Quantcast
Utah

Utah attorney general encourages traditional marriage supporters to 'take the high road'

Comments

Return To Article
  • exBOMgirl Orem, UT
    Sept. 19, 2014 1:46 p.m.

    Duane E. Jeffery, Associate Professor of Zoology, Brigham Young University, talks about the eternal implications of gender roles as related to intersex."The very existence of human intersexes poses some interesting unanswered questions in LDS traditions and beliefs. Traditional LDS expressions on gender identity also fall short of embracing the complexity demonstrable in the real biological world. Sex, as traditionally posited, is an immutable characteristic of an eternal spirit, of which the mortal body is only a tabernacle. The body is in the image of the spirit, and it is tacitly accepted that this extends to sexual characteristics. An increasing body of medical data, however, gives one considerable cause to reflect on the precise nature of that relationship. Whatever theoretical role may be ascribed to the influence of the spirit, it is a biological reality that sex determination, in the physical body at least, is affected by and almost certainly controlled and determined by genetic and hormonal means, in other words, it not only has a physical basis of identifiable dimensions, but it is subject to considerable malfunction and reversal."

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    April 14, 2014 1:34 p.m.

    @ rhappahannock

    Actually it is the proponents who LGBT rights who should be carrying the "Biology not Bigotry" sign because they are the ones fighting WITH science. Those defending traditional marriage are actually fighting AGAINST science. Even a tiny bit of research into the matter would have shown you that actual science conclusively shows that same sex attraction is a perfectly normal variation of sexual identity across scores of different species.

    As it turns out, a small percentage of the population in species as diverse as humans, birds (several different types), large numbers of mammals, and so on. So in fact what the LGBT community would like from people such as yourself is recognize actual biology and stop being bigoted.

  • UT Brit London, England
    April 14, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    I dont agree with SSM, I also think divorce should be illegal, parents should not be allowed to separate, widowers should immediately have their children taken away (unless they remarry straight away). People who have children and are unmarried should have the children taken away. Poor people should have their children taken away.

    Any family with a husband and wife (and middle to upper class) should be legally made to adopt children that have resulted in the actions above.

    There I just made everything perfect.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    April 13, 2014 4:44 p.m.

    @RanchHand
    I didn't say children were guaranteed a mother and a father. I said they deserve and need both. Marriage has a large effect on children raised in those families, so marriage IS about children. Depriving children of a strong traditional family structure is selfish and immoral.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    @Avenue
    "Should we get to vote on whether children get the mother AND father they rightfully deserve and need?"

    I dunno, though I do notice a distinct lack of any lobbying to prevent single people from being adopt so that leads me to believe none of you really care about this "mother AND father" thing and instead you just need an excuse to ban same-sex marriage.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    @Mick
    "A black man and white woman were denied marriage because of their skin color. That is prejudice."

    Right. Now what about same-sex couples? You'd call that a choice rather than something one is born with. Okay... what about a law that limited marriage to people of the same religion? Religion is a choice after all, and the law would be applied equally since it applies to all faiths.

    "When rights were given to the blacks they didn't demand to be called white."

    No, but the interracial marriages still just called themselves marriages.

  • rhappahannock Washington, DC
    April 13, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    I love the sign in the article: "Biology not Bigotry." Proponents of gay marriage are fighting against science. There are scientific reasons for society to encourage and subsidize heterosexual marriage as it helps stabilize society. The same hormones, pheromones, and evolutionary adaptations in heterosexual relationships are not there in homosexual relationships.

    It seems that the gay's are astroturfing all articles on gay marriage, using multiple accounts to vote up comments and trying to romove all comments that take a differing view of the situation. Just like with Mozilla, photographers, and cake makers, they are trying to silence all non-politically correct speech.

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    April 13, 2014 4:54 a.m.

    Even though attempting to voice support for equality and rights for all individuals rather then a select and chosen few seems to be an exercising futility on this form and pro SSM comments/posts most definitely seem to be monitored by a very different set of rules I will attempt and direct my post as if I were "speaking in front of a large group and or speaking directly towards an individual". Let's now see if the same rules apply because I know what a sensitive subject religion is especially here in Utah. Can someone please explain all the references to the bible along with biblical quotations in order to prove any point regarding this matter or any other state legal issue? Our founding fathers many of whom were Atheists (perish the thought) left their own lands to establish one which was founded on "separation of church and state". These founding fathers drafted a document that they called The Constitution. Many posting on this site should read it at some point. Could possibly assist with accurate and factual posting.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    April 12, 2014 10:23 p.m.

    BYUAlum,

    You are mis-representing genealogy. As an avid genealogist, people do not always trace people to a mother and a father. Many times I see "unmamed fathers," orphans, and adopted children. Children have been raised by their LGBT parents for millenia.

    That they are registered on genealogical records by nuclear family standards is only coincidental, not realistic.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 12, 2014 9:50 p.m.

    @Avenue;

    Marriage isn't about children, it's about the people marrying.

    Nobody is guaranteed a father and a mother. The only guarantee in life is that we are going to die someday.

  • 4Freedom Columbus, OH
    April 12, 2014 9:03 p.m.

    Marriage was instituted by God. People have tried to redefine it but they cannot. Nor do they have the right to do so. Marriage is not the president's to change, it is not Congress' to change, nor is it a justice's to change. Everywhere the people have had voice on this issue in this country, they have defended marriage.

    Same-sex unions will never be the same as marriage, even if people try to call them marriage. And it is not bigotry to defend what God instituted. Rather, it is duty.

    We are seeing an attack on marriage and the family. If anyone should be upset, it should be those who support marriage between one man and one woman. Yet, it is these supporters of marriage who have been extremely patient through abuse, slander, hate, loss of freedom and rights, and yes, bigotry--the very things that the equality people decry and claim to be suffering.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    April 12, 2014 8:49 p.m.

    @RanchHand
    "Your parents are in a "relationship of choice". Should we get to vote on whether or not they are allowed to be married?"
    Should we get to vote on whether children get the mother AND father they rightfully deserve and need?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 12, 2014 8:42 p.m.

    This is an absolutely states' rights issue, period. It doesn't matter whether it is the definition of marriage, polygamy, prohibition, or slavery! Slavery would have died on the vine and over 600,000 men would have lived great lives and watched their children and grandchildren grow up. Because, however, we have the compulsion crowd as a part of our nation, free choice, agency, and consequences are suffering! Millions of men, women, and children will suffer, free enterprise will suffer, opportunity, justice, and equality will suffer, individuality will suffer, and the moral climate will suffer. With 50 states able to make their own decisions, real solutions and truth will emerge. if California wants to legalize drugs, or put everyone on welfare, then let them do so. Someone once said that the best thing that ever happened to the growth of Utah was the California legislature. If states are allowed to have bad ideas, eventually that state will figure out what it means to have a good idea! Colorado will figure out that legalizing marijuana doesn't make for good citizens. The list is endless! States' rights is what the constitution supports and for good reason.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    April 12, 2014 8:12 p.m.

    @Mick wrote:

    "The LGBT community can still have rights given by the state as couples. That is where they should have started. They would have my support. But they are not married."

    Did you vote for Amendment 3? If you did, then you voted against ANY kind of civil union for same-sex couples.

    Because that was what Amendment 3 did. But suddenly, a state that voted to ban same-sex marriage AND civil unions is coming over all conciliatory-like.

    "Marriage is between a man and woman and should protected."

    Explain how same-sex civil marriage would deprecate opposite-sex civil marriage.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    April 12, 2014 7:46 p.m.

    Choosing homosexuality is the same thing as choosing to not have children.

    I am just stating the obvious.

    A self imposed limitation.

    Enjoy your limitations.

    Abraham chose to have no limitations. His seed is more numerous than the stars.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 12, 2014 7:15 p.m.

    @Mick 6:49 p.m. April 12, 2014

    The right to marry in a manner consistent with one's sexual and affectional affinity is an individual right, and is protected by the US Constitution.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 12, 2014 7:13 p.m.

    @Mick;

    1) We aren't even allowed ANYTHING "resembling marriage" in Utah. Amendment 3 prohibits ALL recognition of our unions.

    2) How does the marriage of an LGBT couple harm marriage between a man and a woman? If "traditional marriage" needs protection, it certainly doesn't need protection from LGBT marriages.

    3) Just as inter-racial couples were denied marriage equality based on skin color, LGBT couples are denied based on gender. What difference does it make the reason, the outcome is still the same: discrimination and unequal treatment.

    4) "The constitution protects individual rights. Like my right to choose to be muslim or Mormon or any religion. No where in the constitution does it protect couples rights. They are individual rights."

    --- What about MY individual rights to choose my marriage partner? What about my partner's individual rights to choose his? How can you possibly make that statement and not comprehend the hypocrisy? (Not to mention you failed to grasp the point of my comment: you said we have equality to choose to marry someone of the opposite gender; being FORCED to choose to marry the opposite gender when not interested is like being FORCED to choose a religion you don't believe in).

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    April 12, 2014 6:49 p.m.

    Ranch Hand-

    The constitution protects individual rights. Like my right to choose to be muslim or Mormon or any religion.
    No where in the constitution does it protect couples rights. They are individual rights.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    April 12, 2014 6:47 p.m.

    Hightek-

    If you read earlier posts you see people comparing slavery or interracial marriage bigotry to marriage equality. They are not the same at all.

    Interracial couples who were denied marriage were denied because of the color of their skin. A black man and white woman were denied marriage because of their skin color. That is prejudice. They still fell under the definition of marriage, man and woman. Not the same argument as two men wanting to become a couple.

    When rights were given to the blacks they didn't demand to be called white. The LGBT community can still have rights given by the state as couples. That is where they should have started. They would have my support. But they are not married.

    Marriage is between a man and woman and should protected.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    April 12, 2014 5:37 p.m.

    @BlackDiamond

    You're comparing people to magnets? People are not magnets. If you try a scientific experiment on 100 magnets, provided the controls are right, the magnets will always perform the same way.

    People are much more complex and diverse and unpredictable and wonderful than magnets. It would appear that you simple can't comprehend that gays and lesbians are genuinely and exclusively attracted to their own sex. I can't imagine that you'd understand people who are attracted to both sexes, or those people who don't experience sexual attraction at all.

    But they do exist. They have lives and careers, parents and siblings, joys and sadnesses, and many of them have their own families: partners, and often, children. And their relationships deserve the same legal protections and recognitions as those of opposite-sex couples.

    And their marriage being legally recognized will not affect your life in any way. Marriage won't be any weaker for no longer being exclusive to opposite-sex couples.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 12, 2014 4:08 p.m.

    @Ali Bell (photo); But discrimination is.

    @Ms. Ellis;

    ""why should recognizing an adult relationship of choice be more important than recognizing" the needs of children."

    Your parents are in a "relationship of choice". Should we get to vote on whether or not they are allowed to be married?

    @My2Cents;

    Wow.

    @iron&clay;

    I don't want to be in heaven if it's going to be filled with people like you. I'd much rather burn in fire and brimstone for all eternity.

    @Mick;

    You've always had the right to choose your religion, as long as it's Muslim. How does that shoe fit?

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    April 12, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    Marriage has always been, is and always will be a heterosexual union. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. No man can be a wife and no woman can be a husband. Perhaps laws need to be changed to allow some legal protections of marriage to same sex couples in taxation, visitation etc. Marriage should be reserved for the interest the state has in having successful families.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    April 12, 2014 3:52 p.m.

    Each State has an interest in seeing successful families. Unfortunately since the sexual revolution of the 1960's too large a percentage of families have deteriorated through divorce, and irresponsible, out of wedlock sexual relationships. Changing the definition of marriage will, over time, take a further toll on marriage and the family.

    Rutgers sociologist Professor David Popenoe writes, "the burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable." He then concludes: "We should disavow the notion that mommies can make good daddies, just as we should the popular notion that daddies can make good mommies. The two sexes are different to the core and each is necessary; culturally and biologically;for the optimal development of a human being."

    This is why 34 states continue with the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, Many doing so by amending their constitutions. This is why many states are defending their laws.

  • BlackDiamond Provo, UT
    April 12, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. SSM breaks the law of attraction. Just like a magnet, a plus and a minus would attract. Positive and positive would push against each other.

  • Turtle Owasso, OK
    April 12, 2014 3:25 p.m.

    @Jeff in NC

    That is because there is no such thing as an accident in SSM - it cannot happen because there has to be a man and a woman to have one...

  • plyxply SLC, UT
    April 12, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    Take the high road, don't lower yourselves to the levels of people arguing against nature's laws.

  • Hightek Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2014 2:58 p.m.

    @Mick

    Who is comparing marriage equality to slavery? People do compare marriage equality to interracial marriage equality, and rightly so. Black people weren't denied the right to marry, they were denied the right to marry a white person. It's the same thing.

    I don't understand how you're saying people are trying to "redefine" marriage. I don't see it that way at all. Marriage is, and has always been, a bonded union, either civil or religious, between two consenting adults (save for some sporadic bouts of child brides throughout history). I don't see that definition changing at all.

    It's all about perspective Mick.

  • mpo South Jordan, UT
    April 12, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    @DanO,

    "Schaerr had to admit that Utah's laws harm children of same-gendered parents." Excuse me, sir, but why are the same-gendered parents not being held accountable here? Are they not the ones who put the child in this uncertain position in the first place, knowing that the laws of the land would not protect the child? I'd hold them accountable first before pointing the finger at anyone else or anything else.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 12, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    So called 'traditional marriage' at the exclusive expense of same sex couples is not the 'high road'. It is the wrong road.

  • mpo South Jordan, UT
    April 12, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    I think that 11-year old Heather Ellis hit the nail on the head.

    Why should the needs of adults be more important than the needs of children? I agree, Heather.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    April 12, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    Actually, Tek, you actually argue my point. We don't have dowries any more, do we? Marriage is much different now then it was a mere three centuries ago. For the most part, women were treated as property and marriage was a business transaction between a father and the prospective husband. They fact that we're not trading chickens for wives tell us that marriage hasn't always been the same.

    But you missed the main point that there have been cultures that have honored same sex unions.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    April 12, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    LGBT people-

    You have always had the right to get married. That has never been taken away. Slaves had their rights taken away. Comparing the two is so disingenuous. That fact that you don't like the definition of marriage and want to change is so it suits you and your situation is a different argument.

    I support the original definition of marriage.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 12, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    Do 11 year olds in Utah really say things like "why should recognizing an adult relationship of choice be more important than recognizing" the needs of the children.

    Really? "Relationship of choice"? From an 11 year old? That is impressive.

    But I'm wondering if the reporter, Ms Roche, asked her any questions or did we just go for a precocious sound bite?

    Because I want this 11 year old to meet my adopted kids and explain how being in foster care is so much better than having two moms.

    And how my family will hurt her family if we are allowed to get married so we have the legal protections a married couple get for their children.

    Does she even know what those legal protections are? Can she explain them, and explain why they shouldn't apply to my family, too?

    And "Biology isn't Bigotry."

    We're not talking about biology. Unless you say that my adopted children shouldn't have the same rights and advantages of other kids. Because that is what it sounds like.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    April 12, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    In Utah, the word ALWAYS has been "It's our way or the highway".
    People are more confident about getting out on the highway now days.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    April 12, 2014 11:10 a.m.

    It's quite arrogant for a straight person to claim they know that the love of two people people of the same sex is not real--that it is not a genuine attraction.

    I am saddened by such comments because I am still mourning the loss of somebody who cared too much about what other people thought of him. He wanted to be accepted, but too many people kept on reminding him that he wasn't normal. He turned to drugs to hide the pain. Unfortunately, he lost the battle and his life.

    We all need to do a better job at showing love to all of God's children and stop reminding them that they are sinners. Let's allow all to have the ability to establish healthy and happy relationships with the people that they love.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    April 12, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    By choosing homosexual relationships, whether legal or not, is putting a self imposed barrier in front of your advancement to receive the blessings of heaven.*

    *Lose opportunity for continuation of the seed/lives, not just in this life, but at the judgement day after you are resurrected.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    April 12, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    @chessermesser If you like biology perhaps you would support annulling all marriage in Utah where one partner is unable to reproduce. You could then match the functioning spouse with another "fit" person of the opposite sex. They could have natural children and increase the population. Going further you could test children early on and if proven to be unable to reproduce they could be sent to special camps where they could live celibate chaste lives. Biology is great.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    April 12, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    @DanO: "Also, the form of heterosexual marriage known today is a relatively new construct." I don't know where you got that information, but you should probably stop listening to that source. A relatively new construct in which culture? When the conservatives say, "Marriage is the foundation of civilization for the last 5000 years." I cringe (although I agree with the overall point). Marriage has been a part of human societies for probably a 100,000 years.

    The Incas considered that they became civilized when men began to take responsibility for the children they fathered, i.e. as opposed to sleeping around a lot.

    Native Americans had dowries, if the young man wanted the young lady enough he would make the effort to prepare the dowry. There is a 2000 year old Irish legend about an Irish chieftan telling his wife one night that she married 'up' when she married him and the trouble that caused. I know a Polynesian story that is constructed to illustrate that what the man brings into the marriage and what the woman brings are equal.

    Don't blindly repeat what you've been told. It is Utah, it is OK to think independantly.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    April 12, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    This has got to be hyperbole at its finest: "There is no rights issue, its all about the money and defrauding governemnt. Emotional love is a lie, and impossible to accept. There is no such thing as homosexual can love each other, it contradicts all laws of attraction and mating rituals that attract each other for procreation"

    If it is not obvious exaggeration with the intent to expose the weakness of the argument against same sex marriage, then I am indeed fearful for our country. The incredible ignorance, misinformation and intolerance displayed is breathtaking. It debases humanity and the western concepts of emotional attachments.

  • Jeff in NC CASTLE HAYNE, NC
    April 12, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    One explanation you will NEVER hear gay parents use about why they are raising a child is "it was an accident." Anyone who trashes gay parents has some learning to do in life. I'd invite you to start by going to IHOP for breakfast and observe the straight couples eating breakfast with their several young children they are barely able to support. Watch them and ask yourself if you can honestly conclude that just because their biological parts fit together they are adequate parents.

  • Chessermesser West Valley City, UT
    April 12, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    I love the sign about biology. That about says it all, if marriage is supposed to create and raise children. If it isn't, then what is marriage exactly?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 12, 2014 8:05 a.m.

    @BYUalum 10:49 p.m. April 11, 2014

    I loved the honest response of the 11 year old girl in the article.

    ----------------------

    You realize, don't you, that she was merely parroting what she ha been told. She has no way to accurately analyze this subject, and there are a lot of children (like Zach Wahls) raised in same sex marriages how would testify the opposite is true.

    In fact Wahls did. Here's part of his actual testimony, taken from his website -- "My family really isn’t so different from yours. After all, your family doesn’t derive its sense of worth from being told by the state, “You’re married, congratulations!” The sense of family comes the commitment we make to each other to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us. That’s what makes a family." I wish I could quote all of it, but the word limit won't let me.

    I wonder how that little girl will feel when she learns the REAL truth about this subject.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    April 12, 2014 6:38 a.m.

    First of all, that there were only a paltry 100 people in the crowd speaks volumes. Secondly, the AG asked the crowd to remain civil? Seriously? The signs that were being displayed were so highly offensive as to make the crowd out to be uneducated and ignorant. How these folks look in the mirror and convince themselves they are not spreading hate and bigotry defies reason.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    April 12, 2014 4:32 a.m.

    There is no rights issue, its all about the money and defrauding governemnt. Emotional love is a lie, and impossible to accept. There is no such thing as homosexual can love each other, it contradicts all laws of attraction and mating rituals that attract each other for procreation.

    The only reason for sexual attraction is procreation and that is limited to heterosexuals and hormonal stimulation which is not present in a homosexual lifestyle which is a self imposed lifestyle by choice and rejection.

    That is a note worthy quote the news media had the courage to show, biology is not bigotry. But fraud and criminla intent in denial is bigotry. Tax evasion, tax fraud and financial theft is their only motivation and every thing they argue is based on some kind of financial outcome.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    April 12, 2014 4:00 a.m.

    History will show how wrong this crowd is/was when marriage equality will sweep our great country.

  • Hightek Salt Lake City, UT
    April 12, 2014 12:28 a.m.

    @BYUalum

    I'm adopted. How does your narrow view of family history and genealogy relate to me? Were my parents being "self-serving" by adopting me? Does that make me a second class citizen in your eyes, because I have no biological connection to my family? To my brother?

    A few years after my adoption my mother died of cancer and I was raised solely by my adoptive father. Am I less of a person for not having a mother?

    Your attitude is narrow minded and repugnant. I feel sorry for you.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    April 11, 2014 11:14 p.m.

    "Any other arrangement is self-serving and solely for self gratification, a choice."

    I don't see how having the desire to share a life with a partner that you love is in any way selfish. When a loving couple also has the desire to combine their strengths and all that they have to raise children to be kind and loving citizens, that is far from being self-serving.

    What may also come as a surprise is that nearly all children go through stages when they are embarrassed by their parents. It's a natural part of emotional development--not a reason to remove children from homes.

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    April 11, 2014 10:49 p.m.

    When you do family history (genealogy), you always link a father and a mother to their children and then go back to their fathers and mothers for generations of time. Will that ever change? Not that I can determine. From the beginning with Adam and Eve, it has been a dad and a mom who have a biological family of children. Any other arrangement is self-serving and solely for self gratification, a choice. I can't see it changing the basic family structure which is the basis of re-population of society.

    I loved the honest response of the 11 year old girl in the article. More children should be able and even encouraged to speak out. They are the ones who really suffer the most from not having a mom and a dad in SSM.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2014 10:34 p.m.

    I'm surprised the article didn't mention two outrageous statements made by Cherilyn Eager at the rally. One, she claimed that her group would try to impeach any federal judges who disagreed with her opposition to same-sex marriages. Two, she urged the group to join her in opposing efforts to stop people from bullying gays.

    Both of these positions smack of extreme animus and seem entirely inconsistent with Reyes' "no hatred, no animus" message. One can only hope the Tenth Circuit judges are paying attention.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2014 9:58 p.m.

    @Snapdragon
    There is nothing respectful about stereotyping an entire group of people suggesting they are unfit parents that people need to protect children from.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    April 11, 2014 9:48 p.m.

    @Lovely,

    I'm not sure you listened to the same case. Schaerr had to admit that Utah's laws harm children of same-gendered parents. He also had to explain why he discarded the main piece of evidence Utah had the night before oral arguments. Also remember, Schaerr effectively had to put a gag on the Republican legislators as he didn't think they'd be able to keep their mouths shut and not further harm the case. On the other hand, while the judges had some tough questions for Tomsic, at no time were Shelby's rational disowned. Tomsic agrees with how Shelby reached his ruling, but argued he could have gone further. While some call him an activist judge, Shelby actually used judicial restraint by being able to prove his decision rather narrowly. Get ready for a big disappointment. Equality will prevail.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    April 11, 2014 9:43 p.m.

    We can argue about what was recorded in the bible, what ancient peoples did, what the law recognizes, should recognize, and every other action taken by man that we ever know of or will yet come to know. But I do know something. Our Heavenly Father loves us and forgiveness is possible. I know it. Others know it. Others want to know it. There is no amount of persuasion of political power, force, movement, or popularity that will change eternal truths.

    We can craft whatever argument or principle we like. But submitting ourselves to the work of our own hands is absurd. Happiness comes from keeping God's commandments, not writing your own.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    April 11, 2014 9:29 p.m.

    Baccus0902

    Snapdragon was talking about biology that creates children, not race. You took her comments to a place she did not and deliberately made her argument look hateful.

    Laws are based on people's beliefs and what they believe is best for society. If more people believe a certain way it usually becomes law. Maybe Mormons would still be practicing pologamy if the majority of people did not believed their choice of marriage was wrong.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    April 11, 2014 9:24 p.m.

    Hiring Gene Schaerr was brilliant. He didn't need to be bailed out in the oral arguments by the Judges. He stated his arguments so well that the other side was forced to disown Judge Shelby's rational for his ruling.
    With all that said it is hard to not feel animus towards the gay community, not for being gay or wanting gay marriage but for trying to force it upon us and then demonizing us if we disagree with them.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    April 11, 2014 8:41 p.m.

    Also, there are cultures not recorded in the Bible that have honored same-gendered unions. Just because one hasn't done the research, doesn't mean that same-gendered unions didn't exist. Also, the form of heterosexual marriage known today is a relatively new construct.

  • Snapdragon Midlothian, VA
    April 11, 2014 6:28 p.m.

    I don not even know what he is saying by taking the high road. Traditional marriage is not a personal attack on anyone. The fact that there has never been gay marriage before shows it has not naturally been a part of marriage, ever. Biology is not Bigotry.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    April 11, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    The attorney general then urged them "to continue to take the high road, to continue to be respectful and empathetic."

    It's not possible to be respectful and empathetic at the same time you are denying someone fundamental protections under the law that you take for granted. It's simply not possible.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    April 11, 2014 6:05 p.m.

    Eventually, the truth will come out that "traditional marriage" is not under attack. Keeping gays and lesbians from getting married will not change the number of children raised in single-parent homes, nor will it change the number of children raised in two parent homes of the same gender, nor will it reduce the number of children raised in two parent homes of the opposite gender. It's yet another fallacy. Schaer could not point to any factual evidence that marriage equality will do anything that harms "traditional" marriage and even admitted that further denial of marriage rights will continue to harm the children that are being raised in same-gender parented families.