Quantcast
Utah

10th Circuit decision could impact Utah marriage recognition case

Comments

Return To Article
  • spector Tranquility, UT
    June 28, 2014 9:43 p.m.

    koseighty, over his limit, asked me to pass on:

    Genesis refers to "Adam and his wife." But Genesis never mentions a wedding ceremony. It is therefore likely that Adam and Eve were married the way people were for the vast majority of our history: they simply moved into together.

    While the church would deliver great pomp and circumstance for royal marriages, the common folk were generally left to marry themselves to whom they pleased -- no priest or ceremony required.

    It wouldn't be until the reformation that churches would begin to officiate at weddings for the peasantry. As part of the struggle for power, the Catholic church declared that only marriages performed by them had the blessing of God. And thus the practice of weddings to create marriages was brought to the commoners -- with the Catholic and Protestant churches battling to win souls by marriage as much as by baptism.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 28, 2014 9:12 p.m.

    @cory.byufan

    "Wife" in Genesis 2:25 is Strong's #802: 'ishshah. It can mean "a woman" or "adulteress" or "each, every, female" or "wife". In fact, Strongs shows the word used many times and only rarely translated as "wife."

    The KJV translators were influenced by the biases of the day. A literal translation would have rendered it something like "the man and the woman." The KJV translation sets Adam as the man and Eve as an accessory, like property, as if she has no existence outside her relationship to "the man."

    Of course, that is how women were treated in Bronze Age society.

    Yet another example of why the Bible is such a poor guide on modern life and society and how to treat people.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    June 28, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    @cory.byufan
    "And my point is, the earliest record we have of a married couple is not two cave dwellers. And they weren’t trying to protect their property rights if they were the only two people alive on the earth."

    The problem is, of course, that history shows mankind had been building cities and farming in the Fertile Crescent for thousands of years before Adam and Eve appear (according to the Biblical timeline). Writing had been developed, the first laws recorded, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people had lived and died. All long before the Bible got around to creating the first man and woman.

    I wonder, when Adam and Eve were finally let out of the garden, did they finally encounter the human race that had been happily marching on for a hundred thousand years? Perhaps that's where they found the wives for their sons. Where Cain was able to find people to join him in building a city.

    How lonely life would have been for them, had they never escaped the garden and thus discovered the real world.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 28, 2014 2:38 p.m.

    On religious freedom, from the 10th Circuit's 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."

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 28, 2014 2:31 p.m.

    @ cory.byufan

    About Genesis 2:25 You are absolutely right. I read the scriptures in Spanish, my native language,and in Spanish the text says' The man and his woman" other translation says "Adam and his woman". I'll do some research on the original... I love this stuff!

    About "wrz";

    No problem, you see, to be gay and be my age I needed to develop a thick skin :)

    Besides, you are right. I'm a very nice person :)

    @ WRZ
    Regarding being concerned about meeting my maker: Not at all! God is an intrinsic part of my life and the life of my family. I think those who show disdain for other individuals should be more concerned.

    Regarding "you (Baccus) may not be as homosexual as you suppose".

    OoooH! believe me I am! Very much so.

    About my daughter? Well, we LGBT can be as resourceful as straights when it comes to parenthood.

  • cory.byufan Provo, UT
    June 28, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    And my point is, the earliest record we have of a married couple is not two cave dwellers. And they weren’t trying to protect their property rights if they were the only two people alive on the earth. They also weren’t trying to gain respect from their nonexistent neighbors. They did it because marriage was instituted by God. Now that’s only relevant if you believe in the bible, but I support traditional marriage because it I think in the long term it is best for children and for society. And Utah has the right to vote on that. The constitution will be interpreted differently depending on the judge. I doubt Judge Kelly is in the minority. I guess we’ll see when the case goes to the supreme court.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 28, 2014 7:40 a.m.

    @mrjj69 9:41 p.m. June 27, 2014

    at some point perhaps a court will rule in favor of a voter approved initiative.

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

    It's very simple. If the voter-approved initiative establishes a law that is constitutional, the courts will rule in favor of it. If on the other hand the voter-approved initiative establishes a law that is unconstitutional (like Amendment 3), the courts will rule against of it. The courts rule strictly on whether or not the voter-approved initiative establishes a law that is constitutional. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • cory.byufan Provo, UT
    June 27, 2014 11:47 p.m.

    RanchHand
    You bet I believe in fairy tales! Like the 1980 miracle bowl. Oh wait, that really happened haha.

    Baccus0902
    You asked what bible I use. It’s the King James version. I don’t think I’m using my imagination to say that Adam and Eve were married. Genesis 2:25 “and they were both naked, the man and his WIFE, and were not ashamed.”

    wrz
    Ouch. That was kind of harsh against Baccus0902 who is still a nice person even though they disagree with you.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 27, 2014 10:13 p.m.

    "Baccus0902:
    "Our families love us and we love and share with them. Our daughter is blossoming into a beautiful well educated young lady."

    How in heaven's name did you get a daughter? If you or your spouse were involved in making the child, then you may not be as homosexual as you suppose.

    "I am sure my circle will be disappointed when they find out we are all wrong."

    If I were you, I'd be more concerned about meeting my maker. But, that's just me.

    @rw123:
    "For instance, if there were enough groundswell support for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, the constitution could literally be amended to reflect that."

    But you have to have a moral country to get that done. And we're moving very swiftly toward immorality.

    @StandAlone:
    "Go to youtube and type in "'What gay marriage did to Massachusetts."

    Absolutely astounding and frightening that this is what is coming to communities when SSM is legalized. All I can say is, the Supreme Court better watch the film-clip. It will open their eyes as to what will come should the court rule in favor of SSM.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    June 27, 2014 9:41 p.m.

    at some point perhaps a court will rule in favor of a voter approved initiative.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    June 27, 2014 9:16 p.m.

    The point about homosexual marriage indoctrination in the public schools is not helping people to learn to be kind, friendly and respectful to all, but rather teaching and indoctrination that SSM is good and wonderful and should be celebrated despite rights of the parents to teach their children right and wrong according to their particular religious belief. In some places it is already not acceptable to say I disagree I believe SSM is wrong.

  • StandAlone South Jordan, UT
    June 27, 2014 7:23 p.m.

    koseighty

    "The Mormon chapels and Temple in Denmark are unaffected by this law"...... for now.........

    I'll tell you what's wrong on many level's.

    Putting your trust, and relying on the government to respect anything in the Constitution, including the separation clause.

    The separation clause in the long run will likely not protect religious institutions any more than it protected some catholic Institutions from continuing attempt of having the HHS Contraceptive mandate imposed on them.

    The U.S Constitution is only as strong as the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. Political machinations are in place to interpret anything.

    Those who smugly think, that any government, under any constitution, in any country, would never force SSM upon any religious institution, State run or not, is being deceived.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    June 27, 2014 7:02 p.m.

    @wendell:
    "...but what about the rest of us that were married out of state prior to Judge Shelby's ruling? There are more than a few of us that considered getting married here in the state of Utah in order to make sure our rights were protected."

    I don't see that as a problem... It's my understanding that the SCOTUS decision on DOMA, prohibits States (and the federal government) from denying benefits to married SS couples residing in the State.

    That could be the answer to the SSM dilemma... SCOTUS could rule that States can decide that SSM is not an authorized marriage but cannot deny SS couples State benefits (such as filing a joint state income tax return).

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 27, 2014 6:47 p.m.

    Filthy Kuffar
    You wrote:
    "I call baloney to those who deny that it will eventually happen."

    Filthy Kuffar @ Stand Alone,

    You are expressing similar "feelings". You can call it anything you want... I will call your "feelings" paranoia.

    Let's examine this:

    Would any of you marry in a church that doesn't want to bless your marriage. No? I didn't think so.

    Yet, in your mind, LGBT people would do that. Why? Because, again, in your mind, we want to destroy the holy institution of marriage.

    To that type of un-reasoning there is no arguments that can persuade you.

    Fortunately for us and for you: Marriage is a civil institution and your religious beliefs are protected.

    Have a wonderful life. Please do NOT let that SSM harm your family or your marriage.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    June 27, 2014 6:15 p.m.

    @StandAlone

    One example of the separation of church and state and the establishment clause:

    This year a church in the south made headlines for refusing to marry an interracial couple -- 47 years after Loving.

    The couple were members of the church and had dated and been engaged while attending there. But they had to go elsewhere to get married. And the church is within its rights under the establishment clause. No government agency tried to force them to perform the ceremony. And 47 years from now, if Mormon doctrine doesn't change and they refuse to marry same sex couples, no government agency will try to force them.

    I'm not saying there won't be groups like Ordain Women, who will call attention to the church and try to force change. But the church cannot be forced by the government without constitutional changes to the 1st amendment.

  • goodnight-goodluck S.L.C., UT
    June 27, 2014 5:54 p.m.

    Sometimes the RIGHTS of the minority need protecting from the will and opinions of the majority. You should never be permitted to vote on the rights of another....The court got it right and I wish the state would stop wasting my tax $$ trying to get it wrong.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    June 27, 2014 5:49 p.m.

    @StandAlone
    "The Constitution's guarantee of the "free exercise" of religion are flimsy protections at best. Churches in Denmark have been ordered to perform SSM whether they want to or not, and the U.S will not be far behind."

    This is wrong on many levels.

    Denmark does not have the same Constitution as we do, so comparisons of constitutional rights aren't direct.

    Denmark has a state church, the Danish National Church. And, yes, they recently passed a law requiring all (Danish National) churches to perform same sex marriages. The law took effect June 15. No Danish National priest can be forced to perform such a ceremony, but all Danish National churches must provide someone to officiate such marriages upon request. This is appropriate, because all Danish citizens pay to support the church and should have access.

    HOWEVER, the law only applies to the national church, no other denominations. The Mormon chapels and temple in Denmark are unaffected by this law.

    The law has sparked debate about separating church and state in Denmark. The separation of church and state in the U.S. means this will never happen here.

  • StandAlone South Jordan, UT
    June 27, 2014 5:05 p.m.

    The Constitution's guarantee of the "free exercise" of religion are flimsy protections at best. Churches in Denmark have been ordered to perform SSM whether they want to or not, and the U.S will not be far behind. Don't think for a minute it cannot happen here, it can and it will. To think otherwise is extremely foolish and naive. Even if a church tries to keep going without tax-exempt status, it won't be long before they are ordered to perform SSM anyway, tax exempt status or not. If the gay gestapo can order a baker to make a wedding cake, they can order a pastor to perform a wedding. People better wake up.....

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    June 27, 2014 4:45 p.m.

    I wish I had the ability to edit a post. I forgot to put the word "unconstitutional" in two places in my prior post. I hope this clarifies that prior post.

  • Filthy Kuffar Spanish Fork, UT
    June 27, 2014 4:45 p.m.

    I'm sure at some point a judge will determine that the 14th amendment means that churches have to marry gay couples against their will, just like when marriage was somehow found in the same amendment that allows gay or straight people the legal right to marry (even though it's not mentioned [enumerated] anywhere).

    What could possibly make me believe that gays won't push the government to force my church to marry gays if the Constitution is open to interpretation by a select few, ignoring the will of the people?

    I call baloney to those who deny that it will eventually happen.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    June 27, 2014 4:29 p.m.

    Has anyone else noticed that the same people who claim churches will never be forced to perform same-sex marriages are often the same people supporting and applauding the efforts of groups like Ordain Women who are attempting to forced churches to change doctrine and policy?

  • Harrison Bergeron Holladay , UT
    June 27, 2014 4:24 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.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    June 27, 2014 4:16 p.m.

    Both sides in CA Prop 8 had it's ups and downs all the way to SCOTUS.

    I empathize with both sides of this issue.

    Almost 19 years together with my SSM Partner, we were married in 2008 during the "open window" prior to Prop 8. (Six years ago.)

    Fortunately, in this state it is now a non-issue.

    Straight couples still go on with their lives ........... as well as us gay couples.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2014 4:10 p.m.

    @StandAlone
    "I'm curious to know what you think about gay couples demanding to be sealed in the LDS Temple. This will be their next push. Sealing's are a religious ceremony, not a civil ceremony."

    Right, it's a religious ceremony, so much like the LDS church can choose not to marry mixed-faith couples in temples (even though we have laws against religious discrimination) they can likewise choose not to marry same-sex couples in the temple. Now, of course, they might face criticize and protests (something like Ordain Women, and like OW would pretty much only come from people inside rather than outside the faith), but they can't be made to change in the law; that'd be unconstitutional and I'd support the churchs' rights in that (you're on your own when it comes to any protest stuff).

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    June 27, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    @Danclrksvll:

    I doubt religious people will be fined, told to shut up, or face jail (unless there opposition turns to battery).

    But I wonder if there will be attempts to revoke the tax exempt status of churches that won't perform same sex marriages.

  • StandAlone South Jordan, UT
    June 27, 2014 3:48 p.m.

    SSM involves everybody, including religious institutions. To those who say " religion has no place in politics", would you say that to Reverend Martin Luther King? Most movements to improve law were led by religious leaders, including the civil rights movement. Our government was also founded on moral and religious principles.

    Government can treat people equally and ensure their liberty without redefining marriage. Government has no business reaffirming romantic or emotional attachments. You can keep your head buried in the sand, and pretend that government and the constitution will protect you. But what is at stake here, is a government that recognizes SSM and then force every citizen, religion, school and business to do the same.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    June 27, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    @Danclrksvll

    Please explain to me how this instance of the federal judiciary declaring state laws banning same sex marriage is different than the federal judiciary declaring state segregation laws in the 1950's.

  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    June 27, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    Although I really disagree with same sex marriage,the red flag that should trouble all of us is that the Federal government has pushed aside the expressed will of the people in almost every state, and has started down the road to judicial tyranny. It must be stopped and soon.I predict that if all 50 states are forced to accept so called gay marriage, than any religious organization that stands in opposition to this sort of thing will find itself in court defending their right to proclaim the truth as they understand it.At that point those of us who refuse to compromise may be fined, told to shut up , or face jail. Bring it on! We will not be quiet!

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 27, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    @StandAlone:

    " I'm curious to know what you think about gay couples demanding to be sealed in the LDS Temple. This will be their next push. "

    If it is, they'll lose. The First Amendment protects the right of churches to decide who is or is not eligible to participate in their sacraments and services. It's no different than the present right of the LDS Church to limit access to their temples to folks who have a temple recommend. It may well be that the church will someday allow sealings for gay couples, but if so, it will be because the church made the decision to allow it based on their belief in ongoing revelation and prophecy, but not because a court ordered it.

    This is the underlying issue with so many of the anti- arguments. They conflate civil marriage rights (the subject of the suits) with religious marriage rites (which have nothing to do with the case at bar). They're two entirely separate issues which have the misfortune to share the same name -- marriage.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 27, 2014 1:49 p.m.

    @StandAlone;

    If a gay couple "demands" to be married in your temple, I will support your church in saying no.

    This is 100% about civil marriage. Religious marriage has absolutely nothing to do with it. Religious marriage does not come with any legal rights, privileges or benefits. Those are only available through civil marriage, which is what we're seeking. Your churches can be a bigoted towards LGBT couples as they want (all it'll do is lose them members); but they have no business telling civil authorities what citizens of this country, who are NOT MEMBERS of their congregations are allowed to do. No business whatsoever.

  • AdJoRo Kearns, UT
    June 27, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    @RocketScience
    "...efforts in the schools to teach children, even in elementary schools, to accept, appreciate and embrace homosexual marriages. already happening in some states."

    I can only that this happens in my lifetime!

    I have nothing to lose if I accept my neighbor's marriage, even if it's same-sex. Even you have nothing to lose by accepting their marriage either. It does nothing to demean your own marriage, or make it less special. You know what ruins the sanctity of marriage? Divorce. Adultery. Both of those are 100% legal. Do I agree with either? No, but I respect that someone has the opportunity to make those choices.

    But "People of the same sex marrying can't procreate!" You're right, they can't produce kids of their own. Does that mean that they can't be good parents to an adopted or surrogate child? If you honestly answer "yes" to that question, you have personal prejudices you need to get over, and quit projecting onto everyone else. You know who else can't have kids of their own? The elderly and sterile. We allow them to marry! Why? Because they love and care for one another.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    June 27, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    Allow me to summarize StandAlone, windsor and RocketScience's reasons for opposing SSM:

    "Now the attempt is to allow people to (1) define their own marriages the way they want to without being barred by my personal religious convictions; and(2) allow gay couples to come out of the shadows to marry and stop feeling like their government brands them as abnormal and illegitimate. Coming soon, with a broadened legal definition, educators will teach children, even in elementary schools, to accept other people's personal choices and natures and mind their own business.

    I can't even fathom what any of you think the schools are going to do to "indoctrinate" our poor kids. What do you predict will happen; full-color pictorals explaining "the act"? Lessons on how fab-YOO-lous it is to be gay? Are kids going to "convert"?

    You're inventing and/or predicting things to be alarmed at and offended by, and you don't even know what they are beyond vague notions that "something ain't right." In 20 years people will wonder what the big deal was, and the planet will not have turned gay.

  • windsor City, Ut
    June 27, 2014 12:44 p.m.

    Rocket Science said: "Now the attempt is to change the definition of marriage to make homosexuality mainstream. Coming soon, with a broadened legal definition, indoctrination efforts in the schools to teach children, even in elementary schools, to accept, appreciate and embrace homosexual marriages."

    That sums up completely and perfectly my whole opposition to SSM.

  • StandAlone South Jordan, UT
    June 27, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    EstoPerpetua

    Go to youtube and type in "What "gay marriage" did to Massachusetts". It's an eye opener. To say no one has been affected by "marriage equality", is simply not true. People who try to speak out against SSM are persecuted in one way or another.

    J.S "The discussion here is about marriage as a civil part of society, and not what it means to religion."

    Not true. It is about religion. I'm curious to know what you think about gay couples demanding to be sealed in the LDS Temple. This will be their next push. Sealing's are a religious ceremony, not a civil ceremony.

  • moonswoman Oakland, OR
    June 27, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    It should not matter that 4 people is upset over a case that was voted by the people. Why did they not get out rally votes.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    June 27, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    CP Tooele, UT "A couple of years ago the majority of people who live in Utah voted"

    The vote was many years ago i.e. 10 years ago, and most people have learned more about LBGTs and that they are no threat to them. Perhaps Utah should vote again.

    Betcha And you live in Massachusetts. My partner and I of over 52 years have lived in Massachusetts for 51 years, married 10 years, and Massachusetts is doing great. We have many gay and straight friends here and no one has said that they have been affected by marriage equality. Based on what you say, the often used phrases - "The marriage of two businesses, the marriage of two universities, etc. should be condemned.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 27, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    cory.byufan

    "Is that why Adam and Eve got married? To protect their property rights?"

    The book of Genesis describe the creation of Adam from the earth and Eve from Adam's DNA (Rib)they were given a command to multiply and work the land. Is that the marriage you are talking about? Because really, unless my Bible is missing something Adam and Eve may be the product of an experiment based on what is written. Of course, people fill the gaps in the narrative with their own imagination.

    MtnDewer
    Where in the constitution does it say gays have the right to marry? Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. doesn't think it does.

    Do you realize that Judge Kelly's is not the prevalent opinion?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 27, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    @cory.byufan;

    Since you seem to believe in fairy tales, I don't think anything you say is relevant or credible.

  • Brightenpath Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 27, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    "One is not a class because one has committed a fault. Selfishness is not one of the divisions of the social order." Les Misérables, Volume IV, Chapter II

  • cory.byufan Provo, UT
    June 27, 2014 10:21 a.m.

    kolob1
    "Marriage was ceremony performed long before the Bible. It was primarily instituted to protect property rights not children."

    Is that why Adam and Eve got married? To protect their property rights?

    MtnDewer
    Where in the constitution does it say gays have the right to marry? Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr. doesn't think it does.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    June 27, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    Betcha says: "You can put any kind of spin on it want, But same sex couples , is just wrong, it always has been and it always will be."

    Great. You are free to believe that for the rest of your life. Put it on a bumper sticker ant tee-shirt. Write a song about it. Tell your kids and grandkids (none of whom could even be gay, of course) how you feel. For all the talk of an "attack on religion" I've seen, I don't think anyone has seriously proposed laws that would restrict you from believing that SSM is a horrible abomination or saying so in your church meeting.

    But you can't turn your abhorrence and aversion into a law.

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    June 27, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    Mr. Graves, read the decision. The definitional issue you raise is specifically addressed. And found to be irrelevant to the issues of the case. Dictionaries are useful for purposes of spelling;they have no standing in a court of law.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    @CP
    " why do I bother to vote, if it means nothing? What about voters rights?"

    Let's say the people of a state vote to ban all guns. Let's say that vote was 60-40 for the ban. Should the Supreme Court strike that down because it's unconstitutional, or should voters rights prevail? Now, I'm sure you think gay marriage isn't constitutionally protected, but I think we can agree that voters rights should be trumped if a hypothetical thing passed violates the constitution.

  • rad3 SLC, UT
    June 27, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    Thank you Deseret News for actually showing loving gay couples in your picture instead of a generic stock photo!

  • J.S Bountiful, UT
    June 27, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    What's being discussed here is the right for equality every American citizen has - not the religious definition of what marriage is. Everyone should has the same basic rights and obligations, we shouldn't have discrimination. The discussion here is about marriage as a civil part of society, and not what it means to religion. I am a latter-day saint and I do believe in the religious definition of marriage as stated by the scriptures - but that's what I live and believe. No one should be forced to live by what I believe, that goes totally against the doctrine of agency. My religion should not be impacted by what happens to society - it is something between me and the Lord.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    June 27, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    @MtnDewer

    I understand your point, but a little correction. Ultimately, the people's will is the final say, because in our government, the constitution can be changed (amended) by the voice of the people through their elected officials and by ratification of their state legislatures, again through elected officials.

    For instance, if there were enough groundswell support for a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, the constitution could literally be amended to reflect that.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    PLM

    Kaysville, UT

    Aren't our laws were based on the will of the people?

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

    In a word--NO. Are laws are based on the constitution. Plan and simply put, if you don't remember from your civics class: all laws, whether national, state, county or city, must conform to the constitution. The people can change the constitution if they do not agree with the rulings of the judiciary, but it has a very high bar to do so.

    We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. These judges are doing just what they were appointed to do. We do not elect these judges because they are only there to judge against the constitution and not play to the public. It is all in the constitution, if you want to read it.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 27, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    Betcha

    " You can put any kind of spin on it want, But same sex couples , is just wrong, it always has been and it always will be."

    My partner and I have been together for 33 years. We have been happy and have had a strong relationship through good and bad times.

    Most of our friends are straight people.

    Our families love us and we love and share with them. Our daughter is blossoming into a beautiful well educated young lady.

    I am sure my circle will be dissapointed when they find out we are all wrong. Thank you for telling us. I don't know how we could have been so blind and nobody noticed.

    What to do? what to do?

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    K R Graves: "Now we get to the crux of the matter. You see, in every dictionary I could find, up to the last 20 years or so, the word Marriage is quite clear to include the concept of opposite genders. Even a very current online legal dictionary I looked up used the same language."

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

    But Kirk, less than 100 years ago, "voter" meant male citizen only. All the law books stated so and it was written into the Constitution.

    In our journey to a more perfect state, in 1920, we added women as voters. Did it change the meaning of that word to make it mean less than it did? Do all the rulings and even amendments regarding the word "voter" become nil and void? Do not those rulings also apply to women now too?

    I think that you are making rules and analogies that do NOT exist in the law.

  • wendell provo, UT
    June 27, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    It seems that everyone keeps talking about the recognition of the approximately 1300 Same Sex Marriages that occurred in the state of Utah, but what about the rest of us that were married out of state prior to Judge Shelby's ruling? There are more than a few of us that considered getting married here in the state of Utah in order to make sure our rights were protected. However, we were told, by certain County Clerks, that our marriages were already valid and that they were not legally able to issue marriage licenses to us unless we did not divulge the fact we were already married. If the court orders the state to recognize the Utah marriages, will ours be recognized as well?

  • Betcha Waltham, MA
    June 27, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    You can put any kind of spin on it want, But same sex couples , is just wrong, it always has been and it always will be.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    June 27, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    @Kirk R. Graves.

    Agreed

    I might add, word definitions may indeed change but the concepts they originally meant to portray generally do not. Yes, Shakespeare's words may have changed in meaning but the concepts his words portrayed are timeless and unchanging. Same with the Bible and Book of Mormon.

    The moral foundation of society is cracking. People of conscience everywhere should wake up and do what they can to remedy the situation. Militant and activist gays, those who support them, and activist judges who legislate from the bench are turning good for bad and bad for good. Try as they might, no court in the land can change what's right and whats wrong.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    June 27, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    Aren't our laws were based on the will of the people? The people of Utah clearly and strongly support the "traditional" definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. A civil union of any other type may be recognized by the state but it is not a marriage.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    June 27, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    Kirk R Graves says: "The primary argument in support of SSM is the 14th amendment . . You see, in every dictionary I could find, up to the last 20 years or so . . "

    No, the primary argument in support of SSM is that it ain't your business to tell consenting adults who they can or cannot marry. People can bandy about the language of this document or that document or this judicial decision or that judicial decision all the live long day, but the overriding factor is that your biases or opinions should have no effect on laws that prevent other adult citizens from conducting their lives as they please, absent any demonstrable harm caused.

    And, did you really, truly grab a bunch of dictionaries and look the word "marriage" up thinking that would somehow bloster your case? I call balderdash.

    Rocket Science says: "Now the attempt is . . to make homosexuality mainstream. Coming soon . . indoctrination efforts in the schools to teach children . ."

    More alarmist fantasy. Are you equating schools not explicitly teaching the wrongness of gay marriage with indoctrination to the contrary?

    Nice quote, Catlady. Unfortunately, the humor was lost on CP.

  • Sailor376 Oakland, MI
    June 27, 2014 7:01 a.m.

    Words and definitions,,, just diversions from the point of "equal protection under the law".

    Are you tall? Are you short? Black? White? Male? Female? ,,,,If you are born that way, whatever that way is, you then must be equal in the eyes of the law. MUST BE.

    Annnnnd we are pretty sure these days, science is never, should never be, certain, that 'gayness' is something that happened before birth. Born that way? No different than being born black, white, pink, or purple, tall, short, male, female,,,, WE are all equal.

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    June 27, 2014 6:46 a.m.

    "10th Circuit decision could impact Utah marriage recognition case" Should, not could. Also in re Mr Kirk Graves stating that marriage is defined in the dictionary as a union between man and woman, move over. His argument is so juvenile that it does not need further discussion. His subsequent comment about the "evolution" of the meaning of words is more appropriate. Everything changes. Men are not dragging women around the cave by the hair, at least they are not supposed to. Marriage was ceremony performed long before the Bible. It was primarily instituted to protect property rights not children. Thankfully this has changed. Children were bred for labor in the early days.The more kids the more field hands you had. Education was not the focus. Life changes and those that want to resort to dictionaries to support their arguments should look a little deeper into those tomes. There are plenty words to prove pro and con of the same issue.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 27, 2014 6:34 a.m.

    @Kirk Graves:
    "You see, in every dictionary I could find, up to the last 20 years or so, the word Marriage is quite clear to include the concept of opposite genders. Even a very current online legal dictionary I looked up used the same language."

    The fallacy in your argument is "up to the last 20 years or so". As someone else points out here, old and outdated dictionaries have definitions that are no longer used or are no longer acceptable. Modern dictionaries include same-sex couples in their definition of marriage. In any case, while courts may sometimes use the dictionary in determining the meaning of a word, when it comes to basics, Noah Webster does not decide the law of the land. The Supreme Court does.

    In this case, unless there is dissent between the various Federal Circuit Courts, the Supremes are far more likely to decline cert, leaving the lower court rulings intact.

  • Bill McGee Alpine, UT
    June 27, 2014 5:26 a.m.

    Oh no! Schools teaching tolerance for others? What's next?

  • CP Tooele, UT
    June 27, 2014 4:19 a.m.

    I like your comment Carlady79. My question is, A couple of years ago the majority of people who live in Utah voted and won that marriage here in this state of Utah is to stay traditional and now because a couple of judges have ruled that now SSM can happen here in Utah because a few people got their feathers ruffled and all is to their favor, why do I bother to vote, if it means nothing? What about voters rights? So yep "cats and dogs living together"

  • Catlady79 Magna, Ut, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:28 p.m.

    Cats and dogs living together....Bill Murray

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:21 p.m.

    Sometimes words are intentionally changed to give definition not originally intended. Gay began to be used in the 70's to soften the correct term of homosexual. Now the attempt is to change the definition of marriage to make homosexuality mainstream. Coming soon, with a broadened legal definition, indoctrination efforts in the schools to teach children, even in elementary schools, to accept, appreciate and embrace homosexual marriages. already happening in some states.

    The book, After the Ball – how America will conquer it’s fear and hatred of Gays in the 90’s, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. 1989 argues that after the gay liberation phase of the 1970s and 1980s, gay rights groups should adopt more professional public relations techniques to convey their message. That marketing has worked very well. The book laid out a six point plan to transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior including:
    Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible...
    Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers...
    Give homosexual protectors a just cause...
    Make gays look good...
    Make those who disagree to be victimizers and make them look bad...
    Get support from corporate America...

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:23 p.m.

    Kirk R Graves:

    Words have meanings, but those meanings often evolve through time:

    "Awful" used to mean "full of awe".

    "Gay" used to mean "happy"

    "Egregious" used to mean "remarkably good".

    "Nice" used to mean "foolish, senseless"

    "Villain" used to mean "peasant"

    Some socially acceptable terms & definitions from the Bible are not used at all today, they've become socially unacceptable. Example: "Concubine"

    Evolution in word definition is nothing new.

    Sometimes words are completely made up from scratch, such as "contraband", which is a legal term coined by a Union general named Benjamin Butler to describe slaves who defected to the north. Ordinarily, the property rights of slave holders would have been honored, but Butler decided these escaped slaves, if returned to their owners, might potentially be used in warfare against his men, so he coined a new term and let the slaves stay in Union territory.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:19 p.m.

    This cat has nearly gotten entirely out of the bag.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 26, 2014 8:49 p.m.

    @Kirk R Graves

    Every year committees and editorial boards for various leading dictionaries meet to discuss new words to be added, and word meanings to be amended or added to. Dictionaries follow and reflect society, they do not set the meaning of society.

    So, in the next round of updates, you will begin to see the definition of marriage being amended to reflect the current use of the word in society.

    If dictionaries were static things that dictated to society, we would all sound like a Shakespeare play and a whole lot of technology and activity would not be able to exist because we would not have words to describe it.

  • Kirk R Graves West Jordan, UT
    June 26, 2014 7:17 p.m.

    If we assume that words only have meaning because they can be defined, and that the definitions of words are only valid within the context (time, place, intent) they are used, then before we can understand any communication we must first understand the definitions of the words used in that communication.

    The primary argument in support of SSM is the 14th amendment. This amendment in itself isn't enough to support SSM however. You must also bring in a number of SC rulings which state that Marriage is a right protected by the 14th.

    Now we get to the crux of the matter. You see, in every dictionary I could find, up to the last 20 years or so, the word Marriage is quite clear to include the concept of opposite genders. Even a very current online legal dictionary I looked up used the same language.

    So, if the rulings which are being used to support SSM were given by Judges who intended their words to have specific meanings, and if those meanings can be decoded by the dictionaries in effect at the time of the ruling, those ruling actually support Traditional Marriage, and argue against SSM.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 26, 2014 6:40 p.m.

    10th circuit will definitely rule in 1300+ same sex couples' favor, all they need to do is to look California, those SSM performed before Prop. 8 are recognized, even with Prop 8 in book, aren't they?