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
Macfarren
Dallas, TX

Marriage is not a constitutional right. Nor is it a federally-regulated institution. As a legal contract it is an entity officially granted and sanctioned by the state,and as such, is regulated by the state.

Check the Utah Statues. There are numerous restrictions on marriage in addition to those relating to gender. It is most certainly not open to anyone. Close relatives may not marry, nor minors among many others. People are free to 'live' anyway they like, they can in fact, even call it a 'marriage' if it makes them feel better, but receiving state sanction for that relationship is an altogether different matter.

It is sickeningly ironic that Eric Holder refuses to enforce federal immigration laws, but he feels he has the power to personally over-ride state-established marriage restrictions.

Are we living in an alternate reality?

Elections mean things. Make the next one count.

Big Bubba
Herriman, UT

I predict that half to three quarters of those marriages will end in divorce over the next few years and that the supreme court will recognize Utah's right to self-govern on this matter. That will put us back to normal in the not too distant future.

Wolfgang57
Salt Lake City, UT

Marriage is a contract and those old enough to enter into a contractual arrangement, and who do so while not under duress should be allowed to do so. The difference between same sex marriage and polygamy is that same sex marriage is not entered into under duress (or it would be void if such were true in a particular case) while polygamy is entered into under duress (religious and and/or physical threats) and is void. Same sex marriage involves the human rights of humans and can not be decided on a state-by-state basis any more so than can be freedom of speech.

poyman
Lincoln City, OR

"Special Rights"? No pagan, Any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man... Such union (marriage) cannot be denied because of skin color or ethnic origin and it cannot be denied because of one's religion or faith, and it also can't be denied due to one's age if that individual is under 40 or younger than the age of the majority (without parental consent)...

But it can be denied if a person wants to marry a close relative (in some states), or if they want to marry an animal that the person is particularly fond of, or it can also be denied if the person is a Yankee fan instead of a Red Sox fan, or if the marriage is between two individuals of the same sex. In short, it can be denied to anyone who is not in a protected class...

"Choice" does not put one in a protected class and right now, many parts of the world believe that being Gay is a "Choice" or a "Behavior"... And Utah is one of those places.

Billy Bob
Salt Lake City, UT

I have been impressed with Herbert and Reyes so far in this case. They has been fair to all,acted in the legal best interest, and stand in stark contrast to the horrible way Judge Shelby handled things. It is the right (legal) thing to not recognize same sex marriages in Utah until the case has worked its way all the way through the judicial system and the Supreme Court decides. It also is the right (legal) thing to issue certificates to those who were married during the time it was legal, so that it can be recognized in states where it is legal (and in Utah if the Supreme ultimately rules that way). It also is the right thing to defend the voice of the people and Utah's constitution. I think it is clear that Herbert and Reyes are willing to set aside their personal views on the SSM issue if that is what the Supreme Court decides, but at the moment they are doing the right thing in defending the voters in Utah and the Utah constitution.

Ranch
Here, UT

@elisabeth;

Civil unions are not allowed right along with marriage in Amendment 3.

@Midvaliean;

I don't want to be married in your temple and I don't care if god recognized my marriage or not. It isn't any of his business, it is between the US government and the couple married. I find it extremelely distasteful that the LDS church doesn't encourage their members with non-member family or "unworthy" family to have a civil wedding first and then go to the temple after. That's how they do it in other countries.

CB
Salt Lake City, UT

Gee 'Pagan gets all tied up because of Plural marriage. Do you not know that when that was practiced in the LDS Church it was legal and when it became illegal the church stopped performing such marriages. It was after the government sent a judge here from the east, (who abandoned his
wife and children and brought his 'mistress' to sit beside him) that members of the church were
imprisoned for continuing to support their wives and children they had been legally married too, before the law was changed. Anyone who performed/married plural marriages where disciplined by
the church losing membership or being dis-fellowship.
'Midvaliean' if the gays were content to get married and leave the activism out of it, I would
be more than happy to allow them an empty piece of paper. But this is not their agenda.
They want to teach my grandchildren the litany of their lifestyle, encourage experiment (this I am
personally aware of) . Take away the livelihood of those who do not want to participate in celebrating their lifestyle and what they might consider as bad behavior. It's their agenda
that I will vote against, not their relationship.

MikeyB26
West Jordan, UT

I'm a white, conservative, heterosexual, Mormon man... I don't understand why we're having such a problem with same sex marriage. I have friends and family members who are gay and I want them to be happy! I want them to have the same potential for happiness that I have. Why not? I hear a bunch of talk about historic definitions of marriage etc... but why are some so vehement against this? Is it because it's a sin? Well... guess what guys... I have my own stuff to worry about. I don't feel like I have the right to tell someone else they can't do something because it's a sin. As long as it doesn't harm me (and let's be honest... it DOESN'T harm me or my wife and kids), what is the hang-up? Semantics?

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

This is a horrible decision. The only way to respect the law of Utah is to not give any recognition to these fake marriages. Marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else.

desert
Potsdam, 00

Is to be kind to each other?
Was Judge Shelby a kind man in his legal actions ?
Was this Stay an unkind action ?

The legal interpretation of marriage is as dry and cold as anything could be,
but either way, is it to be kind ?

Is nature kind to us, the weather, sickness, earthquakes and landslides ?
It should be a very normal and natural attitude to be kind to gay and other SSM people,
but that is not the issue!

The issue is to secure a lasting future for our children, and that will be trampled down again as so often, because we are adults and selfishness is in the interest of adults.
The natural man is an enemy to God, and will it be always, unless man become as little children and humble and submissive to God.Fools will always mourn.

This kind approach to everybody is misleading us into a new era, where our children will have less rights, more persecutions and less health.
Purity does not come by marriage alone, it comes by the people to be pure in heart,
but that is immpossible if you deny the divine intent of creation. No end of story.

EthanX
Moab, UT

To David
Centerville, UT

Pagan,

Historically (thousands of years) marriage has been between a man and a woman. The LGBT community knows this. They know it when they enter into a relationship. It is no surprise.

==

For hundreds of years Christians persecuted Jews and other Christian sects for whom they did not approve. Not to mention the way certain demographics have been treated historically, even in America.

Tradition is no substitute for rectitude.

nycut
New York, NY

@Cats said:
“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!”

We recognize that Utahns are citizens of the United States first and of Utah second. Seeing the particular inequities dealt to all who cross its borders is an insult to fair-minded people everywhere, not just those in Utah.

It's a close contest, but "leave if you don’t like it here" and "go back where you came from" could each easily be Utah’s motto.

Some day, expressing something other than a provincial, self-centered point of view won’t automatically trigger the assumption that the speaker is of some alien origin. Until then, Utah will have to settle for being "a pretty, great state," but only for its natural beauty.

Utah's signature “family values” have been running gay people out of their families, jobs, homes, religion and state for far too long. Lives have been diminished and destroyed.

It's time to do better.

D Mike
Rochester, NY

Why is it that one of the biggest conditions put upon Utah in becoming a state in the Union -- marriage between one man and one wife -- is being turned against them today? Utah is just being consistent in its original agreement with the Union.

The real issue is that religious marriage ceremonies can provide intangible marriage benefits that go beyond what the government offers or even cares about offering. Such an example is marriage for eternity. Government should protect freedom of religion to define additional benefits of what marriage can and can't offer. Gay couples should be allowed to have civil unions with full government benefits, including tax benefits, welfare benefits, hospital visits, raising children, and more. That shouldn't be the issue. The Supreme Court should recognize marriage is an ancient practice beyond any definition of mere benefits government can come up with. Give gay couples their equal civil rights, but leave religions the freedom to determine what benefits they can give a couple and who is eligible to receive such a marriage. Marriage is by definition a religious ordinance. Get government out of defining and re-defining marriage!!

OnlytheCross
Bakersfield, CA

From the Biblical Christian perspective, any deviation from God's Will and perfect plan will cause heartache and ultimate conflict. Many here misquote the words of Jesus re His desire for our "happiness". All are free to believe and live as they choose; all are not free to impose their interpretations on others. Quoting all His words on a topic, not just favorites, is the honest way for a Christian interested in full disclosure.

1Timothy states every ban for believers, from sexual impurities to gossip and gluttony. Obviously the list is long and meant to protect from the effects of infidelity, "sodomy", out-wedlock/unprotected children, etc. Post-moderns have only rearranged the deck chairs by removing certain social stigmas: The world still suffers the effects of leaving God's Will. Prisons are full of examples.

@Quaker: Your honesty in differentiating your beliefs vis-a-vis traditional Biblical perspective is refreshing.
@Cats: This issue transcends Utah or any state. But I feel your pain in the reverse: I can't get an active LDS to answer what they would do if their prophet reversed his marriage stance.
@MikeyB26: Reading scripture makes the difference in what you'll undertstand.

sid 6.7
Holladay, UT

I have a question for the proponents of Amendment 3. Why do we even have it? After over a 100 years of the state Constitution not having Marriage defined as between only one Man and one Woman why all the sudden in 2004 would we think to change it?

To me the answer is obvious but I am curious what the proponents of Amendment 3 think about the reasons and it's timing. I get it if it were in the early 1900's and the state felt that it had made a mistake but 2004? Wasn't 2004 about the time the rumblings of prop 8 started in California not to mention other states who were considering legalizing Gay Marriage?

I am happy for the AG's decision and I hope it only but one of few more stepping stones on the path to equality.

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

It is interesting to see the Federal government/Department of Justice clearly does not agree with the Utah governor decision not to recognize their own marriages. The Fed just announced the following:

sid 6.7
Holladay, UT

Worf:

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

I whole heartedly disagree with your statement.

*Would you not agree the Crucifixion of Christ was bad in the beginning? Did it not turn out to be good for all humanity?

*Have you ever herd of the statement "Fiction Becomes Fact"? This happens a lot in the Sciences.

*Have you never witnessed an evil wretch who sees none of the light of Christ turn to him in their hour of need and be transformed into an inspiration to others?

*Have you never witnessed a Mother and Father calm their dying child by telling them it is going to be OK knowing the child is doomed? Have you ever seen that very child beat death and become healthy living a full and happy life and being referred to as a miracle? I have.

Saguaro
Scottsdale, AZ

@Macfarren "Marriage is not a constitutional right."

Well, no, that's not what Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in 1967 for a unanimous Supreme Court in the unanimous Loving decision. You can look it up.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@poyman
"it can also be denied if the person is a Yankee fan instead of a Red Sox fan"

Well yeah, gotta raise children with basic morals after all (heh, as a Red Sox fan I couldn't resist).

@MikeyB26
"what is the hang-up?"

Some people think "gay" is contagious, I guess. Actually it's kind of the same logic behind the Utah curtain. The theory is kids seeing alcohol makes them want it, and kids seeing same-sex couples makes them want that.

@TheTrueVoice
"It is interesting to see the Federal government/Department of Justice clearly does not agree with the Utah governor decision not to recognize their own marriages."

The difference is that federal law post-DOMA requires accepting all marriages, including the same-sex marriages in Utah that are sorta in limbo, but Utah law currently prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages thanks to Amendment 3 still being in effect with the stay. It's kinda weird, but I believe both state and federal are following the law correctly (even if I don't like it for the state one).

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihuahua, 00

Neal A. Maxwell says it perfectly.

"But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions.

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had "never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, or political life"This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ."

to comment

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