawyers will get rich). Child neglect and abuse, poverty, spread of VD, etc. etc. There are no studies of the long term (multigenerational)affects of gay marriage on a modern society. We can't predict the unanticipated consequences of such a major change but I think we're opening a door down a very steep slope into social chaos.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:06 p.m.

    Well said citizen!. The minority gay community wants everyone to be so understanding and tolerant toward their anti-family and anti-religious rhetoric, but they don't want to understand the majority's point of view. In my view, this approach ultimately will result in the majority of the people resenting them and not accepting them nearly as much as we would if they would take a more reasonable approach. We religious folks are not so dumb that we can't understand why they would want some of the same benefits as married men and women have when they are in a committed relationship - we get it!. What we don't get is the need to change the legal definition of marriage and all the negative effects that will have citizens! Log on to FairToAll.org for some important information about protecting EVERYONE'S RIGHTS IN UTAH!

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:43 p.m.

    @EJM "Now my question to both sides in this discussion is this: when the SCOTUS does rule, one way or the other, will you at least be civil to each other even if your side lost?"

    Here's a hint: Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court more than 40 years ago.

    And here's a suggestion: Amendment 3 passed in Salt Lake County by only 54% to 46%, ten years ago, and was resoundingly defeated in Summit County. So would opponents support "local option," letting each county decide on same-sex marriage? Or would that be too democratic?

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 10:23 p.m.

    I can see how "Gay Marriage" is an affront to Utah but what about "Marriage Equality?" Is that such an affront? Marriage Equality sounds constitutional but Gay Marriage sounds like it's breaking the law. I guess it's all how the argument is presented.

  • lehiaggie Lehi, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:44 p.m.

    No matter what side of the issue you are on, you should be concerned about how his all came down. This should be handled legislatively, not through the courts. When courts start making these types of actions, it tips the balance of power in favor of the courts. An important part of our freedoms is the balance of power between branches, and that balance is slipping.

    What happens when judges are appointed with a personal agenda. They have all the power. They cannot be voted out. No matter what is done legislatively, the judge can over turn it. What if you are on the wrong side of that judge's personal agenda?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    "We tolerate your belief system by offering civil unions. Can you show some tolerance for our deeply held beliefs and allow us to sustain traditional marriages?"

    Your side never offered it. You even banned civil unions in this state. The legislature regularly threatens to go after Salt Lake City's ordinances about job anti-discrimination if Democrats were to try and push it on the state level.

    Your church has every right to sustain the marriages it chooses to sustain.

    "Shoot he could have put a chocolate chip cookie recipe in his opinion.

    Justice never tasted so sweet.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:40 p.m.

    Again with the conspiracies. People don't post pro-equality stuff here because the "gay community" gets together and plots to hurt your feelings. They do it because they disagree with you and have the right to say so. Or is Phil Robertson is only one entitled to free speech?

    Look, I've lived in Utah and know that it's a easy place to stick your head in the sand and pretend that far-right politics are the only game in America, but reality's chipping away at that. It happened when President Obama was elected twice and it'll happen again when Amendment Three is thrown out. You can either accept that America is evolving and changing or you can cast about for excuses and blame the messengers. The sad thing is, I already have a pretty good idea of which option you'll pick...

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:33 p.m.

    "I disagree. All of us are flawed."

    Okay here's the problem with that statement. What's the standard being used? Pretty sure everyone will admit that they're flawed. I'm not perfect... not yet (kidding). Myself saying I'm flawed is based on a set of principles I believe. A Jewish person might say one of my flaws is eating pork but that means nothing to me since I don't consider it a sin. Now take something a lot more fundamental than bacon and point to someone's sexuality. You're saying that one of the significant aspects of who that person is... is a flaw. That's insulting.

    The first commandment of the 10 commandments is to not have any other Gods before God. Do you consider someone in another religion to be flawed? If someone considered people in your faith flawed or immoral because of who/how they worship, would that not come across as bigoted to you?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:27 p.m.

    the gays brought this on, now they must live with the consequences of pushing it to the front! did they really think that every one they meet or run into was going to just lay back and agree with their poor choice just because they made it! Arrogant comes to mind. They have awakened a sleeping giant. welcome to a new world, one I welcome. We have been lulled to sleep for too many years. This is real! It is worth any cost! Generations unborn will thank you for defending marriage the Lord's way.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:24 p.m.

    @alt134 Isn't that exactly what proponents of same gender marriage are doing, Don't get there way by voters so take it to a judge that agrees with them. California and Maine voted twice Maine 2nd time unfortunately to legalize same gender marriage. But how come in overwhelming majorities people go to court to get there way and overthrow the will of the people.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:07 p.m.

    @Mike Richards: The People never voted on the Constitution. Their representatives in their state legislatures voted on the approval. The SCOTUS has, beginning with Marbury v. Madison, taken upon itself the practice of judicial review. Judicial review is not a specific power granted to the SCOTUS by the Constitution but history, and the acquiescence of both the legislative and executive branches, have made it a power that is here to stay.

    Justice Scalia, in his dissent, only brought up the future "obvious". Judge Shelby didn't use it as the basis of his ruling. He put his comments in there because, like Justice Scalia, he could. Shoot he could have put a chocolate chip cookie recipe in his opinion. I am glad he did put in Justice Scalia's dissent in because he wanted to put the ball back into the SCOTUS ballpark.

    Now my question to both sides in this discussion is this: when the SCOTUS does rule, one way or the other, will you at least be civil to each other even if your side lost?

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:07 p.m.

    In seeking a new right to so called same-sex marriage, present an affront not only on the sovereignty of the state of Utah, the democratic process, but the dignity and sanctity of traditional marriage time tested and proven to provide the best child outcomes.

  • Macfarren Dallas, TX
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:01 p.m.

    2% of the people should not be demanding a redefinition of what an state-sanctioned conjugal relationship should be.

    Marriage always has had limits. You can't marry your sister. You can't marry if you are a minor. You can't marry some one of the same gender. It is NO different. It is NOT a constitutional right. It is NOT a civil right.

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:01 p.m.

    You know we as members should be prepared more and more for what is to come. It is going to get much worse before it ever gets better. The Lord is hastening his work to get the Gospel spread to all nations and peoples. The Earth is in turmoil. I suggest you so called Church members who are siding with this to really look a lot closer because you may be on the right side of history but on the wrong side of the Lord. He has spoken through his prophets that marriage is defined of God as marriage between man and woman. It was lawfully voted on by the populous of every state that has basically defined marriage as between man and woman. Therefore what this judge did was not only an affront to Utah but unconstitutional. He should be disbarred and given his ticket to ride.

    You have the option of what state you wish to live in where this abomination is allowed. In the end it really won't matter if you win the battle for the war is already won and in the end gay marriage will be desolved.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Dec. 31, 2013 5:42 p.m.

    SLC, UT
    " It does seem a bit strange when 1/3 - 1/2 or more, of the comments accepted on blogs related to the same-sex marriage issue are not even from the state of Utah--and therefore we are left to assume that they do not reside in the state, and therefore are part of neither the majority nor the minority of the state.

    So, I ask those outside my state to show some respect and please refrain from coming onto a local news outlet and tell Utahns what they should think or do, let us do that for ourselves."

    ---Please check yourself.
    A-- this is a website owned by the lds church, not comparable to a local newspaper
    B-- on most topics here, the non-Utah people are obviously mormons, by their own references
    C-- because this is a national issue, and the SCOTUS ruling may well affect all 50 States, your saying that it is all only about Utah comes off poorly.
    C-- (most of all) Tens of millions of Americans feel that this issue has struggled on many years too long due to the dishonest interference in California by Utahns

    You are complaining that also others do what Utahns began.

  • Lifelong Republican Orem, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 5:36 p.m.

    Yes the gay community has a task force that posts the articles that they want everyone to post on. That is why you see so many outside of Utah posting on here.

    They do the same thing on Amazon for conservative book reviews and other things like it.

    They are an organized army and we are being misled into thinking that a majority side with them.

    We are living in scary times.

  • Lifelong Republican Orem, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 5:33 p.m.

    Wouldn't most of the gays be married by now? I've lived here a long time and have only known a handful. It isn't like this is a large chunk of our population. Glad to see the state fighting for what is right however. Not only is it an affront to Utah but also an affront to God.

    Good shall be called evil and evil shall be called good.

    It truly is happening right before our eyes.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Dec. 31, 2013 5:30 p.m.

    "In U.S. v. Windsor, a majority of the high court maintained that states have the power to define marriage?" Oh, really? Who told you that? The lawyers representing the state? Did you check for a second source? Judge Shelby would have had an easy case to decide, in the state's favor, if that were something other than wishful thinking.

    It's like saying that in Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that Southern states have the power to ban interracial marriage.

    Most of the people who work at the Supreme Court live in DC or Maryland, where same-sex marriages are legal. Does Utah really want to tell even the conservative justices that they should be insulted or outraged ("affronted") by close daily proximity to gay couples? Competent lawyers should remember that there is a world east of the Wasatch. You don't get too far with your arguments, if you start out by criticizing what the judge at least tolerates.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 31, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    I just read the motion for a stay to the Supreme Court, and all they do is repeat the same arguments that were turned back five times now. They don't address the central claim of Judge Shelby that the State neglected to file for a stay before the ruling went into effect. They also fail to address that fact that even though some 700 marriages have already taken place, somehow the 701st marriage will cause some kind of harm that the State hasn't already sustained. In addition, they never show how the 10th District Court erred in refusing to overrule Shelby. Is this the best they can do?

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 5:22 p.m.

    I was waiting to be attacked by the professional posters on here. They clearly think they can shut others up by attacking them and trying to belittle their values and moral positions. It won't work. We will not be stopped from fighting for what's right.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    I still have not heard any cogent argument about why same sex marriage is harmful. Any takers? Please don't respond with some holy book says it's so. There are lots of holy books and they all say something different. Also, don't we have the free agency to choose how we live our life? Then there is the old argument that children need a mother and a father which is a moot point because gay couples are already living together, some raising children, gay marriage will just protect their families. It will not diminish your "traditional" family in any way. Gay marriage only adds, not subtracts.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 5:16 p.m.

    Yes, we know you are our neighbors and relatives; that's why you live so peacefully in conservative Utah. And we favor civil unions and were getting there. We also want to uphold traditional marriages as the gold standard to which our youth aspire. We know it to be the safest, healthiest union proven for millenia.

    We tolerate your belief system by offering civil unions. Can you show some tolerance for our deeply held beliefs and allow us to sustain traditional marriages? Tolerance should work both ways.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 31, 2013 5:13 p.m.

    "So, I ask those outside my state to show some respect and please refrain from coming onto a local news outlet"

    Oh the irony.
    For months we in CA were subjected to commercials against Prop 8. financed and made in UT.

    As long as the church I attend owns Deseret News, I will be commenting.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 31, 2013 5:12 p.m.

    We have a Constitution that limits each branch of government. Only the Legislature can create laws, but Judge Shelby created a law contrary to the opinion of the majority of the Court. (You do realize that he used the opinion of the dissent as the basis of his ruling, don't you? Maybe he does not realize that the dissent is NOT a binding ruling.)

    The People voted on the Constitution. The 14th Amendment has no provision for a person's "feelings" to be the basis for discrimination. For those who think that they may be a woman in a man's body or a man in a woman's body, check with your physician. Physicians are rarely wrong in determining the sex of a human being. If physical characteristics are not the basis for the "alleged" discrimination, then that discrimination is based on the "feelings" of the people who demand that they rewrite our moral code including the definition of the most basic unit in society, the family.

    Let the Court tell us that "feelings" count more than actions. Tell that to a bank robber who felt "poor" and decided that the 14th Amendment "gives" him equal wealth.

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 5:07 p.m.

    As soon as SCOTUS rules on this case, the Utah legislature needs to get government and religion as far apart from each other as possible. Unfortunately, that means relinquishing traditional marriage ceremonies. The state should mandate a simple fee and oath when purchasing and finalizing a marriage license. No other ceremony required as far as the state is concerned. If the couple wants a religious ceremony, it should not involve the state in any way. Clergy then can not be accused of discrimination against gays. Marriage in church/temple/mosque would completely be a private, religious ceremony with no government entanglements. Religious liberty is the next battle on the horizon. It is time to hunker down.

  • tgeer Long Beach, WA
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    Why do we post on a conservative journal? Because we want to.

    We believe, at least on this issue, that you cannot, and should not, vote on Constitutional rights. It does not matter how many vote to discriminate.

    Judge Shelby ruled, imo, correctly. The 14th Amendment makes it very clear that not allowing SSM's is a violation of the 14th Amendment. And doing so because it is against your beliefs, religious or otherwise, is a violation of the 1st Amendment.

    Nobody is saying that you do not have the right to speak what's on your mind. You do. But we, also, have the right to speak our minds. Yes, there are some people on the left that don't seem to have grown up very much and call people names as though they were still in elementary school. But the majority of us don't. We point out, quite accurately, what the Constitution and our laws have to say about this. Did you know that SCOTUS has ruled at least 14 time, since Loving v Virginia, that marriage is a fundamental right?

  • bearfoot silver city grant, NM
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:40 p.m.

    polygamy is fine, but not same sex marriage ! seems one sided to me

  • Filthy Kuffar Spanish Fork, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    Let's just toss out the 10th amendment, and maybe even the 1st and 2nd as well. Those pesky things get in the way of the liberal establishment's goals. If Obama can squeek out a third term I hope he finally does away with the Constitution and comes out with his own manifesto to replace it.

  • TruthBTold SLC, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:36 p.m.

    I agree with the "trolling" post above. It does seem a bit strange when 1/3 - 1/2 or more, of the comments accepted on blogs related to the same-sex marriage issue are not even from the state of Utah--and therefore we are left to assume that they do not reside in the state, and therefore are part of neither the majority nor the minority of the state.

    Generally, I blow past any comment that is from TN, VA, CA, MI, etc., because I want to hear and read about what the citizens of MY state are thinking, you know the citizens of the state where I live, work, and pay taxes. If I want to know the Nation's view of things then I can turn on a National News media outlet and scan the thoughts of those outside my state--but those are not the comments.

    So, I ask those outside my state to show some respect and please refrain from coming onto a local news outlet and tell Utahns what they should think or do, let us do that for ourselves. And if a Utahn comes to your local media, you should respectfully ask the same of them.

  • midvale guy MIDVALE, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    While gay marriage is a controversial issue, What has happened here is an affront because a judge has taken away the rights of the residents that live here to choose what they want for their state. This could be on any issue. judges should not decide something that the residents should decide for themselves. This is a states rights issue and must be pursued on that grounds. If not to stop this ruling but the next ruling that is equally not in the interest of our residents and their choices and values.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    @ cats: we probably should not lump all posters on here as being on the pro-gay marriage side when in fact not all are. The issue will go before the SCOTUS. They will have to rule on the constitutionality of the issue. I do understand the concerns of those of us who believe that one day the issue could be the attempted forcing of same sex marriages as it relates to religious institutions. Will the LGBT community insist one day that churches be required to perform marriages or else lose their tax exempt status? I can tell you that the LDS Church and the Catholic Church would say no. I would at least hope so.

    For some in the LGBT community they would call them bigots. I disagree. All of us are flawed. Both religions have had their issues put out there in the public domain over this and other events. But at least people know exactly what both the Catholic and LDS Church believe in this. Better to know than to have someone lie to you about their beliefs. An old saying of "better the devil you know then the wolf in sheep's clothing". It applies here.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:09 p.m.

    In June, SCOTUS struck down a key part of Voting Right Act, because they ruled that Obama administration could not use old time data to justify the legitimacy of that law in today's situation.

    Those judges in 10th circuit and SCOTUS justices are not blind nor deaf, they know public opinion on SSM is evolving fast, majority of American and 70-80% of young people support SSM, and I doubt they would uphold amendment 3 because people in Utah voted that way a decade ago.

    When 10th circuit denied stay request, they already indicated that state is not likely to prevail. Now AG is wasting 2+ million tax dollars to hire expensive outside lawyers to do the job for his office. I mean, if AG and his team are not capable of doing the job for state, why should they still hold the office and keep on collecting their paychecks?

  • kishkumen American Fork, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:06 p.m.


    Not sure what makes you think that the population of Utahns who favor marriage equality are a "very small minority in this state". As you know, when Ammendment 3 passed in Utah, 44% of the voters were opposed to it. Is 44% a really small minority? Of course, the number of people supporting marriage equality in Utah and the world have only gone up since Ammendment 3 passed. 80% of the youth of the United States now favor marriage equality. So yeah, Supreme Court decisions aside, the narrow and backwards view of marriage that caused Ammendment 3 won't survive much longer.

  • Bob K porIland, OR
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    Somewhere in Time, UT
    Gosh! I'm wondering how many people the pro-gay movement has assigned each day to blog on their behalf. Looks like they turn out in force every time any article comes out. They attempt to convince the rest of us that they are the majority and that their position actually holds water. In fact, they are actually a very small minority of this state.

    .... Really? Are you conjuring up some organized and zealous group, bent on defeating the rights of those in another State, due to a whipped up paranoia created by a few?
    Are you comparing the tiny mormon minority in California, which overcame the much larger Gay population by calling in thousands of their out of State church members?

    ... I am sad for the idea that someone can be an American and understand the Constitution to mean that the larger groups get their way, and some taxpayers lose rights that other Americans have. Reminds me of that thing in Missouri in the 1840s.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 4:00 p.m.

    Good move by our state officials!

    Edmund Burke is often cited as the source for "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

    It is good to see that good men, and women, in Utah are willing to do something, and put their tax dollars behind this effort to stop what some say is evil, either on moral grounds, or on the grounds that it subverts the powers of the states and their citizens to define marriage in the traditional form it has been for thousands of years.

    A judge declaring that the sky is green and that water is dry does not make it true, any more than their declaring that a same sex relationship is a "marriage." They can make something legal, but that does not necessarily make it right or moral.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 31, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    A real supreme court would rule against gay marriage.

    If not, it would be a an inferior court.

  • Physics27 Cedar City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 3:52 p.m.

    It's strange how many people with liberal views comment in the comments section of a conservative paper. It makes it impossible to make comments without being attacked. The views and ideas of the majority of the people in this state are mocked on a daily basis here. The comments sections on nearly all political pieces have been hijacked by trolls.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    Gosh! I'm wondering how many people the pro-gay movement has assigned each day to blog on their behalf. Looks like they turn out in force every time any article comes out. They attempt to convince the rest of us that they are the majority and that their position actually holds water. In fact, they are actually a very small minority of this state.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Dec. 31, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    If Utah is not anti-gay, but they want to secure the definition of marriage, why didn't they extend gays rights before?

  • JeffreyRO555 Auburn Hills, MI
    Dec. 31, 2013 3:26 p.m.

    Same-sex marriage is an "affront" to Utah? Gosh, now why would anyone think that Mormons, given this proclamation, in addition to the dishonest and hateful ads they funded in California during Prop 8, are homophobic?! I mean, what could be more complimentary than to be told that the most significant day in your life, your wedding day, is offensive??

    How unrelentingly sad that religionists are so obsessed with gay people, and their legal right to be treated equally under law. If this doesn't put the final nail in the coffin of religion, I don't know what will.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 3:25 p.m.

    I don't call it an affront. Pretty harsh language. However the SCOTUS did leave it up to the states in Windsor because it didn't want to address the issue. Why not? Because they prefer to only deal with the issue at hand (Windsor case only) and not address an area outside of the specifics of the case. Oh, they will talk about that "issue" as part of a decision but not go beyond the scope of the issue at hand (Windsor). With that said Shelby has just fast tracked this issue back to the SCOTUS. This will be resolved.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 3:14 p.m.

    Finally we are starting to see some action on this issue. As part of the majority in Utah who favor traditional marriage, I can't wait to see this judge's ruling overturned by the supreme court.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 31, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    "The application notes that "numerous" same-sex marriages are happening every day in Utah.

    "And each one is an affront not only to the interests of the state and its citizens in being able to define marriage through ordinary democratic channels, but also to this court's unique role as final arbiter for the profoundly important constitutional question it so carefully preserved in Windsor," wrote Monte Stewart, a Boise-based marriage law attorney retained by the state."

    If this wasn't so serious I would laugh. What the heck...LOL!!

    This is what AG Reyes couldn't do on his own?... Please, Judge Sotomayor hear our plea, SSM is an affront to Utah and our egos are being harmed.

    2 million dollars for this ? Ouch!!! I'm enrolling in an Idaho law school tomorrow. No can't do, I have a sense of dignity and morals!

  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    Same old wine, new bottle. Money not spend for schools but for lack of civil rights for a hated population. I am ashame. Just a rock in a hat idea.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    "The 10th Circuit rejected the state's three previous requests to delay U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby's Dec. 20 ruling allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry"

    If at first you don't succeed... bug them again and again until you get what you want. At least that's what some 5 year olds do to try and get their way.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 2:55 p.m.

    How many of you actually believe that Justice Sotamayor will halt the "numerous couples" that are getting married each day? Will she really see this as an affront to Utah or determine that a majority cannot vote away the rights and happiness of any minority? It will be interesting to see how quickly this request for a stay will be denied.

    To those of you that say the LGBTQ community is out to destroy families, please take a serious look at who we are. We are the favorite aunts and uncles in our extended families. We are the good neighbors who shovel snow from the sidewalks of the houses next door. We are the volunteers at homeless shelters and soup kitchens. We do these things next to you, yet you want to deny us the same opportunities to marry and publicly commit to the one we love.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    I doubt She'll grant the stay.

    However, this case will probably be fast tracked to the Supreme Court. I am in 100% support of the State and it's efforts to defend marriage, the will of the people and the right of states to determine what their marriage laws will be.