All eyes of the nation focused on the 10th Circuit Court


Return To Article
  • billster36 Nies, MI
    April 29, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    Here is my personal Christian perspective. "Love the Lord God with all thy heart, and all thy mind and all thy soul, And love thy Neighbor as thyself. That is the law and all the commandments" Hope I quoted that right. I cannot call myself a Christian and continue to deny and oppose equal rights and opportunities to others simply because they are homosexual. Is this correct in God's eyes? Honestly I don't know for sure. But I believe in the love that Jesus showed for all of us. A love so strong and deep that He died for us. So I can no longer feel that inheritance, right to make medical decisions, and all the other privileges that come with legal marriage should be denied to homosexual couples. Their marriages may or may not be a marriage in God's eyes. I don't know, I'm not God. But I believe they deserve to be treated the same in the eyes of the State. If not in the Lord's eye, then at least in the laws of Caesar.
    I pray that I am right in this.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    April 16, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" so then you agree that SSM is not equal to heterosexual marriage.

    Marriage is about more than just love. It is about establishing a foundation for a stable socity the provides the best posible situation and example for children.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 13, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    @donquixote84721 5:42 a.m. April 12, 2014

    So you're saying that women aren't the equals of men? WOW!!! I thought everyone outgrew that notion a long time ago. Sorry -- that's absolutely wrong. There is more difference among woman and among men than there is between women and men. Nor is anyone interchangeable. We all have different qualities and talents, none of which is gender-based, and we should cherish both our similarities and our differences.

    I agree with you on one thing. The legally recognized relationship should be a civil union or civil partnership for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Then the couples could go to a church or individual willing to perform the ceremony to have a marriage solemnized. End of problem.

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2014 1:32 p.m.

    To all of those that continue to use the bible and biblical quotations in order to justify their beliefs regarding marriage equality...A simplistic Google search reveals some startling facts about our founding fathers. You know the ones that established our country and drafted this paper called The Declaration of Independence. First many were Atheists! (Shutter the thought) and left their own lands to establish one that had "a separation of church and state". Sound familiar? Those that oppose simple equality for all realize without religion in their argument they really don't have one.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 12, 2014 6:56 a.m.

    @Danclrksvll -When I read Genesis...

    You can't take one part of the story and ignore the other parts.

    "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, an you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have some under the protection of my roof." Genesis 19:8

    Lot was willing to let the mob gang-rape his daughters as long as they left him alone. Later, he got drunk and had sex with those daughters. The Bible says he was the only righteous man in town, but he treated his daughters like disposable property.

    Try Ezekiel 16:49&50 to see why Sodom was destroyed - "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."

    You have to look at the whole story, not just part.

  • donquixote84721 Cedar City, UT
    April 12, 2014 5:42 a.m.

    For their to be Marriage Equality, Males and Females would have to be Equal, which implies that they are interchangeable, and they never will be. Supporters of traditional marriage need to be as outspoken as the other side. I would support a Domestic Partnership that would give same sex people many of the legal rights of Marriage, but Marriage is between a Male and a Female, and nothing man can do or say will ever change that.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    April 11, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    RedShirt said:
    To "Candied Ginger" explain how your child will have the example of a mother and father in the home? If your child does not have a mother and father in the home, then you cannot say that SSM is the same as heterosexual marriage.

    So unless SSM can be perfect, (unlike hetro marriage which is far from perfect and end with many having single parents or other less than perfect families) they should not be given recognition as a family because it needs to be held to a higher standard then your "traditional marriage."

    Marriage is about love, there have been no requirements before religious zealots decided to interject their beliefs a couple years ago with such animus as to leave no alternative.

    Danclrksvll: " I do recall however the destruction of Sodom which overflowed with Adams and Steve's."
    Your recall is poor than because that's not what your book say's about Sodom.
    ...and then Lot the only righteous man got drunk and slept with his daughters as I recall.

  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    April 11, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    When I read Genesis, I do not recall reading about Adam and Steve being in the Garden. I do recall however the destruction of Sodom which overflowed with Adams and Steve's.

  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    April 11, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    Our poor nation!We have lost the light of God's moral laws by our gross disobedience and at this rate things cannot turn out well.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 11, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    To "Candied Ginger" explain how your child will have the example of a mother and father in the home? If your child does not have a mother and father in the home, then you cannot say that SSM is the same as heterosexual marriage.

    Yes you can approximate it, or provide strong male examples for you child, but it is not the same. 2.75 will never be equal to 3. You can legislate all you want, but it never will be the same. Many social scientists have stated that the ideal situation for children is to have a home with a mother and father that are married. From there you still have positive results, but they never are equal.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    April 10, 2014 11:24 p.m.

    Gay relationships are inherently unstable. Children need stability. The Regnerus study is not as weak as opponents think. Read all its details before you decide. One reason the study could not find representative sample numbers of children who had been raised in households led by same-gender parents in a long-term relationship is because few same-sex couples trying to raise children stay together long enough for them to raise children through to adulthood. A commonly understood definition of a committed relationship in the gay community refers to a couple who remains mostly together but is forgiving of little dalliances here and there. That is not marriage. People with religious values and self-discipline know that self-restraint is necessary for emotional bonds to mature, that selfish desires must defer to the needs of others, and that the needs of children require both parents to sacrifice their own short-term interests in favor of the long-term needs of their innocent children.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    April 10, 2014 5:07 p.m.

    I'm wondering if anyone else here has listened to the oral arguments that took place today> The audio recording is posted on the front page of the 10th Circuit's website.

    The judges were pretty tough on both sides. Schaerr seemed like a drowning man at a few points. Tomsic got bogged down in a discussion of rational review versus heightened scrutiny which I didn't think was productive.

    It was an interesting hour of listening, but I can't tell who "won." Both sides took a bit of a beating. The Court's decision won't be until they've heard the Oklahoma case, as well, and then they'll have to deliberate over the arguments and the briefs. As the oral arguments were only half hour per side, and much of that was taken up by Judges' questions, I'm guessing the written briefs will carry a lot of weight.

    I had wanted to see Tomsic directly address the State's rationale for the law, which I felt would be easy to discredit, but she didn't.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 10, 2014 4:02 p.m.


    Our home and family is pretty much like the family I grew up in, which is pretty good. It is far better than my wife's family. Sometimes she asks my dad for advice - my dad jokes she is as much a son as my brother is.

    I am not sure what you think is missing, but in our close extended family - my parents, brother and his wife, sisters (one single, one married does not want kids), several gay couples who have kids, and a cousin and her husband - both of our children see examples of how all sorts of people get along and how families actually work.

    You see, we're not "Caring for a Child." We are the Parents of two kids, one legally and one in the process of being legal. The fact you can't even say that much shows why we need the protection of legal marriage and not some different word that can be sneered at because it isn't a "real marriage" and we aren't "real parents" we just "Care for a child."

    Sorry. This is my family and you are wrong.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 10, 2014 3:03 p.m.

    To "Candied Ginger" the problem isn't anything like "separate but equal". The issue is Same Sex Marriage is not the same as hetersosexual marriage.

    It is great that you and your partner are caring for a child, but you and your partner will never be a mother and father to that child. Yes it is better than growing up in a house with a single mother, but it is not as good as growing up in a house with a mother and father.

    If you want protection for your relationship and family, seek that out. I only ask that you and others like you stop seeking to legislate equality where inequality will always exist no matter how much you claim it is equal.

    IMHO the LGBT community should seek out an alternate word from marriage. If they did so, they would probably gain more support.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 10, 2014 2:20 p.m.


    Wow, 9 kids. We have two - one special needs we've adopted, another with special needs we are in the process of adopting. My parents did foster care when I was young but I can't imagine 9 kids.

    This is a national issue. I'm in Ohio. This state won't let us marry, but we can foster and adopt as a lesbian couple. We want to travel with our kids on vacations. Problem is, in some states our legal relationship to the kids could be challenged if there was any problem. My partner's family have threatened to go to court and get power of attorney and to challenge the will if anything happens to her.

    Also my partner has turned down a promotion that would have meant us moving to another state that would not have let us foster or adopt our second child.

    We want "marriage" in every state because anything else is second class - like "separate but equal" used to be in southern states. We want the protection for our relationship and our family.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    April 10, 2014 1:40 p.m.


    "I wonder about the rights of children to be raised by a Dad and Mom who love each other and are committed to raising and teaching their children correct principles."

    What about their rights? What will change for them? What in their household will be any different? Please explain.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 10, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    To "Stormwalker" but we already have laws that mandate discrimination. How many 16 year old kids do you see in bars? Isn't that age discrimination? How many nudists do you see walking the streets? How many fat people do you see as fashion models? How many whites have you heard of winning scholarships from the Negro College Fund? How many men do you see at Curves?

    What about freedom of assembly? Isn't that a 1st Ammendment right? By forcing a person to do assemble with others that they don't want to assemble with, aren't you violating their rights?

    Isn't forcing somebody to do something that they don't want to also called slavery or servitude?

    The 13th ammendment states "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Since when is it illegal to have a difference of opinion?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 10, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech: To "Stormwalker" you are forgetting that the gays are saying "the law says that if I want you to do something for me you must", and are creating slaves out of the businesses that don't want to participate in SSM.

    Actually we are saying "if you provide a public service then you provide a public service." In this country we don't allow businesses to decide that they can exclude this group or that group based on race, religion or sexual orientation. – One version was called Jim Crow. It led to segregation and "separate but equal" laws. You don't get to discriminate against Jews, or people of African ancestry, or Gays.

    In other words, if you want to be a wedding photographer, then photograph weddings. That would include weddings for Mormons, and Jews, and black people, and gay people, immigrants, and people whose ancestors all got here on the Mayflower. If you want to bake and sell wedding cakes, then sell wedding cakes to all your customers.

    In other words "do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    April 10, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    @ understands math, et al.

    I sincerely hope you are right - that our first amendment rights will be forever upheld and we won't ever have to worry about bending our religious beliefs. Let's not forget we currently have a "leader" who "has a pen and a phone" and is making all kinds of changes that may or may not be for the benefit of the majority of the people. He is setting a precedent that government controls all. If a Colorado judge can overrule what the majority of Utah voted for then we have to speak up no matter what the issue is. This whole debate is about where does government end and civil/social/religious liberties begin? Mrs. Clinton lives by the "what difference does it make?" principal. She may be next after Obama.

    Let me just point out that I have been nothing but civil in expressing my views on this forum, and have had plenty of mud slung in my direction today by people who disagree. This is why we stand firm in the LDS church - we have to protect our freedoms too.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 10, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    &lixircat: I love it when a northerner tries to explain the South's motives for slavery and the Civil War.

    I lived in Atlanta for 32 years – well minus a couple years the Navy. Call it 30. I was married to a woman who was a historian whose family had been in Dekalb County Georgia since 1805. She was pretty knowledgeable about local history, and southern history in general. As an LDS convert she also did quite a bit of genealogy for herself and others. I'm fairly aware of the reasons the Civil War was started, the justifications for the Jim Crow laws that followed, and the way the Mormons were treated in the south – currently, and historically. Some of her relatives attended a small Mormon chapel that was dynamited in DeKalb County.

    With that background, I know what I'm talking about.

    And I will stand behind my statement: codifying laws that allow one group to mistreat another group based on their respective religious beliefs is not a good idea. You are not persecuted because the law will not let you treat others badly because of your religious beliefs. You're simply asked to be a good human being.

  • Claire B West Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    Judge Shelby's ruling will and should be overturned because of State Sovereignty. This issue is about MORE than just same-sex marriage and equality under the law. It is also about State's rights, and the LIMITED power of the federal government. In addition to that fact, it is well known that prominent members of the LGBT community and same-sex marriage advocacy have PUBLICLY STATED that marriage equality is not their only, or ultimate goal,but the abolition of civil Marriage period. If they eliminate marriage then that is another step towards removing Families and privacy protections under the law; ultimately moving towards the elimination of Freedom of Association as protected by the Constitution. They've SAID this is their goal.I believe in and defend both the U.S. Constitution and the State's rights to establish their own Constitutions. Everyone should.

  • nycut New York, NY
    April 10, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    @Rustymommy et al:

    In the past, the "silent majority" you talk about never had to raise its voice, because its will remained largely unopposed.

    But then gay people came out, medical and research fields caught up to reality, the AIDS epidemic created larger awareness, and folks got to know actual gay people and changed their minds about what it means to be gay.

    Now the majority, at least in the first world, recognizes that gay people are whole-- not sick, not reducible to a sex act, not deserving of persecution or imprisonment or violence-- but real people who, like you, have lives, and loves and sometimes children too.

    Today the majority supports treating people-- regardless of their sexual orientation-- equally under the law, which includes legal marriage for the benefit of their lives and loves and children.

    What we have now is "vocal minority," clinging to self-serving beliefs formed in ignorance and lacking respect and empathy, and the State of Utah is its current cheerleader.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 10, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    To "Stormwalker" you are forgetting that the gays are saying "the law says that if I want you to do something for me you must", and are creating slaves out of the businesses that don't want to participate in SSM.

    To "Two For Flinching" you should also point out that Massachussetts has one of the lowest marriage rates in the US, but still has about a 53% divorce rate among what marriages do occur there.

  • Top of UT Patriot Cache, UT
    April 10, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    Utah's History is replete with the US Government violating civil rights of a religious people who had a different definition of marriage than their fellow countryman. Utah Statehood was delayed four decades, LDS Church leaders were jailed, Mormons were not allowed the right to vote (Idaho), Mormons were forced to leave the country to Mexico and Canada, hide from federal marshals in Wyoming and ultimately threatened with disenfranchisement (Loss of all property including the SL Temple).

    Under this duress, LDS President Wilford Woodruff received revelation from the Lord in the form of the 1890 Manifesto ending the practice of polygamy.
    If the gay activists are successful at changing government's definition of marriage what will stop government from enforcing their definition on all Churches not just the Mormons?

    The only solution to this is to get government out of the business of issuing marriage licenses. Marriage licensing laws came about because of Anti misogyny laws. These laws attempted to keep people of different race from marrying. Courts rightly overruled them.

    Wake up America, lobby your state legislature to eliminate marriage licensing laws, or gay activists will trump your right to practice your faith.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 10, 2014 11:25 a.m.

    @ Ralph, you don't have to go to 1896. 1978 will also suffice.

  • ImaUteFan West Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    @ Two For Flinching - Sorry, but the majority of society still does not support SSM.

    RustyMommy, it is unfortunate that more of us are not speaking up but the "silent majority" is shouted down and called ugly names at every turn as we try to stand up for our beliefs. Our voices are being silenced as religious freedom is slowly being choked out of our society.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    April 10, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    @Rustymommy wrote:

    "The silent majority gives away their beliefs by not speaking out more vocally."

    Apparently your silent majority is so silent that they won't even talk to polling organizations, as all recent polls show a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage, and support continues to grow.

    April 10, 2014 11:18 a.m.


    I believed it would happen 10 years ago when Romney signed into law marriage equality for the state of Massachusetts, and became the first in the nation to do so.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    @ Rustymommy

    I have bad news for you. You're not in the "silent majority", you're in a very vocal minority.

  • wzagieboylo Nofolk, MA
    April 10, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    Selfishness and rejection of God and His laws has caused acceptance of sex and children without commitment, making relations between the sexes extremely volatile and emotionally dangerous. This in turn makes it more and more difficult for people to create stable, traditional relationships. I am sure that people seeking gay marriages are fighting for what they perceive to be the only way to achieve loving, stable relationships, so it is heartbreaking to try to discourage them; and they perceive it as a personal attack on their future happiness.

    Unfortunately, gay marriage is a dry well and a dead end. There will inevitably be disappointment, recrimination, and emotional scarring that will make it even harder to achieve happiness in a loving relationship. But how can one tell them, when they are not willing to hear? They will have to learn by sad experience.

  • Rustymommy Clovis, NM
    April 10, 2014 10:41 a.m.

    Who thought this would happen 10 years ago. 6 years ago Obama claimed he was in favor of upholding traditional marriage. The silent majority gives away their beliefs by not speaking out more vocally.

  • Fitz Murray, UT
    April 10, 2014 10:29 a.m.

    The 10th Circuit is hearing a case today on Utah's Amendment 3. Big deal. There will be no decision today and both sides will say they won. But if you pause for a moment and look at reality, you know that the decision is not imminent, that this is a 3 panel judge hearing and whoever loses will appeal to an enbanc hearing. Eventually it will be appealed to SCOTUS. This has a long way to go before Amendment 3 is upheld or stuck down. Let's not, on either side, get too excited over this hearing.

    I would invite you all to read the Windsor decision written by Justice Kennedy last SCOTUS session. Windsor was about a federal law (DOMA) on homosexual marriage. Instead of simply saying the feds can't make such a law, he used about 25% of the Windsor decision to point out that marriage laws have been a states’ right. The hard part is that he did not, as Justice Scalia wrote, clearly point out that marriage laws continue to be a states’ right. So we are all left in limbo.

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    April 10, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    A HUGE development in this case that got very little news coverage -- Utah is backing away from their "its all about the children" argument. Utah filed a motion brief just yesterday, Wednesday, asking the 10th Circuit Court to ignore Utah's earlier brief's references to the Regnerus study, a discredited study often cited by anti-gay activists to characterize the "risks" of same-sex couples parenting children. Utah finally realized the Regnerus study was such bad "science" that citations to it hurt their case more than helped it.

  • lixircat Indianapolis, IN
    April 10, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    I love it when a northerner tries to explain the South's motives for slavery and the Civil War. You don't sound all that different from the Mississippi Baptist ministers who tried to explain to me what I as a Mormon believed when I was a youth. Stick to giving your own opinions and motives and don't try to speak for others.
    Also, I find the comparisons of traditional marriage supporters to slave owners offensive. Where are the same sex couples being locked up in basements, beaten in the streets, sold to other countries, and hung from trees? Slavery was evil. Traditional marriage, not so much.
    Bottom line is governments on all levels should get out of the marriage business altogether. No bureaucrat has any right to tell me I can't marry my neighbor, my father or my cat. Nor do they have the right to force others to recognize the union.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    April 10, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    Darling Hockeymom

    No you are not a target who told you so?
    Our target is marriage equality for all Americans, Mormons and Non Mormons.

  • Samuel L. Murray, UT
    April 10, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    Regardless of the outcomes for children raised by gays, removing the gender requirement from marriage is an injustice to the child. Every child has a mother and a father (basic biology here). Until recently, marriage laws promoted the ideal of a child being raised by them in a permanent relationship. Since children cannot advocate for this rightful ideal themselves our laws proactively promoted it. Then we removed the presumption of permanence with no-fault divorce, which ended up lowering the threshold of divorce for everyone, leaving behind a wake of carnage (you know the stats). We used to regard the separation of a child from her mother and father by divorce or death or unfitness of parents as a tragedy. If only things could have been different. Removing the the gender requirement from marriage changes the law from the promoter of the relationship of a child with her mother and father into the instrument whereby the child is separated from one of them. The interests of the child, which are the core rationale for the institution of marriage in the first place, are pushed further to the periphery and the desires of adults take center stage.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    April 10, 2014 10:04 a.m.


    "Just a few years ago (2000 in Massachusets) the gay population said all they wanted was for civil unions to be recognized by the states."

    Again, baloney. At times, those of us who seek marriage equality have accepted and even celebrated civil unions or domestic partnerships because that was an improvement over the status quo, much as "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was originally an improvement over the policies that were currently in place. But at no point was it, "oh, this second-class legal status is good enough for us, we won't ever seek full equality." No, marriage equality has and remains the goal.

    And I repeat myself, if people were going to try to force religions to marry them, why has it never happened before? And I don't even limit it to same-sex marriage. Why hasn't a divorced Catholic sued to force the Catholic church to perform their remarriage? Why hasn't a Mormon couple without recommends forced the LDS church to marry them in the temple?

    First amendment, that's why. The first amendment will ensure that the LDS church will never have to marry a same-sex couple.

    You're welcome.

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    Hockeymom said: "The Mormon church does not make or change policies based on societal views."

    Excuse me?

    Was 1896 so long ago?

    April 10, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    "The Mormon church does not make or change policies based on societal views."
    Whoa...just whoa. Even on the one topic of "marriage" that is an erroneous statement to make. The word of wisdom and blacks not having the priesthood also come to mind. I think you are getting carried away with your enthusiasm here. Hard to have a dialogue when we can't be truthful.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    April 10, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    @ understands math
    Just a few years ago (2000 in Massachusets) the gay population said all they wanted was for civil unions to be recognized by the states. (Read "After the Ball" which illustrates the gay right's agenda.) Now, 14 years later, "all we want is for you to validate what we do by calling it marriage". It is indeed a slippery slope as you said. It may take a few years, but it will get there. "Now that my "marriage" is legal, I demand you not exclude me from "marriage" in your houses of worship, and I demand my loving uncle/brother/father Bishop marry me in the mormon church building I grew up in." Sounds like a big possibility to me. Our Bishops have already been instructed not to perform such marriages. Some Bishops may even have a hard time with it, because we love our SSA brothers, sisters, sons & daughters. Let's remember April 9th, 2014 when this "slippery slopes baloney" comes to fruition and YOU are "standing on the wrong side of history" on this one. ;)

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    April 10, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    Can we see the writing on the wall? Marriage as an institution is about to be split. Not along SSM/heterosexual lines, but along civil/religious lines. The LDS Church, some Catholics, and some Evangelicals will never recognize SSM as valid. Activists will pursue actions against these churches and their related institutions. Eventually, churches will have to abandon the state-sanctioned privilege of performing marriages if they deny those ceremonies to same-sex couples. What that means is that there will be two ceremonies for believing couples. The first will be recognized by the state, with the ceremony performed by a civil servant, the second will be solemnized privately in front of a minister or bishop.

    In essence, over time conservative religions will have to retreat from the public square. The rich religious pluralism which made up the American fabric, the religious voices which compose such a significant part of the American experience, will be silenced. But that is a very acceptable loss for activists. Indeed, it may be the ultimate goal.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    April 10, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    @hockeymom wrote: "The gay right's agenda won't stop with this. Next they will demand our Bishop's marry them, use our church buildings, etc."

    That's a lot of slippery-slope baloney. If is so inevitable that that is going to happen, why hasn't it happened yet? Same-sex marriage has existed for nearly 10 years in the US, and no sign of this happening.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 10, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    "The Mormon church does not make or change policies based on societal views. "

    That could very well be true. It very well could just be a coincidence with the timing of some major church changes.

    It is certainly quite possible that the boycotts, pickets and overall bad publicity over the banning of blacks from the priesthood had no impact on the decision to reverse.

    And quite possibly, the desire of Utah to become a state had no bearing on the decision to end polygamy.

    One will never know, but there was certainly societal pressures in both instances.

  • ImaUteFan West Jordan, UT
    April 10, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    Well said, hockeymom, well said. The days of "fence sitting" are over. It is time to choose sides and as you said "stand firm."

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 10, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    How can you have "marriage Equality" when you don't recognize everyone is different? My biggest beef with the gay marriage crowd is that they think their partner is just like them. Rather than recognizing differences, gay marriage advocates fail to recognize the full spectrum of what it means to be human, to be female, to be male! Recognition of same sex marriage in the end is a failure to recognize human differences, as well an absolute assault on liberty by forcing everyone to fully accept their desire to make everyone the same. Besides the fact that any ruling in their favor will ultimately be thrown out by God, their mindset is antithetical to equality and liberty. In the meantime, true equality will be sacrificed at the altar of prejudice, bias, and liberty. Liberty requires the ability to see everyone as different, something that isn't even a part of the dialogue with this behavior and thought. It is a dialogue that they seem to be incapable of having; annoying to say the least.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    April 10, 2014 8:40 a.m.

    @ Willem
    We are ready for it. We've had "The Family: A Proclamation to the World for almost 20 years now. It was written to prepare us to strengthen homes and families in these "Latter Days". We are prepared to see the laws of God struck down and trampled all around us, and we are ready to stand firm and defend them, or die trying. We feel it is our responsibility to our maker to speak out about His truths, no matter how unpopular they are. The Mormon church does not make or change policies based on societal views. We uphold policies based on God's revealed plan for His children. "This is just one step closer to criminalizing Christianity" someone wrote yesterday. It is scary that the views of a minority will seek to take away the religious freedoms of a majority. Christians aren't the only ones who oppose SSM. We're just the current target. The gay right's agenda won't stop with this. Next they will demand our Bishop's marry them, use our church buildings, etc.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    April 10, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    Testimony writes: "Quite a little backtrack on the eve of today's scheduled oral arguments."

    It sure is!

    The state of Utah, via it's outside counsel, made a huge mistake in citing and relying on the Regnerus study. Anyone paying the least bit of attention should have known to avoid association with Regnerus. I've said this before, but the value of a bench trial, (the one that just took place in Michigan) is to get experts up on the stand, under oath, so their claims, motives, etc. can be scrutinized, tested and picked apart. -- By the way, this applies to the experts on BOTH sides. Its just unfortunate for the argument Utah is making, that Regnerus, et. al., performed so poorly.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    April 10, 2014 8:20 a.m.

    I think it's sad that government at any level is involved in regulating marriage. Government officials should be concerned with civil rights via civil unions for all, and marriage should be strictly a social arrangement between two people. The regulation of marriage belongs to social groups and not government! Let's end the "legality" of marriage and get government out of the marriage business.

    @happy2bhere Marriage, in my opinion, is neither a states rights issue or a federal issue, and courts at any level should have no involvement in marriage. It is a social issue. People should be free to choose the social group that provides the type of marriage, or lack of it, that they want.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    However the judges in the 10th Circuit court rule, it may ultimately have to be determined by the Supreme Court. Whatever the decision turns out to be, at the end of the day we will all still be American citizens with rights and responsibilities. After the decision we will have neighbors and friends who are either straight or gay. Whether straight or gay we will want to be treated with kindness and respect. We will need to find ways to accept one another's differences and do so with civility. I hope that people on each side of this debate will learn to respect the point of view of the other side (even where there are disagreements) and work to find some common ground. We all have a stake in this.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 10, 2014 8:09 a.m.


    "this i believe is a state's rights issue."

    Civil rights are never a "state's rights issue." I believe we settled that issue back in 1863, and the outcome for the dissenting states wasn't a very nice one. How would you feel about having your marriage recognized in some states, but not in others? And the Utah law you're eager to defend prohibits civil unions as well as marriage for gays.

    "why is this "tolerance" issue so one sided?" What is one-sided here? What is it that you're doing that you think isn't being "tolerated"?

    "the only other time in the history of the world when marriage between two men or between two women was codified into law was during the days of Noah"

    If your beliefs about Noah and the flood are correct, there are no records of anything from those days other that what is written in the Bible itself. And there is nothing in the Bible that discusses what was or wasn't codified. Rosner's book is a single volume; not twelve volumes.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 10, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    @ Testimony

    Thanks for the heads up, Testimony. The letter is incredible! No wonder they filed it on the eve of the hearings. Here are the new marching orders from the anti-SSM side:

    "As the State’s briefing makes clear, the State’s principal concern is the potential long-term impact of a redefinition of marriage on the children of heterosexual parents."

    So NOW the argument is not, "It will harm the children being raised by same-sex couples." It is, "SSM will harm the children of hetero couples."

    Wow. Who knew same-sex couples were so powerful?!

  • HENELSON lindon, UT
    April 10, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    WE the people of Utah, have the sovereign God Given right, we chose Amendment3 for our safety and happiness. We elected our legislators ive and we passed amendment3. Separation of power means judges interpret the laws in the tradition of the founding fathers and current legislature. An activist judge is any who deviates from original intent of the founders or current legislative branch and essentially makes his own law. Legislatures get their power from the people. The US constitution does not give the Federal Government the delegated power to decide on this matter for the states, Nor does it give gays rights to marry.
    “ …We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. …it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 10, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    You do know that a decision isn't coming today, right? It will take some time.

    @ happymomto9, states are not countries. We live in a country, and people move back and forth between states. If every state acted only in its own interest, there would be chaos (more than we already have). The Constitution addressed this issue. So, in reality, it is not just a state issue, for many reasons. Besides, the whole rights thing applies to all of us in the country. Folks are not included or excluded based on what state they live in. So the court system will decide, and that's that. Does this help? May I suggest you carefuilly read the Gettysburg Address. That should make it clear that we are one nation, not 50 nations.

    April 10, 2014 7:49 a.m.


    First off, wow nine kids? I thought four was tough. Secondly, states cannot decide for themselves. That was settled in a federal case called Loving v Virginia that went all the way to the Supreme Court. Imagine if each state could decide for themselves and you were taking a cross country trip in the minivan. You get in a wreck and your husband and two children were severely injured. But the hospital would not let you visit, or make medical decisions, because they do not recognize your marriage in that state. If only you had made it a few more miles into a state where your marriage was recognized.

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    April 10, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    People are easily side tracked this is not a debate about whether same sex marriages will end in divorce. This hearing is about the voice of the majority being over ruled by the voice of the minority through the power of one. The real question here is not about gay rights, but it is about how a minority group can petition or apply to have laws or in this case amendment 3 which was supported by the majority overturned. People should be more alarmed. The voters rights here have been trampled.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    I have decided that there is too much emotion in this discussion for most of us on both sides of the issue to be totally objective and respectful of the other side. Time will tell how all this plays out. One thing is certain - they gay community will never achieve full acceptance in the eyes of many citizens because of the hateful rhetoric and forceful tactics they have employed to achieve their definition of equality. It is not possible to force anyone to accept something that runs contrary to their innate conscience and intellect. I believe the majority of Americans still believe in morality and common decency - despite modern social trends.

    I for one need to strive to be more kind and respectful toward all of God's children - including our gay brothers and sisters. I regret some of the emotional rhetoric I personally have engaged in on the DN forum. I was wrong to do that. It does no good to only be kind to those who agree with you - anyone can do that!

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    April 10, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    I sure wish the Supreme Court would just take up this case of SSM and make a final ruling on it. They ran away from an important case the other day. We need a Roe/Wade type ruling so we can settle this thing. Either it is a states rights issue, or marriage is a federal issue. Come on Supremes, make it happen!!! Then let's move on.

    April 10, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    I will always love you, Utah, but I hope your case falls on its face. And when gay marriage is legal in Utah, and the Mormon church still teaches that being gay is a sin...well, I learned something going to church, and that is you can love someone and hate their actions. ;-)

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 10, 2014 7:32 a.m.

    Kaysvillecougar wonders "about the rights of children to be raised by a Dad and Mom who love each other and are committed to raising and teaching their children correct principles".

    Kaysville, I have a proposition. Let us together file suit against the state welfare department to force them to remove all Utah children from homes which

    a) do not have two opposite sexed parents, or
    b) have parents who are not married to each other, or
    c) do not love each other (and you need to specify how to measure that, somehow), or
    d) are not teaching their children "correct principles" (let's not even think of how that one would be determined).

  • happymomto9 Saratoga Springs, UT
    April 10, 2014 7:23 a.m.

    why can't states decide for themselves?
    this i believe is a state's rights issue.

    i might also mention that maintaining the definition of "marriage" as between one man and one woman shouldn't offend gay people if they are already given the same privileges through "civil unions". they want the title more than the rights.

    why is this "tolerance" issue so one sided?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 10, 2014 7:14 a.m.

    @ Meckofahess

    Do you know what the original source of your quote is? You should Google it. I find it kind of amusing.

    But back to the debate. How does your assertion provide justification for denying equal rights? The argument does not go, "Homosexuals are better at sustaining relationships than heterosexuals, therefore they should be given equal rights!"

    No marriage laws require proof that the couple seeking to marry is more likely than not to succeed in sustaining their relationship. If they did, heteros would be denied the right to marry too. So even if the stats you cite (from a lesbian website) are accurate or bear out over the long term, you still have failed to provide any credible justification for denying the right to marry.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    April 10, 2014 7:06 a.m.


    Gene Schaerr filed Utah's supplemental letter with the 10th Circuit yesterday, which you can find on Scribd, disavowing

    part of the State's argument, "in response to recent press reports and analysis of the study by Professor Mark Regnerus."

    Money quote: "Thus, the Regnerus study cannot be viewed as conclusively establishing that raising a child in a same-sex

    household produces outcomes that are inferior to those produced by man-woman parenting arrangements."

    Quite a little backtrack on the eve of today's scheduled oral arguments.

    In closing, I note this line from today's Washington Post, describing the DOMA decision: "It said the arguments were

    mostly window dressing for unlawful prejudice based on sexual orientation."

    The judges hearing the Amendment 3 appeal are more conservative than liberal, appointed by two Republicans and one right-

    centrist Democrat. If/when they deny this appeal, I'm sure conservatives, though, will be screaming, "Liberals!"

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    April 10, 2014 6:25 a.m.

    Equality for all Americans is on its way, Mormons get ready for it.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 10, 2014 6:15 a.m.

    Equality under the law is not an issue that can be voted on. It IS the law.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 10, 2014 5:41 a.m.

    "early studies suggest that lesbian couples are 50-167 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples,"

    And 53.723 % of posters pull statistics out of their ears.

    Here is a math word problem.

    If 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, and the divorce rate of homosexual couples is 167% higher, how many gay couples must get divorced without even getting married?

    please show your work.

  • kaysvillecougar KAYSVILLE, UT
    April 10, 2014 12:00 a.m.

    It's been fascinating to see how the gay community has transformed themselves, and I would argue, ignored the social consequences that will come from these policies. Since it's taboo to do any studies on gays and certainly publicize any negative results of such studies, it will be difficult to get any accurate results to help shape future policy. I doubt there are too many willing to place themselves into their own academic coffin because of how quick they'll get buried by the gay community and liberal academia that upholds them. The ultimate goal, it seems for the gay community, is complete acceptance and approval of the gay lifestyle and they will not give up until they get it. It's not about equal rights, it's about complete social acceptance of homosexuality. It will be interesting to see if the gay community will at some point start a conversation about responsibilities instead of "rights." I wonder about the rights of children to be raised by a Dad and Mom who love each other and are committed to raising and teaching their children correct principles.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    April 9, 2014 11:30 p.m.

    There's no big mystery about the outcome of this case. The deck is already stacked against Utah and normalcy. The 10th Circuit will simply rubber stamp the homosexual agenda.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:22 p.m.

    We'll soon see if 'I'm affronted' is a genuine legal defense.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 11:16 p.m.

    @ Meckofahess

    I strongly question the validity of the numbers you gave. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage 10 years ago, and that state has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.

  • Dr. G Bountiful, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:35 p.m.

    Overturning the Utah constitutional amendment on marriage is rather interesting when one takes the longer view of the history of legal marriage contracts.

    In the seminal 12 volume work titled Jewish Bioethics, the authors offer historical research that the only other time in the history of the world when marriage between two men or between two women was codified into law was during the days of Noah, well over three thousand years ago (see Dr. Fred Rosner and Rabbi David Bleich, Ktav Publishing House, Israel, December 1999, page 219).

    Though the practice of sexual relations between same sex partners has occurred during others periods in recorded history, our day and Noah's day are the only two times when those practices were codified by the ruling authorities as the law of the land.

    It will be interesting to see how the ruling authorities decide this case? Will they side with the lawyers and judges of Noah's day or will they take another course?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 10:33 p.m.

    Meckofahess "Have you heard about these stats?...early studies suggest"
    I was unaware that rights are dependent on the outcome of studies.

    I don't recall that before giving women the right to vote, we did studies to determine if they'd actually vote. Nor do I recall Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on a bus, because she wanted someone to "do some studies".

    Don't be a glass-half-empty person. If 33% of gay marriages don't end in divorce, that means 33% of gay marriages are successful. Why would you deny happiness to those 33%?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 9, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    @Outside-View: Next will be to move on to provide ways for people to legally not be forced to participate in gay marriages etc.

    The bloodiest war in American history was fought because one group of Americans thought their religious beliefs gave them a right to mistreat and enslave another group of people. At that same time in history Johnson's Army was sent to Utah because the majority of Americans disagreed with the form of marriage practiced in Utah - and both sides claimed their actions were sanctioned by their firm religious beliefs. Segregation, often based on claims of religious propriety, lasted for decades and included lynchings and mistreatment and only ended with government force.

    How about if we don't take a step backward. Because starting with "My religion says I can discriminate against Gay Weddings" will only lead to bad places, all backed by claims of God allowing this or that group to be treated with disdain.

    How about this: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2014 9:49 p.m.

    From MSN news today:

    "Have you heard about these stats? Although lesbian/gay marriage and even civil unions haven't been around very long, early studies suggest that lesbian couples are 50-167 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples, and nearly twice as likely to divorce compared to gay men".

    Another important reason to support traditional marriage between a man and a woman. One of the great myths that the gay community tries to foist upon society is that their "relationships" are stable and long standing. In reality they have many partners and short term relationships on average.

  • Outside-View Federal Way, WA
    April 9, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    The Tenth Circuit Court is about as negative toward Utah political positions as the Colorado Ski industry is negative toward Utah ski industry.

    Plus, Utahs case is pretty weak.

    The studys about parenthood involving gay parents being less than what heterosexual parents provide were recently shown to be biased in the extreme becuase of the Evengelical sponors/writers. I think the key issue in that regard is the stability and commitmenet of the parents. One thing you would generally recognize about gay parents, is that they want to be parents. That is true becuase they often have to go through more to get children.

    I think the legal marriage case is over. Next will be to move on to provide ways for people to legally not be forced to participate in gay marriages etc.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    April 9, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    Mark my words:
    The appeal court will uphold Judge Shelby's ruling and marriage equality will prevail!