Comments about ‘Utah recognition of same-sex marriage in judge's hands’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 12 2014 3:35 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Ogden, UT

@Miss Piggie 11:43 p.m. March 12, 2014

"Life will go on, and most people won't even notice a difference--except those who gain the rights they've long been denied."

What rights being denied are you talking about? If it's about marriage... all, ALL people have the right to marry... provided they marry one person of the opposite set. This means everyone. No one is excluded.


I've heard that argument before, in the 1960s, Only then it said "all, ALL people have the right to marry... provided they marry one person of the same race. This means everyone. No one is excluded." The US Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in a unanimous decision -- see Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). It wasn't a valid argument then, and it isn't a valid argument now.

Salt Lake City, UT

Many people that are renting have either income or credit that makes homeownership not an option for them. Let same-sex couples be analogous to renters that cannot afford to own a home.

I am not suggesting that we eliminate all differences. That would be redefining homeownership. That would defeat the purpose of the legislators in promoting homeownership; which they determined was for the good of communities and society.

I am suggesting that we address the rights and discrimination issues of the renters without redefining homeownership.

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "SlopJ30" actually the slippery slope argument is not a fallacy. The Netherlands was the first nation to recognize SSM. They are now following the same path for legalizing plural marriage. See "First Trio 'Married' in The Netherlands" in the Brussles Journal. A man married 2 bisexual women. They call is a civil union, but it didn't take that long for them to go from calling sex unions to SSM.

bountiful, UT

they could be same sex domestic partners. That gives them all the legal rights of marriage.

Ogden, UT

@mrjj69 11:51 a.m. March 13, 2014

they could be same sex domestic partners. That gives them all the legal rights of marriage.


Unfortunately that is not accurate. The United States Code speaks specifically of marriage as the determiner of whether benefits are available. Under Amendment 3 to the Utah Constitution (and other Utah Code), nothing even "looking" like a same-sex marriage is legal or recognized.A same-sex domestic partnership does NOT give 'all the legal rights of marriage."

West Richland, WA

This article is quite misleading when it says Utah's Amendment 3 case "could work its way to the Supreme Court in the next couple of years."

Uh, no.... not even close.

First of all, the Supreme Court can elect not to hear the case at all, until/unless two lower courts reach difference conclusions on marriage equality issue.

So let's look at the chances of that happening... since the Windsor Ruling last summer, there has been a total of 36 federal courts cases involving marriage equality.

And the courts have found 36-0 in favor of marriage equality. Not a single instance where a case against SSM has prevailed. None. Zero. Nada.

These loathsome bans have been struck down in brutally conservative states such as Oklahoma, Texas, and Kentucky... and Utah. Given the current 36-0 win rate for marriage equality, does anyone really think it looks good for the state to prevail?

When the 10th Appeals finds for the plaintiff next month, I'm sure the state will try to appeal. But unless a lower court finds different (remember, it's 36-0 now), SCOTUS doesn't have to hear the case.

salt lake, UT

&chris b
"both men who according to their religions speak for God."

I don't feel any need to try again but thanks

Christopher B
Ogden, UT


Glad I could help you understand that just because one person may support something that a religious group supports doesn't mean that person's support is based on the same reasoning as the religious group. Its quite a simple concept really.

If you're still not clear, go read my example about Lane's mom and vegetables. If you'd like another analogy, I'm happy to provide one. Just let me know, I like to help out.

And my belief is still not based in religion. Have a great day Toystory.

Syracuse, UT

I don't understand the confusion. The Utah Constitution forbids recognition of same sex marriage by any name. A judge declared it unconstitutional, and people some same sex marriages were performed. The US Supreme Court issued a stay on the ruling. This means that the ruling is no longer in effect, and so the Constitutional prohibition against recognition of same sex marriage is in effect. Those 1,000 or so same sex marriages that were performed cannot be recognized, unless the US Supreme Court orders that our Constitution violates the Federal Constitution.

Bill McGee
Alpine, UT

From the 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This hardly seems ambiguous.

States that have banned same sex marriage continue to have their laws overturned by the various Federal courts, Texas being the latest. Smart AGs, like Kentucky's, see the writing on the wall and choose to not fight the inevitability of this movement. The overwhelming judicial opinion is that any such law, regardless of whether it is "the will of the people," violates rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment. It will be very difficult for any state to make the case that they have the legal power to deny a legal marriage contract to a particular demographic - comprised of consenting adults with legal standing - based solely on a behavior some percentage of the population doesn't like. The pathetic case put forward by Utah being a perfect example.

Gilbert, AZ

The same U.S. government that took away from Utah women their right to vote after granting it to them is now saying rights can't be taken away? It must be nice to think you can have it both ways.

The bottom line is either Amendment 3 is law or it isn't.

This is a mess that Robert Shelby committed and he should be held accountable for it.

salt lake, UT

@chris b
"When have I have supported religion using religion as a reason to impose restrictions on all Americans."
sorry but this sentence very clearly states that your claim that you have never supported religions using religious reasoning, not anything to do with you how justify your reasoning.
But it is nice knowing I agree with Pope Francis and Mormon Prophet Monson, both men who according to their religions speak for God."
clearly supporting their religious views, again nothing to do with your personal justifications.
twist it how you like Chris but you clearly contradicted yourself.

but since you do keep trying to make it about your justifications, Why not answer the questions posed by others?

Bill McGee
Alpine, UT

LovelyDesert - Utah was wrong when we took away women's right to vote (that decision was repealed by the Federal Government), it was wrong when we passed an anti-mixed race marriage amendment (that decision was repealed by the Federal Government), and it is wrong now when we passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage (that decision is now being repealed by the Federal Government.)

There seems to be a pattern here...

Cedar City, UT

GOD created Man and gave him the ability to produce Human seed. GOD created Woman, and gave her the ability to produce Human eggs, and when fertilized by the seed of Man, can produce a Human body to house the Spirit of a child of GOD. There has not been equality between the SEXES, since then. The most choice assignment, nurturing his Spirit children, within their own bodies. God gave Man the assignment of caring for the Mother of his Spirit children, and given Man the Priesthood to preform this duty. There is NO way any two members, of the same Sex can be equal to this.


@ Chris B: You have stated several times on this thread that, although you agree with the Catholic and Mormon churches, your opposition to same-sex marriage is not based on religious reasons.

And you have provided us with a very nice analogy of agreeing with Lane's mom that vegetables are good for you and that, probably much like Lane's mom, this is based on sound science.

What you have not explained - although you have been asked at least three times - is what you do base your opposition to same-sex marriage on (since, according to you, it is not based on religion).

Are you or are you not able to provide a non-religious reason for your opposition to same-sex marriage?

Philadelphia, PA


You've adequately described mating, fertility and childbirth. Now, considering that for the last few years, at least 40% of all children are being born out of wedlock, one must wonder what your Cliff Notes sex-ed class has to do with marriage. Especially as marriage is fertility-neutral. Post-menopausal women, men with vasectomies, and people with all manner of other causes of infertility are allowed to enter into heterosexual marriage. Companionship marriage is allowed, too. No one forces a couple to sexually consummate a marriage. Couples get married for all sorts of reasons, sometimes not including wanting kids. Or sex.

However, since you brought up God, I'd like to quote you a scripture... Gen 1:7 "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

So, God is male and female, both, together? Let me ask you this, who is more male and female together than a gay man or a lesbian woman? (Native Americans revered their "two-spirit" tribesmen, and often made them shamans.)


@ Azazael: The only way to address/remove the inequalities same-sex couples face by being denied marriage is to eliminate all differences between cohabiting and marrying.

Why would you want to do this? Why not just allow same-sex couples to marry?

@ first2third: Usually when a marriage is ended by a judge it is at the request of the parties involved. Would you like a judge to just arbitrarily decide you are no longer married to the person you love?

@ Redshirt1701: It is interesting that you bring up civil unions and how, since they are not the same as marriage, things that would not be allowed under marriage laws are being allowed under civil union laws.

Civil union laws create very interesting slippery slopes because they are not marriage and do not have the same legal effect as marriage. The best way to prevent the situation that occurred in the Netherlands is to only have marriage and have it available to all couples.

(As a side note, other than being open and very public, how does what this man did differ from having an affair or multiple partners - situations that occur thousands of times here in the US?)

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Maudine" the point is that it took about 10 years for the Netherlands to go from civil unions for gays to SSM. If they are at civil unions for polygamists, that means we are just a few years away from legalized polygamy there. Since a lot of world leaders like to think of themselves as the "cool" leaders, they will jump on the polygamy bandwagon. My guess is that within 20 years polygamy will be legal in the US.

Kearns, UT

I'm going to go back to school and become a divorce lawyer specializing in Homosexual marriages. I'll become rich beyond the dreams of averice.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Azazael, the Supreme Court threw out this argument in 1954 in Brown vs Board of Education. They ruled that separate but equal laws were inherently unequal. And the courts have repeatedly backed this up--including the NJ Supreme Court which ruled that civil unions were not equal to marriage and restricting gay couples to civil unions violated their rights.

to comment

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