Comments about ‘State recognition of same-sex marriage 'on hold,' governor's office says’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 8 2014 4:40 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

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?

Instereo
Eureka, UT

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.

sharrona
layton, UT

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.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

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.

katy
salt lake city, ut

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.

I M LDS 2
Provo, UT

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.

Billy Bob
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

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?

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

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.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@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.

firstamendment
Lehi, UT

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.

to comment

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