LDS Church issues statement regarding overturned Utah marriage amendment


Return To Article
  • djofraleigh raleigh, NC
    July 3, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    Will those who support being able to marry whomever you love also allow those to love and marry more than one? Remember when Mormons in Utah first had the 'rules of marriage' forced on them?

  • Kaladin Northern, CO
    June 30, 2014 12:00 p.m.

    @enfantanongrata - What in the world are you talking about? The LDS Church is not against adoption in any way shape or form. My dad and his siblings were adopted and never had any sort of lower standing in the Church because of it. Again, I have no idea what you are talking about

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    June 29, 2014 11:15 p.m.

    I think the Church could see the writing on the wall long before most. It is not just about a gay couple being able to marry. (Honestly who cares?) It is about a gay couple being able to force others to participate in an event celebrating conduct which most major religions believe to be sinful. They will use the power of the state through anti-discrimination policies which are always applied in one direction. They can discriminate - we cannot.

    In the UK an American minister was arrested for teaching that homosexuality if a sin. Bakers and photographers have been successfully sued for refusing to participate in gay marriages. There are even decisions against churches now for refusing to allow their property to be used for gay marriages because such marriages violate the teachings of that church.

    In this country we have lost the right to not participate in something we find morally objectionable. The state can force us to participate at the cost of losing our businesses, property, etc. The left can force us to do what they think is right. Sounds like a plan I once heard about. I am sure they came from the same play book.

  • Gregg Weber SEATTLE, WA
    June 29, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    Someone says that a dog's tail is now a leg.
    How many legs does the dog have?
    What is the authority for that person to say that?
    What is the highest authority in that matter?
    What is that highest authority say about that matter?
    When these can be answered in relation to this question then the matter will be basically settled.

  • coltakashi Richland, WA
    June 28, 2014 5:14 p.m.

    Judges who claim that the Congress and state legislatures who created the 14th Amenment were contemplating overturning state constitutions upholding traditional marriage as the only form that would be recognized, are lying to us. They certainly did not see the 14th Amendment as overturning laws prohibiting polygamy, even though polygamy is a form of marriage that has been in continuous observance for thousands of years, including among the people who are honored in the Christian Bible as examples of godliness. That was made clear in US v Reynolds. How then could the 14th Amendment have intended to override state constitutions that drew the same line?

    This ruling is profoundly an action of oligarchy overriding democracy. When judges depart from the law and claim power to throw out democracy, they have acted unlawfully, and we do not owe them obedience when they do so. Judges are not the guardians of democracy. The people are. The 10th Circuit has announced that government of the people by the people has now perished from the earth.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2014 11:43 p.m.

    I agree with the thinking of Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr who dissented - he stood in defense of state rights. He wrote: "If the states are laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions — contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives — turns the notion of limited government on its head," he wrote. "Marriage is an important social institution commonly understood to protect this and future generations. That states sincerely differ about the best way to do this is inevitable."

    How about this version – "If the states are laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize MIXED RACE unions — contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives — turns the notion of limited government on its head," he wrote. "Marriage is an important social institution commonly understood to protect this and future generations. That states sincerely differ about the best way to do this is inevitable."

    I guess Judge Kelly has some doubts about the Loving decision too. The South would have agreed with the latter version wholeheartedly. How is the logic and therefore the conclusion different between the two?

  • David Lloyd-Jones Toronto, 00
    June 27, 2014 11:39 p.m.

    The Church's statement expresses the hope that the Supreme Court will "uphold" traditional marriage.

    Nobody is questioning or attacking traditional marriage.

    Thus "the Church," i.e. whoever crafted this rather foolish statement, is wrong to suggest by implication and misdirection that anyone is.


  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    June 27, 2014 9:09 p.m.

    Eagle 78 said: "Politics should NOT be influenced by religious beliefs....Keep your practices, and beliefs to yourselves which is where they belong."

    Can't the very same be said about gays, lesbians and SSM??

    Politics should not be influenced by LGBT beliefs....Keep your practices and beliefs to yourselves which is where they belong.

  • Benedito Beijing, PRC, 00
    June 27, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    The problem is wider and deeper. Regulations and laws upholding such "same sex 'marriages'" actually mean the dilution and even extinction of the family, as defined. It also means further "advancements" in the near future, as soon as the growing generation passively accepts such unions. There will come other promiscuous arrangements, group marriages, marriages between humans and animals, etc., etc. It is part of a plan, which has been carefully engendered and activated for some 100 years now. As it comes in homeopathic doses, we tend to accept it as natural evolution of society. Well, we all know how the story will end, right?

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 27, 2014 5:13 p.m.


    "Government only has a hand in marriage because they want to make money."

    Evidence to support this please.

    "But marriage was not created by governments."

    Marriage was not created, it pretty much happened on it's own. It has, over the centuries evolved from a strictly private/family thing to being recognized as a value to society by both churches and governments. It is managed and regulated by governments now, though.

    "It was created by God"

    Which ones?

  • ExTBird Springville, US-UT
    June 27, 2014 4:50 p.m.

    I'm not sure how often it has to be pointed out, but it has been addressed already by the law why things like incest, beastiality, pedophilia etc are not the same as SSM. Continuing to try and put them into the same category not only shows ignorance of the law itself, but also shows just how much scorn you really have for people who are not like you.

    There are logical reasons to prevent the above mentioned acts. There has never, and will never be a logical reason why SSM should be made illegal. Saying "God doesn't approve" is the same thing as saying "Santa doesn't approve".

    The only thing this does open the door for is polygamy. Though not the type that Warren Jeffs practiced. Trying to marry off 14 year old girls is going to get you thrown in prison. If everyone involved is a consenting adult, and the children produced are being taken care of? Again I say... stay out of other peoples lives. You have no business enforcing your will on others. Look out for yours and let other people do the same.

  • AdJoRo Kearns, UT
    June 27, 2014 4:25 p.m.


    "God made me bi-polar. Does that mean I'm allowed to act on my impulsive anger and claim I can't help it because I'm bi-polar and God must want me to be this way because I was born this way? Of course not!"

    You're absolutely right - because acting on your impulsive anger can cause harm to others. Someone acting on their homosexual desires causes harm to no one.

    Who are you to say being homosexual is an "urge" that needs to be "overcome"? One acting on their homosexual desires is no different than you acting on your (presumably) heterosexual desires.

    Love is love! Why squelch something that only creates joy?

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    June 27, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    Once we accept redefining marriage based on one atypical sexual practice, there is no legitimate reason not to extend it to others (i.e. Pederasty, Polygamy, etc.)

    If the Courts believe the States cannot refuse to recognize marriages based on gender, it logically follows that States cannot discriminate based on age or the number of participants either.

    They have opened Pandora's Box. I hope the Supreme Court slams it shut.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    "Living in the latter days isn't for sissies, and we know it's going to get worse"

    Oh yeah, these days are what's rough... not the time of slavery and life expectancies in the 40s or when women were basically property of men or any of the host of other times in human existence or even other countries in the world today...

  • GeoMan SALEM, OR
    June 27, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    Reading the 10th Circuit's feeble attempt at explaining does nothing. Nor do any of the several other recent decisions. They all boil down to personal opinions and flawed logic to try and support their language that limits the extension of their rulings to similar issues. The same can be truthfully said of recent conservative rulings on other issues. If one dismisses the existence of a higher, moral law (that can be somehow discovered, i.e self evident truths), and the collective wisdom of human experience, then one is left with baseless, arbitrary, individual opinions. One is free to believe such a reality is acceptable, but one should have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that. Attempts to elevate personal opinions to some higher status are just offensive. Societies are free choose policies. Just don't try and vilify those that oppose the changes because they honestly believe they will produce negative results for everyone. There is a lot of real estate between approval and persecution (from both sides of any issue).

  • Lilly Munster netherlands, 00
    June 27, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    Of course, NO Church, Religion, Denomination or any Clergy member actually Marries anyone, ever. You get you marriage license from the State, not your Minister. You pay the State, they register it, just like any other License, and you are married. No Clergy is ever required. Thankfully, we do not leave Marriage up to any prevailing Clerical Majority, or we would need a Priest in Sacramento, or an Imam in Dearborn. Marriage is a Constitutional Right. If you have a problem with that, keep it to yourself. Actually, Mormonism, always a Crusade for Members, would be smart to keep their Gay and Lesbian Children in the Fold, rather than brutally shunning them and casting them aside.

  • Mormonmama0106 Phoenix, AZ
    June 27, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    God made me bi-polar. Does that mean I'm allowed to act on my impulsive anger and claim I can't help it because I'm bi-polar and God must want me to be this way because I was born this way? Of course not!

    We human beings are meant to control and overcome our natural urges, not give in to them. Just as with abortion, no matter what the secular law allows, somethings are and always will be against God's laws. Wrong is never right, no matter how many people say it is.

  • Texann Midlothian, TX
    June 27, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    Living in the latter days isn't for sissies, and we know it's going to get worse. Hold to the iron rod.

  • CDL Los Angeles, CA
    June 27, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    Civil Ceremonies will become the out come of this as in some other countries. All people will need to seek Civil Ceremonies first to avoid legal issues over Churches that don't acquiesce to marring gay couples (Judges will make a fortune). Then those that want to marry in the Church can have a separate ceremony, In the LDS Church it would be the Temple.

  • GD Syracuse, UT
    June 27, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    I think it has nothing to do with judging.

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    June 27, 2014 7:07 a.m.

    It strikes me as odd that the Mormon church, who was persecuted and driven out for allowing non-traditional marriages (polygamy) are now standing against other people doing what they feel is right. They are doing exactly what was done to them back when polygamy was going, and that is trying to define marriage for others.

  • Good-Heavens Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 27, 2014 12:32 a.m.

    LDS Church releases official statement against SSM. What a shocker!

  • zmillion2 West Jordan, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:18 p.m.


    While you're right that the states own marriage. You're missing my point. Government only has a hand in marriage because they want to make money. But marriage was not created by governments. It was created by God, and used in religion for a long time before government decided it belonged to them. THAT is my point.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:41 p.m.

    "This ruling does not force Churches to accept same sex marriages..."

    That's too bad. It should.

  • Good Mojo Tooele, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:30 p.m.

    Confusion is becoming a national norm enforced by law.

  • abtrumpet Provo, UT
    June 26, 2014 6:23 p.m.

    Kindred, thank you for stating the truth.

  • JimmyJackJohnJones Jonestown, TX
    June 26, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    Quoting scripture in a newspaper comment section is the cheesiest thing I've ever seen. It doesn't lend credibility, it makes people sound like nut jobs, disconnected from reality. It's like showing up at a science fair with a replica of Noah;'s Ark, or a diorama of the Garden of Eden. Seriously.

  • John Locke Ivins, , UT
    June 26, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    IMO, the ultimate "legal" issue for the LDS Church will be whether they will allow the sealing of such marriages in the temple.

    In the case of a same sex couple becoming married to one another in a state which allows it, while regularly attending Church, and being temple recommend holders at the time they were married, what would the Church do? Personally, I believe, and would concur, that they would not allow this to happen.

    The doctrine of the Church (not "policy") will either have to change through revelation, as in the case of Blacks receiving the priesthood, or the Church will have to enforce the doctrine with the possible result of a law suit that will overturn this precious right now existing for the true definition of the "Family," as being a marriage between a man and a woman.

    For LDS people, this is an extremely difficult question; similar, to Sharia Law now in limited use in England. The Brits are struggling with utilizing "limited" Sharia Family Law Courts for disputes for Muslims, where it does not conflict with or affect English Law.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 26, 2014 3:46 p.m.


    "Marriage is a religious institution, always has been and always will be. I'm surprised that atheist's and same sex couples would even want to take part in a ceremony that is so religious."

    Not the least bit true. The state owns marriage. One cannot be married anywhere in the US without the states blessing. Religious wedding ceremonies are performed at the will of and with the permission of the states. A religious wedding without a state marriage license is not a marriage. I am a married atheist who married in city hall 32 years ago. Rest assured, my marriage is just as legal as any other.

  • Patriot Jim West Valley City, UT
    June 26, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    I saw a comment about the 14th Amendment in one of the remarks. Apparently they do not know that the Utah Supreme Court has ruled the 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional and has no effect ore power in the State of Utah. The reason for the ruling is that the US Congress sent the Amendment out to the States for ratification and the Southern States said "NO!!" So Congress declared Martial Law in those States and replaced the lawfully elected Legislators with what are called "Rump" Legislators, who then ratified the Amendment. These people did not speak for the Citizens of those States and therefore their actions are null and void. That is why the Utah Supreme Court ruled the way they did. Also, Judge Perez of Louisiana ruled the 14th Amendment to be Unconstitutional and Representative Rarick of Louisiana posted all of this in the Congressional Record. All of this information can be found at www.constitutionalconcepts.org and click on the link to the 14th Amendment.

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    June 26, 2014 3:00 p.m.

    @Miss Piggie and @GeoMan

    You can read the 10th circuit court decision, the ruling explained why it is constitutional right for same sex couples to marry, and specifically explained why it is not the same case for polygamy, incestuous and child marriage kind of thing.


    Maudine is right. If Methodist Church opens its facility to general public for tax exempt considerations, then they have to abide laws for general public, including non-discrimination law, like all other organizations.

    If they don't care about the tax exempt and keep their facility private, of course they can pick and choose, because no non-discrimination law is applied.

  • GeoMan SALEM, OR
    June 26, 2014 2:49 p.m.

    Maudine, you miss my point. Yes, there is developmental science about changes in the physiology of human beings as they age. The point is that what social policies we choose to establish based on the objective science are another issue altogether. There is absolutely nothing in the developmental science that says early teens and pre-teens can't marry (in fact in some societies they do and I'm referring to teens marrying teens). You may interpret the objective science so as to arrive at such a conclusion, but the science doesn't intrinsically produce a social policy.
    As to your compelling proof statement, I disagree. It is obvious to me that there is compelling proof that same-sex marriage is bad for society. The fact that you, or some judges, don't find it obvious doesn't make one opinion or the other more or less correct. Unquestionably, it does establish one opinion as the (immoral) law of the land. If you reduce this to nothing more than opinions, you can't take something like an age of consent as being "obvious" or as a "given."

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    June 26, 2014 2:14 p.m.

    "I do not support on any level a state passing or enforcing laws that infringe on any US citizen's rights to choose whom they marry."

    I agree with you. Everyone should be able to marry whomever they wish... a brother, sister, aunt, uncle, father, mother, first cousin, and perhaps a sub-teen... or all of them at the same time.

    I am happy to see that the day of rejoicing and equal protection has finally arrived.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    "Some recommend that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints should change its views as a strategic move."

    Well, I think there is one option. Considering all the court rulings in favor of same-sex marriage and the church article of faith about upholding the law, it should be simple for the church to change it's position on same-sex marriage with regards to those outside the faith, while maintaining their viewpoint inside the church (it'd be something like 'we don't approve of same-sex marriage, but we're not going to stop you from getting one in other churches or civil marriages'). While that could be considered a "strategic move" I don't feel that type of change would be in violation of church teachings since it preserves the doctrinal view and merely changes the policy view of additionally trying to stop them even outside the church.

  • enfanta non grata Traverse City, MI
    June 26, 2014 2:07 p.m.

    The behaviour of the LDS church is not surprising, there is no shortage of hate within the church. Gays are not the only people the LDS look down upon - adoptees are also viewed as "less than worthy" by the church, which fights adult adoptees' right to own a copy of their own factual birth certificate. Persons intimately connected with the LDS have, and continue to steal children and hide pregnant teens from their families until the infant is born and sold to an LDS couple. Do your own Google search of this - you will be horrified.
    The LDS church is an enemy of adopted persons nationwide, an enemy of all who posess any empathy at all.

  • Melanna Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 26, 2014 2:02 p.m.

    @ RedShirt: It is not against the doctrine of the CoE - as I stated, some CoE ministers want to perform same-sex marriages and are prohibited by law from practicing their religion accordingly. This case is similar to the situations here is the US where some members of a particular sect want same-sex marriage and others don't. And the members are addressing it according to the rules of their religion. You may choose to ignore the reality, but this is not the same as someone suing to have the government force the religion to perform rites they don't support.

    And the NJ case was not about church doctrine - it was about a special tax exempt status based on public accommodation. The Methodist church choose to use the tax exempt status but didn't want to follow the rules associated with having that status. They were sued to force them to follow the same law everyone else follows. Are you stating that obeying the law is not a Methodist value? They could very easily have given up the tax exempt status and not have to worry about letting people use the gazebo.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    June 26, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    There are indeed many who do argue for traditional marriage that have an excellent understanding of constitutional principals. Judge Paul J. Kelly in his discenting argument disagreed that the Fourteenth Amendment requires Utah to extend marriage to same-sex couples or recognize those marriages from other states. He said "We should resist the temptation to become philosopher-kings, imposing our views under the guise of constitutional interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment"

    The "let's change marriage crowd" wants it imposed that their's is the only way the constitution can be viewed.

  • spector Tranquility, UT
    June 26, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    @Patriot Jim
    "In a recent e-mail I saw where Denmark was about to tell the Mormon Church they had to perform gay marriages in the Copenhagen Temple."

    Close. But completely wrong.

    Denmark has a state church, the Danish National Church. And Denmark has passed a law that all Danish National Churches perform same sex marriages. Individual (Danish National) priests may opt out of performing the ceremonies. But the the (Danish National) churches must provide someone to perform the ceremonies upon request.

    This makes sense, since all citizens should be guaranteed access to a state church.

    The law does NOT affect any other denomination. The Mormon church cannot be made to perform same sex marriages in their chapels or temples under this law.

    Again, someone is sharing misinformation to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.

  • spector Tranquility, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:39 p.m.

    "We the people of Utah have the right and responsibility to choose our laws collectively…"

    Very close, but completely wrong. We can pass laws that are Constitutional. And it is the judicial branch's responsibility to determine when we've crossed the line. (We can save a lot of time, money and aggravation if we try to pre-judge constitutionality before we pass laws, but in the end it is judges who will decide.)

    For example, Utah can't pass a law against being Baptist. They can't pass a law that says accountants can't have lawyers at trials. Or that blonds must pay a special tax.

    And they can't pass laws that counter federal laws. Utah can't pass a law allowing guns past security points at airports because federal law supersedes local law.

    Every case that has been decided since Windsor has found laws (or state amendments) banning marriage equality are unconstitutional.

    You can still make this happen. But it can't be by law or state amendment. You would have to pass a Constitutional amendment, making it constitutional.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    June 26, 2014 1:32 p.m.

    To "Maudine" you just asked for a case where a church was sued to do something against its doctrine. The CoE case is a point where a church was sued to do something against its doctrine. It doesn't matter that it is the State church in England. The fact remains that they were sued to do something they don't believe in.

    Even in the Methodist case, they were being forced to take part in a ceremony that they said was in violation of their beliefs.

    You wanted one instance, I have given you 2. Dismiss them if you want, but they are history and will set a bad precedent.

  • Patriot Jim West Valley City, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    In a recent e-mail I saw where Denmark was about to tell the Mormon Church they had to perform gay marriages in the Copenhagen Temple. I'd bet the Church closes the Temple before that happens, or may even tear it down so it cannot be desecrated. Closing the Temple will be a real blow to the Saints in Denmark.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    June 26, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    Actually, GeoMan, the age requirement is based on developmental science and there is a provable difference between adults and adolescents. There is also a provable harm to removing the protections placed on children.

    This is something that many opponents of same-sex marriage seem to fail to understand. The government, local, state, or federal, can limit rights if that limitation serves a compelling government reason, such as protecting children from harm. Many states, including Utah, argued that the right of marriage should be limited to opposite sex couples because allowing same-sex marriage would harm opposite sex marriages. No state has been able to provide compelling proof of that claim which is why the same-sex marriage bans keep getting struck down.

    It is very easy to provide compelling proof that children are not developmentally the equivalent of adults and need to be protected from entering into contracts, including marriage contracts.

    Arguments against same-sex marriage would be more compelling if those arguing against it seemed to understand basic Constitutional principles.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    June 26, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    @ Redshirt: The Methodist Church in NJ was not sued to perform a same-sex marriage - they were sued because they had a Gazebo that they allowed people to use for events in order to pay a lower property tax on it. NJ, which at the time did not allow SSM, has a non-discrimination law. Refusing to allow a gay couple access to the Gazebo violated the non-discrimination clause.

    Your points would be more effective if your facts were correct.

    As for the Church of England case - when England legalized SSM, they stated that it was up to individual churches to decide if they would perform SSM but the Church of England is prohibited from deciding to have SSM. Now, as you know, the CoE is run by the English government (part of the reason the Founding Fathers wanted a separation of Church and State). So, by suing the CoE the couple is actually suing the British government in an effort to get them to treat all churches equally and let the churches decide which marriages to perform. Some CoE ministers want to perform SSM and, according to British law, this is the way to challenge that restriction.

  • ExTBird Springville, US-UT
    June 26, 2014 12:04 p.m.


    You continue to prove a point that was mentioned earlier by Eagle and some others. You make a comment like "If you love God, why don't you keep his commandments?". Missing the point entirely that not everyone that believes in God believes in YOUR God. You don't have a monopoly on spirituality. It has been pointed out many times that the LDS church is not the morality police. They also don't get to dictate what God really means, or what his commandments are. You are welcome to believe what you want, but stop trying to force it on everyone else like it is some undeniable truth.

    I do not believe in your gospel. Like I said earlier your scriptures may as well be Lord of the Rings as far as I am concerned. I am also not homosexual in case you were wondering. I believe that people have basic human rights and that you don't get to step on those rights because you choose to believe something you read in a book.

  • GeoMan SALEM, OR
    June 26, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    Early on in this discussion someone posted the caveat "(obviously persons of consenting age)." What everyone needs to realize is that the basis for that "obvious" position has no more intrinsic merit that the basis for arguing against same-sex marriage. It is a social convention that could be swept aside for exactly the same reasons that are being applied to the same-sex situation. Just because almost everyone agrees today about the idea of the age of consent, and that it should be in the late teens, doesn't mean that 12-year-olds couldn't rise up and argue that they have rights. Why should early teens (or preteens) be subjected to the discrimination and tyranny of a bunch of old people? Same argument. You can rattle on all you want about the differences, but you will just be repeating the arguments of the man-woman marriage side of today's issue.
    Either there are some things that have a moral standing independent of public opinion, or everything is a social convention that is subject for negotiation. Choose wisely.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    June 26, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    @ Sloppyjoe,

    A reasonable person would have interepted my hyperbolic comment as it was "I who coverted,and No, The Presbyterian Elders did not hold a middle-of-the-night tribunal to decide if it were for me to attone for my apostasy at the stake via a cleansing fire.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 26, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    To "Eagle78" that is always a funny thing to say when your ilk says "God loves the gays". Of course he does. God loves everybody, from Hitler to Mother Teresa. God loves everybody, and that is never a question.

    The questions that your ilk have to think about are tougher. Do you personally love God? If you love God, why don't you keep his commandments?

    To "Dixie Dan" the LDS church will probably not allow their Bishops to perform gay wedding ceremonies. You would be asking them to do something that is in direct opposition to LDS doctrine.

    To "Maudine" in England there was a gay couple that sued the Church of England to force them to perform a gay marriage despite it being against their doctrine. This happened to the Methodist Church in New Jersey when a lesbian couple sued them.

    To "SlopJ30" if we make laws to legitimze gay marriage because of a chemical imbalance in their brains, should we also make laws to allow bi-polar people to act out violently because they have a manic urge to punch somebody?

  • Idahotransplant West Jordan, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:18 a.m.

    Whatever religion, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc. you are, unfortunately we all have been created equal and everyone has the the right to choose how they want to live as long as they abide by the laws of the land, the laws of men. There is a higher law and we can disagree but can not be the judge of those who want to live thier lives the way they want to. Yes, we can express our opinion and politically try to change things but we have to follow the law. Thier is a higher court for that at Judgment day. The separation of church and state is key but so are the rights of a states sovereignty. That separation from state and federal is getting thinner and thinner because of the ego's in D.C. Remember people we are not a democracy but a "Republic" of sovereign states.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:18 a.m.


    I just realized I didn't address your last paragraph. Sorry for that. Yes, thousands of regulations of marriage do exist, and it would be a colossal task to remove government from marriage. And, the longer government regulates marriage, the more difficult it would be to remove government from marriage. Men, women, and children need protections provided by government, but those protections should, in my opinion, be provided because those persons are members of a state/country not because those persons are members of a marriage. For example, individuals shouldn't be allowed to abuse others, regardless whether those individuals are members of a marriage, are neighbors, or whatever.

  • bbc SLC, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    This ruling DOES NOT Force churches to accept gay-marriage. Read the opinion, p. 60: "We also emphasize, as did the district court, that today’s decision relates solely to civil marriage. See Kitchen, 961 F. Supp. 2d at 1214 (“[T]he court notes that its decision
    does not mandate any change for religious institutions, which may continue to express
    their own moral viewpoints and define their own traditions about marriage.”). Plaintiffs
    must be accorded the same legal status presently granted to married couples, but religious
    institutions remain as free as they always have been to practice their sacraments and
    traditions as they see fit. We respect the views advanced by members of various religious
    communities and their discussions of the theological history of marriage. And we
    continue to recognize the right of the various religions to define marriage according to
    their moral, historical, and ethical precepts. Our opinion does not intrude into that
    domain or the exercise of religious principles in this arena. The right of an officiant to
    perform or decline to perform a religious ceremony is unaffected by today’s ruling."

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:08 a.m.


    You've given a good overview of the role of government in regulating marriage. Thank you for doing that. I'm suggesting that this regulation of marriage stop and that social groups, such as churches, define marriage however they wish.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    June 26, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    Perhaps those who speculate that -

    " the African Americans had to go through. There is no way that this is similar. Those individuals had to go through hardships that the LGBT community can not even fathom. "

    should research NAZI Germany when LGBTs were not only persecuted like the Jewish, but were not freed from the NAZI prisons by the USA.

    Same gender marriage is a CIVIL ISSUE, not a religious one, and LGBTs work, pay taxes, serve their country just like everyone else and should be given equal marriage rights.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    June 26, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    BYU Track Star says: "Would we be okay with Presbyterians burning former members at the stake for converting to to Mormonism, like I did some 40 years ago?"

    You burned Protestants-turned-Mormons at the stake back in the 70's? Is there a statute of limiations on that sort of thing?

    HENELSON: I see myself as an American before a native Utahn and current Missiourian, and I'm guessing you only hide behind the curtain of states' rights when it suits your personal feelings. If you lived in a more progressive state (all 49 of them), your tune would be different.

    This is a civil rights issue, something the stuck-in-the-1800's conservative side seems to deny with vehemence. I do not support on any level a state passing or enforing laws that infringe on any US citizen's rights to choose whom they marry. The state can't deny basic rights that our nation allows, and marriage is one of those rights, whether it's literally in the constitution or not.

  • Clark D Houston, TX
    June 26, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    It is inteesting to me that the idea of the terminology, gay, instead of homosexuals is the way society determined to lighten the identity of this type of a person. This was first promoted by sex magazines such as penthouse, hustler, and playboy along with the movie industry. Then the news media captilized on it because it was controversial. If you view a nude picture of man and a woman side by side a normal evaluation should apply. To continue to support the idea of gay is OK is just not realistic.
    Homosexual activities may be acceptable to some, but they are and will always be outside of a normal so called sexual activity. So, how can we support the idea of a marriage of the same sex? Marriage is a system designed for the joining of a man and woman and cannot be modified just because some of societies modifications of values.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:45 a.m.


    Amendment 3 does nothing to "protect traditional marriage". Nothing at all. The ONLY thing Amendment 3 accomplishes is to deny marriage to LGBT citizens. That is the ONLY thing it does.

  • HENELSON lindon, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    I agree with the thinking of Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr who dissented - he stood in defense of state rights. He wrote: "If the states are laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions — contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives — turns the notion of limited government on its head," he wrote. "Marriage is an important social institution commonly understood to protect this and future generations. That states sincerely differ about the best way to do this is inevitable."

    A judge that understands the US constitution and the limited roll of the federal government. We the people of Utah have the right and responsibility to choose our laws collectively and we chose amendment 3 to protect traditional marriage and morality.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    June 26, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    We are hearing such desperation is the tone of those who are against SSM in these comments.
    We also hear anger, fear, and premonitions of doom/the end of the world, as we know it, from traditional marriage/anti-gay commenters on these forums.
    Hoping the LDS Church leaders will be able to put together a message that will help calm their flock. They must be praying that a message of Peace and Good Will might be accepted by their LDS membership. Other faiths are also hurrying to calm their congregations, as well.
    We know other religions have already, successfully, shared the word of love and acceptance..
    Otherwise, it would appear that all the words of love, kindness, and acceptance being taught by Mormon missionaries around the globe...... young LDS missionaries sharing the LDS message.....

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    June 26, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    WRK says: "I wish that some would stop equating this with Civil Rights that the African Americans had to bo through. There is no way that this is similar."

    Missouri loves BYU (who doesn't speak for all BYU grads in Missouri) also dismisses the racial equality analogy and says: "Legal and moral are not the same thing and never will be."

    Of course they are not exactly the same. Each issue involving what citizens get what rights comes with its own arguments, nuances and inherent biases. However, saying there are no similarities between the two is impossible for any honest, thinking person. "You're different than I am in some way that makes me uncomfortable, therefore you can't do the same stuff I can" is never a rational, defensible argument.

    And, yes, legal and moral are not the same thing. One is personal and highly subjective. The other is in black and white and not only subject to limited interpretation . . by people much more qualified than you or me. If you want rule based on morality, who gets to be the morality police? The LDS Church?

  • spector Tranquility, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    "It will not happen soon if at all, but get government at all levels out of marriage. Let governments focus on civil rights via civil unions or similar things. Let social groups decide what form of marriage (or no marriage) they will honor."

    It amazes me how many people misunderstand marriage. Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults which brings with it certain rights and responsibilities. Only the government can issue licenses for marriage. And only the government can grant a divorce, ending a marriage. It is also the government that extends the right to perform marriages. Whether it's a priest, pastor, rabbi, bishop, or temple president -- they all get permission to perform marriages from the state.

    As such, the definition of marriage is a matter for the state to decide. In the U.S. that means that the right to define marriage rests with "We the People" through our representatives and, yes, as constrained by our Constitution.

    Thousands of laws exist at the state and federal level pertaining to marriage. To take the government out of marriage would be a colossal task. Doing so would leave husbands, wives and children without vital legal protections.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    Some recommend that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints should change its views as a strategic move. Being what it is, the church OF Jesus Christ, it can do no other thing than what its Lord and Master requires.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    June 26, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    SS Marriage is not a threat to our or My Hetro-Marriage(s). SS Marriage is not to threat to our Children's socialization and will not spawn a generation of socio-paths. Other countries haven't collasped into chaos nor will ours. The biggest threat to Marriage today is D-I-V-O-R-C-E. I read the Church's brief on why the Status Quo should be maintained regarding SS marriage. I was not impressed. The findings of California 10th Circuit Court previously found in so many words that "Religious objections do not trump the rule of law". I am glad we don't live in a Theocracy where Churchman set the rules of law for the land. Currently, in the Sudan, a marriaed Christian woman was sentenced to death for being an Apostate Muslim. Would we be okay with Presbyterians burning former members at the stake for converting to to Mormonism, like I did some 40 years ago? I think not...

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:11 a.m.


    My opinion (not church doctrine) is that yes, some may have the propensity to be gay. That there may even be a set percentage who do. There may be a set percentage who are prone to all sorts of various and sundry sins. We ALL have weaknesses. We all sin in different ways. One could name many sins that different people may be prone to. I certainly sin. I don't know if GOD made us that way or not. I really don't. But I do know he wants us to overcome those weaknesses and has prepared a way to do so.

    So, even though you may have come to earth with some propensities, I don't agree that they are uncontrollable or healthy for society or the individual. Homosexuality is a serious transgression or sin, like any other. God loves His children indeed, all of them, but he does not like all that they do. Just my opinion.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    Just this year, a church in the south refused to marry an interracial couple. Both had been members of the church for some time and had dated and been engaged while attending that church. The church refused, not because they didn't like the couple or that they wouldn't continue to welcome them to attend their church. It was tradition. They have never allowed interracial marriages at their church and they didn't want to start making exceptions.

    This 47 years after Loving v. Virginia.

    While anti-discrimination laws will apply to florists, they do not and cannot be applied to churches. Churches are protected by the 1st amendment to be as racist, misogynistic or homophobic as they wish. No same sex marriages will be forced on the Mormon church. The scare tactics are ridiculous.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    It will not happen soon if at all, but get government at all levels out of marriage. Let governments focus on civil rights via civil unions or similar things. Let social groups decide what form of marriage (or no marriage) they will honor.

  • Goddess Divine Orem, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    I agree with Deseretina, continuing the fight doesnt make any sense. I think is a waste of time, money and resources. I wish the church would ask their members if they agree on continuing using the church money and resources for this. If they asked me, I would say NO. Invest that money in the poor, temples, etc.

    I also agree with Kindred, whatever the position of the federal government, the meaning of marriage cannot be changed. At the same time, I don't like to impose on others my beliefs. Everyone should,use their free agency to make their own decisions. I was told by someone that the consequences of allowing gay marriage could affect our society and we don't know what those are yet. I don't know where she got that idea from. Gays and lesbians have lived among us since biblical times and to this day, the word hasn't changed much because of them. Heterosexuals continue being heterosexuals and gays continue being gays. The bad effects on society are brought upon us mainly by those politians that get everyone into wars.

  • Abinadis friend Boise, Idaho
    June 26, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    Lucifer is really working hard at this point in our Second Estate. We need to stand strong against him forcing his agenda. To those of us that have a testimony of the Lords plan, it is unbelievable what is transpiring. Just remember that the lords plan will win out in the end. Have faith and keep the commandments.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    June 26, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    @Redshirt1701 (from another thread where I'm capped out):

    "So, do we make laws to permit people to act out on their urges caused by an altered brain chemistry or do we look for ways to fix the altered brain chemistry?"

    Lots of things can be considered "abnormal" depending on who's evaluating matters. To answer your question directly . . well, I can't, because people are ALREADY acting on their urges. This legal matter isn't allowing anyone to have sex that wasn't having it before. That's one of the primary problems with your side of this debate . . you've got sex, sex, sex on the brain. That part of the relationship is already happening, regardless of the SSM debate.

    But still, I'll give it a go . . a free society can't specifically prohibit people from acting on their nature, or urges, their desires, or whatever you want to call it, unless it demonstrably harms others. Whether you think it's "unnatural" is irrelevant. Whether you think it's gross is irrelevant. Whether you believe God doesn't like it is irrelevant. Whatever you think the Founding Fathers would think is irrelevant.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 26, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    Appreciate the kind words…

    @samhill – “The only reason the notion of homosexual "marriage" has gained any traction…is because of the reciprocal diminished and devaluation of marriage in general.”

    This statement appears to violate the logical law of non-contradiction.


    I can’t imagine growing up and constantly being told my left-handedness is a mistake and a sin in the eyes of God. Probably would have spent years trying to do everything with my right hand all the while knowing deep down I was not living my best and most authentic self.

    Guessing once I realized that I was simply living in a family/culture of conformists to a particular set of beliefs I would be tempted towards great anger, but would hope that later maturity would turn that anger to pity (“forgive them, they know not what they do”) as I came to understand that these right-hander conformists are living a collective delusion, at least from everyone else’s perspective.

    Remember - all religions viewed from the inside are true, and all religions viewed from the outside are false.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    "Apparently we're also the cause of global warming."

    You're Hot, Hot, Hot! :o)

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    ulvegaard says:
    "I shall continue to advocate traditional marriage, to resist same sex marriage - but through peaceful means and with mutual respect and common courtesy for all involved."

    I ask you this in all honesty, is it "mutual respect and courtesy" to deny others the legal benefits you enjoy?

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    It amazes me how people will still quote the Bible in their argument against gay marriage and gay sexual activity. Don't they know that everyone's already heard all those biblical quotes, again and again and again? And that if they were going to accept them as "God's Word," they would have done so by now? Do these posters really think that someone who's for gay marriage and gay sexual activity will read *their* posting and suddenly cry, "Oh, I've been wrong! I repent! Please forgive me, God!"

    As to those people who are annoyed-to-outraged at the comparison of gay civil rights with African-American civil rights, the comparison is valid as to *principle*, not as to "degree of suffering." (Though God knows, gays have suffered deeply too.)

    Anyone who believes in Mormon doctrine is free to join the Mormon Church. Anyone who believes in the validity of same-gender loving relationships is free to support gay marriage. It's a free country. End of story.

  • ExTBird Springville, US-UT
    June 26, 2014 9:32 a.m.


    You don't have to agree with same-sex marriage. You don't have to like it. That is completely your right. What isn't your right is to try and wield the law as a weapon to help you discriminate against others. Gay people isn't something you want to see on tv/movie? Change the channel.

    Telling someone that they are a lesser human compared to you because you disagree with their lifestyle is wrong.

    Also, please don't quote scripture like it some how bolsters your point. Not everyone believes what you do, and for many people those words are meaningless. You could quote Lord of the Rings and it would have the same impact in our eyes.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    June 26, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    @RFLASH, I very much appreciate your view point and your apparent determination to treat everyone with civility and tolerance.

    With that, I remind us all that the LDS church, along with it ongoing stance against gay marriage continues to encourage this same type of civility towards everyone; even those who do not share our view points.

    It is interesting how those advocating same sex marriage are often insistent that anyone who disagrees with them are hate filled, homophobic bigots. By my own personal view point which I share completely with the LDS church leadership, I shall continue to advocate traditional marriage, to resist same sex marriage - but through peaceful means and with mutual respect and common courtesy for all involved.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    June 26, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    "One step closer to marriage equality for all citizens of every state. A happy day."

    Agreed. And the next steps will be to legalize polygamy, siblings marriages, close relative (such as first cousins or aunt/niece). Cant wait to marry my grandfather (who is still married to my grandmother). There's now no reason to block these types of marriages. The 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses dictate such. Finally, the courts have seen the light and have moved the country away from discrimination in marriage. Happy day!

    The next step? Eliminate marriage altogether.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    June 26, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    Tyler D, there is a difference. The majority of Americans now support gay marriage, this was never the case with abortion. Even most young religious people support gay marriage or don't care about it.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    June 26, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    Redwings--nondiscrimination policies don't and have never pertained to Churches. This is simply a scare tactic.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 26, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    "The judge did his job, as he is supposed to do."

    The judge erred. Even the Supreme Court has been known to err from time to time. They are, after all, human.

    If homosexuals can marry, others who love each other, such as father/daughter should also be allowed to marry. Same with siblings. Same with polygamists. Apparently, other types of marriage combinations that can be conjured are disgusting to the judge. There is no logical excuse for others who love each other to not be able to enjoy married life just like homosexuals.

    "Unlike with same-sex marriage, there are legally valid reasons to limit marriage involving close relatives, etc."

    'Legally valid' is no excuse to prohibit marriage for those who love each other. At least that's what homosexuals are telling us.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    June 26, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    We're dealing with Civil Marriage here. What any religion believes is the will of God has nothing to do with this. These laws affect people who don't belong to the same church you do. No religion will be forced to marry any couple they don't want to, but there are religions who do want to sanction gay marriages--what about their religious freedoms.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    June 26, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    @RedWings When your belief teaches you to segregate people that don't meet your ideal or to remove compassion and inclusion from school curriculum then a sane person would start to question those beliefs. I'm not sure what your point is with Math 10:34 but if you think Jesus was advocating killing people that didn't believe in him I think you have it wrong.

  • Dan Taylor Keyser, WV
    June 26, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    So i guess if a bunch of people want to start a movement where they can go anywhere naked that should be allowed to. I mean isn't it against their rights to make them put clothes on their bodies. What it they feel freer and epecially in hot and humid areas where it adds even more temperature to their bodies. The gay agenda is no different than the one I just discribed. It is about peoples rights is it not? Someone going to the mall naked doesn't effect anyone else and their families. Or does it? What if they say not letting them do that is infringing on their civil rights. I know you can say there are places where they can go that allow that, but what if they just want to have the same privaleges as everyone else and go to the local Mall or grocery store? Bottom line is: You can't justify wrong behavior by playing the "rights" card.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 26, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    RedWings says:

    "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

    You can think of us as the sword perhaps.

    Has it occurred to you that we can't watch tv without every show being about heterosexuals? I consider it a blessing when I get to see a show that has even one gay character. The problem is that they're still portrayed in the usual stereotypes. I consider it a real blessing when that gay character is portrayed as a regular person.

    Why do your beliefs matter more than mine (such that you get to enact them into law as to deny me the benefits you enjoy)?


    Did it ever occur to you that you're religious beliefs to "get what I want, etc."?

  • Blue Collar Huntington, UT
    June 26, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    Marriage is a man and a woman. That is what marriage is. Nothing can ever change that. You can have sex with who ever and what ever you want in today's world, but true marriage is a man and a woman, a Mom and a Dad. And nothing will ever compare to what a Man and a Woman bring to the table, Never!

  • Brian Utley Freedom, IN
    June 26, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    What is this "traditional" stuff? Traditions change. It happens all the time. Mormons should know this as well as anybody; because with them it happens almost every general conference (as far as I can tell). Now folks are in the embrace of creating some new "traditions." What's wrong with that? To me, playing the "tradition" card in this marriage argument is like trying to play with a deck with five aces...or, if you're somebody that only uses Rook cards, a deck with chartreuse as the fifth or wild suit.

  • gharmons Helendale, CA
    June 26, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    "Man's law cannot make moral that which God has declared to be immoral." Of course, for those who choose not to believe in God or who put their own personal desires above God's law, they couldn't care less what God says. It's, "I want the right to do what I want to do when I want to do it, where I want to, and with whom I want to." That is the secularism sweeping our nation.

    June 26, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    Eagle 78 -

    The "normalization" of the gay lifestyle through the media and entertainment does affect my life. Being unable to watch a tv show or movie without at least one character being gay, or school cirriculum which teaches that this lifestyle is not only normal and acceptable, but something to be celebrated are all just as much an attack on my beliefs as you claim the LDS Church has made on yours.

    Why do your beliefs matter more than mine?

    Christ said:

    "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

    "And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me."
    (Matthew 10:38)

    Doesn't sound to me like the "love and accept everyone" Jesus that so many think exists...

  • mightyhunterhaha Kaysville, UT
    June 26, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    There is no demeaning or degrading in the belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman. That is a belief much like your belief as you stated. If the belief of marriage is only between a man and a woman then your tirade is also demeaning and degrading to my personal and religious belief. You stated you are exactly how God intended you to be. I disagree. God placed you here to become more than what you are. Your statement basically says you have zero choice in who you are. That would be contrary not only to God but to Maslow and Jung.

  • Goldminer Salem, ut
    June 26, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    Will homosexuals sue the local Bishop and the Church when he will not marry them? I suspect so. What is going to happen when the Church changes policy and only seals couples in the Temple? Are there going to be law suits of discrimination for that, too? I would not be surprised.

    This is a real mess for sure but, when we go against the eternal morality of God, it is what we get.

    So sad for all sides.

  • MoreMan San Diego, CA
    June 26, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    Once again the rich white male leaders have spoken... however this time we won't just shut up and blindly obey. This is going to become a trend as the church lurches forward into the new millenium.

  • JonathanPDX Portland, Oregon
    June 26, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    The 12th Article of Faith states: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

    Let the courts rule as they will; a civil marriage is not a Temple Marriage and never will be. It is nothing more than a contract between two persons and is binding only in this lifetime.

    The laws of man, however, cannot command the Elders of the Church to seal that which cannot be sealed. While men and their capricious laws might make a mockery of sacred institutions and ordinances, only those who obey the Lord will receive his blessings.

  • Spas Ivins, UT
    June 26, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    I think the LDS Church has every right to make rules for its members, and its members should obey the rules or leave the Church. However, the Church has no right to make rules for people who do not believe in the LDS faith. What a huge violation of separation of Church and State for the LDS Church to try to interfere with secular law.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 26, 2014 8:01 a.m.


    You can stand next to me when God starts throwing around his meteorites and brimstone bolts. They'll all hit me and you will be safe. I'll protect you; you don't have to be afraid.

    @Missouri loves BYU;

    We haven't been placed in bondage, but we've been persecuted, murdered, hounded and hated. You can look up the origin of the word 'F...' commonly used to reference LGBT people. How would you like to have treated accordingly? It certainly has parallels to the travails of people of color.


    You would do better to "protect the sanctity of marriage" from those who abuse it rather than deny it to those who cherish it.


    "It is really disturbing to me that you would advocate discrimination based on religion."

    Right back atcha.


    Thank you. Your comments help obviate the pain caused by so many other comments.


    Being gay is not "misbehaving" nor is it "mentally ill" nor "temptation".


    Apparently we're also the cause of global warming.

  • Visitor from California Berkeley, CA
    June 26, 2014 7:49 a.m.

    Please bear in mind that many religious denominations already sanction and bless same-sex unions. This country was founded on the basis of religious freedom. One religion (LDS) doesn't get to dictate to those with different beliefs what rights they are entitled to by the government. No religion will be forced by this ruling to go against its teachings. Beware of trying to impose your own views through the force of government! Remember the sad history of persecution because of your beliefs, and keep in mind that the Church of LDS is still a minority religion and does well to defend the principle of religious freedom and keeping church and state separate. Whatever your views, we are better served by keeping religious doctrine out of government.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    June 26, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    @ DaveChu: Please provide the details of one church anywhere being forced to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony against their religious teachings.

    As for the baker and the photographer, those weren't about same-sex marriage, they were about anti-discrimination laws. As a matter of fact, Colorado, where the baker case was, does not currently allow same-sex marriage.

    I find it very interesting that in a discussion where so many accuse same-sex couples of wanting special rights, so many (sometimes even the same people) think Christians should be given the special right of ignoring laws they find inconvenient. While making the claim that same-sex couples should not have access to the right and privileges of marriage they are also claiming that Christians should have a right to refuse to follow business laws requiring equal treatment of all customers.

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    June 26, 2014 7:37 a.m.

    " Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude
    that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We
    hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a
    family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may
    not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their
    marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union. For the reasons
    stated in this opinion, we affirm. "
    Take heed and read " the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a
    family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws." Establish a family, raise children and enjoy the Full protection (ADOPTION) of a state's marital laws" Right on!

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    The constitution of the United States prevails over attempt to put religion into Utah constitution.

  • bobdc6 park city, UT
    June 26, 2014 6:55 a.m.

    Marriage is a contract between two people as defined by state law, and as such, subject to the equal protection clause of the Constitution. This law is a creature of the state, not of any church or anyone else. Proof of this fact is that only the state can break the marriage contract, a dissolution of marriage, or the granting of a divorce. That the state grants some individuals the authority to preform marriages within the confines of state law, it doesn't give them the authority to rewrite that law, and doesn't require them to marry anyone at all if they don't want to. Any appeal of established law concerning marriage is a waste of taxpayer money.

  • Aggie5 Kuna, ID
    June 26, 2014 6:35 a.m.

    And the grey lines continue to flow. But my church stands strong. Love the sinner, not the sin.

  • Geckojudo Billings, MT
    June 26, 2014 6:26 a.m.

    We are in the world, but not of the world. There will be consequences for all actions. Just because "everybody's doing it" does not make it right. Stick to your standards. The Final Judgement by Christ the Lord will be your reward for doing so.

  • Dixie Dan Saint George, UT
    June 26, 2014 6:25 a.m.

    If the Supreme Court legalizes gay marriages, will a local Bishop be allowed to perform the marriage in Utah? Can a legally gay couple hold their wedding reception in a local Cultural Hall of the chapel they attend regularly? Can they be sealed in the temple sometime in the future?

  • TimBehrend Auckland NZ, 00
    June 26, 2014 5:56 a.m.

    zmillion2: "Marriage is a religious institution, always has been and always will be."

    Marriage is, in fact, a social institution that is governed by civil law. Religions receive the authority to marry their members from the state, as long as state regulations are followed and a state licence has been issued. Your understanding is opposite to the plain facts.

  • Surfs Up Huntington Beach, CA
    June 26, 2014 5:12 a.m.

    I know that people don't like to talk about the children. But it really is children who ultimately suffer because of this ruling. They deserve the ying and the yang that nature offers. The mom and the dad. I know that death happens, divorce happens but then at least a child has a thought of a mom or a dad. With same sex marriage a child could be trapped with two moms or two dads... So sad!!

  • DaveChiu Provo, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:39 a.m.

    It is clear that this bad decision will be leveraged into demands for non-traditional marriages to be granted wherever they are demanded (especially in LDS temples), just as has been seen in other countries and w/ the wedding cake baker and photographer cases here in America.

    Those who claim redefining marriage will not trample on others' beliefs have a little problem:

    the actions of their side, and obvious intentions to abuse the special privilege they are gaining, shout far more loudly than their insincere reassurances.

    Those who claim things will be just as hunky-dory as they say fail to establish that once such a monumental redefinition is imposed, what is to stop all kinds of other redefinition?

  • DaveChiu Provo, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:28 a.m.

    FatherofFour was inaccurate to claim that the Church forbade inter-racial marriage even after 1964... I was born in '64, and my parents were married 2+ years earlier in the LA temple -- it was OK w/ the Church for them to be married despite being against the law in Utah where they met.

    I love my friends who feel otherwise
    ... this is where I stand --

    all people have an equal opportunity to marry
    if the following verifiable conditions
    (among others) are met:

    sufficient age
    not too closely related
    not currently married
    opposite gender

    if Love is now presumed as the over-riding factor,
    then how will society rationally decline to accept
    pre-teen, sibling, polygamous, stalker, etc unions?

    I know and deeply feel what actual discrimination
    regarding marriage looks like (Utah etc's formerly
    racial marriage laws), and the cause celebre aint it

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 12:58 a.m.

    @ RedWings

    The church will not forced to change anything. The First Amendment isn't going anywhere. Same-sex couples will be allowed to get married, but that does not mean they will be able to do so in the temple.

  • 21MOM Keaau, HI
    June 26, 2014 12:52 a.m.

    "But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint." ~Edmund Burke

  • 21MOM Keaau, HI
    June 26, 2014 12:48 a.m.

    "All who have ever written on government are unanimous, that among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist." ~Edmund Burke

  • Josh McCray Salk Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 12:10 a.m.

    I agree Pastors should not be forced to perform ceremonies they do not wish to perform and they already have the right to decline performing any ceremony they don't wish to perform.

    It is however the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the rights of ALL American citizens under the constitution EVEN IF state legislation would limit those rights. This is a lesson learned from our past.

  • ExTBird Springville, US-UT
    June 25, 2014 11:21 p.m.

    It makes sense why God seems to always share his followers prejudices and concerns. They invented him. I really just can't see a being so all powerful that he created quite literally everything having a panic attack because some people of the same gender want to have a ceremony in front of their friends and families.

    Depending on who you ask though this is apparently the beginning of the end for mankind. Didn't really take much did it? :(

  • Eagle78 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:57 p.m.


    Are homosexual people not allowed to believe in God? Are they not allowed to have faith? This is where religion as a whole has caused such a global mess. There really isn't any respect for anyone else's beliefs. If someone doesn't believe exactly what you do then their beliefs are just misguided mumbo jumbo.

    Believe it or not a person can be gay, and also believe that God doesn't hate them for that. In fact that he loves them just the same and wants them to be happy. Someone can believe in a greater power and believe that that greater power doesn't concern himself with the petty bigotries of man. Someone being different isn't scary, or gross to the creator of the universe. People should stop projecting their own insecurities onto God.

  • zmillion2 West Jordan, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:10 p.m.

    Marriage is a religious institution, always has been and always will be. I'm surprised that atheist's and same sex couples would even want to take part in a ceremony that is so religious. When religion as a whole is against everything they stand for. I guess people will do whatever it takes to make something religious into something worldly.

  • Eagle78 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 8:14 p.m.

    Maudine hit the nail right on the head. There is no logical, legal reason to oppose same-sex marriage. "Because our church says it's bad" just isn't good enough. You can not deny a substantial group of people the same rights you give yourselves simply because you think they're "icky". Comparing same-sex marriage to something like beastiality is as ignorant as it is offensive.

    It does my heart good though to see that progress gets made even when hateful people try to stop it. The "White Only" signs got torn down eventually, and someday this mess will be behind us as well.

  • Dad San Antonio, TX
    June 25, 2014 8:05 p.m.

    RFLASH: "If God's intention was to make us all the same, then He would have done it! I have lived with myself for fifty years and I think I have a right to say that God made me just the way He wanted me to be! "

    With this logic, you're essentially saying that God made us the way we behave. So is a person misbehaves and decides to kill another person, God made them that way? (I get there are those who are mentally ill - I'm not talking about the exception) You do not understand this fundamental truth; just because you are a creation of God, does not mean He condones everything you or I choose to do. Justify all you want but one, on God's side, is the majority.

    I feel for those that have homosexual tendencies. I don't know how hard that would be to overcome, but any temptation can be overcome. The Lord will always live the sinner and hate the sin and that is how people who proclaim follow Jesus should be.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 25, 2014 7:29 p.m.

    Entitled not stilted. Sorry

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    June 25, 2014 7:25 p.m.

    @ samhill: The reason same-sex marriage has gained so much traction so fast is because people have come to realize it is not the end of the world that so many opponents like to claim it is.

    As the Prop 8 case made its way through the courts, the truth of the opposition came out - namely, that the reasons given to oppose same-sex marriage have no foundation in fact.

    Since there is no logical, legal reason to oppose same-sex marriage, people have stopped opposing it.

  • Duke of Earl Grey Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 7:21 p.m.

    The question of whether a family with opposite-sex parents is a better setting for children than a family with same-sex parents seems irrelevant to the legal issue at hand, because same-sex couples already do raise children, and will continue to raise children even if their unions are not recognized as marriage. So the question should be, which is better for their children, that their parents are recognized as married or unmarried? Because either way those children won't be raised by a man and a woman, sorry.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 6:56 p.m.

    The only reason the notion of homosexual "marriage" has gained any traction at all in the last 10-15 years is because of the reciprocal diminished and devaluation of marriage in general.

    The commitments fundamental to marriage have been the foundation of family life for millennia. The reasons were once obvious to almost all people. But, with the erosion of many other critically important societal values, so has recognition and understanding of the vital role of marriage to family and of family to society.

    It's a societal degenerative process that's been predicted for ages, but the speed and breadth of the deterioration during just the last decade has been astonishing to me and has me dreading the coming years.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 25, 2014 6:52 p.m.

    Please do site your sources for your claims about MA. You are stilted to your opinions but not your own made up "facts"

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 25, 2014 5:25 p.m.

    Red Wings, nothing in your 1:33pm post is factual. The adoption case in MA was the Catholic Charities who did take tax money for their adoption service. There was nothing about LDS Social Services. Also, religions will not be forced by states to change their policies. There is plenty of precedent upholding the First Amendment rights of religions to be as exclusionary as they like.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 5:22 p.m.

    It's very simple.

    Cost. Vs. Gain. Cost: To continue to work to deny LGBT Americans marriage.

    'Price tag for defending Amendment 3 to reach $2 million' – By Lisa Riley Roche – Deseret News – 12/27/13

    'SALT LAKE CITY — The price tag for hiring outside counsel to defend Utah's voter-approved constitutional amendment on marriage is expected to be close to $2 million, money that key GOP lawmakers are willing to spend.'

    'Study: Gay weddings could bring $15.5 million to Utah economy' - By Lindsay Whitehurst | The Salt Lake Tribune - 04-24-14

    'The analysis by the Los Angeles-based Williams Institute is based on average nuptial and tourism costs, as well as studies from states that have legalized gay marriage.'

    The factual effect that LGBT marriage has to our Heterosexual counter parts is, zero.

    Unless you count children put up for adoption that would have a better chance to live in a two-parent house hold.

  • Eagle78 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:57 p.m.


    The difference here is that by making gay marriage legal they are not forcing anything on you. You are not suddenly obligated to be gay because it's now legal. You are not suddenly obligated to agree with that life style. It ultimately has little, to no impact on your life. On the other side of that coin if the LDS church has its way it DOES impact the lives of many people. There is no "leftist agenda" here. Discrimination is discrimination and it isn't any less vile just because you try to hide it behind "Freedom of Religion". It doesn't matter what party you support either. Wrong is wrong.

    The tragic thing here is that the LDS church actively campaigns in a field that hurts people. There is absolutely nothing Christ like about denying your fellow man something as beautiful as marriage simply because you disagree with who is getting married. The Church talks about respect and love, but at the same time ignores how many people's lives they negatively impact because they feel that there is something wrong with them. Of which they have absolutely no proof other then "because God said so."

  • Tex-Ute Dallas, TX
    June 25, 2014 4:51 p.m.


    A dog or any other animal can't consent nor can they enter into a binding contract. So their rights are already protected. As far as plural marriage goes this can set a precedent for those who want to practice it. In all fairness as long as its not abused as it was with Warren Jeffs and other like him. Example of that is how Utah did not file charges against Kody Brown and his four wives. Shurtleff had assured the Browns they wouldn't be prosecuted under his policy that consenting adult polygamists won't be charged as long as they're not committing other crimes.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    As far as the LDS Church is concerned, secular marriage laws are amendable according to particular jurisdictions or countries requirements. For instance, in England, it is a law that all marriages have to be open to the public. Therefore, no one can be married in an LDS Temple only. So the Church allows the marriage to first take place in a chapel, open to the public, and then after the secular marriage, the couple goes to the Temple a day or so later for the sealing. I don't think any change in secular marriage law will have any real effect on the Church. What will be interesting to see is if some advocates of same sex partners, much like that woman recently excommunicated for advocating women getting the priesthood, start a campaign that same sex couples should be allowed to be sealed in a Temple. Some might say, never happen, but then look how fast SSM has come in only a few years. I'm sure the Church will stay strong and hold to the true principles of marriage, but it is a fight I see on the horizon.

  • rogerdpack Orem, UT
    June 25, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    The supreme court taking this up has some relevance, since I thought in their ruling against Prop. 8 at least one justice said that the federal courts had no business deciding these things, so...here's hoping, it's basically the last hope...

  • SqueezySprings Provo, UT
    June 25, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    I hope all the lgbt activists show the same support when the polygamy, polyandry and beastiality communities start actively pursuing their rights. I mean who cares if a person has more than one spouse, right? They're not hurting anyone and it's their choice. So what if the guy down the road would rather have sex with his dog instead of a human. Give him the right to marry Princess the dog. Why not let everybody have their freedom to do as they feel.

  • Tex-Ute Dallas, TX
    June 25, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    I think everyone needs to take the emotion out of the debate and focus on the law. This would not impact the church stance, doctrine, acknowledgement or ability to excommunciate those that do not adhere to its policies. It does affirm the principals that this country was founded on of freedom and liberty will be upheld for all. History shows progress and equality always wins in this great country. Lets not forget its the same principals and protections the Mormons benefited from in the late 19th century. Ironically they were persecuted for their view on marriage at the time (Plural Marriage). If anything if they wanted this lays the groundwork for repealing the 1890 Manifesto and reverting back to their original doctrine.

    Either way we all benefit when minority rights are protected. You never know when you might be on the other side looking for the same.

    June 25, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    Eagle78 -

    My political opinions are informed by my religious beliefs. My religion is a part of who I am - I can't separate the two. It is really disturbing to me that you would advocate discrimination based on religion. Freedom of Religion is the first of the rights listed in the Constitution.

    How is it less wrong to make beliefs about homosexuality and immorality part of the law, and make those who disagree follow? This is the core hypocrisy that the Left advocates.

    It would be great to know that the state will never force the Church to allow gays to marry in the Temple. I see that as a real threat with the forced acceptance of the gay lifestle. We have hit the slippery slope and have started downward....

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 3:35 p.m.

    It gets brought before the judges twice and they're told no both times. Are they just going to keep asking again and again until they get the answer they want?

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    June 25, 2014 3:19 p.m.

    Even if SCOTUS eventually rules in favor of the states allowing each to define marriage as they see fit those states that continue to ban same sex marriage will cave in and lift the bans on same sex marriage because of threats and boycotts. Even Utah would capitulate for reasons of maintaining economic development.

  • Eagle78 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:51 p.m.

    Politics should NOT be influenced by religious beliefs. It is ridiculous that this continues to be a "problem" for people. If the LDS church firmly believes that marriage is only between a man and a woman then fine. They are allowed to believe what they want, and practice that belief. What is just flat out wrong though is trying to make those beliefs a law that everyone else must follow. Don't allow gay couples to get married in the temple if you don't like it. That is your right. Stop trying to stand in the way of the rights of others thought just because they don't fit with your religions world view.

    Gay marriage is going to happen. Sooner or later what is right, fair, and just IS going to win out from coast to coast. Be on the right side of history (for once), and just leave people alone. Keep your practices, and beliefs to yourselves which is where they belong.

    June 25, 2014 2:48 p.m.

    Tyler D -

    Thank you for your post.

    While we may disagree on the SSM issue, the reasons for the rapid change in public opinion, and other issues, I appreciate you assessment of a possisle SCOTUS 5-4 ruling and its implications for the future. And I appreciate the reasoning behind your comment.

    It is possible to those who disagree to find understanding and have concern for each other's opinion and rights. Hopefully this will be the path moving forward....

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    Look around our World and see how God created His children! Are they all white? Do they they all have blue eyes? Are we all the same height? No, There are huge differences and we were all created by God! If God's intention was to make us all the same, then He would have done it! I have lived with myself for fifty years and I think I have a right to say that God made me just the way He wanted me to be! Being gay was no accident and it does have a purpose! I believe that one of the reasons God created so much diversity was to help learn what it is to truly love others. Come on, we are not children! There is something wrong when people have such a need to demean and degrade others and to simply use God as an excuse is pretty lame! Being gay has taught me something important. I don't have to judge someone like some judge us! I don't need to tell them what God intended for them in life! He will tell them and He will help them know!

  • Kaladin Northern, CO
    June 25, 2014 2:16 p.m.

    Same sex marriage will be allowed in all states before long. That being said, the Church can do nothing but stand against it, as it is our firmly held doctrinal and scriptural belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I understand why many don't like this view as it is, for the most part, a religious conviction. So while we feel that homosexuality is a sin and we fight to protect the sanctity of marriage against it, knowing that the world does not agree with us and eventually will allow it, we do not condone any kind of violence, hatred, or mistreatment of anyone with an opposite view. I know this will be incredible in the minds of some, but it is true. I abhor the sin, but love the sinner, and I would ask the same of others towards me and my imperfections.

  • Missouri loves BYU Lebanon, MO
    June 25, 2014 2:15 p.m.

    Trying to equate slavery and african american descrimimination with Gay and lesbian challenges is the same as trying to equate challenges of the pioneers crossing the plains with handcarts and someone driving cross country on I-70 with a broken air conditioner. Legal and moral are not the same thing and never will be. If I am going to make a mistake I am going to err on the side for moral.

  • Michigander Westland, MI
    June 25, 2014 2:13 p.m.

    3 Nephi 9:

    [10] And behold, the city of Laman, and the city of Josh, and the city of Gad, and the city of Kishkumen, have I caused to be burned with fire, and the inhabitants thereof, because of their wickedness in casting out the prophets, and stoning those whom I did send to declare unto them concerning their wickedness and their abominations.

    [11] And because they did cast them all out, that there were none righteous among them, I did send down fire and destroy them, that their wickedness and abominations might be hid from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints whom I sent among them might not cry unto me from the ground against them.

    It will happen again.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 25, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    @Henry Drummond – “I believe that the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold today's court decision.”

    I sure hope not…

    If they do it will be 5-4 with Kennedy voting with the liberals, and gay marriage will instantly become the Roe v Wade of our generation (a politically divisive issue causing acrimony and rallying the base for decades to come).

    Better to let this issue continue to change hearts and minds (as it has done at an incredibly fast rate over the past decade) and change the laws at a grassroots (i.e., democratic) level.

    I know this won’t satisfy gay rights advocates but I believe gays will be far better off taking this long view approach.

    Do you really think it will be good for society to give the religious right one more issue for them to rant about how they’re being oppressed and living under Federal tyranny? I know it’s silly but there are millions who think this way and like it or not their thoughts have consequences.

  • Manzanita Las Vegas, NV
    June 25, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    And in order to illustrate for the Supreme Court what it means by "traditional" marriage, will the LDS Church be attaching as exhibits to its amicus brief the same affidavits that were submitted by the Church in the Temple Lot Case? (i.e., the affidavits from several women attesting to the fact that they were married to Joseph Smith)?

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:06 p.m.

    Love how the Deseret News continues to use stock photos of hands in an effort to dehumanize this issue. Every other news outlet is using real photos of real couples in their coverage.

    Shame on you Deseret News.

  • YoungPuppy west Jordan, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    Unfortunately for the LDS church the US constitution and the 14th amendment was not written with their specific religious views in mind. Also "the will of the people" does not count if they wish something that is unconstitutional. That is the whole purpose for the judicial system, to find where people are harmed and rule based on the constitution and laws.

    A church or even every church together can not and should not be able to influence the laws. Would these same people be in favor for a majority Islamic city or state implementing Sharia laws because that is what the majority of the people voted for? I am pretty sure that the LDS church would be against such laws that favored religious views that they differed from.

    It is a great day for Utah and the nation and the march for equality.

  • ibnweb Dallas, TX
    June 25, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    if the voters of Utah had followed the leaders of their major church, they would not have banned gay civil unions along with gay marriage. Had they done this, the issue of gay marriage might never have become a major fight. Why do you think the Church leadership was not against gay civil unions? It's because they knew it would take the wind out of gay marriage, but the ultra-conservatives behind the amendment thought they knew better.

  • CylonesRus sunamn, IN
    June 25, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    Jesus our creator has the authority to determine right and wrong, did address the gay marriage issue in the Bible’s New Testament, in Matthew 19:4–6: “, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning “made them male and female,” and said, “For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?” So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’ (Judges)”
    Jesus dealt quite directly with the gay marriage issue when he explained the doctrine of marriage. In Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26–27 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10 Jesus deals directly with the homosexual issue, and thus the gay marriage issue.
    Jesus caused the Bible, through His prophets, to be written, thus whenever Scripture deals with marriage and/or the homosexual issue, Jesus is directly dealing with these issues.
    According to Scripture, one of the primary reasons for marriage is to produce godly offspring. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply, but there’s no way a gay marriage can fulfill this command! K. Ham

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    One step closer to marriage equality for all citizens of every state. A happy day. And to think that Utah is at the forefront, pushing this case forward. :o)

  • Northern Utahn Northern, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    Being for something is one thing, being against something is another. I am for "traditional marriage," too. I'm just not against same sex couples being allowed to marry. Let everyone (obviously persons of consenting age) who desires to enter into this social contract do so. It doesn't hurt anyone to allow gay people to marry the love of their life, or even someone they want to just share benefits with (like many straight people do, now). It's really none of anyone else's business who someone decides to marry, so long as they are able to legally consent.

    And to people who keep bringing up non-discrimination ordinances (the photographer, the wedding cake baker, the candle stick maker), which prohibit discriminating against gay people because of personal bigotry...Tough. Non-discrimination ordinances have nothing to do with marriage, and people made the same arguments when having to serve other minorities. In any event it has nothing to do with marriage, stop trying to conflate the two.

    June 25, 2014 1:53 p.m.

    Loving v Virginia was ruled in 1964 allowing interracial marriage. But the LDS church still did not allow it for many years, and some churches still do not allow interracial marriage to this day. You are not being forced to do anything that you do not want to do.

  • Kindred Mesa, AZ
    June 25, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    Two people of the same sex making a legal contract never has been and never will be a marriage, regardless of what the federal government's position on the matter is. Just like the disagreements about Pluto being a planet, the final decision doesn't change the reality of the situation. Pluto is a big mass of ice and rock, no matter what the astronomers call it. Marriage is a union composed of a man and a woman. No matter what federal judges may say, it won't change what marriage actually is.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    Just imagine if the ruling from the Supreme Court comes down in favor of states being allowed to make marriage law? (That is, if the Court has the guts to even take a case. Sometimes they wimp out.) Wow. I'd love to see that fight just because it would be the best reality TV out there. However it will likely end up as a Roe/Wade blanket law that makes marriage a federal issue. What's the old saying? "Don't make a federal case out of it". Well, once again, they did.

  • Deseretina Murray, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    Continuing the fight is a poor choice and shows a lack of foresight. The Supreme Court won't be reviewing the case as there won't be any lower courts upholding the discriminatory laws passed by the states. Rushing to deny certain citizens equal access was anything but a conservative move, it was harmful and counterproductive - in retrospect we should view it as such.

    June 25, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    Spangs -

    Except for the fact that, once legal, the state will force churches to change their policies under the illusion of "non-discrimination".

    It is already happening in MA. The LDS Church was told they could not deny adpoption services to gay couples, even though they took no state money. The church agreed to counsel any gay couple that came to their office. None did, but the writing is on the wall.

    Fighting against the new im-morality will get you attacked by the government. It is only a matter of time....

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    I wish that some would stop equating this with Civil Rights that the African Americans had to bo through. There is no way that this is similar. Those individuals had to go through hardships that the LGBT community can not even fathom. There is no way that they are similar.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    When the Supreme Court upholds the multiple appellate rulings in favor of gay marriage, thousands of gay people across the country will become married in the eyes of the state. The impact of thousands of gay civil marriages upon the LDS Church will sum up to exactly nil.

    Gay people will still be gay and the aged Mormon leadership will still be against gay relationships. Luckily, neither one will be dictating to the other how to live their lives.

    Liberty and justice for all.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 25, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    I believe that the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold today's court decision. I also believe that the people of Utah will act generously toward their LGBT neighbors and friends just as they did a generation ago during the Civil Rights Era.