Quantcast

Comments about ‘Attorney General Reyes directs counties to give certificates to married same-sex couples’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 9 2014 7:30 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
worf
Mcallen, TX

* cannot make bad into good
* wrong cannot become right
* evil does not transform into good
* a lie does not become truth

No spin, majority, wishing, judge, or certificate can change these things.

After all that's been said, and done-

Gay marriage is what it is.

pleblian
salt lake city, utah

Mr. Reyes,

You know as well as anyone that the Governor's move to "freeze" any process for those marriage certificates already issued is unconstitutional.
The state of Utah issued them pursuant a federal ruling that they are constitutional. While many disagree with either the outcome or reasoning of that Judge's opinion...it remains the law of our district until the 10th Circuit or Supreme Court say otherwise.

You, as a member of the bar, and the foremost representative of law in the state, simply must follow your duty to law and instruct the governor that those licenses already issued are due the full faith and credit of all state and federal benefits and rights of a marriage.

I would be disappointed if somebody didn't step in and correct the governor on this. It is unlawful conduct by the state.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@David: I do not question your belief in God. You should not question mine.

Suffice it to say that Quakers have a much different theology than you do. I can't get too deep in the weeds without making the moderators uncomfortable, but you're free to do a little research on the web if you're interested.

There is only one God, though, so no matter how we approach the subject, we should agree that we're agreed on that, at least.

As for what God condones, I think Quakers at least think we're in tune with that. As a non-hierarchical denomination, we're rather "hands on" with the Lord, or in our language, we live "in the Light."

Our beautiful and mature children, high school seniors, met in retreat in 2005 at Powell House and developed a wonderful Minute on the subject of sexual relations and sexuality. It includes, "Sexuality is an outward expression of love that comes from deep within. It includes deep connections that we have with each other filled with love, trust, respect and the deepest sense of the Divine." I encourage you to look up the rest. (Just google the quote.)

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

@Cats: Perhaps non-Utahns are interested in this case because Utah will be responsible for making marriage equality the law of the land.

Why? Because the state wants to push this issue to SCOTUS, which will only prove to be their complete undoing. It virtually guarantees the upholding of the Shelby ruling, insofar as the Shelby ruling is based upon ironclad Windsor logic, and not emotional dogma. This case is about constitutional law only, it has nothing to do with procreation, 'family unit', 'tradition', or any other dogmatic deflection that doesn't even begin to pass the rational basis test.

It is little wonder the Utah AG is having trouble finding an outside state law firm to take on this case... no one want to be associated with an non-winnable court case of such far-reaching importance.

My prediction: the 10th Appeals Court will uphold the Shelby ruling, and when Utah appeals to SCOTUS, they won't hear the case, and that will be that. Then states under the 10th District (like Kansas and Oklahoma!) are immediately subject to the same ruling.

And that's why this case is so closely followed by others.

elisabeth
American Fork, UT

"The Deseret News does do a good job of noting Utah voters’ strong support for civil unions, pointing out that the BYU poll suggests Utah voters support civil unions in greater numbers than the general population does. That being the case, it simply doesn’t make sense to frame Utah as anti-equality, claiming that “72 percent of Utah voters oppose gay marriage.” Reporting on poll questions in this way is misleading, and obscures the push toward greater support for the LGBT community — including within conservative communities such as BYU — that is evident across the United States." New Poll Misrepresents Attitudes On Gay Marriage In Utah think progress

Midvaliean
MIDVALE, UT

LDS belief is that you must be married in the temple for God to acknowledge this and to have an eternal marriage. So what do you care if people are married outside of the temple? Your faith basically nullifies 99% of marriages on this planet after death anyways. I'm keenly aware of this since I won't be attending my sisters actually wedding inside the temple. Only the reception afterwards.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Cats
"Why are they so concerned about what goes on in Utah since they don't live here? Interesting!"

Utah got heavily involved in California during the Prop 8 debate.

@Meckofahess
For someone who is looking for being "fair to all" your support of letting businesses discriminate in who they serve as customers is completely contrary to that idea.

Russell Spencer
Boise, ID

Shorter Pagan: "Don't bring obvious historical facts into this discussion!" (she cannot respond to them with anything other than circular reasoning and begging the question).

It's not a "lie" that the institution of marriage is millennia old; the institution predates recorded history. And Pagan's argument that Utah's polygamous past negates the requirement of gender complementarianism essential to marriage is a total non-sequitur. Whether it's Man A with Woman A, Man B with Woman B, Man C with Woman C, etc., or Man A with Woman A, Man A with Woman B, Man A with Woman C, etc., we're still talking about a man and a woman.

A side note: It is, however, a lie to say that "traditionally women were considered property in marriage." In reality, marriage was seen as the transfer of a person--not "property"--from her father's household to her husband's household, making her husband responsible for her care and protection. It's a tradition most still follow in form (if not in substance) today as they leave their father's last name and take their husband's when they get married.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

In view of the fact that other states and now the federal government recognize those marriages, it is only fair to make sure the paperwork is completed. A similar ruling was made in California. Its the right thing to do.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

Schnee: Actually, Californians got involved with Prop 8. There are a lot of California Mormons. They, along with many others, got involved with Prop 8 which they had a perfect right to do. Of course, one gay judge overturned the will of the people in that case, too.

I just find it interesting that so many out-of-state posters are so emotionally involved with Utah and what goes on here. One might almost get the impression that they have been assigned. Gosh, that couldn't happen could it?

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'@pagan... Sorry, but you're wrong... Being Gay does not put you in a "protected class"

Neither does being straight. And if you want marriage to only apply to heterosexauls than you advocate…

special rights.

'Lastly, I doubt you really mean to imply that gay marriage will help solve a perceived over-population problem. Really?'

No. But since we are at 7 billion humans, the claim that gay marriage will 'stop' procreation is a proven falsehood. Now, about all those children put up for adoption by 'traditional' families….?

'1. Marriage has been defined differently by various cultures and has evolved continuously over the 100,000 or so years of humans existing together in organized communal populations.'

Once again, Utah only starting recognizing marriage involving monogamy (two people only) in 1890. You are not on the 'right' side of history…

if you have to lie about the numbers.

'...most of the pro-gay marriage posters on these articles are from out of state.'

*'Mormon Church agrees to pay small fine for mistake that led to late report of contributions in Prop. 8 campaign' - By Scott Taylor - DSNews - 06/09/10


LDS persons make up less than 2% in California.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Badgerbadger

Legalizing SSM has no effect on your freedom of religion, speech, or thought. You don't have to participate, but you can't discriminate just because it's different from what you believe.

Disgusted American
deptford, NJ

David

Centerville, UT

- your family - just like YOUR Marriage is What YOU MAKE IT! No one else - YOU!!!! why cant you people get it thru your thick skulls? It's just like life...IT'S WHAT - YOU MAKE IT!!!!!

jimhale
Eugene, OR

The competence of the attorney general is suspect.
His reasoning seems to be: Utah's county clerks should recognize that those unions took place. And other states should recognize those as valid. But the rest of Utah should not.
A more rational, consistent decision would have been to say to everyone: we don't know the status of these ceremonies is until the Supreme Court rules. Therefore no one should do anything but root for their favorite appeal court lawyers.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'There has never been a single child born without a mother and a father.'

Octo-mom. 8 children created from invitro fertilization.

i.e. no father.

If you are going to have a reason to be against gay marriage…

at least make it a real one.

Saguaro
Scottsdale, AZ

@Henelson "The Declaration of Independence..."that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Words written by Thomas Jefferson, who enjoyed a sexual relationship outside of marriage with a teen-age slave. Perhaps not surprisingly, he did not write "pursuit of Money" or "pursuit of Religion." If we could all remember that the nation's founders endorsed Happiness, maybe we could agree to let others find their own way to Happiness, as we find ours.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

David
Every single individual in America has the exact same, equal opportunity to marry someone under the law…in a relationship comprised of a man and a woman.
KJK
Every single individual in 1950s Mississippi had the exact same, equal opportunity to marry someone under the law…in a relationship comprised of a man and a woman of the same race. Subjective restrictions have no place in limiting rights per ancient and modern scripture.

Tekakaromatagi
If marriage is not about childbirth, then why are brother-sister marriages banned? … If marriage is only to celebrate an important commitment made between two people, why don't we give tax breaks to roommates? Or if someone moves in with his aunt? Or his best friend from high school? Or her brother after her divorce?
KJK
It's one thing to not allow a marriage that would likely produce kids that would burden society (though we allow people with congenital diseases to marry), but another to disallow one that couldn't, otherwise seniors couldn't remarry. We don’t give tax breaks because the pairings you list have no legal commitment to each other. Legal commitments benefit society. Banning SSM therefore objectively hurts society.

Anti Government
Alpine, UT

Well, unlike our President who chooses to selectively enforce the laws of our country based on his whim, this individual appears to understand the rule of law.

Can't say I agree with what happened in the first place regarding the original ruling but at least he is clearly not playing agenda politics unlike our pathetic excuse for a President and his slimy AG.

IMAN
Marlborough, MA

@Cats

"I find it very interesting that it seems most of the pro-gay marriage posters on these articles are from out of state. Why are they so concerned about what goes on in Utah since they don't live here? Interesting!"

Because equality is guaranteed under the constitution to ALL Americans. Even if they live in Utah. Very interesting indeed!!!

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

@Meckofahess
Here are my responses:
1.Ridiculed? No. It's free speech. Jailed? Yes…but that isn’t happening.
2.No, because they voluntarily opened a business in a jurisdiction that protects gays. They agreed to obey the law as a condition of getting a business license.
3.The Catholic orphanage closed because it was taking government money and the government required them to treat all equally. They CHOSE to close rather than obey the law.
4.This issue affects far more than SSM. Many private and public organizations forbid members/employees from expressing controversial opinions in public fora. The courts are filled with such cases by people who were fired for it.
5.Obviously and the group should be prosecuted.
6.Christians need to know the law and should feel free to express and defend themselves but must be willing to risk the consequences of their choices. If they choose silence rather than face the legal consequences of their legal actions, that is their choice. I choose not to tell my wife that her cooking stinks rather than face the consequences of doing so. Am I being persecuted?
7.No, because all people are free to express their opinions.

to comment

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