Comments about ‘Utah grappling with legal status of married same-sex couples’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 7 2014 6:05 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
goodnight-goodluck
S.L.C., UT

what's to grapple with? if they were legally married at the time the marriage occurred then common sense would dictate they are legally married. the stay of further marriages pending the outcome of the appeals process said nothing about invalidating any marriages already performed.

concretebo
Sandy, UT

What is the A.G. Paid for ??? I thought this is Top Cop Attorney at the Capitol, why does this
office get to spend taxpayers money to do their job ? Homeless people in the street and we throw 2 million out the window. The A.G. is going to lose this and we all know this. While I do not agree with same sex marriage , I do believe to each their own and under the Law these folks deserve the same rights as everybody else . Plain and Simple. Let God be the Judge in the end ....

nycut
New York, NY

@carman says:
"Marriage between one man and one woman is biologically logical, and socially most common. Call same-sex unions something else.... keep marriage meaningful...it is what is ideal for most human beings."

Of course man-woman marriages are biologically logical and common. They may even be "ideal" for most human beings (though you'd have to ask a lot of people about that).

None of this changes when gay people marry.

"...don't thieve the term "marriage" from our culture"

We are *all* from our culture, and marriage belongs to everyone. Gay people don't sprout up in outerspace and decide to come live next door to you.

Suggesting "another name for it" might seem reasonable. But when it comes to the law, there isn't one: a legal marriage is a legal marriage, and Amendment 3 ensured there would be never be "another word" for gay people: "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

Ask yourself why you think married gay people "sully" or "diminish" your idea of marriage. You might find your feelings about gay people are problem.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

@Red Corvett: You are not almost there!. This debate in Utah is just beginning. The majority of Utahns do not favor changing the definition of marriage and I believe we are willing to put our money where our mouth is. If these blogs are any indication, it does not appear that the gay community is very interested in seeking to work with the straight community to find a win-win solution. It feels like the gays are saying to the majority of Utahns its their way or the highway. Well, I think we old fashiion traiditional marriage folk are not quite ready to abdicate our constitutional rights and freedoms to a minority of the population who is heck bent on forcing us to accept a host of new laws that are contrary to our intelligence, little lone our religous convictions. So no, the debate is not over - it is just beginning. Lets find a solution that respects EVERYONE'S rights!

desert
Potsdam, 00

As the exchange of argument has been allowed so far,
here is the proof to what it really says.
The proof that we are not only made in the image of one god, as to some would think he could err, but as many gods would be the standing model for creating us in their image :

"So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the gods to form they him, male and famle to form they them" Abraham 4

The ultimate return to god will include our own repentance on this matter, to go back as sons and daughters of god.

The social acceptabilty of anything else, depends on the willingness of the people to tolerate such.God cannot.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@Grammy3: No. A religious act is the act of a religious denomination in the course of its practice of its religion. You're free to practice your religion as you will, as we are to practice ours as we will.

A marriage in the Quaker tradition of our Meeting is the commitment of two people who see God's Light and love in each other and pledge themselves to each other in that Light and love and the care of the Meeting. Our Meeting stopped worrying about gender combinations years ago. God's love is God's love is God's love. Marriage is marriage. That is our discerned Truth.

Now, civil marriage is an act of the State. I don't understand your inability to accept the concept of "civil marriage." Young couples have run off for generations, side-stepping family disapproval and church rejection, and eloped at Justices of the Peace. Your church already considers civil marriage second-class, so why do you need to create some new, third-class version which wouldn't meet federal standards for recognition? Just accept that civil marriage isn't church/temple/meeting/mosque/synagogue marriage and be done with this nonsense.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

Utahns, think the gay community will be fair to your needs and concerns? Think again!

For example - "The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) published a special issue of their bi-monthly journal “The Therapist” dedicated to the subject of same-sex marriage. Guest authors were asked to contribute articles, half of the writers in support and half opposed to same-sex marriage. A stated goal of the issue was to determine whether the organization should adopt a formal position on the matter.

Subsequent to publication of the May/June 2009 special issue (Volume 21, Issue 3), homosexual activists within and without the organization pressured CAMFT to not only apologize, but also expunge from their organizational archives those articles that voiced opposition to same-sex marriage. CAMFT capitulated to those demands. The Director of CAMFT apologized for publishing articles critical of same-sex marriage and all the "offending" articles were censored from the CAMFT website archives. So much for intellectual debate and freedom of opinion".

Yet the gay community in Utah cries out for understanding and tolerance. Utahns, lend your voice to recognition of everyone's rights - not just a "special class" of citizens that oppose your God given rights!

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

As a Utahan, and even though I don't agree with same sex marriage, or marriage for more than 2 people, I suspect that it would not end up a good thing for the state of Utah to be granted states rights on this. Consititutionally, I would normally say it is a state issue. But pragmatically, I see Utah becoming the center of a vicious hate campaign by the left in America should Utah be one of the few states to not allow same sex marriage. This campaign would involve more attacks against the Mormon Church, as well as called for boycotts of Utah businesses ect. All in all it would be a continuing headache for Utah.

carman
Wasatch Front, UT

To dwayne:

You are grinding an axe, sir. If you read my comment, I don't want to control anything. I want equal rights for all. I just want to call the legal union of one man and one woman "marriage". Call other unions something else. Don't discriminate. Let the equal protection clause reign. Just reserve the word marriage for the fundamental building block of society: the biologically logical, social norm of a man and a woman, committed to each other and legally bound. Just come up with a different word for other unions.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Grammy3;

Because we don't live in a theocracy and what "god" wants is irrelevant to civil life and law.

@philipcfromnyc;

Nice summation. The only thing you left out is that if the 10th overturns Shelby, an appeal will go to the Supreme Court. Whether or not they'll take it, regardless of which side the 10th sides with, is not known. Then, we could look at it legislatively.

@concretebo;

Agreed.

nycut
New York, NY

@rw123 says: "I believe there MAY be a biological propensity to homosexuality, but that does not mean its uncontrollable nor good for the person/society. There are research studies about various biological propensities that are not good (i.e. alcoholism). That doesn't mean we celebrate those propensities and give susceptible individuals special rights. But I DO take off my hat to those who resist these propensities."

Your perspective is incredibly self-centered.

Regardless of the "cause," of course it's easy for you to see "gay" as a controllable behavior: If *you* were to have "gay" sex, it would be an unnatural action. But you could do it. You'd be *doing* a gay thing.

Now imaging choosing to *be* gay: to have natural romantic and erotic feelings for a member of the same sex. You CAN'T choose that--any more than you chose to have romantic and erotic feelings for the opposite sex. It just happened to you. Same with gays.

Gay people aren't a corrupted version of you. They are their own thing.

Why ask someone gay to *do* straight just because it happened that way for you?

uwishtoo
MESA, AZ

@Wolf: Wow REALLY? You are actually comparing the love between two people to MURDER? WOW

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

It is entirely demoralizing to read some of the hate-filled posts from those who continue to endorse state-sponsored discrimination.

Absent a compelling state interest, the US Constitution guarantees equal treatment under civil law to all citizens, including gay citizens. By denying marriage to law-abiding tax-paying gay citizens, they are depriving gay citizens of the more than 1100 federal rights, responsibilities and benefits that flow from marriage via **civil** law. This is *undeniably* unequal treatment under civil law.

What those people fail to grasp is that this case is about equal treatment under the law. It has nothing to do with a religious position. The reason Utah will lose when the 10th Appeals hears the case is that there is no rational basis for treating a minority differently under civil law. "Ewe, it's icky and gives me the willies" is not a defensible legal basis.

Seriously now... just what are you so afraid of? What consequences can you enumerate that will be so dire as to overwhelm the mandate for equal treatment and the benefits of gay marriage to gay families, their children and society?

D-Ferg
American Fork, UT

@Meckofahess
Please elaborate; which constitutional rights and freedoms will you be required to abdicate by granting constitutional rights and freedoms to more people?

LOU Montana
Pueblo, CO

I personally don't care if a person wants to marry a fence post. I really don't care for the gay life of two same sex people but I respect peoples rights and they should have the right to get married if they so desire. It is small narrow minded people who do not respect other people rights.

4BS
St George, UT

I'm sorry folks, but God did not create Adam and Steve. If he did, there would be no offspring. He created Man and Woman, that is the way he wanted it and commanded it to be. If you don't believe in religion, fine, but don't expect me to just accept it because it's the politically correct thing to do. Never.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

God made Adam and Eve.

NOT Adam and Steve.

End of Story

So, who did make Steve?

CDL
Los Angeles, CA

Vanceone~ You are exactly right. It was a deliberate political move to flood the gate before providing a stay. They wanted to insert a new problem into the mix, hoping to create a situation that could not be turned back just as they did in Calif. Frankly, I would simply declare them 'Civil Unions,' so they are still legally coupled. And issue new 'Civil Union' certificates. Then make sure Civil Unions have all the same legal protections and benefits as 'religious marriage' unions and call it a day. They are equal giving both side essentially what they want. Gay coupling legal recognition, and the religious 'rite and ceremony' of marriage left for the religious. After all, there are plenty of non religious straight people who have 'Civil Unions.' There is a reasonable compromise.

Dan Taylor
Keyser, WV

Wrong is wrong and this was wrong from the beginning. Shelby should loose his bench over this and in the end all the rushing to the alter will have been a big waste of time. Signs of the times for sure. What is going to happen in this world when someone wants to marry their dog or cat? They'll be some judge out there that will say they have a right to do that and allow it. It's amazing to me that the state of Utah allowed this to happen and then you have sister wives going on in the same state not that far from the state house and there are things going on in that compound against women and the state does nothing about it. Amazing.

D-Ferg
American Fork, UT

@CDL
That won't work because Utah's Amendment 3 also forbids civil unions.
"No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

to comment

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