Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: As marriage dispute heads toward Supreme Court, judiciary should not invalidate state laws

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mickie SLC, UT
    July 2, 2014 6:29 a.m.

    As promised, here is a study for people to read who say that homosexual couples are incapable of committed relationships when compared to heterosexual couples.

    Article Title: Are Gay and Lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples?

    By: Lawrence A. Kurdek

    Published in: Journal of Marriage and Family (among others)

    First published: October of 2004 (Yes, that's right. We've had this information available for 10 years)

    Synopsis: This study found that on the areas used to compare relationship health, there was no statistical significant difference between the couples on 50% of the measures. Of the remaining 50%, he found that 78% of these "indicated that gay or lesbian partners functioned better than heterosexual partners did."

    So tell me again why same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed on the basis of relationship health?

  • Mickie SLC, UT
    July 1, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    I too will exchange my knowledge from an academic standpoint. Of course I'm currently at work and do not have access to my sources, but I will gladly share them. One study I am aware of shows that same-sex cohabitating couples are more likely to stay together than opposite-sex cohabitating couples. Why? Research shows that cohabitation fails when couples enter it because they doubt whether or not they'd like to marry and want to "try it out" first. The same-sex couples who cohabitate because they have no other option tend to sick together. This would suggest that some same-sex couples are capable of commitment. Just because some aren't, should all be denied marriage? By that logic, straight couples should be denied marriage because some straight people are promiscuous as well.

  • Mickie SLC, UT
    July 1, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    BoMerit,

    You speak of studies completed proving that same sex couples are less capable of being in committed relationships. Please leave a list of academically published research papers so that I can read them and come to my own conclusions about that research. You say that facts are not welcome in this discussion, bit this is untrue... but I'd like to read the facts for myself and ensure the research holds up to scientific scrutiny and are actually valid facts.

  • BoMerit Alpine, UT
    June 30, 2014 11:08 p.m.

    [self-proclaimed] TheTrueVoice

    Why must religion be defined as myth by you without qualification?

    The motive is not animus. I have gay friends and I do not hate one of them; and I believe God loves them. I reserve the right to "hate sin." I reserve the right to hope this nation would exalt the Laws of Christ above their natural tendencies. Sincerely believing in a Day of Judgment coming after death, I have to fight for my rights to influence others to accept God's laws by persuasion (not force). I reserve the right to have my conscious firmly rooted in a capitulation to higher laws dictated by a Creator-God. I've found no other theory, philosophy or theology that allows me to feel love for people who behave in "sinful" ways, including those who injure me, which is a source of peace for me. Don't castigate me as a myth follower or a hater if you are not willing to listen to the Theology I subscribe to with an open mind.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    June 30, 2014 1:39 p.m.

    I have been reading these comments here at DN since the Judge Shelby decision last December. Little has changed.

    It is very unfortunate that the mythology adherents can not allow others to live their own lives.

    Too, it is also unfortunate that since the marriage equality debate is essentially over (once the appeals process runs its course) that animus is alive and well among those wishing to control the behavior of others.

  • BoMerit Alpine, UT
    June 30, 2014 12:15 p.m.

    Tiago,

    I suggest you pay attention to success ratios and stories in the gay community as documented by numerous researchers. There is a facade that has been created around these claims of commitment and love that deserves to be challenged. Procreation regulation was a religious function before democratic societies were even dreamed of. Marriage is a religiously sponsored protector of society that unfathomably predates our laws and gives pretext to this whole discussion that progressives want to completely alter. What I know of the gay community comes not from personal experience, but from familiarity of published studies crafted by academic institutions that have large percentages of gay faculty participating. I also have documentation of the leaders of gay-marriage advocates telling their convention crowds that the real purpose behind the legal battle is not to institute gay marriage but to destroy marriage altogether. I'm not bothered by what their minions claim in the media with their public masks on. This battle has been loaded with nearly impenetrable lies by the pro-gay-marriage side. Facts seem not welcome to the table. I care because it affects the world my children inherit.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 29, 2014 7:23 p.m.

    @BoMerit
    Marriage for gay people means the same thing as it means for straight people. For the gay people I know who are married it means making a public demonstration of love and commitment. It means uniting two lives and families into one. It means each partner promising to put the needs of the other ahead of their own. It means commiting to stick out in bad times and good, sickness and health. It means security. There are legal rights and responsibilities that come through marriage that benefit gay people just as they do straight. If you think straight people get married just to regulate procreation, I suggest you watch some more romance films. Romantic love is a beautiful thing. I think we should support committed couples, no matter the gender.

  • BoMerit Alpine, UT
    June 29, 2014 6:32 p.m.

    You who fight for gay marriage, what is marriage to you? Please, define it. Obviously procreation is off the table. You'll have a hard time arguing that it is about rewarding committed relationships as "committed" gay relationships have far higher rates of unfaithfulness relative to marriages according to studies performed by the U of SF. Maybe you hope that if gays can legally marry, they'll stay committed, but that is evidence on the face that there is a lack of tradition on your side.

    Is this more than simply trying to license appetite? People in traditional marriage still have appetite, and those who learn to control their appetites stay in their marriages longest and are those who contribute the most to society by offering up the most volunteer effort and refrain from taking vengeance. Traditional marriage and preference for self control go hand-in-hand.

    How is it our nation will be better off should we codify gay marriage into law? Finally tell us what marriage is to you. We can all state that laws curb our rights without a critical analysis of how good laws can be a codifying of principals that actually make us free.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2014 11:57 p.m.

    "You claim that your religion of same-sex marriage is exempt from comment but my religion of traditional marriage should be held in contempt."

    Good heavens, Richards! I claimed that? Oh my.

    Care to show me where?

    "You have no more right to express your opinion about whether sex is "outlawed" outside of a marriage of a man and a woman than I have to assert that sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman is a sin. "

    Of course you have the right to claim that, don't be silly. But it doesn't make it right. And your opinion of what sin is is NOT what laws are based on.

    You really don't get it Richards? Enjoy your religion. Worship as you please. And good for you. Just don't think you get to legislate your religion. The law should allow everyone to have the most freedom possible. I will NEVER support, or try to pass laws that would infringe on your right to practice your religion as you please. Have the same courtesy and don't try to pass laws that would force others to live by YOUR religious believes.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    June 28, 2014 6:54 p.m.

    History shows us that marriage is not defined by those who are excluded. Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex felon child and spousal abusers to civil marry? Interracial couples wanted to participate in the institution that traditionally did not allow them to marry. Tradition is simply not a valid reason to continue a practice of discrimination. There are no Interracial marriage licenses. There are no felony marriage licenses. There are no non-procreative marriage licenses. Allowing same-sex couples to participate and/or strengthen the existing institution, means there is only ONE marriage license for all. Read "Certificate Of Marriage" where nothing has been re-defined. Look no further than "traditional voting" which was NOT "re-defined" by allowing women the right to vote. A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is simply no right at all. The "redefinition argument" is a logical fallacy and complete nonsense.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    June 28, 2014 6:52 p.m.

    Windsor- State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” While states have a legitimate interest in regulating and promoting marriage, the fundamental right to marry BELONGS to the individual. Accordingly, “the regulation of constitutionally protected decisions, such as where a person shall reside or whom he or she shall marry, must be predicated on legitimate state concerns other than disagreement with the choice the individual has made.” Marriage laws must comply with the 14th Amendment and cannot exclude based on race, or exclude based on sexual orientation, otherwise, the Supreme Court places no restrictions on the fundamental right of marriage

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 27, 2014 6:25 p.m.

    @RFLASH 3:36 p.m. June 27, 2014

    As an observant (straight) Latter-day Saint, please let me apologize for the unChristlike behavior of members of my faith. I find it appalling that they would demean, belittle and degrade others. As a child of God you are deserving of respect and have every right to expect it from others. Please know though that it is not the Church itself that teaches that behavior. The Church teaches us the standards by which WE are supposed to live. We can state how we believe, but we don't have the right to impose our beliefs on others. That is a violation of the free agency we agreed to support in the pre-mortal existence. My husband and I supported free agency then; we support it now. From what I have seen of your comments here, we would be pleased to have you as a neighbor.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2014 3:39 p.m.

    There is something wrong when people feel such a great need to demean, belittle and degrade others. Especially when it comes to the point where they feel a need to pass lass against these people! All or most of this problem is fueled by the LDS church. It isn't about state rights, it is about Mormon rights! Mormons expect their sacred marriages and their temples and themselves to be respected by others! They, however, do not feel like they have a need to respect people in the same way! For fifty years I have lived with being gay and they try to tell me that there is something wrong with me and that I am an abomination! Then, they insist that we be treated that way! How dare we stand up and say that we are as good as them! How dare we! No. how dare they treat the way that they do! Don't you think that we deserve to be treated equally? No, and it says a great deal about how they look at us! There is something truly wrong in what they do to us! We deserve so much more!

  • Mickie SLC, UT
    June 27, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    @Mike Richards - I am confused by your STI argument. Are you saying that STI's can only be passed between same-sex couples? That is not the case. Yes, AIDS is a horrible and tragic STI that was spread predominantly through same-sex coitus. It was not limited to same-sex couples, however. STI's are spread by heterosexual couples just as they are spread by homosexual couples. And you may say that if those heterosexual couples were to stick to one clean partner after marriage they would not contribute, you would be correct. Just as if a same-sex couple were to stick to their one clean partner, they would not spread STI's either. While some homosexual couples are promiscuous, so are some heterosexual couples. And as some heterosexual couples are monogamous, so are some homosexual couples. STI's have nothing to do with whether or not two consenting adults in love should be able to enjoy the same rights and protections under the law no matter their choice of consenting partner.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 27, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    Let's look more closely at some of today's comments. Can a child be born to a same-sex couple? Absolutely not. Ask your doctor. Ask your parents. It takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Yes, artificial means may be used, but that circumvents everything that same-sex sex is about. Those who believe in same-sex sex cannot use same-sex sex to reproduce.

    There have always been those who reject the good of society for temporary pleasure. They seek out anyone who agrees with them and crowns them as their "priest". Study history. That pattern is still in effect. Just look at the last few days of comments and see how many people told us to change religions instead of changing ourselves. That concept has been called "priestcraft" for millennia. Those who believe in it think that popular opinion can change eternal law.

    Sex is only permitted between a man and a woman who are married. If you think differently, recite to us the statistics of sexually transmitted disease - or do you think that AIDS is no longer transmitted by same-sex sex?

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 27, 2014 2:31 p.m.

    It is confusing to the see the mental and logical twists used to invent reasons to oppose gay people marrying each other. I'm afraid that "traditional marriage" advocates are inadvertently deconstructing the institution they want to protect.
    One of the latest arguments is framed as the "conjugal view of marriage" where they say legal marriage is all about procreation--not about love. Couples marry only to unite their lives in regards to bearing and raising children.
    They call marrying because of love and commitment between two people the "revisionist view of marriage" and argue that the state has no interest in mutual personal fulfillment or rights between two people.
    Why argue that marriage is not based on love? Everybody knows that marriage starts with two people in love. Prime example: see the tragic, heart breaking, but beautiful story published in this paper today. It tells about a man and woman in love and planning to marry when the man learns he has terminal cancer. The couple held a marriage ceremony and legally married 10 hours before the man passed away. What a beautiful expression of love between two people! It's a love story. Plain and simple. No procreation involved.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 27, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    " Do they think that when children are taught false concepts that society will not suffer?"

    What false concepts? That the only truths are Mike Richards' truths? And, where is the evidence that society will suffer as a result of SSM?

    "No child can be born into a same-sex relationship"

    Patently false.

    "Marriage is only between a man and a woman."

    Except where it isn't--17 states and growing.

    "Sex is only permitted inside marriage."

    Except where it isn't. I remember my elders telling me as a young man looking for a future mate, "your first child can come at anytime after marriage but all the rest will take about nine months." I suspect there is still truth to that statement.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 27, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    You claim that your religion of same-sex marriage is exempt from comment but my religion of traditional marriage should be held in contempt. I don't agree. "Humanism" is just as much a religion as Christianity, but it has no protection under the Constitution to become the State religion. Humanism is not protected by law. Your "religious" viewpoint is not State sanctioned. You have no more right to express your opinion about whether sex is "outlawed" outside of a marriage of a man and a woman than I have to assert that sex outside of the marriage of a man and a woman is a sin.

    Your claim is a fundamental flaw in the claim that you make that same-sex marriage should be approved by the U.S. government. The U.S. government is forbidden to establish religion. Your "religion" cannot become a "State supported" religion. The Supreme Court has already ruled that STATES have the right to establish the rules of intimate conduct for their citizens.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    Richards, the thing you don't seem to grasp, after all theses years, and so many people pointing it out to you, the thing you don't get, is that we are not a theocracy. YOUR religion is NOT what laws are based on.

    See, we are a republic, a democratic republic formed by a constitution. Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

    You say sex is only permitted inside a marriage. YOUR religion may permit it only inside marriage, but I'm NOT an adherent of YOUR religion. I have a fundamental right, no matter what some states have tried to claim, to have sex with whom I choose, married or otherwise, as long as they are an adult and consenting. That's what I AM permitted to do.

    You talk about teaching children false concepts. I believe that is what you are doing. It's okay, though, you have a right to do that, even though I believe society is harmed because of it.

    Reproductive capabilities have NOTHING to do with allowing marriage.

    The core question is NOT what is best for society in Mike Richards' opinion. The core question is: What is constitutional?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 27, 2014 6:23 a.m.

    There are some interesting comments, but I think that most of them are just talking points presented by those who don't understand the core question. What is best for society?

    Anyone who demands that society accept same-sex marriage seems to forget that he has a mother and a father. He is the product of intercourse between a man and a woman. He has life because a man and a woman used their reproductive power to generate new life.

    That is the foundational concept that the State of Utah used to declare that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Some have written that no harm comes to society when they "marry" someone of the same sex. Do they think that when children are taught false concepts that society will not suffer? No child can be born into a same-sex relationship, yet many want to "raise" a child. There are very serious consequences to those who lead children astray. Consequences that extend far beyond mortal life.

    It's simple. Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Sex is only permitted inside marriage.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 27, 2014 6:23 a.m.

    Blue AZ Cougar says:

    "From a medical standpoint, albinism is indicative of a genetically degenerative society. I wonder if homosexuality is indicative of a morally degenerative society."

    Disgusting.

    @alfred;

    Article IV Section II:

    "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." (i.e. marriage is a privilege and immunity, The (all) citizens...)

    Amendment 14:
    "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; (Amendment 3 abridges the privileges and immunities of LGBT citizens) nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    @wrz;

    Polygamists can already marry one other person.

  • Sven Morgan, UT
    June 27, 2014 1:10 a.m.

    Kenyan Anglican Archbishop Eliud Wabukala said it better than I can:

    “The homosexual movement has become an ideology that attacks our human identity as male and female created in the image of God, and same sex marriage, which became legal in England, is therefore a profound rejection of the law of God.”

    God isn't mocked.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2014 1:02 a.m.

    "The framers were worried about a lot of things, but they certainly weren't worried about people like me. . . "

    Sure they were, no matter what you swore.

    "Plain and simple, the constitution only guarantees certain rights. . . "

    And that is why they were worried. They specifically put in an amendment, addressing exactly what you are saying. They wanted to be very clear. Because they mentioned some rights they knew people, like yourself, would claim that other rights did not exsist. So they put it down in black and white. Did you not understand it the first time? It really is very clear:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Has nothing to do with the states. They are saying there are other rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Rights can't be voted away. The states cannot deny rights, neither can they legislate rights away. Marriage is one of those rights.

  • Starry starry night Palm Springs , CA
    June 26, 2014 11:22 p.m.

    Vanceone in Provo says, "You would think that our crop of leftists would be content that the entire rest of the media is 110% on their side, and comment there, rather than try to suppress and tear down one dissenting paper."

    I find your comment to be really quite surprising since it is you who is trying to suppress opinions by suggesting that those with whom you disagree have no right to participate in this forum. While I do not agree with this editorial, I completely respect the Deseret News for conducting a reasonable debate, for inviting thoughtful comments and for giving the readers an open forum to express diverse opinions about incredibly important issues that have immediate impacts on our collective lives. This is democracy at its best. It makes me proud to be an American and it makes me greatful that I live in a country where we can disagree without violent repercussions, compare ideas, seek common ground and hopefully make progress...together...as one people.

  • Brother Joseph Draper, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:10 p.m.

    I'm fascinated that it's the secularists of today who seem to care more about actual people, the downtrodden and oppressed, than today's religionistas.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 26, 2014 6:53 p.m.

    @Nate
    "I've already explained it. All things are not equal that you think are equal."

    And your explanation/argument has been rejected by 20 different courts.

    "A medical breakthrough or a trick of nature can turn a non-reproductive couple into biological parents."

    But government does not make non-reproductive couples wait till that medical breakthrough to get married, does it?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    June 26, 2014 6:51 p.m.

    I don't believe in drinking alcohol, coffee or tea. Many people do drink these things. Therefore my religious liberty has been taken from me. Does this make sense, even to the most devout SSM haters? Of course it sounds silly and over the top. The anti-SSM rhetoric has no more logical consistency, and as I've said before, it amazes me that otherwise rational people make these kind of statements with respect to SSM.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 26, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    @Maudine "The court actually addressed your points."

    Yes, but insufficiently.

    "How are same-sex couples differently situated from other non-reproductive couples?"

    A medical breakthrough or a trick of nature can turn a non-reproductive couple into biological parents. This will never happen to a same-sex couple.

    @Frozen Fractals "...it is up to you to prove that the 14th Amendment does not apply to same-sex couples the way it was used for inter-racial couples."

    I've already explained it. All things are not equal that you think are equal.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    June 26, 2014 4:42 p.m.

    @Really???
    Unfortunately I don't, I tried looking around for it online but I can't remember where I had read about it. I'll have to keep looking for it.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 26, 2014 4:36 p.m.

    The opponents of SSM and Utah's desire to take their case to the SC reminds me of that famous line from Dumb & Dumber, "so what your telling me is I have a chance".

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 26, 2014 4:35 p.m.

    "I could explain the difference [gay lifestyle vs. heterosexual lifestyle] but you wouldn't seen it in print on this thread."

    You know, we aren't that different than anyone else. Perhaps you think we are more sinful because many of us have chosen to leave our churches because of the lack of acceptance. Maybe you think we are more sinful because you only notice the behaviors that go contrary to your beliefs--face it, you rarely pay attention to the majority who just blend in with everyone else.

    The truth is some people participate in outrageous and dangerous behaviors and others don't. Unfortunately, too many gay men and women choose to participate in dangerous behaviors because they feel abandoned by their family and church communities.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 26, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar,

    Do you have sources you could cite about that small island? It could be some interesting reading, if it actually existed.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 26, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    @Karen R.:
    "I think this perpetuates a harmful stereotype. There is no more a 'gay lifestyle' than there is a 'hetero lifestyle.'

    I could explain the difference but you wouldn't seen it in print on this thread.

    @ordinaryfolks:
    "It is folly to continue this notion that we are 50 separate countries bound together for convenience."

    That's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. And they're the people who wrote the Constitution. If it doesn't reflect today's reality perhaps in needs to be amended. There is provision to amend so the Founders must have thought it'd, someday, be necessary. So, let's stop bending the document to try to make it fit SSM notions.

    @RanchHand:
    "Is straight marriage a Constitutional right? No? Equal treatment IS."

    Please explain 'equal treatment.' I suspect you're referring to the plight of polygamists. No?

    @Ranch:
    "Marriage may not be mentioned but the 14th Amendment says that the government must treat citizens equally."

    What it does say is that States must apply State law equally to all citizens. If citizens are to be treated equally, polygamy in a State would have to be legalized.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    June 26, 2014 3:06 p.m.

    @Frozen Fractals:
    "I assume the editorial writer(s) must also believe that the courts were wrong to strike down state bans on interracial marriage."

    What ticks alotta folks off is the federal ban on polygamy (Edmonds Act off 1882).

    @Understands Math:
    "Those seeking marriage equality are not opposed in any way to 'traditional marriage.' What we are opposed to is excluding same-sex couples from marriage."

    How do they feel about other types of marriages... such as polygamy or marrying your sister or brother? If you're gay can you marry your brother? If you're lesbian can you marry your sister? And, can you marry both at the same time? Inquiring minds wanna know.

    @DanO:
    "...the 14th Amendment exists specifically to limit the 10th Amendment."

    Wrong. The 10th Amendment delegates all powers, not specified as federal powers, to the states and the people.

    The 14th Amendment simply says that States must apply State law equally (equal protection) to all citizens of the State. The 14th says nothing about the validity or invalidity of State law.

    @Furry1993:
    "Amendment 3 violated the US Constitution."

    Please provide the Constitutional reference.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    June 26, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    @2 bits wrote: "I don't know why civil unions weren't good enough."

    Mainly, for the legal benefits: while in some cases, civil unions were granted equal benefits to marriage (as they were in the state of Washington from 2009 to 2012), that is not always the case: frequently civil unions had fewer of the benefits: in the state of Wisconsin, for instance, the law banning same-sex marriage also mandated that civil unions could exist only if they did not have as many benefits as marriage. Not to mention the fact that since the federal government does not recognize civil unions, all legal benefits in the federal arena are solely for married couples.

    As you state, Amendment 3 forbade both anyway, not to mention the fact that only married couples in Utah could adopt. Do you think that a bill to allow a couple in a civil union to adopt could pass the Utah legislature?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 26, 2014 2:25 p.m.

    I love freedom and the freedom that I love, is the same freedom that allows Gay people to live their life as they choose and allows me to believe and think as I please. I do not have freedom to act and do as I please that effects other people.

    I love the freedom of speech that allows me to tell other how I feel without imposing any requirement for them to believe as I do.

    I love the government of the United States of America for making it all possible.

    Ranch Hand.

    The distinguishing activity that is different between Gay people and non-Gay people is in the attraction of a partner for sexual gratification.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 26, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    Although this is a contentious issue... I hope Utah will stick with it to the Supreme Court. Some State needs to.... so it can be answered once-and-for-all. California ducked and the SC said the people wanting a ruling had no standing... so they didn't have to decide.

    I think there's enough momentum and attention on it this time... they will have to decide. And then the question will be answered for ALL States... instead of each state having various decisions from various courts.

    We need to have a SC decision on this. So we can put it away and stop bickering over it. It's causing too much division.

    I don't know why civil unions weren't good enough. We should have allowed them, but it wouldn't have made any difference. States that DID allow them are now in the same place as Utah (being sued).

    I have no doubt plural marriages will also now be legal (the FLDS people will be happy about that). Not a scare tactic, just the logical next step if ALL definitions of "Marriage" must be accepted.

    But somebody needs to force the SC to rule.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    June 26, 2014 2:16 p.m.

    As bribri86 pointed out:
    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
    -John Adams October 11, 1798

    The reason it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other is because as a free society, unfortunately our laws have to cater to the lowest common denominator. The Constitution doesn't spell out every single right, which on the one hand is great because it allows flexibility, but on the other hand it also requires a certain level of moral aptitude by society as a whole. That minimum standard of moral awareness is what gives the constitution the ability to govern a great nation.

    Several years ago there was a small island country (I believe off the coast of South America somewhere, can't remember exactly where) where the people wanted their own government, wanted to be separate from everyone else. Interestingly enough, over time this small group of people exhibited both a high level of albinism and a high level of homosexuality. From a medical standpoint, albinism is indicative of a genetically degenerative society. I wonder if homosexuality is indicative of a morally degenerative society.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    @Nate
    "The state of Utah has an interest in some pairs of adults, but not necessarily all pairs of adults. Your comparison with inter-racial marriages breaks down on this point."

    The relevant issue is not what Utah thinks but the Constitution and federal courts. The courts have previously struck down bans on inter-racial marriages and it is up to you to prove that the 14th Amendment does not apply to same-sex couples the way it was used for inter-racial couples. Your side is 0-16 in this so far. If my comparison were as flimsy as you suggest, this wouldn't be the result we'd be seeing.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    June 26, 2014 1:29 p.m.

    "It refers back to decisions permitting inter-racial marriage, marriage by a prisoner, and marriage by a “dead-beat dad.” In all those cases, the marriages at issue were marriages between a man and a woman."

    This is certainly no argument against the constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Before the interracial marriage case, none of the precedent involved anything but marriage within one's race. Before the case on a prisoner's right to marry, none of the cases involved anything but marriage between two people not in prison.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    @ Nate: The court actually addressed your points. Utah law allows non-reproductive marriages, they even have one law that specifically requires the couple be non-reproductive. How are same-sex couples differently situated from other non-reproductive couples? The court found they are not and therefore, being similarly situated, were entitled to marriage.

    As for pairs of adults, what differentiates the pairs of adults Utah has an interest in from those they don't? Again, how are same-sex couples differently situated from opposite sex couples?

    Note to all same-sex marriage opponents: Many of the arguments you raise have been brought up by the legal teams who are fighting against same-sex marriage and, consequently, are addressed in the court rulings. It would be very helpful to the discussion if you actually read some of those rulings.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    @RanchHand "similarly situated"

    Here's where the similarities end: one type of union has the potential to produce children, and the other one doesn't. If the state's interest in marriage is to promote homes where both biological parents are there for their children, they don't need to concern themselves with same-sex unions. They have no interest in it.

    @Frozen Fractals "I could just as easily say these all marriages including [sic] a pair of adults."

    The state of Utah has an interest in some pairs of adults, but not necessarily all pairs of adults. Your comparison with inter-racial marriages breaks down on this point. Same sex couples really are not similarly situated.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 26, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    The people in the picture don't seem very happy. The posters today (on BOTH sides) don't seem very happy.

    It seems this debate in particular, doesn't bring out the happy side in ANYBODY.

    Even the people who won... seem nasty today.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 26, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    To "Ranch" that is where your argument breaks down. If you must get equal treatment for your relationship, what about polygamy, incest, cousins that want to marry, or anything else between consenting adults?

    Jesus also said "If you love me keep my commandments", and one of his commandments is that homosexuality is not allowed.

    So, before you start quoting Jesus, you better make sure that you are doing what you can to follow Him.

    You should also be careful in quoting from the OT, especially the parts taken from The books of Moses because it contains many things that God said were to be stopped at the coming of Christ. Unfortunately for you, that includes all of the scriptures in Leviticus that you quoted.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 26, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    " . . . judiciary should not invalidate state laws . . ."

    Well, that depends.

    If state laws are found to be unconstitutional, then the judiciary had the right and the DUTY to invalidate those state laws.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    Is it a good idea for the various states to have different laws with respect to SSM? Having different laws with respect to slavery nearly destroyed the union. Having different standards for SSM has the same potential.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    @ bribri86: You have chosen to focus on one clause of the Ninth Amendment, "of certain rights," but you have chosen to ignore all the other verbiage in that Amendment. Your interpretation takes things out of context and makes no sense.

    If you read the entire Amendment you will see that it states that just because those "certain rights" are listed does not mean there are no other rights.

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Some of the FF's were indeed very worried that rights not listed in the Constitution would be taken away.

    It is impossible to defend the Constitution if you don't understand it.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    @10CC "It's very odd to see Mormons using the prospect of polygamy as a scare tactic. Which Mormon." Are you making assumptions? As far as I know there are no Mormon polygamists currently.

    Polygamy in the United States has a long history. Many Native American tribes practiced polygamy and European mountain men often took native wives and adopted the practice. Some tribes seem to have continued the practice into the 20th century.

    Scots-Irish settlers, and some Welsh emigrants, carried long-standing multiple partner traditions to the Americas from Europe. Utopian and communal groups established during the mid-19th century had varying marriage systems, including group marriage and polygyny. There is also some evidence in the American South for multiple marriage partners, particularly after the Civil War.

    Polygamy has also been practiced, discreetly, by some Muslims living in America.

    It is not a Mormon issue.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    It's very odd to see Mormons using the prospect of polygamy as a scare tactic, when that part of LDS scripture has never been rescinded (D&C 132).

    For all we know, if marriage laws are loosened to allow polygamy in the US, it may become a big opportunity for LDS missionary efforts in countries where polygamy still exists.

    (Stranger things have happened.)

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    You can't have both (accept the gospel is true and accept it's blessings, but insist on not obeying his laws). It doesn't work that way.

    But you can't say the gospel is true and you accept it... but then insist the Prophet, scriptures, and everything God has given us is wrong (but just on this one topic).

    8:36 a.m. June 26, 2014

    =======

    I'll remember that everytime my fellow "Mormons" --

    Ignore the Church's support for Immigration Reform,
    The Church's plea for equal access for LGBT housing, jobs, and education,
    are
    Speeding down the Freeway, tailgating, and Texting while Driving,
    Turn their backs on the poor, sick, and the needy,
    Vote for and support War-mongers,
    Trash the environment,
    and - in this case -
    treat [judge] others differently than they treat [judge] themselves.

    To be a true disciple of Jesus Christ,
    one needs to --

    Show me, Don't tell me....

  • Seldom Seen Smith Orcutt, CA
    June 26, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    That a judge can legally declare that my sister must henceforth be defined only as sibling, my father defined only as parent, both aforementioned mandates intended to discourage sexism, or lastly, the term marriage must include homosexuality, is surely the sign of a corrupet, perverted, and dysfunctional society.

    The United States of America, nothing lasts forever.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    In the Oct. 1971 decision Baker v. Nelson, the Supreme Court of Minnesota found "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”

    Glen Lavy, JD, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, argued in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, "The movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage."

    In April 2013, Slate published a plea for legal polygamy by writer Jillian Keenan: "Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults."

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    @BlueAZCougar;

    RE: Leviticus 18:22

    Leviticus 19:
    19 You shall not sow your field with mixed seed. Nor shall a garment of mixed linen and wool come upon you.
    27 You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard.
    33 And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. 34 The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself;
    35 You shall do no injustice in judgment,

    Leviticus 20:

    9 For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.
    10 The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, ... the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

    Do you obey all these too? Yeah, I thought so.

    Your leader's words have no bearing on my rights.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    Religion has no place in this argument, as we do not live in a theocracy.
    But as 2 bits reminds us of state rights, like that extermination order, is that what this paper is promoting?
    Cause you don't get it both ways.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    @bribri86 9:06 a.m. June 26, 2014

    One does not support and defend the constitution by trying to deny people their Constitutional rights. That's what you're trying to do. If you read the 9th Amendment (and understand it), you would know it says that the fact certain rights are mentioend in the Constitution does not mean that other unmentioned rights are not also protected. It's clear that you don't have a good concept of Constitutional law, or you would know that marriage has been deemend a fundamental right in Supreme Court decisions going back to the 1880s. Because of that, it is a right protected by the 9th Amendment and subject to the equal protection of the laws established by the 14th Amendment.

    If you truly want to support and deefend the Constitution, don't try to take away people's rights (even if they are gay and you have no use for gay people).

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    If the marriage concept of one man and one women is ultimately struck down, then polygamy restrictions must also be struck down. As a marriage between a man and a women cannot be deemed illegal, nor a marriage between two of the same sex cannot be deemed illegal. Then by logic a marriage between a man, a women, and another women can in no way be deemed illegal.

    But wait opposition to polygamy will use emotional unsubstantiated descriptions of polygamous relationships as arguments to fight polygamy. They will claim a Canadian Judges opinion is fact. They will cite one or two bad examples as if they cover all. But wait, isn't those kind of arguments against ssm that they decry as bigoted and hateful. There are past judges whose opinion said ssm was harmful. But they tell us the opinions of judges against ssm were just the opinions of bigots and thus invalid. Then so is the bigoted opinion of a Canadian judge bigoted and invalid.

    The next filling in Utah will be a polygamist marriage seeking equal justice under the 14th amendment. The Utah constitution provision against polygamy, and any federal laws against polygamy are null and void.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    June 26, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    @Ranch
    Well, as long as we're talking about what Jesus said....

    Leviticus 18:22
    "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

    John 7:24
    "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

    Matthew 19:4-6
    "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
    And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
    Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

    I also suggest you read 'Judge Not and Judging' by Elder Dallin H. Oaks (August 1999 Ensign).

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    bribri86,
    Mormons did not leave the United States so they could live polygamy. They left so they could live (they were being killed by mobs) and they left so they could worship they way they want.

    They were FORCED out by the government. Remember Missouri Executive Order 44... AKA "Mormon extermination order" (Google "Governor Boggs" or "Extermination order"). Staying where they were was not an option. Polygamy was not the issue.

    ===

    But while we're on the topic of polygamy... In light of this ruling, is there ANY leg to stand on that prohibits it now? Is it not also an "Equal Protection" issue? Any law prohibiting plural marriages is now pretty much "UN-Constitutional". Is it not?

    I mean if no State government or even their Constitution can prohibit ANY type of marriage (equal protection)... those laws are gone as soon as somebody challenges them in court.

    =========

    There have been rules regarding marriage on the books for a long time. Same-Sex marriage isn't the only one that's been prohibited.

    But if this is what "equal protection" means... then there can be no limits on any desired marriage relationship.. can there??

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 26, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    I agree with your points.

    But you missed important issues. Those who argue for SSM refer to the 'Due Process' and 'Equal Protection' clause in the US Constitution.

    Due process - Simply means assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures. This is being done. Has nothing to do with whether SSM is legal or not.

    14th Amendment - Says that States must not deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the law. The question then becomes what law? It can't be federal law since there is no federal law dealing with marriage. So, it must be state law. And Utah law says that anyone can marry. Anyone. Provided they meet certain criteria: neither person is married, of legal age, are not closely related, are not of the same sex. This applies to everyone in the State of Utah. So, where's the discrimination? There is none.

    On the other hand, if SSM is authorized and the other types of marriage (above) aren't, discrimination has been introduced into the law.

    We can only hope the judges at SCOTUS are smarter than the federal judges.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    @bribri86;

    Marriage may not be mentioned but the 14th Amendment says that the government must treat citizens equally. If you, a heterosexual, get benefits your your relationship, then I, a homosexual, should get the same benefits for my relationship.

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people...."

    Okay, so you don't think that LGBT citizens might believe in god or be a "moral or religious" people. I get it.

    "Judge not lest ye be judged..."

    - Jesus

  • bribri86 Phoenix, AZ
    June 26, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

    John Adams October 11, 1798

  • bribri86 Phoenix, AZ
    June 26, 2014 9:06 a.m.

    ""The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Ok, thanks for pointing this out to me. "Of certain rights" If they wanted all rights, wouldn't they have said all? But that is still not an issue because it still doesn't say anything that marriage is right for all people. It's not a right. It's a privilege. Having a drivers license is a privilege, not a right. Have a marriage license is a privilege, not a right.

    "This was specifically put in because the framers were worried that there would be people, like you, that would try to say that certain rights do not exist because they were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution."

    The framers were worried about a lot of things, but they certainly weren't worried about people like me who swore to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Plain and simple, the constitution only guarantees certain rights, all other decisions are left up to the states. Some people are trying to federalize state's decisions which is what the founders really were worried about.

  • bribri86 Phoenix, AZ
    June 26, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    "Lastly, if I hear one more Mormon tell me that God has always defined "traditional" marriage as one man and one woman I am going to lose it. We literally left the country to practice polygamy, a practice that we believed was ordained of God."

    Check out the book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon and you'll find that God does define traditional marriage as one man and one woman. Jacob also points out that God does require His people to take on more wives when HE says so, not when man says so. Jacob states that God commands His children to practice polygamy to raise up seed unto Him, usually after His people have been brutally killed by mobs and tyrants, not to gratify their own pleasures.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 26, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    We can change society... but I'm pretty sure biology isn't going to change, and God's acceptance of sin isn't going to change.

    ======

    You can say, "There is no God, therefore there is no sin".

    We can say it individually or as a society. And that's OK. Society doesn't know better. But members of the LDS church can not say, "I believe the gospel is true, I believe what the scriptures say, and I believe what the Prophet says... but I think God expects me to disregard his doctrine and and his Prophet, and indulge my own wishes".

    You can't have both (accept the gospel is true and accept it's blessings, but insist on not obeying his laws). It doesn't work that way.

    People of other faiths will have to come to grips with it in their own ways. And people of NO faith... have nothing to worry about (UNLESSS... there IS a God).

    But you can't say the gospel is true and you accept it... but then insist the Prophet, scriptures, and everything God has given us is wrong (but just on this one topic).

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 26, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    The majority of my gay friends are involved in living healthy lifestyles. They participate in athletic activities, travel and discover new cultures, donate to and volunteer at charitable functions,participate in civic and religious organizations, and work hard to pay all of their financial obligations. That's the lifestyle most of my gay friends. Let's get over making us out to being so different than everyone else.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    June 26, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    Mark, thank you for your addition of the ninth amendment to this discussion. If one reads the history of the ninth it's clear the Founding Fathers knew they couldn't enumerate all liberties and that society would in the future be more explicit.

    The argument between the federalists and the anti federalists was centered on this point and the discussion was how to deal with it.

    It's the very reason MR is so wrong so often, and while not the primary argument that will eventually allow SSM it will act as the foundation that says previous rulings that marriage is a fundamental right are correct and constitutional.

  • slowdive Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    kind of like the Feds shouldnt have stepped in down South in the 1960s when states there decided Blacks were less than equal???
    federalism, deferring to states, always sounds good in theory but when it comes to denying people fundamental Rights (Life, Liberty, Pursuit of -- Wedded -- Happiness) and Equal Treatment under the Law, well, then, that's when Uncle Sam is called for.
    besides, most Utahns now favor same-sex protections.
    time for Utah to step aside and let common sense/common consensus prevail.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 26, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    @Vanceone;

    Why preach to the choir? They don't need help.

    @Chris B;

    They speak for themselves and nobody else (not even god).

    @Blue AZ Cougar;

    You refused to allow "civil unions" when you had the chance and passed Amendment 3. Now you're going to lose the entire train. In order to allow civil unions, you'd have to repeal Amendment 3 anyway.

    @Nate;

    Look up "similarly situated".

    @Ultra Bob;

    I usually like your comments, but what about the "gay lifestyle" do you detest?

    Here's a breakdown (please show me which one you find objectionable):

    Gay Lifestyle:
    - Out of bed
    - take care of morning chores and walk the dog
    - shower, shave, brush teeth
    - off to work
    - work
    - break for lunch
    - work
    - home from work
    - more chores and walk the dog
    - watch TV, read, maybe a hobby or three
    - walk the dog again
    - brush teeth
    - go to bed

    @bribri86;

    Is straight marriage a Constitutional right? No? Equal treatment IS.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 26, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    "The opponents of traditional marriage... "

    Don't exist. Those in support of marriage equality also SUPPORT "traditional marriage".

    "...marriage does not exist in a vacuum; it is a public institution,..."

    Are heterosexual marriages carried from state to state? Do heterosexuals need to re-marry every time you move from one state to another? Are they banned in one state and void if the couple relocates? If the answer is "no" then you have to ask yourself the next logical questions. "Why should the marriages of LGBT couples be treated differently?" "Why should LGBT couples lose their marriage rights when relocating?" "Why should an LGBT relationship be treated differently than an OS relationship from one state to another?"

    There is no good reason for your position. Not one.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    June 26, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    Why is it that discriminatory views voiced by an aggrieved majority fall back on the cries of "States rights!"?

    That argument brought upon us the Civil War. That argument brought about Jim Crow laws, segregation in schools, voting rights violations, and a myriad of other woes.

    The world is a very different one than confronted by 18th century thinkers. The planet is interconnected in ways that the founders could never imagine. It is folly to continue this notion that we are 50 separate countries bound together for convenience. Rather, it is imperative that we stand together as one nation to confront the problems of inequality, violence, and the threats of totalitarianism.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 26, 2014 6:57 a.m.

    @ Ultra Bob

    "I detest the Gay lifestyle..."

    I think this perpetuates a harmful stereotype. There is no more a "gay lifestyle" than there is a "hetero lifestyle." Lifestyles are as diverse as human beings. It's time to discard this factually incorrect and needlessly diminishing idea.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 26, 2014 6:43 a.m.

    Didn't SSM become a federal question when the U.S. Congress specifically excluded it in DOMA?

    Re: all previous case law pertains to hetero marriages only: The majority opinion disposes of this argument quite easily beginning on p. 23.

    Others have already pointed out the unnecessarily divisive and intellectually dishonest phrase, "opponents of traditional marriage." On the contrary, yesterday's opinion AFFIRMED our belief in the value of marriage.

    Re: states' right to regulate marriage: Yes, it is repeatedly noted in federal case law. And as the majority opinion noted, this right is repeatedly paired with language that says "as long as it isn't unconstitutional."

    Judge Kelly's dissent basically comes down to, "It isn't time yet. We don't know enough." But this is based on the erroneous premise that LGBTs are a different strain of human being that must be studied before we can trust them. This is insulting, backward, and ignores the fact that they have been in relationships and raising children for ages. The fact that we didn't see this until the last 40 years because it wasn't safe for them to be out doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:50 a.m.

    "Every time I read the Constitution, I have yet to see anywhere where it says Marriage is a constitutional right."

    Bribri86, you can't find it? Here, let me help you. The ninth amendment.

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    This was specifically put in because the framers were worried that there would be people, like you, that would try to say that certain rights do not exist because they were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

    You're welcome.

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    I do not believe standing up for traditional marriage is a dying issue. Those are the only marriages that have a chance of making society better in the long run.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    Chris B chooses to follow the prophet when it's convenient.

    But when issues arise such as caring for the poor, immigration, and abortion, he seems to reject their counsel.

    Interesting.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:17 p.m.

    Yes, the judiciary should invalidate state laws. We need protection from states like Utah, which essentially seek to impose religious law as its' own. We need to be married not just in one state but in all. We need our basic rights protected from the mob. Even if that mob is the entire state. Sorry, but you're just plain wrong on this one.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:08 p.m.

    @Nate
    ""In all those cases, the marriages at issue were marriages between a man and a woman." That's the difference."

    I could just as easily say these all marriages including a pair of adults. If the 14th amendment applies to interracial marriage, why wouldn't it apply to same-sex marriage?

  • intervention slc, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:05 p.m.

    @chris B

    yet you slam them when they disagree with you on issues like poverty and immigration, so do they only "speak for" God when they agree with you?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:05 p.m.

    Loving V Virginia overturned state bans on interracial marriage, in 1967.

    Many states kept their laws on the books even though the Supreme Court decision invalidated them and made them unenforceable.

    The last state to repeal their ban on interracial marriage was Alabama, in 2000, via direct vote, on the ballot. The repeal passed 60% to 40%. (That 40% of Alabamans still supported banning interracial marriage in this century is baffling, but revealing).

    Presumably, those 40% of Alabama voters would completely agree with the D-News on this editorial, in 2014, that state laws are predominant, and can't be overturn by federal judiciary.

    Being opposed to committed couples marrying is a regrettable position to take, one that will be difficult to explain, in the future.

    Beyond these court decisions, the younger generation sees this issue completely differently than a sizable portion of today's older adults, and this change will be more robustly supported.

    I'm not looking forward to the awkward explanations of the future, along the lines of "well, it was a different time, and we didn't really see things as we should have".

  • jbman Boise, ID
    June 25, 2014 9:40 p.m.

    The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to Marriage, Heterosexual or Homosexual. What it does guarantee is equal protection under the law. There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. Once we decided to bestow rights, benefits and protections on marriage those same rights, benefits and protections have to be extended to everyone that chooses to enter into a marriage.

    Lastly, if I hear one more Mormon tell me that God has always defined "traditional" marriage as one man and one woman I am going to lose it. We literally left the country to practice polygamy, a practice that we believed was ordained of God.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    June 25, 2014 9:20 p.m.

    A useful editorial would explain to readers how the outcome of this case hinges on these two different ways to frame the legal question:

    == Utah/Appellants: Must Utah recognize and validate a previously unrecognized right to something called “same-sex marriage”?

    == Kitchens et al/Appellees: Can Utah infringe upon any U.S. citizen's fundamental right to marriage, using the characteristics of some citizens to create the classification upon which the infringement is based?

    An honest editorial would then explain how SCOTUS precedent supports the latter articulation of the legal question before the 10th Cir., but not the former.

    Finally, a persuasive editorial, if advocating the position DN holds, would explain why SCOTUS was wrong in those instances or how the 10th Cir. erred in applying them.

    Congratulations to Kitchen plaintiffs and their legal team.

    Opponents of SSM in Utah and elsewhere in 10th Cir: please don't despair...this case isn't quite done yet, but remember life does and will go on, and not as badly as you may now fear.

    Supporters of SSM: try to be graceful in this recent victory, and tread with gentleness even in those places where you have found none.

  • bribri86 Phoenix, AZ
    June 25, 2014 8:14 p.m.

    Every time I read the Constitution, I have yet to see anywhere where it says Marriage is a constitutional right. Someone point me in that direction so I can better judge whether I should go against God and Nature and side with the philosophy of man.

  • Befuddled WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 25, 2014 8:10 p.m.

    In our opinion: In marriage dispute, judiciary should not invalidate state laws or God's.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 25, 2014 8:03 p.m.

    @Nate,

    Frozen Fractals actually raised a valid point. Before Loving v Virginia, all those marriage cases in courts were marriages of same race, no interracial marriage. In fact SCOTUS even affirmed anti-interracial marriage ban in Pace v Alabama, only reversed themselves in Loving v Virginia.

    So Frozen Fractals' point is, even if traditionally marriage was between two people of same race, does not make it self evident.

    Similarly, even if marriage was traditionally between one man and one woman only, it does not make it self evident or self approved, it still needs rational reasons to justify.

    Unfortunately, in the past year, even though all kinds of rationales have been argued in courts, and 22 court decisions have been delivered, none of those arguments were found valid.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 25, 2014 7:41 p.m.

    Individual state kingdoms couldn't exist in today's world, our nation and its people would be much better off and have a better chance for survival if we could get rid of the redundant state governments. State governments are too easily controlled by local business interests even to the destruction of the American Constitution. Criminals who flout the laws of the American government are given safe haven and encouragement by the other local business people.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 25, 2014 7:34 p.m.

    @Frozen Fractals "I assume the editorial writer(s) must also believe that the courts were wrong to strike down state bans on interracial marriage."

    You assume incorrectly. The writer dealt with those cases. I suggest you go back and read it again:

    "In all those cases, the marriages at issue were marriages between a man and a woman." That's the difference.

  • Starry starry night Palm Springs , CA
    June 25, 2014 7:09 p.m.

    The fourth estate, which you represent in Utah, is a sacred public trust in our democracy.
    Your editorial represents a dying point of view. The preponderance of evidence and the forward march of justice on this important human issue should have shed light on this news organization. You do your readers and the LGBT community a disservice by trying to maintain the status quo. The frightening history of prejudice and abuse that gay people have suffered in Utah and which has irrefutably come to light in recent years should have made you walk forward on this issue with careful steps. History will be embarrassing for this editorial board. What's right is right and your position is wrong.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    June 25, 2014 6:10 p.m.

    Yes, the judiciary should invalidate state laws if they are found to be contradictory to the guarantees found in the U.S. Constitution or contrary to the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution. I don't know who wrote this op-ed, but they are advocating to get rid of judicial review--a foundation pillar to the checks and balances of our government system.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 25, 2014 6:09 p.m.

    You're wrong. If a law violates the Constitution it needs to be invalided regardless how the law came into being. Amendment 3 violated the US Constitution. Judge Shelby, and now the 10th Circuit Court, did the right thing. Good for them.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    June 25, 2014 5:50 p.m.

    “...we should be reluctant to invalidate state constitutional or legislative enactments,” is more persuasive...".

    We(?)spent a great deal of time reluctant to invalidate state constitutional enactments.

    Then along came Loving v Virginia.

    June 12, 1967 is a day which began the end of America...or so we(?)were told by those who oppose interracial marriage.

    June 25, 2014 we(?) are still plugging along.

    What happened?...

    Or... is this just the new beginning of the end?

    BTW...

    "...the majority leapt to the conclusion that same-sex marriages need to be accorded the same legal recognition as man-woman marriages...".

    Leapt?

    "...December 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Utah repeatedly cited Loving in its decision Kitchen v. Herbert, which held unconstitutional Utah's ban on same-sex marriage. February 2014, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, writing for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Bostic v. Rainey (which struck down Virginia's ban), not only cited Loving, but also prefaced her opinion with Mildred Loving's above-mentioned statement of 2007. May 2014, Pulaski County Circuit judge Chris Piazza likewise cited Loving as precedent when holding Arkansas's ban unconstitutional in Wright v. Arkansas...".

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    June 25, 2014 5:35 p.m.

    Well said Vanceone. The one thing I keep coming back to is that as a society, somehow we view marriage as far easier to redefine than the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. Far easier to re-write the laws of God than the tax laws. Far easier to redefine the eternal institution of marriage than to include civil unions in the group of individuals receiving state and federal benefits and legal protections. Far easier to lay aside the scriptures than lay aside our pride. I know that sounds a lot like "separate but equal", which in today's world is a taboo phrase. But then again, when has SS marriage ever been equal with traditional marriage? It never has been, it never will be, regardless of how many federal judges side with you, regardless of how you interpret the US constitution.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 5:26 p.m.

    I have no issue with listening to dissent.

    I do have an issue when the motivation behind legislation on my, is not true.

    In the decade since marriage was afforded to LGBT Americans since MA in 2004, zero losses of legislation and legal protections have happened to Heterosexual marriages.

    Sure, you can claim your 'morals' and your 'beliefs' are being effected.

    But that can also happen if I eat Bacon for lunch.

    As such we need quantifiable things were to base legislation upon. Facts. Effects. Real Vs. Rhetoric.

    Everyone is trying to cite Amendment 3 that 'the people' have spoken.

    Sure. In 2004.

    It's 2014 today.

    So, if you are so secure in said belief, put it up for a vote again.

    You believe, that you have nothing to loose, correct?

    Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011

    'For the first time since Gallup started studying the issue in 1996, the polling organization found a majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.
    Fifty-three percent of Americans answered yes to the question...'

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 5:16 p.m.

    I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson and Pope Francis.

    When you think about who they speak for - its good company!

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 25, 2014 5:13 p.m.

    Who are these "opponents of traditional marriage" these DN editorials keep mentioning? I've been in a traditional marriage for almost 32 years now. I live in a marriage equality state. I've had no one oppose my traditional marriage and I see absolutely no evidence of "opponents" of traditional marriage. None.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 25, 2014 5:07 p.m.

    Kelly is a former state legislator and brings a unique perspective to the case that deserves to be heard. I happen to disagree with him, but he actually makes a better case than Utah's lawyers made.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 25, 2014 4:55 p.m.

    I know conservatives hate to admit it, but the 14th Amendment exists specifically to limit the 10th Amendment. States don't have free range to pass laws in violation of the Constitution and the equal rights of all citizens.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    June 25, 2014 4:55 p.m.

    @Deseret News wrote: "The opponents of traditional marriage..."

    That phrase is intellectually dishonest, DN. Those seeking marriage equality are not opposed in any way to "traditional marriage." What we are opposed to is excluding same-sex couples from marriage.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:53 p.m.

    I assume the editorial writer(s) must also believe that the courts were wrong to strike down state bans on interracial marriage.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:47 p.m.

    A good editorial. Sure to be slammed as "bigoted, hate mongering, sexist" and probably racist by some of our leftist commentators, who, apparently, cannot bear to hear of any dissent to their "gay is the greatest, bestest thing ever and anyone who doesn't tolerate--by which we mean fully embrace and celebrate-- the gay ideology is a bigot who should be shunned, fired, prosecuted and jailed if possible. Because we want everyone to be tolerant, so we cannot tolerate dissent from our positions."

    You would think that our crop of leftists would be content that the entire rest of the media is 110% on their side, and comment there, rather than try to suppress and tear down one dissenting paper.