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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Wasatch Front, UT
Call same-sex unions something else. Domestic Partnership, Domestic Union, Same-Sex Union, anything.
8:00 p.m. Jan. 7, 2014
When they get married in a Church it is a religious action. When someone gets married in a Courthouse it is a civil matter. Why can't the Gay and Lesbians have a civil union and have the same rights as a Married couple but not call it a marriage.
12:50 a.m. Jan. 8, 2014


"...perhaps through legal civil unions ..."


See an excellent reply by --
Here, UT
6:57 a.m. Jan. 8, 2014

In order to do that, you MUST strike down Amendment 3, which says that NO unions, of any sort (i.e. "civil unions") will be recognized. Amendment 3 violates the civil rights of LGBT American citizens.



uh.., Adam and Eve made Steve, its not that complicated, that is how it is suppose to work :-)

Salt Lake City, UT


You suggest the heterosexual view toward gays can be reduced to something as simple as "Ewe, it's icky and gives me the willies" as the basis for our concerns. That is not true at all. I don't find my gay friends to be "icky" at all - they are good people, excellent emmployees, etc. Our concerns are well beyond that oversimplified explanation. We do not want someone (a bilogical male) confused about his gender identity to have a legal right to enter into the girls locker room at school for example. We do not want our employers to lay off straights emmployees simply out of fear of legal prosecution for laying off a gay because he/she is now in a "protected class". We want fair and equal laws that recognize all citizens rights and not just the rights of a "special class" of people. Let's look out for the equal rights of all people (including the heterosexuals). Let's find a win-win solution for everyone. Same sex marriage laws will lead to the above examples of inequalities as has already happened in California and Massechussets.


God did make Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve, don't twist that fact. He also commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth. Lets see Adam and Steven do that......huh

This is a great comment earlier, "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.

I dont understand why gays are fighting over the word married. What they (gays) want, is different then what we (straight) have. Mainly the natural ability to procreate, a very important aspect of any all societies. We straight people don't want the gays to share the same word "married" because their not the same as we are. It is that simple.

Oh, by the way. I wasn't born to like or desire chocolate or mtn dew. It is called an acquired taste.

Salt Lake City, UT

" I'm sorry folks, but God did not create Adam and Steve." Well it turns out that God not only created Steve, but He created dinosaurs, duck-billed platypi, and a whole bunch of other exotic stuff not documented in your tidy rendition of Genesis. My point is that SMM is about what is best for society, not about what is doctrinal from a religious perspective. In a way SMM is like climate change, we won't know the full consequences for many years. Better minds than mine have to call this one. But few such minds appear here.

omni scent
taylorsville, UT

For those of the opinion that the LGBT crowd should get their own word and leave marrage alone, why don't those of us that practice opposite sex marrage get our own word instead.

And guess what: for those of us Mormons, we already have that seperate word: Sealing. I was sealed to my wife 4 years ago.

Voila! I just fixed the proble and saved the state $2 Million!

You're welcome.

Los Angeles, CA

Amendments can be changed or redefined if Utah's 3rd amendment is an issue. Providing Civil Unions with equal status should not be a problem and does not provide a second class citizenship. That is utterly ridiculous. But is does protect professional individuals that decline specific services based on religious beliefs from vindictive law suits from gays when they don't get their way. Even though the 1st amendment should protect them, activist judges have been ignoring the 1st amendment in those states that have already legalized gay marriage. If you want equality and tolerance, the door swings both ways.

J. S.
Houston, TX

@Billy Bob

Utah state did not get stay because AG legal team made unbelievable mistakes that only first year law student would make. They did not follow the procedural rule to request stay BEFORE the ruling came down. And later they did not follow the procedural rule to request stay from Judge Shelby first, but instead surpassed him and directly asked the 10th circuit.

Even attorneys from conservative corner think AG's team did a terrible job. If you want to blame anyone, blame those state attorneys who collected paychecks from taxpayers but failed to deliver

West Richland, WA

@Meckofahess: "We want fair and equal laws that recognize all citizens rights and not just the rights of a "special class" of people."

I am reasonably sure the end goal here would be a stage of enlightenment among citizens where there is no need to have a "special class" of people whatsoever. The LGBT community does not want "special rights". The want the *same* rights you enjoy today. Not "special" rights... just the same "rights" all citizens are afforded. Big difference.

The "win-win" solution is when all American citizens are treated equally under the law of the land, who's authority is derived from the U.S. Constitution. This is the only document germane to this issue.

If you are honest when you say above that "We want fair and equal laws that recognize all citizens rights", then you are in agreement with Judge Shelby's ruling.

Cedar Hills, UT

this legal circus and more like it will continue until the US Supreme court finally gets off its rump and rules once and for all. Same sex marriage is not a constitutional guarantee and must therefore be left to the states to rule on this issue as many already have...until activist and rouge federal judges come in and attempt to strong arm the states into conforming to their ideology.

J. S.
Houston, TX

Call same-sex unions something else. Domestic Partnership, Domestic Union, Same-Sex Union, anything.
"...perhaps through legal civil unions ... " "Let's find a win-win solution for everyone"

Sorry to remind you but, even if it goes your way, you still have to strike down amendment 3 first, because it bans both SSM and civil union.

J. S.
Houston, TX

"Providing Civil Unions with equal status should not be a problem and does not provide a second class citizenship."

Sorry to disappoint you but, it will be a big problem because you have to strike down amendment 3 first, it bans both SSM and civil union.

West Jordan, UT

"They were legal when they were performed, they'll remain legal."

Prior Precedence - It was why the 9th circuit stuck down the law voted on by the citizens of CA.

I hope the readers are seeing these arguments for what they are. There is a reason that the courthouses were flooded within minutes of Shelby's ruling. The LGBT community is seeking to accomplish their aims through manipulation of the legal system.

SSM is winning the hearts and minds of our country. I don't know why the supporters of SSM would resort to the legal chicanery at this point. Perhaps that is all they know and are simply ignorant of their new found acceptance?

We need to have a fair fight in the courts (SCOTUS) and put this issue to rest. If opponents of SSM lose (I am one of those) then we move on to other issues. If the LGBT community loses will they let it rest? Doubt it.


So is Judge Shelby adjudicating to get publicity so he can has a more legitimately earned salary as a TV Court Judge. Lots of good democrat contacts. What is a Kangaroo court?

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

I am glad to hear the nuttiness has ended.

From the standpoint of Utah the ruling should be that the marriages are not legal and have no effect. A woman who "married" another woman late last month, if she wakes up tomorrow and decides to get married to a man, should be able to do so with no legal problems at all in Utah. Her marriage made after Shelby did not stay his decision has no legal standing at all.

Scottsdale, AZ

Just as judges like Robert Shelby don't want their name enshrined forever on the wrong side of history, many of the best law firms don't want to be associated in perpetuity with a losing cause, even if they happen to win one battle.

To paraphrase Lincoln, this nation cannot survive half allowing same-sex marriage and half rejecting it. Or perhaps to paraphrase someone else, you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube. It's not a question of whether same-sex marriages will be recognized in every state; it's a question of when.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

The claim that we "make it illegal for churches to do their own thing symbolically" is hogwash. There is no law that bans churches in Utah from having same-gender commitment ceremonies. They can do it all they want. As long as they do not try to claim they have the legal force of marriage.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

The claim that the Hobby Lobby case is about contraception is a lie. Hobby Lobby has no objection to funding 16 forms of contraception. Their only objection is to the 4 abortion ppills in the HHS mandate.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Available evidence points out that same-sex attraction is a complex system that arises from multiple causes, many of which are other than genetic, and that manifests in various levels in various people.

That said, the cause of same-sex attraction has no bearing on the issue of redefining marriage away from being a man/woman institution in a form justified by the governments high interest in seeking to have the highest percentage of children possible raised by their biological parents.

Scottsdale, AZ

@Patriot "Same sex marriage is not a constitutional guarantee and must therefore be left to the states to rule on this issue as many already have."

The constitutional guarantee is that every state must give Full Faith and Credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. The Supreme Court does not have to order Utah to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It just has to order Utah to recognize marriages from other states. Invest wisely: Buy honeymoon resorts with marriage chapels in California, Hawaii and Iowa. Well, maybe not Iowa.

to comment

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