Comments about ‘Appeals court assigns 3 judges to hear Utah same-sex marriage case’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 31 2014 12:45 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
West Point , UT

Should we take away people's right to drink too? How about their right to read or write or print lascivious material? How about their right to chew tobacco or have sex with someone they aren't married to? I mean these are all immoral according to the prophet as well, yet are allowed by law as a person's choice. Should we outlaw all of them, constitutional rights be darned? Just because you deem something as sinful doesn't give you or the government a right to make it illegal. I'm not saying you should be ok with sin either, but you can't dictate sin and righteousness to others legally...in your own life you have the right to accept or deny sin, under the constitution, you don't.

Logan, UT

"perhaps I could even recognize civil unions...but never a marriage"

Amendment 3 bans both civil union and SSM, even if Utah state goes your way, allows civil union, the first thing has to be striking down amendment 3.

See, even for someone like you who will never support same sex marriage, amendment 3 still has to go.

Brigham City, UT

Why do we need go change marriage? There is no reason to; we did just fine 50 years ago with traditional marriage then, and we can wait 50 more years at least before changing it again. Universities are going out of business because of too few children in the pipeline; fewer children equals shrinking future.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@ LadyMoon. And the beauty is that even from within, it does NOT have to compute. We must then ask ourselves what would Jesus or even another religion do or say?

"It’s more than tragic—in fact it’s shameful—that faith communities, especially Christian ones, continue to be complicit in putting our children at risk and abetting the attitudes that oppress them, thereby encouraging the aggressors who would subject our children to pain, humiliation, and violence."

"Young LGBT men and young women will continue to be vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and heterosexism, to the violence of hate and fear until we in the church can say to homosexuals now what it has said to heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church celebrates it and rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can do no less." - Episcopal Message.

As we see here, some religions may be blessed with special access to moral truth for which others are not yet privy.

Dietrich, ID

@byu convert Is agency the freedom to do whatever you want? Dallin H Oaks said in a talk can't remember where but said not only must you be for choice, but you must be for the right choice. Talking about abortion. But agency does not mean do whatever you want. No one is free from consequences, and laws are here for our protection. As those that hope the judge's will rule to overturn the will of the people and God and accept so called same gender marriage, why couldn't they accept the will of the people at the ballot box. Do only people who think so called same gender marriage is ok have a right to enforce there morals. Or lack of them? When judges routinely overrule the will of the Elected Representatives and people that means something must be wrong with democracy. Hopefully those judges will side with the will of God and the people and So called Same gender marriage will not be allowed in most of the union. Since the Devil does not support his followers at the last day that will collapse under the weight of it's iniquity.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@christoph wrote "Why do we need go change marriage? There is no reason to; we did just fine 50 years ago with traditional marriage then, and we can wait 50 more years at least before changing it again."

50 years ago, "traditional marriage" meant marriage between two people of the same race.

I think it was good that that tradition changed.


The laws of Nature, and Nature's God, will exact their penalties no matter what the laws of man state.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@higv, " When judges routinely overrule the will of the Elected Representatives and people."

Why is it that the screaming minority gets to overrule the majority? The outcome of an election is always the best solution. Take the case of 3 starving wolves and a delicious lamb voting though the political process on what to eat for lunch.

The Constitution does not permit either a state legislature or the state’s citizens through a referendum to enact laws that violate constitutionally protected rights. And “while the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out .. . the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.” (10th Cir. 2012).

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy,to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. Ones right to life, liberty, and property,to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of NO elections.

Dietrich, ID

@equalprotection Do you know what Jesus would do. How can people claim to speak for God without speaking to him. Jesus gave us the 10 commandments for our protection including the law of chastity. If he did not care what you did then he would not of had to suffer for the sins. Since there would be no sins to suffer for.

Jesus was bold with sin. Drove out moneychangers, and though gentle told Women in adultery to sin more. Can't look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Many people put there own interpertations to what they think Jesus would do without speaking to Jesus.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

This case has nothing to do with religion. Citing your religious leaders as authorities on your religion is appropriate. However, citing your religious leaders as authorities on civil law is not.

No religion is being asked to violate their doctrine, change their liturgy, conduct any rites, or change what is spoken from the pulpits.

This is purely a matter of civil law, a secular decision by a secular government committed to equality and justice for all.

In my religion, we believe that no minister has the authority to marry a man and a woman together. In our practice, marriage is a ceremony conducted by the committed couple themselves, before God, with the assembled Meeting observing as witness. Many Meetings have discerned the same loving Light, mutual bond, and spiritual commitment in the marriage of two women or two men, so we now joyously witness these equally.

However, it's not churches but the State that licenses and records marriages in civil law, so Quakers hold the Courts in the Light, that they will order the States to do so equitably.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@higv.. I suspect the following religions have a better understanding than either one of us on what Jesus would do.
They all support marriage equality. Now may be time to catch up and gain a better understanding don't you think?

Affirming Pentecostal Church International
Alliance of Christian Churches
Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Community of Christ
Conservative Judaism
Ecumenical Catholic Church
Ecumenical Catholic Communion
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Anglican Church In America
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
Inclusive Orthodox Church
Metropolitan Community Church
Old Catholic Church
Progressive Christian Alliance
Reconciling Pentecostals International
Reconstructionist Judaism
Reform Judaism
Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Unitarian Universalist Church
United Church of Christ
Unity Church

No H8 - Celebrate
Salt Lake, UT

"As Christians, we cannot be silent as our state’s highest laws discriminate against segments of our society based on the personal biases of those in power, particularly when a majority of Michigan’s population now supports marriage equality. To remain silent is to be complicit in the decline of our society through demonizing unprotected minorities, segregation based on sexual orientation, denial of benefits to selected groups, and fear-based prejudice. Our continued silence can lead only to further discrimination, bullying and other forms of physical, emotional and spiritual violence.

We need to remove discriminatory policies that bar certain groups of people from enjoying the same benefits and privileges afforded other members of society.

We need to create a Beloved Community in which all persons are equal, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sex, class, religion, disability, or sexual orientation. And we need the full opportunity to recognize faithful and covenantal relationships between any two people seeking our blessing, both within the church and within our civil society.

We look forward in hopeful anticipation to the day when all people receive equal treatment from one another and under the law.

May justice prevail.

Episcopal Church in Michigan


"Jesus gave us the 10 commandments for our protection including the law of chastity."

I believe in chastity until marriage and monogamy thereafter, which is why I support
same-sex marriage. Why should all people not have that choice?

"though gentle told Women in adultery to sin (no)more."

Jesus, perfect, the Supreme example, our Savior, our Judge, refrained from judging, walked among sinners, spoke of charity and love for one another. If he refrained from pronouncing judgement on others then ever more should we refrain from judging. Serve others, love others and leave the judging up to Jesus.

Draper, UT


It's interesting to me that after citing several things that are "considered immoral by the prophet" your question would be, "should we outlaw all of them?". It seems, assuming that you are LDS, that the more appropriate question would be, why have the prophets chosen this one issue, above all others, to oppose?

Again, assuming you are LDS and you believe they are Prophets, Seers and Revelators, could it be that there is more to this issue than you understand?

Phoenix, AZ

@Three veteran 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judges will hear arguments next week in Utah's same-sex marriage case."

Dear judges... it's not rocket science. The law in Utah (and elsewhere) defines marriage as between a man and a woman. It's not between a man and several women, between two sub teens, between close relatives, between mom/son, or dad/daughter, etc., ad nauseum. And it's not between two (or any number of) men. And it's not between two (or any number of) women. There are alotta restrictions in marriage. You can't marry your dog or horse. If the judges rule for SSM they must also rule in favor of any other combination that can be conjured for whatever reason. The judges have to rule for one man/woman to keep sanity in marriage.

Some say... well, denying SSM is unconstitutional (Amendment 14). Not so. Amendment 14 says: 'No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the [state] laws.'

The one man/woman law IS equal protection. It applies to all equally regardless of personal desires, tastes, or whims... of which there myriads.

MiddleofNowhere, Utah

@ Cougsndawgs,

I never once said we should get rid of SSM or any other sin. I simply said that you should never support it. That means in any way: voting, agreeing with groups or individual arguments. If you believe in a doctrine that states that homosexuality is a sin, no matter what people have the "right" to do, you shouldn't support it or you are showing a lack of moral credibility. You can't uphold both beliefs at the same time. Just because you believe that everyone has their agency doesn't mean you should make sin as accessible as possible. If that's the case than why don't we just put a bar on every corner, lower the drinking age to 8, and support all of our friends who want to be alcoholics?

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ higv

(Ignoring the fact that this country is not a democracy) Did judges going against the will of the people and forcing an end to segregation indicate something was wrong?

Los Angeles, CA

Soon the Supremes will rule for Equality for all Americans like it or not.

Here, UT


WE, the people of Utah disagree with you. You don't speak for all the people of Utah. And your little quote: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;" contradicts your entire premise. If we're endowed with the right to pursue happiness, that means you DO NOT get to vote on our right to pursue happiness through marriage.

LadyMoon says: "I am unable to reconcile or accept a same gender marriage."

--- That's your problem dear. It isn't your option to "accept or reconcile". You don't have the right to say how others get to live or how they define their relationships. It really is none of your business.


Your god's laws are nothing more than man's dictates. He doesn't exist; therefore, he can't legislate.


You seem to think you can speak for god. What makes your position any more valid than any other?

West Richland, WA

It is interesting to watch some of the Faithful get even more wrapped around the axle as April 10th approaches. As A Quaker and many others have repeatedly said, all your dogma teachings have absolutely no meaning whatsoever in this matter of secular civil law. This debate actually ended last year with the Windsor Ruling.

To those still torn over this issue, the angst you feel is the cognitive dissonance felt when you apply your dogma to secular civil law. Once you successfully separate the two, you will find peace.

to comment

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