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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Franklin, IN

@ Hutterite:

"so we can finally eliminate the laws that affront our basic constitutional freedoms".

Please understand that the "Constitutional freedoms" that you refer to for homosexuals are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. No where does the Constitution mention or refer to specific rights based on a persons sexual preference. Gays have not traditionally been considered to be in the "protected" class that most equal protection claims have gone through. The Equal Protection Clause was tailored to help with racial discrimination after the abolition of slavery to be sure all races were given equal protection under the law with respect to basic rights. It never was intented to deal with a person's sexual preference. Plus, marriage is not necessarily a fundamental right. The gay lobby is pushing hard to make this the case, but please don't go saying that your sexual preference guarantees you extra protection under the U.S. Constitution. This notion has been pushed by liberals and homosexual activists in order to put it in the same bucket as race, sex, religion, etc., but it is wrong.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Jim Dabakis:

The children of gay parents are NOT being told that they are "second-class" citizens at all. The obvious message is that their family arrangment is different from other families and that the legal system of the United States needs to weigh the rights and concerns of all of it's citizens (including the majority point of view). These children are not stupid, they know that their same sex parents look different from most of their peers in school and in the neighborhood. Perhaps they already asking questions about what the historical mores of society are, and about the diversity of views of the place of morality in society? They might even ask upon what principles was our country established and what was the role of religion in the birth of our country? As a parent, I want my children to understand the history of my county and its early foundational principles. Let's respectfully discuss both sides of this issue and help our children learn that fairness to all citizens is important. Let's seek for some middle ground that respects all citizen's concerns.

Steven S Jarvis
Orem, UT

Amendment Three's purpose was to reaffirm the state's right to designate who would be eligible to enter into a marriage contract. Currently the State (and Federal government in most cases) discriminates on who can marry for a variety of factors including age, how closely related a couple are (ie family members), mental capacity and even incarceration. The state even disallows people to have more than one active marriage at a time! No doubt that Amendment three is discriminatory. Contract law by its nature is.

@sid 6.7

Many female/male couples have been denied marriage based on being related and therefore having an increased risk of passing on defective genes to offspring. I believe only one state allows first cousins to marry, and that is only after they reach the age of 65 or older. No state allows biological siblings to marry.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

IMO this is a sensible decision. It makes no sense for the court to make same-sex marriage legal in Utah against the expressed will of the majority, and at the same time leave same-sex marriage illegal in the 30 other states.

This is actually a good thing for BOTH sides.

The stay adds urgency, which means the Supreme Court will hear it more quickly. Which means these marriages that took place on the quick while an appeal was in process won't hang in limbo for so long. We will probably get a real decision because of this (which is a good thing). Because the Supreme Court won't be able to just send it back, or put it on the back burner (because the stay makes a final decision more urgent).


IMO they should answer this question for all 30 States at the same time, not just for Utah. They should bring these cases to the Supreme Court one-by-one. If it's illegal in Utah.. it's illegal in all 30 States that have laws preventing same-sex marriage.

So in a way it expedites that process as well (addressing it in all 30 States instead of just Utah).

Joe Carlin

"Was it intended for anything but Slavery?"

Irrelevant. "Intent" is irrelevant because the actual text of the law is what matter, regardless of why it was intended to be passed.

That text is: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Amendment 3 attempts to deny those in same sex relationships equal protection of its marriage laws. Therefore it is in violation of the 14th amendment. "Intent" is irrelevant given the actual text of the constitution.

South Jordan, UT

I find the logic of SSM supporters beyond ridiculous.

- They want us to believe marriage is an implied constitutional right yet many want to restrict the explicit constitutional right to bear arms.

- They want us to believe each man is an island (their actions don't affect anybody but themselves) yet they insist we tech our children things we may disagree with, that we photograph their weddings, and that we pay for their insurance needs with diseases caused specifically through their behaviors.

- They call SSM opponent people of hate yet they use bullying tactics like targeting individuals and boycotting business. They ruined lives for no other reason than opponents disagreed with them. Compare the behavior of the "losers" after Prop 8 (horrendously hateful) and the "losers" (amazingly benign) of Shelby's decision. Actions show who the real haters are.

It's pathetic, really, to see a group of people so self-contradictory while proclaiming at the top of their lungs their infallibility in political and social thought.

2 bit
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Re: "it is a constitutional right which accrues to each of us that does not require any further consent from anyone"...

You would be correct IF it were a Constitutional Right. But same-sex marriage is not in fact a "Constitutional Right". If it was... the Supreme Court would have struck it down right away (and they have had several chances to do that already).

It may turn out to be indirectly protected by a Constitutional Right, but it is not itself a Constitutional Right. The court needs to decide. You can't pontificate it as "a Constitutional Right" on your own. You're not a Supreme Court justice.

I hope the current Supreme Court justices are not as prejudice as you are and as prone to rule on emotion. I hope they will actually consider everything in the Constitution including the original intent of the 14th amendment, and how they all pertain to this issue (they are not supposed to rule based on emotion, or popularity, they are supposed to decide based on the law and only the law).

I hope we get a true legal opinion (sans emotion) from the Supreme Court.

San Francisco, CA

This court is terrified that it will have to be either a Constitutional Court or a NonConstitutional Court. It keeps this marriage freedom and equality question stalling until that time in place when it just is going to have to do right -- or do wrong against Constitutional Rights for all. Scalia's sphincter is trembling with fear before his version of god, and Clarence Thomas is hiding his public hair on the coke can because he has his freedom and wants to deny it for anyone else -- unless a fee is paid or a grand cruise is offered for he and his wife.

Bountiful, UT

[For those of you expressing how Marriage is not a right, can any of you tell me if a Male/Female couple have ever been denied a Marriage license?]

Marriage licenses have been denied based on the results of blood tests and based upon the close relationships of the applying parties. States regulate marriage. It would be foolhardy if they didn't. If states couldn't regulate marriage, all kinds of crazy things would begin to happen. For example: even the LGBT community have not suggested that marriage requires sexual relations between the parties. So, mothers could marry one of their offspring, fathers the same; brothers could marry a brother or a sister, sisters the same; dirty old men could marry six-year-old children, dirty old women the same. How thankful we all should be that marriage licenses are not issued for such licentious relationships. How glad we should be for state regulation of marriage.

San Francisco, CA

Flashback: "Just how does not being married harm them?" Then rescind all marriage rights and see how that one plays out in Peoria? What's good for one is good for all, or none.

Salt Lake City, UT

@ sid 6.7
You asked about problems caused by same-sex marriage in Massachussetts. Here is one of many examples:

Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.

Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

Highland, UT

Joe Carlin,

False. Many, many cases have gone before the Supreme Court where the original intent of the Constitution (and its associated wording), matters. To say otherwise is an outright lie.

That is what the judicial branch does. They interpret the law.

J. S.
Houston, TX


Actually, this is how state attorney should have handled the case:

First, Utah state attorneys should have asked judge Shelby BEFORE the ruling, that if the ruling does not favor the state, it should be stayed. That is the right way of handling. Judge Shelby did not grant stay because it was not asked in the first place. That is the first mistake state attorneys made.

Second, after gay marriage started, state attorneys should first go to Judge Shelby to request stay. But instead, they surpassed Shelby and directly asked 10th circuit, that is why 10th circuit court rejected the state for three times, because it was not properly handled on procedural grounds.

Even many lawyers in conservative corner admitted that the state attorneys made several mistakes that only freshman law student would. So, they really should not blame their own incompetency on other people.

Idaho Falls, ID

OK. Now lets pray that level heads will prevail. Obviously the one head that changed everything was not level.


Florida Boy wrote: "How ironic. This is the same State of Utah that abhors the federal government's meddling into state affairs, yet NEVER turns down an opportunity to take federal money - i.e. educational funds, tobacco settlement funds, preservation funds, Hill AFB funds, etc.

Now the State of Utah is crawling back to that very same federal government (the one that it abhors) and is seeking its assistance in overturning a ruling on same-sex marriage. What a piece of work."

Aren't you missing a few facts in your tirade? How about where this "federal" dollars came from? Although I must admit that the current administration likes to print money the real money was taken from the citizens and businesses. It does not originate in Washington. It is disgusting that we even have to ask for this money to be returned. But the federals want this arrangement because that way they can control us more easily.

Mr. Smitty
Salt Lake City, UT

@Alex 1: Homosexuality is not a moral issue.

Salt Lake City, UT

@sid 6.7 You asked about examplef of the harm caused by same-sex marriage laws, Here is one alarming example:

Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a new law into effect on Monday afternoon affording students confused about their “gender identity” a host of new rights, including the ability to use either a boy’s or girl’s restroom and either locker room. The legislation, Assembly Bill 1266, authored by Democratic State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano from San Francisco, allows students in grades as young as kindergarten to use “facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”Ammiano’s spokesman, Carlos Alcala, told TheBlaze on Monday afternoon the bill would even permit high school males who say they identify as females, to use a woman’s locker room.

Still wondering?

Tooele, UT

Re: "'If you want to make a change do it the right way . . . .' No. Because it is a constitutional right which accrues to each of us that does not require any further consent from anyone."

We'll see.

In the meantime, LGBT activists may want to start dusting off their "Plan B."

And start looking into more disingenuous ways to back up and suggest the next adverse ruling was expected, as well.

sid 6.7
Holladay, UT

To VST and Stephen Jarvis:

I had not considered relatives. Thanks for the "Heads Up". It makes sense as procreation between the two parties could have an adverse affect on the resulting children. What if they were both sterile? Without the possibility of having biological children would they be allowed to marry? Would there be public concern about two relatives becoming united in Marriage even though they could not pro-create?

My point is this. Short of denial because of age and genetic issues and with out further evidence of a specific case of denial, it seems every Male/Female couple is entitled to a Marriage license. In my opinion that would make receiving a Marriage license a "Right". It may not specifically say that in the Constitution but that seems to be the practice.

Another question for all of you. Does it specifically state in the COTUS that Marriage is only for a Man and a Woman or are you arguing that it specifically does not say that Marriage can be between 2 men or 2 women?

Semantics. Aren't they great?

Murray, Utah

Sid 6.7

Closely related blood relatives including first cousins, brother/sisters, father/daughters.
A man who is already married to one woman
Those with certain venereal disease (hence blood tests before marriage licenses)

All states have regulation on marriages. Now people want to add only one group to the "definition" and leave these others out. You cannot be hypocritical if you are basing on your argument on love. Love doesn't discriminate. The above mentioned groups love each other and therefore should be able to marry. Right.

to comment

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