Quantcast
Utah

Conservative states emerge as battleground on same-sex marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 19, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    To "CSB" I hate to break it to you, but you are still wrong. See my previous comment where I pointed out the passage in the D&C that states that when a Prophet speaks as inspired it is scripture. WW spoke as inspired declaring that the Lord will never allow the head of the church to lead it astray.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 18, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    @Lovely Deseret:

    Article III: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...In all cases in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact,"

    George Mason: [federal judges] "could declare an unconstitutional law void."

    James Madison: "A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void."

    Alexander Hamilton: "The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed."

    I think we are doing that right now.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    May 18, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    No one who voted for the 14th amendment thought that it meant that marriage could be redefined to gay. They didn't even think that it meant that women could vote. I say we follow the Constitution, not the whims of the a few judicial.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    May 17, 2014 7:17 p.m.

    @Avenue
    "God does not support anti-gay laws. He supports pro-family laws."

    That is so good to hear. My wife and I are really thankful. Everybody acts like God is anti-gay, but I agree with you, that God is pro-family and supports pro-family laws for all families. I wish more religious people could get that.

    We do want to get married so our kids have that stability. Our daughter is 8 and follows some as we talk about the politics and court stuff going on - she is so excited about being part of the wedding.

    Some people on here seem almost like they think laws like Uganda would be good - scares me to think about. And you are so correct, when the hard-core right-wing religious people try and put their religious laws on people it is like the Prohibition and Great Depression.

    Anyway, thank you for your support and affirmation. If I could figure out how, I would invite you to the wedding!

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    May 16, 2014 7:17 p.m.

    @Laura Bilington

    God does not support anti-gay laws. He supports pro-family laws. Many confuse anti-gay with pro-family. Society in Uganda is not thriving because it's laws are actually anti-gay. Think about my earlier post. When the Prohibition was repealed, our nation was in the Great Depression.

  • Rustymommy Clovis, NM
    May 16, 2014 5:46 p.m.

    What is the point of going through this exercise in all 50 states? One state struck down the ban and that is the precedent for every state that follows. So why waste time and money? I totally believe that same sex marriage should be banned. But, if each state does not stand on it's own precedents and laws, why go through all this whoopla for nothing? If all a state court plans to do is uphold a precedent set in another state, why not just stop the charade at the get-go? Sadly, I am so sorry that it is just a charade. I am so sorry that we have come to this point. But I see little point in throwing good money after bad if the outcome is already a foregone conclusion....even in states where the vast majority of citizens object. Apparently the judicial branch of the government doesn't have to answer to the people.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 3:11 p.m.

    It really is pathetic that people would go to such lengths to degrade others!

  • CSB Salt Lake, UT
    May 16, 2014 2:31 p.m.

    RedShirt
    read D&C Official Declaration 1, where it says "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.."
    CSB
    That's not scripture, neither is ETB's 14 Fundamentals talk. The former is WW's commentary on what was sustained by Common Consent. The commentary wasn't sustained. The prophets make mistakes. SWK instituted 18 month missions for elders 30 years ago that fell flat. His first presidency stated that certain marital acts violated temple covenants yet that is never mentioned to couples marrying in the temple today. Was the FP statement doctrinal or an opinion? 1Thes.5:22 says to avoid the appearance of evil. The notes show that "appearance" means when evil "appears" or manifests itself rather than how it looks/seems to others. Every prophet ALWAYS used the wrong definition. Look up "coy" on the church's website to find a talk by ETB saying that Paul MEANT the "seems" interpretation despite what the LDS edition and every other edition (English or not) says.

    They err and therefore said that if they contradict scripture, they themselves are wrong.

  • UT Brit London, England
    May 16, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

    How does this work when we have had a group of prophets who have denied a group of men because of the prophets racism? Should they not have been removed immediately?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 16, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    To "Kevin J. Kirkham" that is easy. God will not permit the President of the LDS church to lead the church astray. Read the devotional talk by Elder Benson titled "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet". It covers the issue of following the words of the prophet regardless of where they are recorded.

    If that isn't enough, read D&C Official Declaration 1, where it says "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

    So, if the Prophet says we should follow the Family Proclamation, I will follow it becaue the prophet will not lead us down a wrong path.

    If there is false doctrine in it, please quote the false doctrine, and show us where it violates the D&C. Be specific.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    RedShirt
    so then you agree that when a Prophet speaks as he is inspired by the Holy Ghost that what has been said is scripture.
    KJK
    Yes, but how do know when he is? If the Spirit tells us, we must accept it. If it is sustained by Common Consent, we must accept it, even if we haven’t received spiritual confirmation.

    RedShirt
    Pertaining to the Family Proclamation, if you don't want to follow it, tell us what in there contradicts the scripture.
    KJK
    My problem is that it’s a political position paper designed to rally members to fight SSM. As stated, gays in CA had the right to marry prior to Prop.8 and our supporting 8 objectively violated scripture. The Proc was used as a rallying cry to fight SSM. Judges, conservative and liberal, have struck down SSM bans because they violate the divinely inspired Constitution’s Equal Protection, serve no secular purpose nor objectively prevent any objective harm, yet they objectively harm SSM families and kids. Bans therefore violate several D&C verses, yet the Proc’s last paragraph promotes bans thereby making that last paragraph false doctrine.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    May 16, 2014 10:18 a.m.

    RedShirtCalTech,

    Seriously? You, personally, have lost a stable society? What did it look like? I've never seen one. Since I was born, we've had nothing but one societal upheaval after another.

    But, that's me, so let's get down to tacks. When exactly did you first notice the effect that same-sex marriage was having on you (who I presume are heterosexual)? In what way did this manifest, and how has it affected your lifestyle, your employment, your living circumstance or your family?

    So far, you haven't expressed a single tangible example of harm, damage, loss, or inconvenience that is currently being caused to you by same-sex marriage (now a thing for over 10 years in the United States) or that will be caused to you should it become established law in your home state.

    I will point out, that if any of your children or grandchildren turn out to be gay (and statistically 5% do, and there's no known "cause" or "cure"), this change in civil law could be a blessing for your family and prevent much sorrow later. (Repressed gay youth are at huge risk of suicide.)

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 16, 2014 8:42 a.m.

    @micawber wrote "If Nothing in the constitution gives "civil rights" to anyone, what stops the majority in a state from instituting a ban on guns?"

    @Avenue responded, "Because God forbids it. When our nation passes laws contrary to His standards, we are punished."

    Avenue, you didn't answer @micawber's question. But I find your logic interesting. It sounds like you think that when laws are passed in accordance with what you think are God's standards, the people of that nation are rewarded.

    Uganda has some of the world's most anti-gay laws. Is society there thriving? Are people well fed and happy? Do people live productive lives, free from disease and poverty and corruption? Do YOU want to go live there?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 16, 2014 8:05 a.m.

    I'm wondering why all of the anti-marriage equality folk don't get upset about all the straight couples who live together, sometimes creating children, but refuse to get married, because they say (well, it's mostly the guys saying it), that the marriage license is "only a piece of paper".

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 16, 2014 7:20 a.m.

    To "Kevin J. Kirkham" so then you agree that when a Prophet speaks as he is inspired by the Holy Ghost that what has been said is scripture.

    Since prophets don't speak 100% of the time as a prompting from the HG, it is reasonable to assume that they will say things that are not scripture.

    Pertaining to the Family Proclamation, if you don't want to follow it, tell us what in there contradicts the scripture.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 16, 2014 7:05 a.m.

    "The Overhauling of Straight America by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill"

    Gay visibility increased in the decade following the 1968 Stonewall Riot, sparked when New York police did a routine and routinely brutal raid of a gay bar. In '78 Harvey Milk exhorted gays and lesbian to come out and be visible and "once and for all, break down the myths, destroy the lies and distortions. For your sake. For their sake. For the sake of the youngsters who are becoming scared by the votes from Dade to Eugene."

    This article, from a decade later, outlines an advertising strategy based on the same psychological and sociological principles used in any advertising campaign. Strip it down to an outline and it follows the patterns for introducing a new product category, or selling a war, or running a political campaign for an unknown candidate. The outline and strategy differs only in details from path followed by the LDS church, from Reader's Digest ads to "I'm a Mormon," and including various celebrities and increasing high profile politicians.

    It isn't nefarious. It is a strategy to move from outsider to visible part of society.

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 15, 2014 10:08 p.m.

    @rhappahannock

    That is what one person says about gay marriage, not what the gay community says.

    I don't say that. My partner does not say that. My friends are not saying that.

    Please don't put the words of somebody else in my mouth, or say that her goals are my goals.

    Thank you.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2014 9:51 p.m.

    RedShirtCalTech
    .. when the Prophet speaks as he is moved by the Holy Ghost, then it is to be considered scripture regardless of where it is published.

    KJK
    Then why bother adding sections to the D&C like we did in 1975 if they carried equal weight previously?

    "The "lay" members of the Church are under obligation to accept the teachings of the authorities, unless they can discover in them some conflict with the revelations and commandments the Lord has given. There are times when the leading brethren have expressed their own opinions on various subjects."
    Joseph Fielding Smith

    He also stated, "If I ever say anything contrary to the scriptures, the scriptures prevail."

    Harold B. Lee said -
    "If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, … you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion…And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth."

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 15, 2014 6:59 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech

    You sympathize Donald Sterling, that’s fine. But his racist comments incurred huge negative publicity to the team and NBA, 3/4 of NBA players are black and they want him go.

    NBA is a private organization, they can make business decision by their constitution and bylaws, which both Donald Sterling and NBA agreed when he joined the organization. Their business decision does not need your approval.

    Miami Dolphins is also a private business entity, they have their right to discipline their own player, if the team believes his action incurs negative impact to Dolphins. If the player disagrees, there are ways to appeal, arbitration, he can even leave the team. Dolphins' business decision does not need public approval either.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    May 15, 2014 5:27 p.m.

    @micawber

    "If Nothing in the constitution gives "civil rights" to anyone, what stops the majority in a state from instituting a ban on guns?"
    Because God forbids it. When our nation passes laws contrary to His standards, we are punished.

    @RanchHand

    God does exists. He grants rights. Read the Declaration of Independance. It says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 15, 2014 5:19 p.m.

    It will be so nice to have the support of both the straight and the LGBT community when all other forms of marriage are sought for and granted! America has always been about equality and it will be nice to remove the hypocrisy of those who have been discriminated against!

  • rhappahannock Washington, DC
    May 15, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    Listen to what the gay community says about Marriage:

    "It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

    The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life."

    Masha Gessen at the Sydney Writers Festival. Try and spin that.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 15, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    To "A Quaker" I am sorry that you were offended by the truth. Typically the "deregulation" bills that your ilk harps on do not deregulate, but add additional regulations to those industries.

    As for Bush, he is a Progressive Republican. Just look at his policies and compare them to Obama. They are nearly identical, except for magnitude. So, the rise in pork prices was due to Progressive micromanaging policies on the free market. Yes, Fascism, putting government in control of private businesses is a Progressive/Liberal thing. It does a lot to benefit the favored businessmen.

    As for gay marriage, I personally have lost a stable society as a result of gay marriage and gay marriage activists. As society declines and approaches collapse, it nearly always adopts gay marriage as a cool thing. The loss of a stable society will harm the world for me, my children, and grandchildren.

    To "MtnDewed" if what Masha Gessen isn't true, then give me an example where modern society and marriage rates have constantly improved after its adoption?

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 15, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    To "Kevin J. Kirkham" but doctrine does not have to voted on to be binding on the church. It is only voted on when it is added to the printed scriptures.

    But you are wrong, when the Prophet speaks as he is moved by the Holy Ghost, then it is to be considered scripture regardless of where it is published.

    See D&C 68:4 "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

    So, if Elder Oaks wrote down the the Proclamation on the Family as he was inspired to do so, isn't the same? Elder Oaks is considered a Prophet, and shouldn't we listen to what he as to say when he is inspired?

    The idea of only having to abide by things written in the LDS standard works is something that I have only seen out of people trying to justify sin or disobedience.

  • MtnDewed Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2014 4:05 p.m.

    redshirt: "As for marriage, according to some SSM activists, the purpose of SSM is to destroy traditional marriage. Just look for the video of Masha Gessen saying so."

    -----------

    Everytime you repeat this line, you lose more credibility. It is like saying, "listen to Fred Phelps - that is what Christians believe!"

    Most gays actually come from a traditional family. They have no problem with marriage and want that same commitment for themselves.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    May 15, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech: Hard to characterize your words in a family newspaper. Not kindly, to say the least.

    It was Republicans who pushed deregulation of electric utility companies, raising all our electric bills, some by quite a lot. It's a majority-Republican-appointed FCC that has allowed all the cable company mergers, doubling and tripling our cable bills. And food... It was the Bush Administration that signed the law in 2005 that's now turning half of all domestic corn production into motor fuel instead of feed. Beef and pork and egg prices have all doubled. And why did they do this? For private profit of their donors.

    These divisive social issues, like same-sex marriage, are just their Roman "circuses" to distract you and keep their grip on power. So, keep playing into their hands while your economic life deteriorates and their friends enrich themselves at your expense.

    Meanwhile, try explaining to me what you, personally, are going to lose when any of your currently gay neighbors, children, friends, colleagues or family are able to get married? Use small words, I'm obviously stupid.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    Rocket Science
    For faithful believing Mormons, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" from the First Presidency and Quorum of 12 Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS was presented, September in1995 is the mind and will of the Lord Himself.
    KJK
    Sorry, but the Proc has NEVER been declared a revelation NOR has it been held up to a Common Consent vote to be accepted as binding upon the Church. It’s been almost 20 years and it will NEVER be put to a vote to be added to the Standard Works despite so many people considering it pseudo-scripture. It was cobbled together using a number of Elder Oaks’ talks and was in response to the SSM initiatives in Hawaii and Alaska at the time. It is basically a political position paper designed to rally the troops as clearly shown in the last paragraph.

    The scriptures state that we are NOT to use our religious beliefs as justification to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. Gays in California had the right to marry when, with massive LDS help, Prop 8 passed. Our efforts violated scripture.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 15, 2014 2:55 p.m.

    To "A Quaker" the problem is how Progressives/Liberals deal with hunger, joblessness, and predatory business practices.

    History has shown us that the path that liberals/progressives are taking us is not good.

    To deal with hunger and joblessness the countries that have adopted the same philosophies as liberals end up killing a portion of the population so that there are enough jobs and food for the remainder.

    As for predatory business practices, often the government will take over that business or industry, and make it part of the government. The predatory practices remain, but now the politicians benefit more than the private companies.

    For the best example of a liberal attacking those with opposing views, watch the video included in "Watch Jon Stewart's Hilarious Takedown Of Harry Reid's Hypocrisy" on Huffington Post.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    The Rock
    Utah's marriage law allows all people the same privilege; All men may marry any woman that will have him. All women have the right to marry any man that will have her. Nobody can have more than one spouse at a time.
    KJK
    In the South, it used to be that "All [White] men may marry any [White] woman that will have him…" All people, Black and White were treated equally. You seem to support a similar of "equality". Having separate White and Black drinking fountains treated everyone equally too.

    The Rock
    BTW Discrimination is not unconstitutional.
    KJK
    It is if it violates due Process and Equal Protection.

    Rocket Science
    .. States do have vested interests in having successful families, the ideal family being a husband and wife marriage and thus the only relationship that should be sanctioned as marriage by the state. States should defend their marriage laws and promote that which encourages the ideal.
    KJK
    If mother/father parents are best, the kids of others are disadvantaged. Marriage provides benefits/protections. Shouldn’t you want to do what we can to protect these disadvantaged kids? Your idea seems anti-child and anti-family.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 15, 2014 1:42 p.m.

    An opinion said something like: Unless the prophet announces that he has had a revelation from God that SSM is prohibited, Mormons, myself included . . . .

    For faithful believing Mormons, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" from the First Presidency and Quorum of 12 Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS was presented, September in1995 is the mind and will of the Lord Himself. This proclamation could not be anymore unmistakably plain and simple on gender roles in God's plan for Families.

    If one does not believe these Prophets and Apostles of the Lord they are certainly free to so believe. Those who do believe and sustain these men, who signed this Proclamation, are obligated to know their words of the Lord Himself. That is what is intended, that is what is meant by signing this Proclamation to the World. Those who do believe and sustain are also under commitment to treat all people with respect, kindness and dignity as our Prophet and Apostles have continually reminded us including when it comes to our treatment of those who may be homosexual. One can differ on opinions of SSM and not be disrespectful, or unkind.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    May 15, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech, who said, "Liberals do not want you to lead your life how you want to. They want you to lead your life in accordance with their standards."

    How is that the least bit true? Who is it supporting these particular laws that tell people how to live, who to love and whether they're allowed to marry their love? Liberals? Heck, no. It's religious conservatives like yourself.

    Liberals, who typically do support big government, government capable of addressing hunger, pollution, illness, poverty, squalor, and predatory business practices that hurt its citizens, do not support laws that restrict the ability of 5% of its citizens to marry, BECAUSE such laws SERVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE. (Making you and your religious leaders happy at the expense of me and mine, even if it wasn't banned by our Constitution, is of no use whatsoever to government or our nation.)

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    May 15, 2014 1:35 p.m.

    JohnCharitySpring, SoloBoshek, rhappahannock, Rocket Science, The Rock, donquixote84721
    etc etc etc . .

    Look the fight is, for all intents and purposes, over. You can keep swimming against the current and enjoy your symbolic martyrdom, or you can exercise a shred of common sense and just move on to some cause where you still have a fighting chance. It's kind of depressing to observe you at this point.

    Rocket Science says our poor children are going to be indoctrinated to "embrace" SSM. What does that even mean? Are kids going to become gay simply because they don't object to gay marriage? What exactly are you afraid will happen?

    I'll be back here in 30 years, when this debate is a long-forgotten historical footnote, to hear you backtrack because detestable gayness hasn't spread like wildfire.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 15, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    To "FT" repeating the lie over and over will not make it true. Liberals do not want you to lead your life how you want to. They want you to lead your life in accordance with their standards. As long as you are living the liberal standards you are permitted to live your life without being bothered.

    Just look at the football player who thought it was icky to see to gay men kiss and shove cake in eachothers mouths. He is being punished because he didn't conform.

    Look at Donald Sterling, he may lose his basketball team because he didn't conform.

    John Stewart recently did a pice mocking Harry Reid because of the liberal hypocrisy when they attack the Koch brothers. The Koch brothers donate money to conservative causes and are attacked, George Sorros can donate money to liberal causes and is praised for his efforts.

    You see, liberals are only tolerant of those who act and think like they do.

    As for marriage, according to some SSM activists, the purpose of SSM is to destroy traditional marriage. Just look for the video of Masha Gessen saying so.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 15, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    Why couch behind words like "dictates of their conscience" and "opposing views" kiddsport? Just be honest about what you really want. You want all of us to be tolerant of your right to discriminate against gay people. That's the only real dictate of your conscience. I hear people say things like "we just want to live according to the dictates of our conscience". But of course those dictates actually involve keeping the ability to not serve gay people a business otherwise open to the public. Not allowing gay couples the same legal protections as straight couples. Rolling back rights gay people already have such as taking away the right to adopt a child.

    Well you're right, I will not be tolerant of your desires to make gays second class citizens. I will not be tolerant of your desire to keep gays from gaining basic civil protections. I will not be tolerant of anyone's desires to discriminate against another. I will not be tolerant of dictates I see as bigoted and backward. Of these things I will NOT be tolerant.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    May 15, 2014 11:54 a.m.

    kiddsport, it's not the liberals who are denying people equal rights. Conservatives seem to think that their rights include denying gay couples marriage rights because it might lead to an uncomfortable discussion with their children.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    May 15, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    Avenue, it's a good thing that the laws in this country aren't based on the Bible. They're based on our Constitution so what you believe your deity thinks isn't the deciding factor.

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    May 15, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    @FT- Let me correct your misrepresentation- Conservatives want to live their lives according to the dictates of their conscience; Liberals want to dictate what your conscience is allowed.
    Liberals have become the height of hypocrisy, charging intolerance while being adamantly intolerant to opposing views, evidenced by the attacks on conservative discourse in the MSM, on college campuses, and now it seems it has pervaded even the federal courts.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 15, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    I agree that same sex marriage is a moral issue. I have done a lot of studying about sexual orientation. I have taken the time to get to know gay men and women. I know that withholding basic civil rights from my homosexual friends is incredibly immoral. I will continue to support and fight for the only true moral stance on this issue: granting marriage rights to same sex couples. That is what is morally right. Anything less is morally wrong.

    My wife and I will be happy and proud of America when legal same sex marriage becomes a reality in this country. Far from destroying civilization it will actually make America a better country, a stronger country. I believe that with America as an example of treating homosexuals with dignity and respect the lives of gays in other countries will improve. This is a chance for America to show the world what it means to stand on the moral high ground of equality and respect.

  • ElmoBaggins Escalante, UT
    May 15, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    If we could just refrain from trying to impose our religious and social limitations on each other the country might be a better place for us all...how arrogant to believe that any religious belief trumps all others!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 15, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    @04/13/2014 ;
    ITS A CIVIL RIGHTS QUESTION NOT A MORAL QUESTION!!

    It's a Civil Rights question, NOT a "moral" question.

    Keep your unconstitutional "morals" to yourself!

    (Funny, the DN won't let me copy/paste 04's comments because "excessive upper case"; hypocrisy at it's finest).

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 15, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    One thing to consider regarding same-sex marriage:

    There have been many instances of major political figures changing their position. This has happened at all levels of government, among both major parties, at all parts of the liberal-conservative and libertarian-statist spectrums.

    And I can't think of a single case where a political figure when from in favor of same-sex marriage to opposition.

    The main demographic opposed to marriage equality is the elderly, the main demographic in favor of it is the young.

    Marriage equality nationwide is no longer a matter of "if", it is a matter of "when." And that is a good thing.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 15, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    @04/13/2014 9:55 a.m. May 15, 2014

    You realize, don't you, that the "behavior" isn'tpracticed only by same sex couples. Some opposite-sex couples use the exact same sexual practices as same-sex couples. (And, yes, I have the same "shudder" response at the idea of opposite-couples using the practices as I do for same-sex couples using them). That is not the issue before the court. The issue is whether equal civil rights can be denied to people who are gay/lesbian. The courts (multiple courts) have, rightly, said no to the idea that civil rights can be denied.

  • 04/13/2014 S. Jordan, UT
    May 15, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    The real issue is not as stated below, but BEHAVIOR. When this cannot be SUPPORTED the issue is lost!!! ITS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS QUESTION BUT A MORAL QUESTION!! To many people are afraid to stand on moral principle and Rome falls.

    The only argument is whether the law, regardless if passed by voters or the Legislature, violates the 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection and due process, he said.

    "If it does, it falls. If it doesn't, it stands," he said.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    May 15, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    Conservatives want you to live your life according to their values. Liberals want you to live your life according to your values. It's obvious which group's values are really more American.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    May 15, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    Marriage equality doesn't end "traditional marriage". Heterosexuals will still be allowed to get married. No one will break down your doors and force you to marry someone you don't want to marry.

  • Lia Sandy, UT
    May 15, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    Gotta change my profile--it's Liam, not Lia.

    I will say that the gay couple next to us are far better neighbors, more pleasant, nicer---they take much better care of their property than the snooty rightwinger and his 6 kids who used to chastise us for mowing lawns and washing cars on Sunday.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 15, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    The Rock wrote: "BTW Discrimination is not unconstitutional. As a matter of fact it is impossible not to discriminate. Every decision you make that involves money discriminates against everyone you did not give the money to.

    As long as people have a right to make their own decisions they have a right to discriminate."

    The big "however" is... However, if people discriminate in a manner that is contrary to law, then they are subject to the penalties of that law.

    And if the government sanctions discrimination in laws that are contrary to constitutional protections, those laws are unconstitutional.

    There is legitimate discrimination in marriage law: an already-married person cannot marry. Two people who are closely related cannot marry. A person below the age of 15 cannot marry, and a person between the ages of 15 and 17 can only marry in certain circumstances. The important thing is that there is a rational basis for the discrimination.

    There is no rational basis for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 15, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    @pragmatistferlife

    I understand your point but basing laws on myths is an American tradition. Believing things that are demonstrably not true is as American as apple pie.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 15, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    rhappahannock said: "open marriage to all arrangements, including pets and inanimate objects. "Such laws would force judges to consider whether marriage should be defined on scientific and moral grounds, or whether it should fall under the whims of "feelings."

    Thankfully Wiser folks are in charge, who understand Law and the Constitution on an equal level with those who composed it. Pets? I find it difficult to believe people actually think this is a form of logic?

    "or whether it should fall under the whims of "feelings." you mean like religion, which can only be defined as "feelings."

    Perhaps since religion by definition is only "Feelings," it shouldn't be protected or rewarded by government either.

    All this nonsense about "God" said "he agrees with me" is depriving religions whom accept SSM, of their "constitutional right" according to you, to practice their religion freely.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 15, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    I've been watching these threads for some time now and am amazed that critics of the anti gay marriage crowd haven't called out the obvious. The "traditional marriage" supporters (I know everyone is, it's just a naming device), say that marriage is a God given and therefore not to be trifled with. The obvious is that idea is based on the garden of Eden story.

    If there is one fact in the religious debate it is that humans were not created in the garden of Eden, and that women were not created by pulling a rib out of a man. There are a number of verses in the bible that describe how men and women should interact including in a marriage, but the bases for marriage lies in the myth of the garden of Eden.

    So if the foundation of "God created marriage" is at best a myth then who in the world does it hold any political and policy sway in 2014?

    Believe as you will, but you don't get to make laws based on myth.

  • Lia Sandy, UT
    May 15, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    Utah should just back off and accept the inevitable. They would do their image a load of good, by shutting down the bigotry, exclusivity, unfriendliness and intolerance. This isn't some insulated little Zionic enclave anymore. The world is watching, and it doesn't like what it sees.

  • rhappahannock Washington, DC
    May 15, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    Conservative state legislatures need to be more pro-active. They need to pass laws that if their marriage laws are jusdged unconstitutional one of two things happen: 1. The state will no longer issue marriage licenses, or 2. open marriage to all arrangements, including pets and inanimate objects. Such laws would force judges to consider whether marriage should be defined on scientific and moral grounds, or whether it should fall under the whims of "feelings."

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 15, 2014 6:56 a.m.

    @Avenue;

    Since god doesn't exist, and only he grants rights, nobody has any rights whatsoever since there is no god to grant them to us.

    @SoloBoshek;

    1100 legal benefits. You can do your own research.

    1) Why shouldn't they? Equal protection, right? The 14th Amendment for instance?
    You're living in the 12th century if you think that LGBT couples can't have children; we can have children using the exact same methods infertile heterosexual couples use.

    2) Why should an LGBT couple have to pay thousands of dollars for the EXACT SAME THING that a heterosexual couple gets for a $50.00 marriage license?

    Finally, the Bill of Rights was created to prevent the "majority" from oppressing the minority. BTW, the 10th Amendment PREVENTS states from violating the constitutional rights of citizens.

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    May 15, 2014 6:52 a.m.

    @Avenue:

    If Nothing in the constitution gives "civil rights" to anyone, what stops the majority in a state from instituting a ban on guns?

    @SoloBoshek: To me, the magic and beauty of our country isn't that it acts in the interest of the majority. There are many magical and beautiful things about our country. One is the system of checks and balances which, albeit imperfectly, accommodates the interests of the majority and the rights of the minority at the same time. I mean no disrespect to you, but it seems contrary to the spirit of the Constitution to essentially say to minorities, "If you don't like it in our state, go someplace else."

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 15, 2014 6:28 a.m.

    A SS relationship simply does not fit the definition of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. A husband is a man married to a woman, a wife is a woman married to a man. No man can be a wife and no woman can be a husband. No two men or no two women in a relationship can be husband and wife and cannot provide a mother AND a father to children. The States do have vested interests in having successful families, the ideal family being a husband and wife marriage and thus the only relationship that should be sanctioned as marriage by the state. States should defend their marriage laws and promote that which encourages the ideal. Other relationships may be entered into by persons as they see fit but they are not marriage despite what congress enacts, judges rule, or the populace may vote.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    May 15, 2014 6:27 a.m.

    "But Rosky calls the states' rights argument "window dressing" on the real argument. The only argument is whether the law, regardless if passed by voters or the Legislature, violates the 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection and due process..."

    Utah's marriage law allows all people the same privilege; All men may marry any woman that will have him. All women have the right to marry any man that will have her. Nobody can have more than one spouse at a time.

    If the law stated that Gay men could not marry, they would have a point. Gay men can marry any woman that will have him just like any other man. The law does not say that.

    BTW Discrimination is not unconstitutional. As a matter of fact it is impossible not to discriminate. Every decision you make that involves money discriminates against everyone you did not give the money to.

    As long as people have a right to make their own decisions they have a right to discriminate.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 15, 2014 6:23 a.m.

    For all those who happily jump on the SSM rights band wagon saying "well it is not for me but I can't deny someone else that right"; you need to read article The Overhauling of Straight America by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in Guide Magazine, November 1987.

    Indifference on this subject is not acceptable. As soon as SSM becomes the law of the land there will be expanded efforts to indoctrinate our school children as is already happening in California and a few other states. We will be pressured to not just tolerate it or to accept it but to embrace it.

  • donquixote84721 Cedar City, UT
    May 15, 2014 6:02 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.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    May 15, 2014 5:49 a.m.

    This case is over and equality won so friends lets now get on with our lives and be happy for our gay and lesbian church members and not allow anyone to denigrate them. Here in California approx.100000 couples got married ,nothing had changed besides more happiness in the lgbt community and elsewhere. Soon homophobia will be a thing of the past just like most racism has disappeared.

  • SAS Sandy, UT
    May 15, 2014 4:17 a.m.

    @SoloBoshek:

    "So if the majority of a state DON'T WANT TO RECOGNIZE SAME SEX MARRIAGE, they don't have too. Move to a state that does."

    Seems to me that this argument was also used to prop up the Jim Crow South. The federal government stepped in, and ruled that states couldn't segregate their schools and public buildings, or ban interracial marriage, regardless of what their majorities voted for.

    "The federal government has NO authority to dictate the desires of the people in a state. Go read the constitution and you'll see what they CAN do."

    When I read the constitution, I come across an interesting clause in Article 6:

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

    Care to explain it?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    May 15, 2014 1:23 a.m.

    If the "conservative" states truly believed in conservative political principles, they wouldn't be overreaching with government power, which is exactly what endorsing a religious position regarding marriage is. Actual political conservatives believe government should be closely limited and avoid intruding into people's lives wherever not absolutely necessary.

    Liberal governance is based on the idea that government should be strong and use its power in ways to improve people's lives. Things like regulating the food supply, providing health care, tinkering with the economy through monetary policy, protecting jobs with import duties, or setting safety and education standards.

    I would argue with you that enforcing prohibitions that are clearly religious, while it may be discussed as "socially conservative" or "traditionalist," is actually politically liberal, the intrusion by a strong government into private lives, and unfortunately, an intrusion into my denomination's practice of religion.

    In our secular but majority Christian nation, there are many widely divergent denominations. Mine believes it's up to our Christ-guided Meetings and not Government to discern which couples are marriage eligible. Ours believes gay couples share in Christ's love, and should be married, equally.

  • KellyWSmith Sparks, NV
    May 15, 2014 12:07 a.m.

    @SoloBoshek "This country was founded to act in the interest of the majority. So if the majority of a state DON'T WANT TO RECOGNIZE SAME SEX MARRIAGE, they don't have too. Move to a state that does. "

    The fact of the matter is that the people of several states DID vote to not recognize "same sex marriage" but a single judge (in some cases) has "over ruled" their vote and those who were not part of the majority vote have forced their way on that same majority against their will and vote.

    Is that "rational equality"?

    It is not.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 14, 2014 11:49 p.m.

    Conservative states, Utah among them, are leading the charge for marriage equality. Way to go, living out the promise of small, limited government, individual freedom and support for all kinds of families. We should all be so lucky as to live in such states. We welcome Idaho as a state helping to overcome the prejudices of the past.

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 14, 2014 10:18 p.m.

    @SoloBoshek

    "Please, could you tell me what benefits you speak of? I can think of 2 major benefits that come from a marriage. Taxes and power of attorney equivalent."

    If marriage is of so little consequence, why are you so adamant that gays not be part of it?

    Yes, children are the future. My wife and I have two. Adopted. It is not, as you say, another discussion. Keeping us from marriage means our family and our children have second class status. You harm them to limit access to something you are also claiming is of little importance.

    This is why marriage equality will prevail.

    Your side says marriage is special and sacred and a foundation of society and that it is nothing special and gays can get the same thing with some legal paperwork.

    You say marriage is essential to healthy families and kids, then deny that benefit to the children of gay couples.

    So in case after case liberal and conservative judges are ruling for rational equality.

  • SoloBoshek Washington, UT
    May 14, 2014 9:51 p.m.

    And one last thing. This is a constitutional republic. This country was founded to act in the interest of the majority. So if the majority of a state DON'T WANT TO RECOGNIZE SAME SEX MARRIAGE, they don't have too. Move to a state that does. That is the very magic and beauty of our nation. You can live wherever you want, and live by the laws of the majority in that state.

    P.S. The federal government has NO authority to dictate the desires of the people in a state. Go read the constitution and you'll see what they CAN do. If its not in the constitution, its unlawful. So that federal Judge can cry injustice all she/he wants. There is no authority in the federal system that supersedes the desires of the residents and local legislatures of said state.

  • SoloBoshek Washington, UT
    May 14, 2014 9:51 p.m.

    2) Power of attorney equivalent. I've heard countless times about gay people complaining because if their partner is in the hospital, they can't act on their behalf, or go in to see them like a "spouse" could. Have you ever heard of Power of Attorney? Any gay couple can get the same "Authority" over each other as a married couple. Just go through the court system, and bam. You can take over their assets when they can't do it themselves.

    My wife brought to my attention the other, non-state related, benefits of marriage. Stuff that doesn't need some stupid certificate to create. You can have your love and kinship without some state sanctioned certificate. There are plenty of "common law" couples out there who get along without it just fine.

  • SoloBoshek Washington, UT
    May 14, 2014 9:47 p.m.

    @RanchHand

    "It's not your place to deny someone else the benefits you enjoy...."

    Please, could you tell me what benefits you speak of? I can think of 2 major benefits that come from a marriage. Taxes and power of attorney equivalent.

    1) Taxes. Why should a same-sex couple get the same tax breaks as married man and a women? Do people even understand the reason for the government to issue these tax breaks and financial reliefs to married couples? Its because it is an investment. These breaks don't usually kick in until the couple have children. So why should a gay couple get this tax break when they can't ADD to the system? Children are the future, so the government invests in future tax payers. Gay people can't do it. Period. (Adoption is another discussion, but not relevant to this.)

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 14, 2014 9:46 p.m.

    Apparently at least one federal felt it was important to answer the concerns of conservative citizens in non-legal terms. Here are some excerpts from Kentucky District Judge John Heyburn's opinion in Bourke v Beshear:

    "Many Kentuckians believe in “traditional marriage.” Many believe what their ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted Between God and a man and a woman for society’s benefit. They may be confused even angry when a decision such as this one seems to call into question that view. These concerns are understandable and deserve an answer."

    Concerning religious liberty:

    "The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our individual faith’s definition of marriage while preventing the government from unlawfully treating us differently. This is hardly surprising since it was written by people who came to America to find both freedom of religion and freedom from it."

    Overruling a popular law:

    "The Constitution, including its equal protection and due process clauses, protects all of us from government action at any level, whether in the form of an act by a high official, a state employee, a legislature, or a vote of the people adopting a constitutional amendment.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    May 14, 2014 9:21 p.m.

    @RanchHand
    Nothing in the constitution gives "civil rights" to anyone. The founding fathers knew that when they wrote the constitution. Only God can give anyone rights. Marriage is a God given right. Same-sex marriage is considered an abomination by Him, and is not a right.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 14, 2014 9:08 p.m.

    @John Charity Spring;

    You're welcome to support "traditional" marriage all you want (I do too). You simply can't deny marriage equality. It's not your place to deny someone else the benefits you enjoy simply because you find it icky or it is against "your" religious beliefs. Nobody but you is obligated to adhere to your personal religious beliefs.

    I personally condemn, in the strongest terms, those who would violate the civil rights of others and deny marriage equality.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    May 14, 2014 8:55 p.m.

    The left-wing will stop at nothing in its efforts to silence those who support traditional marriage. This includes stripping opponents of employment, community safety, and even the pursuit of happiness.

    The left would rather see parents put out of work and have their children go hungry than to allow dissenting voices to be heard. In the vision of the left, only one viewpoint has the right to be expressed.

    This Idaho case is simply one more step in this leftist agenda. I issue my strongest possible condemnation of those leftists who are seeking to destroy traditional marriage.