State recognition of same-sex marriage 'on hold,' governor's office says


Return To Article
  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 10:26 p.m.

    Gays are free to love and be, this is not about that, I have gay family members and know that activists are seeking to destroy the First Amendment and take away the rights of religious persons to be involved. Those Utahns and Americans who have open eyes realize that powerful activists are currently taking away the rights of Americans to vote, have a say on laws, speak out on moral issues, and so on. This is about America's Constitution, and the Family is the backbone of Civilization. I do hope people will be stirred to action and I want to know how I might become involved, I can't stand idly by while this happens.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    @John Pack Lambert of Michigan;

    Shelby could not issue a stay immediately because Utah's AG did NOT request one. It isn't his responsibility to do the state's job for them.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:29 a.m.

    The stance of the governor is the only logical one. Shelby should have stayed his ruling from the beginning. The fact that people are now trying to make the advocates of order and consistency in law out to be the bad guys just shows how crazy this all is.

    We should not bow to Shelby's ignoring long precedents that controversial rulings that will be appealed will be stayed.

    I just hope voters remember come November that the Democrat party of Utah cares not at all for what they think. Don't let individual candidates claim they are not for same-sex marriage. Participating in an organization that has such an activist pro-same-sex marriage person at the head makes untenable the claim of any particular Democrat candidate to not support it.

    I know my ideas would kill the Democratic Party in Utah. But they seem to want to kill themselves. All their claims of trying to reach out to the majority of Utah's population have been thrown out the window by their actions over the last month.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 4:07 p.m.

    To "I M LDS 2" you are wrong. If you go to your Gospel Principels book, chapter 10, it states "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts four books as scripture: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These books are called the standard works of the Church. The inspired words of our living prophets are also accepted as scripture....In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders."

    The Family Proclamation should be considered scripture.

    You said that if the Prophet said to support marriage equality, you would run to do so. Well, the Prophet has said that we should support laws that support traditional marriage of a man and a woman. The "Church Statement on Definition of Marriage" the church leadership said that "We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time-honoured definition of marriage." Why do you not support Utah's ammendment that upholds the time-honored definition of marriage?

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    Legally this is the appropriate action for the state in this situation. The person who everyone should be mad at is Judge Shelby. He should have issued an automatic stay. The state is doing the right thing by defending the voice of the people. End of story.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    Many who oppose marriage equality raise The Proclamation on the Family to support their position.

    But the Proclamation does not unambiguously support opposition.

    First, "the Proclamation on the Family" is not canonized scripture. The Doctrine & Covenants 134:9 IS scripture. Scripture trumps everything else. Church leaders have said so.

    This quote does not contradict marriage equality:

    "Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets".

    There is NO evidence that marriage equality contributes to, causes, or in any way brings about one iota of "disintegration of the family". In fact, it creates INTEGRITY in the newly formed families of same sex couples!

    When the Church Leaders say, "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society." - I run with that call to support marriage equality, which explicitly strengthens ALL families (the Brethren do not single out on "traditional" families) as the fundamental unit of society!

    I strongly believe history and Heavenly Father will vindicate my interpretation, which I feel has been confirmed by the Spirit.

  • katy salt lake city, ut
    Jan. 9, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    If we called "marriage" between the same sexes a different name such as Happy Union, Forever united, or whatever, it should help both sides. The term marriage is between a man and a woman so the description is already in place. I don't think many have a problem with people of the same sex receiving the same benefits as the others. If same sex people unite legally with some kind of ceremony - judge or whatever, but the union is called something different they could still be entitled to the same benefits.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    To "I M LDS 2" it is nice that you support what you see as marriage equality. That is also a nice scripture from the D&C. However, you are wrong. Modern prophets have also stated documents stating that LDS Church members should support laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman.

    The official church statement, titled "Church Statement on Definition of Marriage", states that "we encourage all people of goodwill to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far‐ranging impact for religious freedom if marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time‐honoured definition of marriage." It sure sounds like they want political leaders to retain the definition that marriage is between a man and woman only.

    You should also read "The Divine Institution of Marriage" on the LDSNewsroom. They not only explain why they supported California's Proposition 8, but also explain why gay marriage and why just living together is a bad idea for society.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    RE: IMLDS 2. The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience is a manifesto issued by Orthodox, Catholic and Evangelical. (Christians united by the belief in the Tri-une God).

    Marriage, The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.” For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24.

    However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33 In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the. crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society.

    The Christian tradition refers to marriage as “holy matrimony” because it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee.

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    Kind of interesting that people who wrap themselves in the Constitution forget the prohibition of ex post facto laws by the constitution. In other words it's unconstitutional to take away something like a right a person has enjoyed because a new law was passed prohibiting that right. Same sex marriage was denied Utahans because of Amendment 3 (interesting that it's the only Amendment that takes away rights instead of granting them) but then it was overturned by the court for 17 days where over 900 couples were able to enjoy and participate in their new right. The stay by the Supreme Court effectively takes away that right for future couples but for the couples that already have been given the right, even if for only 17 days, they should be able to retain their right to be married. That's because all citizens have a constitutional right to be protected from ex post facto laws.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    I'm curious how the state's policy will work in practice. Will the tax commission audit joint tax returns to see if filers are "legally" married? Will they target filers with apparent same sex names? Utah is notorius for unusual names. I know of men named Kay, Sheryl, Carrol, and Lavern. Is LaDelbert a man or a woman? How about Breckyn? Will they audit the return, say, of Madison Lee and Jordan Pat Smith? Taking names from another tragic story in the news recently, would anyone unfamiliar with Thai culture know whether Hser and Esar were male or female? Will they add a gender checkbox on the TC-40?

    Utah law allows first cousins to marry, but only above a certain age to guarantee they are nonreproductive. Has the tax commission ever audited joint returns of first cousins to see if they met the age requirement and were legally married? Many other states do not have the age restriction for first cousin marriage. Does the state recognize these marriages as valid? If the state audits joint returns to see if filers are same-sex but does not audit first cousin returns for age, is there a potential equal protection violation?

  • paintandestroy Richmond/Cache, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    Utah has a right and responsibility to defend the vote - whatever the cost.

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    To the best of my memory Governor Herbert ordered the county clerks to issue the marriage licenses. He invoked the good faith and goodwill on the State of Utah to FOLLOW the law. Wha happened? Religion MUST be removed from politics. They just wind up messing everything up and then they use the name of God and blame someone else.

  • JustTheTruthMan bountiful, ut
    Jan. 9, 2014 5:18 a.m.

    I am appreciative of the chance the SCOTUS has to more adequately explain what they meant when they made a ruling in regards to California and Prop 8. It is obvious that a whole wing of the citizenry misinterpreted what they were in fact saying. This misunderstanding was further compounded when they made a ruling in regards to DOMA. They can make right their wrongs if they can somehow find a way to more thoroughly explain themselves. The state has a fighting chance to win if they can come with a more fluid way to explain its law than reproductive blah blah blah. It was obviously a very flawed argument in the first place on the basis of how many naturally infertile couples there are. On the basis of how many couples choose as a matter of choice not to have children. What it comes down to is that the LGBT community can have the heart of what most are truly seeking by recognizing spouse like benefits with the person of their choosing. The time is now to be completely honest with what is being sought and protected.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 4:47 a.m.

    This is not a letter for or against, this is a letter stating that I find it kind of funny that the very same people who just used the system to get what they wanted are cussing the system for doing what they knew it would do. It is disengenuous for the holders of these marriage license to seem so damaged in such a short time. Don't act like you didn't know that the state would react.

  • JustTheTruthMan bountiful, ut
    Jan. 9, 2014 3:44 a.m.

    The reality is that the judge of the federal court over reached his bounds and logical limitations. The reality is that it wasn't Utah that made it legal in the first place... The reality is that a lot of refunds should be issued from the pockets of that ludicrous judge. The reality is that a lot of people misinterpreted what the supreme court said in regards to California and prop 8... But, in the land of insanity, you can't expect sanity to reign supreme. The reality is there are going to be a lot of people who take exception to what I have said here, and that is their right... It is not a constitutional requirement to act with intelligence. In fact, the right to remain dumbed down is well protected and honored.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 9, 2014 1:07 a.m.

    "It is a blow not only to these married couples, but to all of the children and adults who love them and depend on them," he said.

    Let us put aside the biological and moral components, and ask what else could it be ?

    My suggestion: Love is being quoted too often, as to be the common denominator for all.

    Trying to asign the meaning of love to very different applications would help to remove some confusion. There is love for brotherly and sisterly relations, which is charity, the pure love of Christ. Then there is love for our children and them for their parents, which is a different type of love, since it involves secure feelings of a home and a strong sense of belonging to each other. Then there is the love between husband and wife, which is none of the above, since it is generated by tender feelings beween a man and a woman, longing for future bond and very tight to be lasting, and nobody else would be allowed to come in between. Then there is love for things of nature, talents and the list goes on.

    Could that be the disagreeing point ?

  • Cowboy Dude SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 12:07 a.m.

    Captain Green said "32 States have laws prohibiting homosexual marriages. That's nearly 2/3 of our country."

    You missed one; Utah.

    Actually, 39 states have laws prohibiting same-sex marriages (six of the states are not enforcing the law due to court decisions.) That is nearly 4/5 of our country.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:25 p.m.

    @dn moderators

    So please explain why it is alright for redshirt to refer people to study the history of LDS persecution but it is not alright for me to refer him to study the history of persecution of the Lgbt community? Given the very offensive tone of the comments being allowed to day I cannot see were some less then pretty historical facts would be refused.

    Let me try one more time

    in the past 100 years the LGBT community has been subjected to forced shock therapy, forced lobotomies, forced castration, incarceration and forced hospitalization among the nicer and at the time legal things in the United States in addition we are still subject to incarceration and even execution in some parts of the world. We were rounded up by the thousands and killed by the Germans.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:05 p.m.

    I'm LDS, conservative, Temple married 25yrs, life long Republican, and I support marriage equality.

    I strongly recommend prayerful study of D&C134:

    "4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;...

    9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied".

    It is way past time for our fellow citizens to be freed from the mingling of religious influence with civil government that has long deprived them of their individual rights to equality before the law!

    It is long overdue for us to join with our fellow Americans in supporting their emancipation from discriminatory populist rhetoric and unconstitutional Amendments such as 3!

    It is high time we followed our true Master, who dined with the "unrighteous" and rendered unto Ceasar what was his, and to God His own, but loved all equally.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:57 p.m.

    Somewhere in Time, UT
    "I'm very sympathetic to those who struggle with SSA and yet don't choose to try to make the rest of society change to accommodate them. But, I have a hard time being sympathetic to those who the rest of society has to be upended in order to accommodate their feelings."

    --- EXACTLY LIKE: "Why did that uppity girl, Rosa, make such a fuss? I wish she would be like the kind of Negroes I know, who keep to their place"

    Somewhere in Time, UT
    "Dear UteExpat:
    If you believe and stand up for the traditional family you are portrayed as cruel, insensitive, bigoted and hateful. Those are the terms that are used to shame good people and try to get them to shut up. This is persecution and it is increasing every day."

    A-- The shoe seems to fit quite well, so I suggest you wear it with a smile

    B-- "Persecution", as described, is a twisted word to describe obstructing the rights of others and feeling that one is too good to be criticized.

    -- "Somewhere in Time" obviously refers to the early 20th Century

  • Captain Green Heber City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:06 p.m.

    This is the kind of mess that can be created when the federal judiciary feels it can violate the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution at will. States are sovereign over the national government and the laws we pass are our laws, not Washington, DC's. They cannot come here and tell us what we can and cannot do. The constitutionality of Amendment 3 of our State law was very carefully considered in passing that law. Because some activist judge, with an agenda, from somewhere else disagrees with it does not nullify our law. We must stand our ground and not allow ourselves to be pushed around. I laud the Governor and the new Attorney General for speaking up! 32 States have laws prohibiting homosexual marriages. That's nearly 2/3 of our country. And there is a good reason for that.

  • trueconservative Northern Utah, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    When did an alternative lifestyle become the norm or equate as equal to 1 man and 1 woman? While I am so sorry for those who struggle with same sex attraction, I am also sorry for those who struggle with other moral issues as well. This doesn't mean that I am a bigot, or prejudiced because I do not agree with SSM. On the contrary, I believe that those who want unions between same sex couples should be allowed a union to go with an alternative lifestyle that they have chosen. Don't force those who are religious to call this "marriage". Marriage has typically been reserved for thousands of years as a religious binding ceremony to unite men and women in marriage before God. SSM should be called civil unions, same sex unions, civil partnerships etc. What will those who are "married" in the sight of the law do now? What did they do before the law was passed? The world will keep on turning one way or another.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:40 p.m.

    "I'm very sympathetic to those who struggle with SSA and yet don't choose to try to make the rest of society change to accommodate them."

    Exactly who is being asked to change to accommodate their LGBT neighbors, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, sons, daughters, etc.? The only thing we are asking you to change is the idea that people can vote away the rights of a minority through a popular vote. I don't think that's very unreasonable.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:35 p.m.

    Re: "What do you think he [Shelby] should have done? Declare that a law that he believes is unconstitutional to be constitutional?

    Simply put, yes.

    It was his duty to follow the law, not to impose his unsupported beliefs on us. Not to try and guess what he could get away with. Not to attempt to figure our how he could make a name for himself by being the first liberal activist in Utah to rule contrary to binding precedent.

    In other words, Shelby violated his oath and his ethics. He demonstrated -- yet again -- why doctrinaire, agenda-driven liberals should be excluded from consideration for positions of public trust.

    You just can't trust 'em to do their duty. Their fealty is not to the rule of law, but to the rule of liberals.

  • Starry starry night Palm Springs , CA
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:08 p.m.

    "For the loser now will be later to win...
    For the times they are a-changin’. "

    Bob Dylan1963

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:58 p.m.

    It was a pre-trial motion, not typically binding, and beyond what the judge in California did. For there not to have been an immediate stay was the fault ot another judge, which has caused a lot of confusion. Anyone on either side of the SSM issue needs to understand that the judge tried to undermine legal Constitutional authority to the States. This is huge. He should (at the least) be impeached.

  • Hdtexan Chicago, IL
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:44 p.m.

    I love how your governor and AG seem to make up the law and it's enforcement as they go along. Talk about amateur hour...

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 6:55 p.m.


    Calling evil good like hiding behind religion to justify prejudice?

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 6:30 p.m.

    Dear UteExpat:

    I've got news. The pendulum has already swung against Mormons. The same-sex marriage movement is a perfect example. It is becoming harder and harder for those who try to follow the commandments of God and support the family. You know the scriptural saying that evil will be thought good and good will be thought evil? That is what's happening. If you believe and stand up for the traditional family you are portrayed as cruel, insensitive, bigoted and hateful. Those are the terms that are used to shame good people and try to get them to shut up. This is persecution and it is increasing every day.

  • Alex 1 Tucson, AZ
    Jan. 8, 2014 6:27 p.m.


    "Monstrous", "Explosive"? Get real.

  • BlackDiamond Provo, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 6:10 p.m.

    Definition of Family is a FAther, Mother and Children. While gay marriage do not support that, therefore it should not be allowed. It has never been allowed by God from the beginning and he never will.

  • Alex 1 Tucson, AZ
    Jan. 8, 2014 6:06 p.m.

    Utah is under absolutely no obligation to throw out its Constitution and sweetly curtsy to the whims of a Federal Judge without an appeal. In Utah, same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This whole mess with people getting married in the interim is Shelby's problem. Ignore it and let the judicial process work itself out.

    What's a few months to wait for those who were "married" in the interim? After all, they've already waited a quarter of a billion years already. It is not like any of them will be conceiving their pseudospouse's baby in the next few months.

    So take heart and don't worry out there. Utah will one day be forced to give you your piece of paper against its will. I hope that your legal status, tax considerations, estate planning, powers of attorney, and other legal constructions will one day bring you all the joy you ever dreamt of. Just wait till those babies come--the product of your love.

  • UteExpat New York, NY
    Jan. 8, 2014 5:53 p.m.


    Yes, I am aware the LDS Church is specifically against gay marriage. I fully understand the law of chastity, believe in it and live by it. I also don't believe I, a sinner, have any place to judge another.

    My ancestors were run out of Missouri and Illinois because their beliefs were not considered mainstream. Their leader, a guy named Joseph Smith, declared at that time that a central tenet of our faith is a claim to "the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience," and that we would "allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

    I don't see any problem with believing and living the law of chastity while also allowing those who disagree with my beliefs the opportunity to have the same protections under the law. Perhaps someday the pendulum will once again swing against us Mormons. Which side of the legal precedent would we want to be on then?

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    Jan. 8, 2014 5:39 p.m.

    QuercusQate: Edmund Act dealt the same law as the DOMA. They both defined marriage as between one man and one woman. When Justice Kennedy asked under what condition was same-sex marriage disallowed all one had to do was bring up the Edmund Act. Therefore, this Supreme Court has contradicted itself in all that it has done. To right that contradiction they must rule in favor of Utah's State law. Failure to do so destroys the definition of the Edmund Act.

    Also, all laws are based on what is good for society. No one has yet to convince me that the laws as enforced in the majority of the states are bad for society. In fact, it shows the stupidity of the left and those who feel liberal actions justify whatever means available.

    Our Heavenly Father defined marriage as only between man and woman. The Supreme Court under the Edmund Act defined marriage as only between man and woman. Therefore, the law of the land should state that marriage is defined as only between man and woman.

  • CCJones Lehi, Ut
    Jan. 8, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    Peggy Tomsic said it right "has discounted the lives of thousands of Utah citizens who live, work and raise their families in Utah and pay Utah and federal taxes, like all other Utah citizens." She is so right that is what Judge Shelby did when he invalidated the votes of two thirds of Utah voters by saying that the definition of marriage must be changed.

  • John 3:16 West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    Good Job Utah! It is good to stand up for the things you believe in.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 4:22 p.m.

    The repeal of marriages already performed is monstrous. The situation is becoming explosive.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    Look at all the name calling and bullying the proponents of Same Sex Marriage are engaging in here.

    Notice the constant reference to those who are already married (Worked in CA!)

    The agenda is so transparent.

    The proponents are truly everything some posters have painted them to be!


    To the courts I would say...Straighten this out and now!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    "Maybe if the gays would take marriage more seriously and get married the right way the State would have some sympathy."

    Any same-sex couples who took more time to plan out a wedding would be blocked from having it now that your side got it's way with the stay. Any sympathy for them?

  • speed66 Heber City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    @Chris A - Prepare to be disappointed. No court has yet held that Utah's position is just, fair or constitutional. In fact, as well documented by Pagan, the overwhelming tide of opinions have gone against Utah's opinion. Your short-term "win for the family" is a process win not on the issue at hand.

    The impending over-turn of Utah's arcane law will not end bigotry but it will provide legal refuge to a community that deserves it.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Jan. 8, 2014 4:17 p.m.


    Notices for the confiscation of certain once-legal weapons went out in New York City just a couple of months ago. You should look it up.

  • Cowboy Dude SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    Oh, the state should not have done this.

    I support traditional marriage and the law. But, if the state does not recognize it's own license, that puts all state contracts in jeopardy.

    Utah is going to have a harder time defending itself.

  • rightascension Provo, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 3:58 p.m.

    Not to put too fine a point on this -- but our governor is evolving into the Ross Barnett of the marriage equality movement.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    I think this is interesting that the implication by so many that support SSM is that they should have this as right so their feelings won't be hurt. That's so much of what is being implied by all these references to insensitive comments and emotions, etc.

    I have news. There is no constitutional right to not get your feelings hurt. I'm not trying to be unkind. But, if you make the decision to live a lifestyle that is unhealthy and unnatural, you are going to get hurt. That is just a fact. The rest of society is not required to make sure that you don't get your feelings hurt. The definition of marriage that has been successful for thousands of years shouldn't have to be changed to make sure that someone doesn't have hurt feelings.

    I'm very sympathetic to those who struggle with SSA and yet don't choose to try to make the rest of society change to accommodate them. But, I have a hard time being sympathetic to those who the rest of society has to be upended in order to accommodate their feelings.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 3:31 p.m.

    Good to see that the State of Utah is asserting it own right to define marriage as between a man and woman.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 8, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    A very expected development.

    On another website, folks were mad at Herbert --- my reply was:

    "He would never be elected dogcatcher again if he did the right thing"
    "You do not understand that Utah is, effectively, a theocracy."

    Of course, no one should be surprised. Utahns and mormons seem happy to risk more dents to their reputation of repressiveness and conformity, as well as lack of understanding any points of view but their own.

    The marriages will be valid again, eventually, and Herbert can say he did his best.

    I do not think that Jesus preached to create 2nd class citizens, nor to go around telling some people they are sinners, while ignoring the great sins of others.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    Salt Lake, UT
    Seriously folks,

    You show up to get married in your pajamas and "running errands" clothes and you expect the state to recognize that kind of marriage? Maybe if the gays would take marriage more seriously and get married the right way the State would have some sympathy.

    12:52 p.m. Jan. 8, 2014


    In 1930, my grandMother and grandFather got married.

    She worked at the cannery bottling peaches,
    He worked at the local gas station.

    They met at the Salt Lake County building during their lunch hour and got married by the Justice of the Peace because it was the only time M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm that they could do it.

    She was in a kitchen clothes and peach covered apron,
    he was in greasy white over-alls [still have their "wedding" picture.]

    FYI --
    They were later Religously "Seealed" in the Salt Lake Temple.

    BTW - That is how Mormons are doing it to this very day outside of America.
    Even in Countries with Gay marriages.

    The Church is still true,
    Temples are still sacred,
    and Families are still in tack.

    I don't see what all the hub-bubb is all about here.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 3:03 p.m.

    The US Supreme Court ordered a stay, which many interpret to mean that a stay should have been ordered by Shelby in the beginning. The marriage licenses should have never been issued and ceremonies should never have been performed. Shelby refused to issue the stay, but obviously he was wrong, as proved by the US Supreme Court.

    For those who are complaining that marriages performed between the time that Shelby issued his ruling, and the US Supreme Court order to stay, are simply representing their agenda. Obviously, if licenses and ceremonies were performed erroneously because of a bad decision by Shelby, then it must be reviewed and corrected. This is what the Supreme Court is doing.

  • greenbird38 Provo, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    You are aware the LDS Church is specifically against gay marriage right?

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    This has just become cruel. I hope these men know they will have to be explaining their actions to their grandchildren. Grandpa...did you really do that?

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    "God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.

    Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."

    -President Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1999 General Conference, "Why We Do Some of the Things We Do"


  • UTSU Logan, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:27 p.m.

    "For those who believe that the marriages should be valid simply because they came into effect during a small window of time during which they were legal (between two periods of illegality):
    Would you also agree that it would be wrong for the government to confiscate weapons that are deemed illegal if they were purchased during a time when the weapon was legal?"

    You seem to make an argument for the other team. The government can not confiscate weapons purchased in a window of legality, just like Utah government can not nullify those marriages happened before stay, in a window of legality.

    You example perfectly explains that governor and AG are on shaky grounds if they pursue annulment.

    @Billy Bob

    Like those Supreme Court justices who struck down a federal law--DOMA; struck down a Colorado referendum—amendment 2, Judge Shelby is just doing his job.

    And those gay marriages will stay valid, just like those CA gay marriages happened before prop. 8. If litigation is involved, that decision will be served as precedent.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:19 p.m.


    "You show up to get married in your pajamas and "running errands" clothes and you expect the state to recognize that kind of marriage? Maybe if the gays would take marriage more seriously and get married the right way the State would have some sympathy."

    I don't know if to laugh or cry with this very insensitive comment.

    Please explain: What would be the right way for an LGBT person to marry in Utah?

    While I was reading about how the couples rush to get married in their "pajamas" and "running errands" clothes, I thought on how badly these individuals wanted to get married and the humiliation of the whole situation. They knew that the governor of Utah wouldn't care for people but for religious principles, and they knew the window of opportunity would be short.

    They value marriage so much that they rush in "pajamas and errand clothes" to legally seal their relationship.

    May be after the SCOTUS, thanks to Utah, makes SSM legal in all of the United States we could make "pajamas and errand clothes" the official attire for our marriage, so we never forget what we had to go through.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    Hawkeye, here's the general rule:
    If a marriage was legal when it was performed, it's legal thereafter. If it was illegal when it was performed, it can be nullified.

    Billy Bob, you're incorrect about it being Judge Shelby's fault. He didn't immediately put in place a stay because Utah's lawyers didn't ask for it. In fact, during the stay hearing a few days later, the Judge asked the State's attorneys why they hadn't embedded their request into their brief at the initial hearing, like most attorneys would have done. When they hurriedly asked for a stay a few hours after the judgment, Shelby couldn't/wouldn't grant the stay because they used improper procedures. It was completely the fault of Utah's AG's office. The stay might have been granted by Shelby if it had been part of their original brief, or at least submitted with it, to be effectuated at the time of the judgment if the judgment had gone against them.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:02 p.m.

    The central argument of defenders of "traditional" marriage (including the state's appeal) rests on the idea of gender complementarity; an idea undercut by very well-respected research showing that gender is dimensional rather than categorical.

    If you don't know what this means you better educate yourselves so that when the state's arguments are rejected by the 10th circuit, you'll understand why.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:44 p.m.

    To "QuercusQate" yes, that is my point. How many gays are being driven out of the US or even Utah because of the recent ruling? Even if Utah's definition of marriage is upheld, will the gays be locked up in jail or fined large sums of money?

    The point is that there is a precedence of government changing marriage laws, in violation of the constitution, and then the government persecuted those that were affected.

    The gays, at most will not have their marriage licenses recognized. Doesn't that sound much nicer than spending 2 years doing hard labor and paying a large fine?

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:42 p.m.


    The reason people rushed to take advantage of Judge Shelby's ruling is because they know where they live......Utah. They know what the powers that be in Utah are like. It's sad that they had to rush for fear of bigotry winning, which for so long it had. Bigotry is winning again, but this time temporarily. When the loss finally comes, lets hope the powers that be are finally humbled as they are taught to be, but rarely are.

  • Steven S Jarvis Orem, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:35 p.m.

    Marriage is not a right. Marriage according to the courts is a special class designation with additional benefits. Each State has the power to regulate what those benefits are and who may enter into a marriage contract with the state. This is what the state needs to argue.

    Frankly, I don't know what all those benefits are as marriage contracts differ from state to state. Some of those benefits should be universally applied to all individuals. Pagan describes one episode where someone close to the deceased was denied being there at the hospital. Should that have happened? No!! If someone wants a close friend at their deathbed, and has done due diligence filling court documents to allow their wishes to be known who is unrelated by marriage should that be denied? No!!! That issue should have nothing to do with marriage. It may be time to take some benefits of marriage and more liberally apply them to everybody. Its also time the government gets out of the marriage business.

  • Ltrain St. George, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:35 p.m.

    @dwayne When the activist judges rule with your side about 90% of the time it's easy to not get "riled up." We did override, with super majority the "will" of 1 man. That's what happened in the original vote.

  • greenbird38 Provo, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    I guess the 10th Amendment does have some merit.

  • UteExpat New York, NY
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    BYU NATION, who are you to judge the way someone got married, what they were wearing, etc.? Your comment truly saddens me, as I suspect that you, like me, are a member of the LDS church. Who are we to throw stones at people for what they wear when they get married?

    I support marriage equality and think that Utah law will ultimately provide such equality. In the meantime, however, because the SCOTUS has issued a stay pending the 10th Circuit's review this is an acceptable move by the state. I don't like how it affects people and I wish the state would not pursue the appeal, but given the procedural posture of the case, it's an acceptable position. As an aside, I am glad to see the DesNews interview Judge Cassell for these articles.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:24 p.m.

    No doubt they'll get their "marriages back eventually. But for now, let's let due process of law play out in a fair and measured way rather than invalidating in one fail swoop the desires of the majority of Utahns to define "marriage" a certain way. States should have that right to define it, as the Supreme Court so said. One activist judge is not the voice of the state. Yes, Judge Shelby caused this problem and I believe he knew exactly what he was doing and the chaos that would result. Gay marriage supporters should go cry on his shoulder.

    What kind of governor- elected by the people would do anything else? He has integrity for allowing the voice of the people prevail at the present until this works it's was through courts and votes in the proper manner.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    What unbelievably petty vindictiveness, for this governor to demean a segment of his own citizens is this manner. I doubt the governor is aware of how this makes the state look in the eyes of the rest of America.

    It matters not.... next month the 10th Appeals Court will uphold the Shelby decision, and that will be that. Most reasonable legal firms know this, and that's why the Utah AG is having trouble finding counsel outside the state to take on this case - law firms know this is unattainable, they know it's a complete loss. Utah simple needs to get over this.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:11 p.m.


    Thanks for your response. I assume that you are referring to the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which applies to the legislative branches of states and not to court decisions. I'm sure that you would agree that the fact that it does not apply to court decisions is particularly relevant given the judicial nature of this issue.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:02 p.m.


    Thank you for your response. Although the comparison isn't perfect, the matter is a question of law. Can a the effects of a legal choice be undone with a change in the law? Alternately, can a contract become unenforceable if laws change at a later time?

    A great comparison would be to examine how the federal government treated polygamous relationships that were established prior to the practice becoming illegal in the mid-1800s. Were the contracts honored?

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    Congratulations, Judge Shelby. The blame for this confusion and any resulting heartbreak or pain is squarely on your shoulders. An immediate stay should have been granted. It has not made it all the way through the judicial process and quite frankly at the moment we don’t know how the Supreme Court will ultimately decide.

    Although I do technically not support homosexual marriage, homosexual marriage is not the biggest issue for me in this case. I won't personally be hurt if homosexual marriage is legal as long as it ends there and doesn't interfere with religious freedom (it seems likely that homosexual rights activists want to try to interfere with religious freedoms which is why I oppose homosexual marriage unless it comes with a guarantee that Churches won't be required to perform homosexual marriages on request).

    The biggest issues at stake are states rights (if it is upheld they will be diminished) and if judges should be able to supersede the will of the people on a constitutionally ambiguous issue. Maybe ambiguous isn't the right word though, as it is pretty clear that the 14th amendment does not apply to homosexual marriage.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:52 p.m.


    "To "QuercusQate" look up the Edmunds Act, and read some history about how early Utah pioneers were treated when that was passed. The gays are being treated very well in comparison."

    So....basically what you're saying is that your forefathers were treated poorly, so therefore as long as we treat other not quite as poorly that it is an improvement, right? Gives a whole new meaning to "equal treatment."

  • BYU NATION Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    Seriously folks,

    You show up to get married in your pajamas and "running errands" clothes and you expect the state to recognize that kind of marriage? Maybe if the gays would take marriage more seriously and get married the right way the State would have some sympathy.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:49 p.m.


    For those who believe that the marriages should be valid simply because they came into effect during a small window of time during which they were legal (between two periods of illegality):

    Would you also agree that it would be wrong for the government to confiscate weapons that are deemed illegal if they were purchased during a time when the weapon was legal?


    Yes! Congress is expressly prohibited from passing an ex post facto law.

  • well informed Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    This is the right thing to do regardless of where one stands on SSM.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    Hawkeye,I don't whether or not it would be legal to confiscate weapons, but guns are not families and people. Guns are a purchase, not a contract. NON-SEQUITUR.

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    For those who believe that the marriages should be valid simply because they came into effect during a small window of time during which they were legal (between two periods of illegality):

    Would you also agree that it would be wrong for the government to confiscate weapons that are deemed illegal if they were purchased during a time when the weapon was legal?

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    To "RedShirt:"
    My great-grandparents on both sides of my family were impacted by the Edmunds Act. They had to move to Mexico as a result. That's all the more reason for Utah to behave differently in the case of gays.

  • Chris A Salt Lake , UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    Order restored for the time being (let us pray for the other court sees correctly). This is a win for the Family!

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    Marriages which were legal are now not being recognized? So if Utah changes its marriage laws in the future, for example saying that any marriages for people over 40 years of age won't be recognized even though they were legal at the time, that would pass muster? No, I think Utah has overreached here.

    I still think it is a little ironic that Utah is such a stickler for "traditional" marriage in light of its background and some ongong sympathy for plural marriage that exists.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    To "QuercusQate" look up the Edmunds Act, and read some history about how early Utah pioneers were treated when that was passed. The gays are being treated very well in comparison.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    'That judge'

    'Judge Rules Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Is Unconstitutional..' - ABC News - By Jake Tapper - 01/08/10

    'Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News 02/07/12

    "Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.'

    'Federal judge OVERTURNS Utah Same-sex marriage Ban' - By Emiley Morgan and Marjorie Cortez KSL - 12/22/13


    This was only one, judge.

    That judge.

    Not the other, 15 judges who have also made similar rulings.

    Just the one, judge.

    What I cannot believe is people who continue to make the same ill-informed claim, and see no issue of being so willfully ignorant.

    Let the lawsuits begin.

    If Utah has no money to kick 1.3 million off of food stamps, but has $ 2 million dollars to fight against marriage equality.

    Then I'm sure they can explain to a judge why they re denying legal rights and protections.

    Of legally wed couples in their own state.

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    The conservative religious right sing and dance to the Constitution all the time... but when a Federal Judge makes a ruling they do not agree with, based on the Constitution they are outraged.
    @Cats located Somewhere in Time, UT, the mess is being created by the folks that want the Constitution to be interpreted by them to serve their purposes. I'm guessing, and I may be wrong, but I'm thinking you are part of the problem here.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    I think the State of Utah is on shaky legal ground here. It was ridiculous enough when they didn't recognize legal SS marriages from other states, but how can it not recognize legal SS marriages from Utah itself?! This ruling exposes the unconstitutionality and animus of Utah's laws through and through. The State's attorneys themselves, in the first hearing before Shelby, said Amendment 3 was not based upon animus. Ha!

    When Utah recognizes all legal marriages from other states, including those it does not itself allow (first cousin or young teenagers) and ONLY excludes legal marriages between SS couples, we can only conclude it is based on animus.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    That judge, with his determination to enact law and implement his own activist agenda, has created a real mess. I can't believe he has been so irresponsible in his actions.

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    This decision made by the "Governors Office" is cowardly at best and quite frankly a purely political move to placate the Eagle Forum Right wing of the Republican Party.
    Marriages were performed with legal Marriage Certificates issued by elected officials in accordance to law. Those marriages should be recognized under the rule of law followed if someone is arrested for committing a crime before a change in a law but the actual arrest being made after the law change.... that person is tried on the basis of the old law, not the new.
    By the same standard, the Marriages were performed during a time of legal standing and should/must be recognized.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    'SALT LAKE CITY — State recognition of Utah's same-sex newlyweds is on hold based on counsel from the Utah Attorney General's office, Gov. Gary Herbert's chief of staff said Wednesday in a memo to the governor's cabinet.'

    *'Report details inequities for kids of gay parents' - By David Crary - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/25/11

    'Carrigan is among a growing multitude of American children possibly more than 1.2 million of them being raised by gay and lesbian parents, often WITHOUT all the LEGAL PROTECTIONS afforded to mom-and-dad households.'

    *'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

    '...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'

    And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information...

    Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.

    They were together for 18 years.

    Would anyone else like to fabricate again…

    how spending $2 million of my Utah tax dollars is 'not' bringing any harm to LGBT families?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    It is an affront to everyone who got married.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    It's the correct decision based on the current standing of the law, but the law is unconstitutional and should be repealed and it is the fault of Herbert, Reyes, and their side that equality is being denied.

  • ChristoperB Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:52 a.m.


  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    Well, that's going to bust a bubble or two... Can't believe this board hasn't already lit up.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    Let the lawsuits begin. After all, the Utah taxpayer has deep pockets for defending bigotry.