Comments about ‘U.S. Supreme Court puts same-sex marriage in Utah on hold’

Return to article »

New A.G. says Utah gay couples who recently married are in 'legal limbo'

Published: Monday, Jan. 6 2014 10:10 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hutterite
American Fork, UT

As expected. However, it's not a bad thing; we need to go through this to eliminate all the arguments about process and how it was handled, so we can finally eliminate the laws that affront our basic constitutional freedoms, whether we are straight or gay.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

ANY good judge would have stayed the decision right after it was entered. Shelby, by not staying it, showed his activist bias. Even the gay judge who overturned Prop 8 in California immediately stayed it in order to give the case a chance to work through he judicial process. Of course, the California case was not decided on the merits because the governor refused to do his duty to support the will of the people. he instead refused to fight the case in the Supreme Court so it lost on the basis that the parties who were fighting it had no standing.

The Supremes have done the right thing and all nine justices signed on. If there is any power left in the voice of the people, this travesty will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

This may be a good thing. As I have said before on these blogs, if SSM endangers the conventional family and conventional marriage I don't want it. Does SSM pose a danger? My honest answer would be "I don't know." We have a lot at stake in the family. As the late Karl Polanyi (needs to be read) pointed out - the family is about the only thing which makes life in a commercial society remotely tolerable.

Mukkake
Montreal, QC, 00

[the stay puts same-sex couples in a legal limbo]

It would probably be more relevant to Utah culture to call it a "legal spirit prison". It also better illustrates the fact that these people are now being denied their rights and freedoms and being treated like second-class citizens; the same way we treat prisoners.

Utah! This is the place... where love and commitment are treated like crimes.

Alex 1
Tucson, AZ

Good call, SCOTUS! Give this case its proper review then, and only then, can I accept the verdict. Regardless of the outcome, legality cannot trump morality.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Cats
"If there is any power left in the voice of the people, this travesty will be overturned by the Supreme Court."

The only travesty is that there's a lot of people who think that the majority should be able to limit the rights of a minority, especially sad in this state whose founders faced heavy persecution.

Richapotamusrex
lehi, UT

The issue is simple. The citizens of the state of Utah voted overwhelmingly not to allow same sex marriage. I find it ironic and extremely hypocritical that those in favor of equal rights for gays and lesbians are so quick to trample the rights of everyone else. If you want to make a change do it the right way and get it on the ballot again. If you are right and everyone agrees that same sex marriage should be allowed then so be it.

History Freak
Somewhere in Time, UT

I'm so tired of all the emotionalism the gay community always brings into this issue...like "love is a crime," and "gay families are in limbo." I think it's pretty clear that all these people ran out and got "married" immediately because they thought there was a pretty good chance it would be overturned.

Any rights not specifically given to the federal government are delegated to the states under the U.S. Constitution. States have the right to determine their marriage laws. Marriage is not a right and is not regulated by the federal government. If it was a right, you wouldn't have to get a license. No one has to get a license to exercise their freedom of speech. That is because it is a constitutional right.

If this same-sex so-called "marriage" stands, the state will have no power to make ANY laws regulating marriage. The door will be opened to all kinds of craziness.

Michael-D
Riverton, UT

Good Decision,, this is a State Issue / Law.. and more importantly in Utah a religious belief.. Put it on the Ballot.. Nobody is stopping a Gay couple from moving to a State that recognizes SSM... Our state does not,, the Majority of our citizens do not,,, and I am sure that includes NON-Mormon / LDS folk..

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

A stay is sometimes issued in a case that might have implications for the entire country. I don’t think the lower courts acted in haste. It’s puzzling that the Supreme Court neither indicated it wants further review in appellate court nor will review the case itself. It leaves it ambiguous as to who the next move is up to.

Mikhail
ALPINE, UT

Rights, rights, rights... I think I am sickening of that word, because it now means the ability to demand something without being accountable for that which is demanded. It as though words have little or no meaning any more. I believe that a clever way of lying is to change the definition of words. "Gay" no longer means happy. "Marriage" no longer has the meaning of one woman and one man uniting for a higher purpose. "Right" now means what "I" want - to the exclusion of everyone else. Society can't function without understanding the meaning of words. I don't know anyone that wants to keep someone from loving someone else. Please stop framing arguments in terms of selfishness and self interest - or civilization will become chaos.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

"If you want to make a change do it the right way and get it on the ballot again". No. Because it is a constitutional right which accrues to each of us that does not require any further consent from anyone. It's a republic, not mob rule.

Hugh1
Denver, CO

If this battle is anything like the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruling that overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a ruling prohibiting "state sponsored segregation" in education, expect a series of legal maneuvers that try to stretch this one out - perhaps five or even ten years. The court felt burned by its Roe v. Wade (1973) abortion ruling for getting too far ahead of public opinion. Chief Justice Roberts understands the magnitude of this ruling, and knows that establishing separate and unequal marriage will be overturned once he, Scalia, Thomas, or Alito are replaced by a centerist. In a perfect world, anything over two-thirds of states permitting same sex marriage provides adequate cover for an affirmative Court ruling - and public opinion will be there before 2020. Chief Justice Roberts must make a ruling during his term, or risk another "Brown" decision that makes a mockery of his legacy as Chief Justice. Remember too that the battle is not about a marriage certificate, or even inheritance rights and Social Security, it is about procreation, those who are favored and those who are not. There is one likely outcome - it is only a matter of time.

Joe Carlin
OAKLAND, CA

"Shelby, by not staying it, showed his activist bias. Even the gay judge who overturned Prop 8 in California immediately stayed it in order to give the case a chance to work through he judicial process."

Shelby was never asked for a stay, and it would have made him an activist judge to stay the decision when there was no petition for a stay. The judge (what difference his sexual orientation makes doesn't matter any more than his gender) was asked to stay the decision and granted it.

Shelby can't unilaterally stay the decision unless asked to do so and he was asked to do so so he didn't. He followed procedure to a T. The state, however, did not. You can't blame Shelby on the state's incompetence.

Joe Carlin
OAKLAND, CA

"The issue is simple. The citizens of the state of Utah voted overwhelmingly not to allow same sex marriage. I find it ironic and extremely hypocritical that those in favor of equal rights for gays and lesbians are so quick to trample the rights of everyone else. If you want to make a change do it the right way and get it on the ballot again. If you are right and everyone agrees that same sex marriage should be allowed then so be it."

The issue is simple. The citizens of the United States of America voted overwhelmingly by 3 to 1 margin of the states to amendment their federal constitution to guarantee equal protection of the laws. I find it ironic and extremely hypocritical that those opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians are so quick to trample on the federal constitution. If you want to make a change to the federal constitution, do it the right way and amend the federal constitution. If you are right and a 3 to 1 margin of states agree that gay and lesbian couples should not be protected in the federal constitution the same way straight people are, then so be it.

Joe Carlin
OAKLAND, CA

"As I have said before on these blogs, if SSM endangers the conventional family and conventional marriage I don't want it. Does SSM pose a danger? My honest answer would be 'I don't know.'"

Then clearly it does not. Over 1,000 same sex couples are now married in Utah. They are recognized by the state and federal officials, receiving state and federal married benefits and filing state and federal taxes as married. They will continue to be married until another judge says otherwise.

We can now watch to see how these couples supposedly "endanger the conventional family and conventional marriage."

Please, every one detail every way your convention family and conventional marriage are now being harmed in tangible ways. I'm waiting. We're all waiting.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

If activism is where the finger should be pointed at, you need to start with the anti-gay activists who had this law drafted and put on the ballot in the first place. The restrictive Utah law virtually begged for Federal Court review. The predictable result was that a state that many logically thought would be the last place in the country to legalize SSM is now at the center of the storm.

Billy Bob
Salt Lake City, UT

The right decision was made to grant the stay, regardless of how you view the issue. It should have been granted by the judge who made the original ruling. The decision will be a tough one by the Supreme Court. It is not as clear constitutionally as either side would want it to be. I think the correct decision would be to reverse the decision. The Judicial branch should not be able to erase the voice of the people of a State in the case where the meaning of a Constitutional amendment has to be stretched and interpreted "creatively" at best in order to deem the will of the people unconstitutional. This should be a state issue. The Federal government should stay out of it.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

Lets not forget what this is really about.

This is about the 14th Ammendment vs. the 10th Ammendment, and the order that dictates which law is supreme.

The 10th Ammendment says that if a right isn't listed in the Constitution, it is up to the states to decide. The 14th Ammendment says that everybody must be treated equally under the law. So, which is supreme, can states define marriage, or must any form of marriage be allowed because of equal protection?

Flashback
Kearns, UT

Joe go back and read your history. The 14th Amendment passed because the government held extending reconstruction over the southern states heads. Did the 14th Amendment need to be passed? Yes it did. Did twisting arms to make it happen need to be done? Possibly. Was it intended for anything but Slavery? No.

The better question would be, and that is asked of the lawyer. Just how does not being married harm them?

to comment

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