Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Decision about validity of marriages during 17-day period of chaos should be delayed for now

Comments

Return To Article
  • netsrik Draper, UT
    May 28, 2014 5:41 p.m.

    Chaos? What chaos????

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 26, 2014 12:13 a.m.

    I'm completely unaware of the powerful arguments the state presented, and I'm following the issue. Are they living on the same plane as I am, or are the editors merely parroting church statements?

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    May 24, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    2 bits, your argument is missing a critical factor in civil rights laws: the injured parties must be "similarly situated" to the privileged parties in order for their civil rights to have been violated.

    Gay and lesbian couples, whether you agree or not, are similarly situated to hetero couples. There is no rational reason to disadvantage them legally by refusing to acknowledge their right to marry. NO one is allowed to marry two people, NO one is allowed to marry their dog, etc., so there is no reason to assume that any of those doors have suddenly opened. But heteros are allowed to marry, and in the eyes of the law, gays must also be allowed to marry as well. Do you understand yet?

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    May 24, 2014 12:36 a.m.

    Tongue in cheek parody of next week's DN editorial:

    "Don't rush to close the buggy whip factories and corset-making manufacturers, because we would like those items not to go out of style"

    Despite the wild arguments expressed by many commenters, we pretty much know this issue is a done deal which has not turned out as the DN would prefer.

    I wish the DN would put its effort into getting its readers ready for the inevitable, rather than encouraging divisiveness and animosity toward judges, other States, and some American citizens.

    I don't mean that the DN should be telling readers that there will be a revelation in which God shows the prophet a better way for Gay mormons to be treated equally, because I understand that the DN cannot suggest a change in the church.

    I mean that Utahns ought to be helped to get ready to show Christian love and acceptance toward legally married people, even those of the same sex. Many who write here speak of perfectly loving Gay citizens who have never hurt anyone with attitudes once reserved for the husband-stealing town strumpet, or even for murderers.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 22, 2014 5:37 p.m.

    I would recommend that all those decrying the actions of Shelby as "judicial activism" and ignorance of the Constitution ask the founding fathers for their view points on the purpose and role of the Judiciary as spelled out in Article III of the constitution take a few moments to read Hamilton's Federalist paper 78. Though addressing concerns over the independence of the proposed judiciary, Hamiltons words seem appropriate to this discussion:

    "But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them..."

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    May 22, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    This statement and others like it "The issue that keeps getting ignored in this debate is the fact that a bunch of judicial activists have ignored the Constitution in an effort to legislate from the bench."
    It started out as Shelby, the activist judge. Then it was a few rogue activist judges. Now we are up to a bunch of judicial activists and yet the decisions just keep coming in favor of SSM.
    It isn't activist judges at all. It is judges with integrity who are interpreting the U. S. Constitution as they think it applies to the issue. It is judges that are interpreting the U. S. Constitution correctly.

  • dclinch Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    I ask again, and again... for those that do not agree with same sex coupling, what is the hardship caused by allowing same sex couples to have the same legal recognition as heterosexual couples? Being able to procreate does not translate into good parenting. If you believe this is God's will, then let God have his will. We are not Gods. The only thing that should matter with regard to legally binding marriages is the heart, and how the two people care and commit to each other. All else is left for whatever awaits for us after this life. Live peacefully and compassionately and according to your values. Practice. Don't preach. It would take great leadership and courage for the State (and the Church) to let it go. Let. It. Go.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 22, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    @ Deseret News
    Your opinion states: "Letting Kimball’s decision stand, however, threatens to return Utah to the uncertain chaos of late December and early January. Shelby’s decision has put countless couples into a situation of legal limbo."

    Chaos? What Chaos? By all accounts the over 1,000 couples who got married in Utah were quite orderly in their waiting and ceremonies. There were some incidents with some clerks who were ambivalent about providing a marriage license to SS couples. But everything worked out.

    "Shelby's decision has put countless couples into a situation of legal limbo"

    If you ask "the countless couples" who put them in legal limbo they will tell you that it was NOT Judge Shelby but the office of the AG and the Utah Government.

    Why the LDS Church has made its crusade to oppose SSM? How SSM affects the church?

    There are more critical issues that need to be addressed, such as:
    Human Trafficking
    Wars
    Homelessness
    Hunger

    The issues I mentioned are killing thousands of people and negatively affecting millions more. What about if good people focused on those problems instead on who marry who?

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    May 22, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    From the article: "Since the Supreme Court intervened to stay that decision (Shelby's), all federal cases involving same-sex marriage have also been put on hold."
    Incorrect - Same sex marriage came to Oregon on Monday and there is no stay. They have a wise governor and a wise attorney general. Likewise on Tuesday same sex marriage came to Pennsylvania again with no stay. They have a wise attorney general and a governor who even though his personal beliefs are that marriage is between one man and one woman decided to not ask for a stay believing it would be fruitless.
    From the article: "Kimball argued that, because a same-sex couple’s vow was solemnized during the 17-day period of chaos, those two people have a “vested right” that requires state recognition."
    Absolutely correct. The plaintiffs had every right to sue in federal court for the rights that the state is denying them. The state is trying to deny them a US Constitutionally guaranteed right. This is a federal rights issue, not a state's right issue.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 22, 2014 2:52 p.m.

    Understands Math,
    The original post said nothing about a rational basis being needed. It said, "You can't have one set of civil rights for one group of people and another set for another group"... Period.

    Meaning if anybody can marry then same-sex couples must be allowed to marry, or it's a violation of their civil rights.

    I was pointing out that it's not really that simple.

    BTW... I get the age thing... but what is the rational basis for not being able to marry multiple women (if they consent)?

    It's currently against the law. Is that a violation of the Constitution? By the above criteria it is...

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 22, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    @2 bits wrote "That's bogus... I can give hundreds of examples were we allow some groups to do something we don't allow everybody to do... (Voting, being president, etc)

    We can (and do) have limits/rules for marriage (and many other things)..."

    Yes, and the key is, there needs to be a rational basis for limitations. There is a rational basis for not allowing children to marry.

    There is no rational basis for preventing people from different races from marrying, which is why anti-miscegenation laws were deemed unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia. And there is no rational basis for limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples exclusively, which is why anti-marriage-equality statutes and amendments are being overturned with remarkable regularity.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 22, 2014 1:34 p.m.

    @jsf

    "We now have a case where a British citizen travelled to Bosnia and in front of 200 witnesses was legally married to her dog."

    Show us the marriage certificate; without that your slippery slope isn't quite so slippery. I've no doubt the women had a "ceremony" but even money says that's all it was and that no legally binding marriage certificate was ever issued. Without a legal marriage certificate the woman and her mutt can travel anywhere they choose but it will still just be a woman and her mutt.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 22, 2014 1:29 p.m.

    So I guess this "You can't have one set of civil rights for one group of people and another set for another group".... only applies to LGBT groups?

    You CAN have different civil rights for AGE based groups.... But no OTHER marriage rules?

    I guess they get their "Civil Rights" at some later age?

    The signing a contract thing... another example of "different rules for different groups" (Unconstitutional according to GZE).

    ====

    Most FLDS marriages involve people over 18. Does our Constitution require ALL those marriages be allowed? By this logic... they MUST be allowed (or we have different "Civil Rights" for one group of people).

    ====

    @Tiago,
    I do not believe all these marriages must be allowed. I'm using them to illustrate how ridiculous the assumption that you can't have any limits on Marriage... or you are violating the Constitution.... is.

    That's bogus... I can give hundreds of examples were we allow some groups to do something we don't allow everybody to do... (Voting, being president, etc)

    We can (and do) have limits/rules for marriage (and many other things)...

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 22, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    "Attorneys for Utah have presented a powerful case in court for the rationality of the state’s decision to favor the man-woman definition because it furthers a culture that encourages parents to put the needs of their children above their own emotional fulfillment."

    I must have missed the part of the State's argument where it demonstrated its evidence that gay couples are incapable of placing their needs before those of their children. What page was that on?

    As for the State's case being "powerful," I just finished reading Judge Jones' opinion in the PA case. PA put forth arguments similar to Utah's. Judge Jones' dispensed with them in less than two pages. In contrast, he was able to fill over three pages with facts detailing our nation's history of discrimination against LGBTs.

    I am so grateful for these judges. They are reassuring me that we do still have in important positions people who are reasonable and rational, who care about what is actually true and aren't afraid to look it square in the eye. Thank you Judicial Branch!

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 22, 2014 1:09 p.m.

    It does not matter much now, because we here the argument that it is legal else where and there is no problem. We now have a case where a British citizen travelled to Bosnia and in front of 200 witnesses was legally married to her dog. So much for consent argument. What happens when she travels to the US, how can we not recognize the marriage, because we have a law. But it is her civil right. Same as a polygamous marriage. Minor rules certainly wont apply.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 22, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    @2 bits
    Do you really believe your argument?
    The recent court decisions have found that the law can't prohibit two consenting adults from marrying each other based solely on their gender. We now understand that sexual orientation is innate and immutable so there are some people who form romantic pairings with their own sex and some who form them with the other sex. The law cannot value one of those people above the other. There is no rational basis for allowing straight people to marry their partners but not allowing gay people the same right. A desire to stigmatize or express public disapproval because of religious beliefs is not a valid legal reason.
    We have laws against marrying children, animals, objects, multiple partners, or siblings. Those laws have a rational basis--like making sure people are not coerced or acted on without consent. Each of those laws can be held up on its own, or if they can't they should be debated on their own.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 22, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    2 bits, Underage "marriages" are invalid because underage people cannot legally enter into a contract. Marriage, under the law, is a contract. I understand that churches have a different definition; but this discussion is about the law.

  • wendell provo, UT
    May 22, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    There will probably be an appeal and a further delay on this matter, but I wonder what Judge Kimball's ruling might mean for those of us that were married out of state prior to the December ruling. It specifically mentions those people married here during those 17 days, but what about the rest of us? I called in late December and was told by 2 different County Clerks that since I was already married elsewhere, that my marriage was already recognized, and that getting married in Utah was unnecessary and technically not allowed. I know some people did so, but according to what I was told by the Salt Lake County Clerk's office, they would not have been issued a marriage license if the office had known they were already legally married out of state.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 22, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    @2 bits;

    1) The FLDS are already allowed to marry just like any other couple in the US.

    2) The brains of children are not fully formed and therefore they are not capable of making decisions like marriage (rational reasons, you see).

    3) Your house, pet cat, favorite guitar and lederhosen can't sign a legal document (another rational reason).

    Your morals are not my morals. My morals are not your morals. As long as neither is harming anyone else neither should be make the law.

    Anti Bush-Obama;

    "This is the first step towards apostasy."

    No, it's the first step toward thinking for one's self.

  • Chessermesser West Valley City, UT
    May 22, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    This is so much the tail wagging the dog.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    May 22, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    "As an LDS member I stood against the priesthood ban for black men just as I stand in support of SSM now. The brethren have proven to be wrong in the past and I feel they are wrong now. We have SSM in my country and it has made absolutely no difference to my family or myself."

    This is the first step towards apostasy. So you're saying that Thomas S. Monson isn't a prophet and that revelation doesn't really exist today? Nobody but God know why Black people weren't allowed to have the priesthood until 1978.

    Satans plan was never to force anybody to live righteously. That belief is a false tradition and there is not one scripture verse to support that notion. Even he knew that nobody would follow such a plan. His plan was to eliminate agency by taking away all accountability so we could do whatever we wanted and still be saved in the celestial kingdom.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 22, 2014 11:26 a.m.

    @GZE,
    Re: "You can't have one set of civil rights for one group of people and another set for another group"...

    What's your definition of "Civil Right"...

    Marriage isn't a "Civil Right".

    Is EVERYTHING a "Civil Right"?

    ====

    If you can't have one set of civil rights for one "group" of people and another set for another group.... why are FLDS polygamous and underage marriages invalid?

    Because they're not legal? Because same-sex marriage is not legal in Utah (by our constitution) until the appeal is decided.

    Because under-age marriage is not moral? Because some think same-sex marriage is not moral.

    Do you see how it's not as simple as "you can't have one set of civil rights for one group of people and another set for another group"... because obviously we can. We do it all the time. And not just with marriage.

    ===

    Does the Constitution require all FLDS marriages be allowed?

    If not... is that not inequality for one group?

    If the Constitution says no restrictions can be allowed (ie restricting same-sex marriage)... Can ANY restrictions on FLDS marriages be allowed??

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 22, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    @gmlewis;

    Are you still married when you cross state lines?

    Enough said.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 22, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    gmlewis,

    "Separate but (not really exactly) equal" was struck down a long time ago. You can't have one set of civil rights for one "group" of people and another set for another group. That's the very definition of unconstitutional.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    May 22, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    I think that I see a constitutional solution for advocates of SSM: amend the United States Constitution to grant Federal Judges the right to perform marriages under Federal jurisdiction, conferring all the rights commonly granted by the states.

    That would remove states from being the middle man in this judicial tug of war. State law could remain unchanged. In states that recognize only hetero-sexual marriage, only Federal Judges would be permitted (i.e. mandated) to perform Same Sex Marriages. The marriage records would be maintained at the Federal level, rather than at the county level.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    May 22, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    "We believe that marriage is a matter of state law, not federal law."

    I wonder if the authors of the article also think Utah's historic ban on mixed-race marriage should be an issue left to the state?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 22, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    @KJB1 9:50 a.m. May 22, 2014

    Unfortunately there are some people who fail to realize what the Constitution really says, what the Constitutioni really means and how the Constitution really works. They voice their misunderstandings and incorrect opinions, and try to make the Constitution say what they want it to say. Thankfully, the courts have a better understanding of it.

    You're right that Loving v Virginia clearly states that, while States have the right generally to make the rules concerning the validity of marriages, they do not have the right to violate the Constitution when doing so. If they violate the Constitution, those laws are not valid. You are correct that Loving was decided on 14th Amendment Equal Protection grounds -- the same basis for the decisions of Judge Shelby and others ruling against the ban on same sex marriage.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 22, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    Mike Richards said: "Those minor judges will try to "hurt" as many people as they can, thinking perhaps that "feelings" are more important than law and that if they can "hurt" enough people, that the Supreme Court will have no choice but to allow "feelings" as a basis for equality. If that were to happen, then watch out because any person in America who "feels" that he has been treated unequally - in anything - will demand "equality" and he will use the 14th Amendment to force his "feelings" on the rest of America."

    Trouble is Mike, ALL of those who are against SSM, use nothing but "Feelings" as a basis for their hatred. Your freedom of religion is nothing more than Freedom of "Feelings"
    Since it can't be proven that "God" wrote any religious tenets, it is your faith in your "Feelings" which allow you to accept these teachings as God's. Religions get all kinds of special breaks and special treatment, special exemptions, all based on feelings. Perhaps it's time to revisit this special treatment of groups of people based on their collective "feelings" and take away those "rights" because they're just feelings Mike.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    May 22, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    Mike Richards 8:41 a.m.

    You seem to be going out of your way to forget Loving v. Virginia. I suppose you think that states should have the right to outlaw interracial marriage...

    And the arguments against same sex marriage are based on *nothing* but "feelings." Your point?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    May 22, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    To this point, dozens of federal judges have weighed in on this matter and unanimously found in favor of SSM, including Dale Kimball, a former bishop, high councilor, stake president, regional representative of the LDS Church and BYU law professor. The issue is now a matter of settled law. I predict the Supreme Court will never even hear the issue.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    May 22, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    Oh cant you see the way the wind is blowing just this week, federal courts struck down bans against same-sex marriage in Oregon and Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania’s Republican governor says he won’t challenge the decision; Oregon’s ruling may end up being stayed. The decisions were 10th and 11th rulings, including those by state courts, since Windsor to strike down bans on same-sex marriage. Stop spending anymore tax money on a case that was lost long ago,there are many homeless veterans in Salt Lake City that could use a hand up.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    The Constitution should protect everyone! People's religious views should not determine the rights of an individual and that is what people expect in this state. That is why we have the Constitution! To protect people from losing their rights because the majority of the population wish to deny them! Mormons should absoulutley not have the power to deny gay people their rights based upon their religious views. That in itself is discrimination! Come on, it isn't that hard to understand! If you want the freedoms for yourself, then you should allow the same rights to everyone else!
    Let it go to the supreme court. It isn't too hard to see who is goingto win!

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    May 22, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    "Attorneys for Utah have presented a powerful case in court..." - There surely must be someone at the DN with a law degree who can inform the Editorial Board that the Stats's case is materially weak?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 22, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    Really, DesNews? The marriages were legal when performed, so let it go. If the lower court decision is overturned, then let the few that happened stand. However, with courts all over the country making the same decision, the ban on SSM is soon to be a relic. I'm not sure the Supreme Court would overturn such a broad based movement. If it did, the decision will not stand in the long run. It would be our version of the Dred Scott decision, one that history rejects and mocks to this day. It's time to be done with this and move forward. In the end, as I have argued before, the only solution is to separate the governmental function from the religious sacrament.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    May 22, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    Judge Shelby not issuing a stay was a direct relation to the AG office not being prepared or being over confident in their briefs. The AG office should have been prepared with a written argument to issue a stay at a moments notice, the burden lays with the AG office not the judge. Hence, the marriage licenses issued during the 17 day window are valid regardless of the outcome of the petition to the 10th circuit and inevitable SCOTUS. Withholding the legal rights of individuals is reprehensible.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 22, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    In effect, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the 14th Amendment's "equality clause" when they gave the States the right to decide how to define marriage. If the 14th Amendment protects personal feelings, as demanded by gay activists, then the Court would have ruled that States must allow gay "marriage". Instead, the Court deferred to the States.

    Activist judges, who know that the Court has given a "defacto" ruling are trying an end-end around the court. Those minor judges will try to "hurt" as many people as they can, thinking perhaps that "feelings" are more important than law and that if they can "hurt" enough people, that the Supreme Court will have no choice but to allow "feelings" as a basis for equality. If that were to happen, then watch out because any person in
    America who "feels" that he has been treated unequally - in anything - will demand "equality" and he will use the 14th Amendment to force his "feelings" on the rest of America.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 22, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    IMO this decision should be delayed until the appeal is decided. The decision that lead to the marriages in question has been stayed pending appeal. When that appeal is decided... it should be easy (and less contentious) to decide this. It becomes a no-brainer...

    We need to know the outcome of the appeal is first. The ruling that let the marriages happen for a few days may not stand (I think it will stand, but what if it doesn't).

    -If the ruling is upheld... this issue is solved automatically (no contention).
    -If the appeal succeeds, and the amendment Utah voters added to their Constitution is allowed to stand... THEN we have a battle over these marriages that happened before the appeal.

    Why start the battle before we even know if it's needed?

    IMO the judge who made this decision should have known it would be appealed... and like other judges who made the same decision in other States, stay the implementation while the State submitted the paperwork for the appeal. Then these limbo-marriages, contention, confusion, and legal wrangling would not be happening to these families today...

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    May 22, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    "Attorneys for Utah have presented a powerful case in court for the rationality of the state’s decision to favor the man-woman definition because it furthers a culture that encourages parents to put the needs of their children above their own emotional fulfillment."

    So heterosexual parents are so completely inept and selfish that the ONLY thing that promotes them sacrificing for their children is preventing gay people from getting married? That if gay people get married that "encouragement" of parents to sacrifice for their kids will be gone?

    And THAT is the "Strong" case you think the state is making? That argument is offensive to heterosexual and homosexual alike. You're grasping at straws.

  • Y Ask Y Provo, UT
    May 22, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    Nice how equal civil rights for fellow Utahns is considered "uncertain chaos".

    Live and let live. Get over yourselves. You are not the morality police.

  • UT Brit London, England
    May 22, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    @bandersen

    "LDS members will be held accountable for their advocacy of what is wrong and their contempt for God!"

    As an LDS member I stood against the priesthood ban for black men just as I stand in support of SSM now. The brethren have proven to be wrong in the past and I feel they are wrong now. We have SSM in my country and it has made absolutely no difference to my family or myself.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    May 22, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    Conservatives arguing against the strength and stability that marriage brings to society?

  • sherlock1 cache, UT
    May 22, 2014 7:23 a.m.

    All American's are allowed the pursuit of Life, Liberty, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Of course unless you are gay.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 22, 2014 7:07 a.m.

    Isn't it interesting that the question of Gay marriage has moved completely beyond whether it is right or wrong, but whether it is constitutional. LDS members will be held accountable for their advocacy of what is wrong and their contempt for God!

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 22, 2014 6:53 a.m.

    There was no "chaos" in December. There was simply the State of Utah refusing to honor valid contracts.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 22, 2014 6:41 a.m.

    The only "chaos" is that facing LGBT married couples. All Utah has to do is treat them exactly like every other married couple in the state and, ta-da, no chaos anywhere for anyone.

    The DN editorial staff are really twisting themselves into pretzels in order to continue to support bigotry.

    "We believe that marriage is a matter of state law, not federal law."

    What happens to each of you editors when you cross state lines? Are you suddenly single again, or are you still married? Why should your marriage be valid when you cross state lines and not that of an LGBT married couple? I guess it is a Federal issue, isn't it.

    "Attorneys for Utah have presented a powerful case ..."

    No they haven't.

    State law may not violate the US Constitution. Period.

  • UT Brit London, England
    May 22, 2014 6:02 a.m.

    I have a feeling we are going to see another apology in 10-20 years time written on some obscure page of the lds.org website about the churches opposition to gay marriage.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2014 12:51 a.m.

    "We believe that marriage is a matter of state law, not federal law." But,

    in 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the remaining anti-interracial marriage laws were held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States. Are you saying that the Supreme Court acted inappropriately in Loving v. Virginia? If so, you can't be serious.

    Marriage is a federal matter, because couples simply cannot be married in one state but not another. Get real.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 22, 2014 12:47 a.m.

    "Attorneys for Utah have presented a powerful case in court for the rationality of the state’s decision to favor the man-woman definition because it furthers a culture that encourages parents to put the needs of their children above their own emotional fulfillment."

    That's actually an incredibly weak case because it operates under the completely unproven assumption that same-sex married couples are poor parents.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 21, 2014 11:49 p.m.

    "Attorneys for Utah have presented a powerful case in court for the rationality of the state’s decision to favor the man-woman definition because it furthers a culture that encourages parents to put the needs of their children above their own emotional fulfillment."

    I've read the state's brief, listened to the oral arguments and heard no powerful or even understandable case. The state's arguments are circular and self defeating and not rational at all. How does discouraging stable gay relationships encourage adults to be less selfish? Please someone explain the nexus. If gay relationships are normalized/destigmatized, gay people who would otherwise stay in the closet and try to marry an opposite sex partner will then be more likely to come out and marry another gay person instead? It is better for gays to not be open about it and try to act like straight people? That is better for kids? I seriously can't understand how the state thinks stigmatizing gay relationships will strengthen families and help kids. 17+ intelligent judges can't seem to understand it either. Please explain the "powerful case."

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 21, 2014 11:17 p.m.

    Chaos? No, there was no chaos. Only hundreds of happy couples seeking to get married. The state asked for a straight up/down ruling and got it, and they'll get the same ruling after the stay is heard. Congrats, Utah! We truly are the family values state.

  • bobdc6 park city, UT
    May 21, 2014 9:49 p.m.

    "We believe that marriage is a matter of state law, not federal law."

    but state law can't violate constitutional law, in this case, equal protection, so the choice is for the state to either outlaw the contract of marriage altogether, or follow the Constitution by honoring the right of any two consenting adults to marry.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    May 21, 2014 8:47 p.m.

    Does this opinion surprise anyone? Really?

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 21, 2014 7:50 p.m.

    These same-sex couples should not have to suffer the consequences of a mistake the State of Utah made. Utah did not get a stay because their lawyers did not ask for one until after marriages had taken place. That means that the status quo had changed. The following is from the court record:

    "The court’s Order did not include a stay of its judgment as none had been requested by the State. The court had a telephone conversation with counsel from both parties a few hours after it issued its Order.

    "The State represented to the Court that same-sex couples had already begun marrying in the Salt Lake County Clerk’s Office and requested the court to stay its Order of its own accord. The Court declined to issue a stay without a written record of the relief the State was requesting, and asked the State when it was planning to file a motion. The State was uncertain about its plans..."

    Kitchen v Herbert "Order on Motion to Stay," December 23, 2013.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    May 21, 2014 7:40 p.m.

    People getting married was chaos? I would like to use words to describe situations where the word is not used to describe the actual situation.

    I was at the Salt Lake County building when that activist judge struck down amendment three. It was complete anarchy. There was an epidemic of people patiently standing in line to receive a marriage license.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 21, 2014 6:52 p.m.

    Delaying the inevitable, (this is going to happen) with more desperate actions that only further exacerbates their obvious position of animus by hurting those who were married.

    MR said: "Waiting does no damage, but hurrying to rule may cause hurt and heartache that could easily have been avoided"

    –Completely backwards, Mike. You are not effected at all, Those in limbo have to worry about hundreds of possible scenarios from medical to legal and any of those 1200 other "Special" rights you have. Explain how the marriages of those during that brief time (soon to permanent) has caused harm in any tangible way to Utah and or it's citizens.

    As it stands the "Justices" are doing their job, and the lack of reasonable evidence presented by the state(s) is making it easy.

    Tradition and Dogma are a poor excuse (no matter how many times they're used) for bad behavior, they were wrong when used to...
    justify slavery
    treat women and children as property
    Manifest destiny
    Start War
    Hate people you've never met

    Very few scriptures, even mention this "sin" as compared to the ones mentioned over and over, though out old, and new testaments, and apparently acceptable.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2014 6:42 p.m.

    @JCS
    "The issue that keeps getting ignored in this debate is the fact that a bunch of judicial activists have ignored the Constitution in an effort to legislate from the bench."

    We're at something like 17-0 in court cases since Windsor. Are they really all judicial activists? Some of them were Republican appointees and many are from states that are hardly liberal (Utah, Oklahoma, Idaho, Kentucky).

    @Mike Richards
    "The Supreme Court has already ruled that STATES have the right to set the terms and conditions for marriage."

    As long as it's not unconstitutional, otherwise Loving v Virginia wouldn't have gone that way.

    @logicandtruth
    "As a result, in 2004 Utah clarified it's form of marriage."

    By doing something that among other things bans gay marriage. Don't pretend that wasn't the core motive of Amendment 3.

  • Mark l SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 21, 2014 6:38 p.m.

    It appears all the courts are ruling the correct way on the same sex marriage issue, because of fairness. But the Supreme Court is wrong on the issue of free speech in the Citizens United ruling.

    Perhaps, the courts can be wrong.

  • logicandtruth OREM, UT
    May 21, 2014 6:30 p.m.

    Comment Cont'd

    Shelby used the Equal Protection Clause (14th amendment adopted in 1868) and Due Process Clause (5th amendment adopted in 1791) to override the State's Constitution and require that Gay Marriages be allowed in Utah. Over a hundred years ago, in a time much closer to the meaning and context of those two clauses the Federal Government forced the State (as well as other western States) to ban certain forms of marriage.Note, the SC ruled in Reynolds Federal Govt COULD ban polygamy and rightly recognized the due process and equal protection clauses had nothing to do with it.

  • logicandtruth OREM, UT
    May 21, 2014 6:29 p.m.

    When Utah became a state in 1896, Congress required Utah to permanently ban polygamy in its Constitution before it would grant the territory statehood.

    As the Washington Times put it, "It's more than a little ironic that Utah, which was forced to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman as a condition for statehood, has been thrust into the role of traditional marriage by two pivotal cases involving same-sex couples and polygamy."

    Given it's history, Utah is in a somewhat unique position to argue that it can define marriage as between one man and one woman. The State isn't trying to "ban gay marriage" as so many headlines say. Rather, there are many other forms of marriage, that Utah in particular is uniquely familiar with. As a result, in 2004 Utah clarified it's form of marriage.

  • dell San Antonio, TX
    May 21, 2014 6:01 p.m.

    "I'm pretty certain that in our system of checks and balances, that judges can be impeached"

    Please name the last federal judge that was impeached.

    Quick review of how our government works since you post implies a good bit of confusion about the matter.

    Legislators are suppoesed to be activists. They write the laws.

    The executive branch executes/enforces the laws on the books, though going back severl presidents it increasingly decides to write new laws or selectively enforces.

    The judiciary is supposed to ensure that legislation is not unconstitutional and clarify execution of the law for the executive. Federal judges are appointed by the executive branch with senate confirmation(in that order, as opposed to your post). A federal judge could be impeached, but the process is similar to that required for a president and impeachment is for crimes, not unpopular rulings. The last 5 federal jusges impeached were for bribery, sexual assault and tax evasion.

    In short the people of Utah have no direct legal avenue to change the individual, unelected federal judges that have been taking upon themselves the powers of legislatures.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 21, 2014 5:47 p.m.

    I agree. We should delay giving citizens their constitutional rights so that we can be ruled by a vicious mob.

  • Northern Utahn Northern, UT
    May 21, 2014 5:27 p.m.

    I'm pretty certain that in our system of checks and balances, that judges can be impeached, and are appointed, by the legislative and executive branches, respectively. It's comical that we keep hearing about "activist judges." I'm tired of "activist legislators."

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 21, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    It seems strange to me that any judge would rule on a measure that is being fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. What is his purpose? Does he think that risking a reversal on his decision will NOT hurt those who are in limbo? The Supreme Court has already ruled that STATES have the right to set the terms and conditions for marriage. The Supreme Court is certainly aware of the 14th Amendment, and yet, it told the nation that STATES have the right to define marriage. Could anyone really claim that the Supreme Court is so incompetent that it has not read all of the Amendments to the Constitution or that it misunderstands the limits to which those Amendments can be applied?

    Judge Kimball needs to let the system work. Waiting does no damage, but hurrying to rule may cause hurt and heartache that could easily have been avoided had Judge Kimball thought more of the Supreme Court and of their role.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    May 21, 2014 5:14 p.m.

    The issue that keeps getting ignored in this debate is the fact that a bunch of judicial activists have ignored the Constitution in an effort to legislate from the bench. The Founding Fathers would turn over in their graves if they saw what is going on.

    The federal judiciary has taken it upon itself to completely subvert the other two branches of the federal government, and all three branches of state governments. Essentially, a pack of rogue federal judges has established a brand of anarchy in which their will is the only thing that matters.

    If laws are to have any legitimacy, they must be established in a legitimate fashion. That is not what has happened here, and it stains the creation of same sex marriage with illegitimacy.