Comments about ‘Court to allow Utah lengthier 'brief' in same-sex marriage appeal’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 30 2014 1:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Denver, CO

@Mom of Six

I believe that moms and dads, once they understand the inevitability that some of their children will be gay, will stop treating them differently. What's a parent to do when they hear their teenager's tearful confession, "Mom and dad, I think I'm gay?" Even though only five percent or so of any given population is gay - 1:20, a middle of the road estimate - we are talking about many, many families. The choice here is not one of substitution i.e. that a straight couple will have a child instead - the State's intention is that the child is not to be born to or raised by a gay married couple. The State's enforcement is through discriminatory social contracts (banning gay marriage) and equally discriminatory economic policies. If you're child, "comes out" to you, the answer is always, "I love you just the way you are." It's easy enough to research the Massachusetts gay-marriage prototype, it's ten years now. Why speculate on the outcome? It's hard to argue with facts - even with 24000 words.

get her done
Bountiful, UT

More words do not mean more truth.


AZKID "I was appalled when I recently saw a graphic showing where gay "marriage" was fully legal. There was Utah in blue, along with the liberal states in the Northeast and a few others. Utah was, plainly and simply, targeted by the gay activists..."

What? Do you realize that only Maine, Maryland, and Washington were voter approved?
Six of those "liberal" states you call out had laws against SSM. It was the courts that overturned the law. 39 states all with laws for one man & one woman nearly 4/5 of the country.

They want you to think that popular decision is changing. Don't fall for it.


Laura Bilington "And neither Iowa nor Minnesota (who sent Michelle Bachmann to Congress--albeit with 51% of the vote) are hotbeds of liberalism."

Correct. Michelle Bachmann was elected by the people for the people. SSM was forced on Iowa by the courts against their own law.

Kearns, UT

"Tell that to the bakery shop owner in New Mexico."

If I were a bakery shop owner, I would focus on doing my best work for every customer that comes through my doors; it's not my business telling others I will not do business with them because I disagree with their choice of marriage partner. I would bake and decorate the best cake possible and have it delivered to the proper place with extra time for the happy couple to enjoy their day.

I don't see how the baker is actually participating in the wedding any more than he/she would participate in any of the birthday parties, baptisms, bar mitzvahs, showers, bachelor parties, or myriad of other events for which that they make cakes and other baked goods. Personally, I believe these some of these "protests of conscious" have been planned out in advance to gain publicity for the anti-marriage-equality folks to have some talking points. It's just a scare tactic to divert people away from the real issues of equality.


Laura Bilington "And if you read the DOMA arguments, you already know that civil unions aren’t equal."

And if you read the DOMA arguments, you already know that DOMA was a Federal law over a state issue. There was no ruling on civil unions being equal.

Cowboy Dude

Really??? "If I were a bakery shop owner..."

And there it goes. It's not really about marriage is it? It's about forcing your will on others. "If you are a bakery owner than you must do business as if I were bakery shop owner."

By the way, the bakery shop owner was in Washington. It is a photographer in New Mexico that actually WAS forced to participate.

Provo, UT

How interesting to see the remarks of those who seem so anxious to inform me about what I am "welcome" to. It is unfortunate that promoters of secularism seem not to understand that they are not in charge of granting such permission, even within the presumptions of a pluralistic society. I believe we still live under a democratic government where the rule of law prevails. Under the US Constitution, any laws not specifically circumscribed therein are rightfully the domain of States, and belong to the people. This principle has been tested and reaffirmed in the Supreme Court numerous times.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Mom of Six

The Constitution exists so the majority can't force their will upon the minority. Otherwise slavery would still be a reality and you wouldn't be able to own land, or vote.

SSM does nothing to you, or your marriage. They deserve the same rights you and I enjoy.

Kearns, UT

"And there it goes. It's not really about marriage is it? It's about forcing your will on others."

Actually, the baker, photographer, or florist who refuses to do business with anyone based on their convictions are the ones attempting to impose their will on others. I have been to many LDS temple marriages, and not once did we consider to photographer as being part of the wedding party. In fact, the photographers, cake decorators, and florists weren't in any of any wedding pictures that I have seen. They were contract workers that provided a service for the couples getting married.

I know it's difficult to admit that sometimes we need to be compelled to treat others better than we are often treated. We don't have to agree with how other people live, but we cannot deny them a service that we offer every other customer because of that disagreement. Sometimes we get too hung up on being right about moral issues that we forget about the basic principle of treating others with dignity. Let's treat others with kindness and leave the judgments to God.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Chris B...As a fellow Catholic we both know one cannot cherry pick which commandments and Gospels we adhere too. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone". Are you ready to cast that first stone my friend? Personally, I am not.

Constitution Is King
Brigham, UT

Half of the money being used to pay these bigoted one-sided heavily biased lawyers is coming from Utah tax payers who support same-sex marriage equality. The state should have hired an independent attorney who had no biases in the case (one way or the other), but who had a high level of US Constitutional Law experience. An unbiased, independent attorney would have said "I have no biases in this case, one way or the other, I'm just here to make certain that this case gets a constitutionally fair hearing. It doesn't matter which side wins as long as the process is constitutionally sound and the judges are informed as well as possible in order for them to make a fair decision.".... Shame on Utah leadership for employing a highly biased attorney using OUR tax dollars.

Marco Luxe
Los Angeles, CA

1. An appeal must by law be focused on an allegation of legal error in the court below. Requesting added space to present "vast amounts of social science material to fully... explain how traditional marriage serves Utah's interests" is inappropriate for an appellate court. UT had a chance to argue social science at the trial court level, but failed to show how it is rationally related to the legal issue.

2. "Explain[ing] how traditional marriage serves Utah's interests" misses the point entirely. No one says raditional marriage doesn't serve Utah's interest [in stable families(?)]. UT must argue how restricting a civil contract from a minority group promotes a legitimate government interest. How does barring Ann and Beth's civil marriage provide any benefit at all to anyone else, especially since they're already living together and raising a family? This is not a zero sum game. We can all win with greater equality & respect.

3. The outside lawyers are showing a poor quality of work. I guess politics demands this waste of money and resources. Utah's taxpayers will thus soon ensure marriage equality for all six states of the 10th Circuit.

Idaho Falls, ID

To Really- " Personally, I believe these some of these "protests of conscious" have been planned out in advance to gain publicity for the anti-marriage-equality folks to have some talking points. It's just a scare tactic to divert people away from the real issues of equality."

Seriously? I hope you're kidding. If not, you better re-think that. These people lost their business- their livelihood. They didn't plan it out on purpose. They are not martyrs for the conservative cause. That's a bogus line of thought.

To Laura Bilington- MN is liberal save for a few pockets of conservatives. It's been carried by the dems in the last 4 elections. Minneapolis and St. Paul are very liberal. I lived there for over a decade.

Bluffdale, UT

Florist in Washington, baker in Oregon. I'm not being trivial, it's just there are more examples of the courts getting into our daily activity.

And it is even more bizarre. Same Sex Marriage is illegal in Oregon, yet it is illegal not to support it.

The people and the courts going in different directions again. "just go along with it, it does not affect you" you gullible Americans.

Kearns, UT

"They are not martyrs for the conservative cause."

Even if they weren't planned in advance, they have become martyrs for the cause. Just think of the organizations and talk show hosts that are using these cases to fight any proposed laws to promote equality. We have some of those organizations using these few--and they really are few--cases to scare people into fighting an anti-discrimination bill here in Utah. It would be interesting to see if these people who lost their businesses because they made poor business decisions are receiving money from some of these foundations.

What it really comes down to is the people lost their businesses because they made poor decisions--they chose to discriminate against somebody, and word got out. They suffered the consequences of their choices. Perhaps others have learned a valuable lesson and will treat all of their customers with more dignity and reap the rewards for their kinder way of doing business.


Before there was a Supreme Court, before there was a Constitution, before there was a Revolution, before we had a country, before any of us were born, since the dawn of time, there has been marriage. It has always meant the union of a man and a woman. Call any other union whatever you will, but do not call it "marriage". Throughout the ages, sexual license has not required that the definition of marriage be changed. You can do whatever you want; no one is stopping you; you have that right. But do not destroy marriage by calling something "marriage" that is not marriage. Marriage will never go away, just as God and Religion will never go away. Civilizations come may and go. Governments may come and go. But no legislature will ever succeed in getting rid of God and Religion, from which came true marriage. That's why we as a people, and as individuals, are still here to discuss this. Everyone one of us was born of a woman united with a man.


Who on planet earth is so presumptuous as to believe that they have the authority to put asunder what God has joined together, namely, a man and a woman in marriage? No lawmaker, nor king, president, ruler, nor magistrate has authority to change the definition of marriage. God alone has that power.


The state's attempt to re-define marriage is a breach of the understood "wall" separating church and state in America. Marriage is a religious institution that has pre-dated and out-lasted all states, even those states which protected religion. The state lacks the power and authority to re-define marriage, which it did not create. Churches do not have to recognize any civil union as marriage, though many have chosen to recognize the civil union of a man and a woman as marriage, and the state has called it by that name because of tradition. Anyone is free to invent their own religion, but they cannot force others to accept it. The state needs to keep to it's own side of the wall, and remember it's place. All the rest is just quibbling and useless debate. Leave marriage alone, and call sexual license what it is.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Razzle2

There is a difference between not supporting something and discriminating against people....

to comment

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