Comments about ‘Utah to appeal same-sex marriage ruling to U.S. Supreme Court’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 9 2014 2:05 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Seattle, WA

Re: "This issue isn't going to live or die by the actions of any individual state, since there are significant differences in the basis of their appeals."

If the Supreme Court upholds the 10th Circuit's ruling, it will invalidate all state laws prohibiting marriage between people of the same gender. It will effectively legalize same-sex marriage in all states.

Re: "Regardless which side of the issue a person is on, nothing will be legally determined in any newspaper comment section."

Agreed, but I am a big fan of communication and dialogue. The Supreme Court's decision either way will disappoint millions of Americans. Engaging in dialogue helps us understand the other side and temper our expectations and reactions. The trend I've seen is that as we discuss this issue, people tend to become more understanding of the positive benefits of allowing gay and lesbian people to marry. Personally I have moved from opposition to strong support in the last five years as I have learned more about the issue.

Berryville, VA

@ Really???

I think I must have read your post too fast perhaps and accidentally drew wrong conclusions and so I re-read your post.

I think the word bigot is what threw me off. I think this word is used far too much in LGBT discussions.

While I am sure their are some actual bigots on both sides I don't think it is as common as people how people use the word.

This may be different with LDS in Utah but in my experience with other LDS I don't see this.

Regardless I don't think labeling people bigots helps to further the discussion on for either side.

I know you said "bigoted thinking" but that isn't much better than just calling someone a big.

In the scriptures it states "As a man thinketh so is he".

Berryville, VA

"It's doing the most UN constitutional thing by trying to make law from religion, and that is completely unacceptable."

Trying to make law from religion? Seriously? The law was ratified by the voters in the state of Utah. The Church itself doesn't engage in politics except to the fact that they tell members to be engaged in politics by exercising their right to vote.

I never heard the bishop of any of my wards tell the members to vote for Mitt Romney or any declaration sent down from the 1st Presidency suggesting the same.

The only political thing I ever heard from the pulpit was regarding prop 8. Besides that there really is nothing specifically political at church.

To suggest the Church is somehow involved in telling politicians in Utah or anywhere else how to do their job is pretty far off.

There are plenty of states that have marriage amendments that in a nut shell define a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Kearns, UT


Maybe my comments come across as judgment to you, but they are not intended to be. Perhaps you may want to look at it from my perspective:

For most of my life I denied that aspect of my life. I had to always had to put on an act in front of everyone. You cannot imagine the countless derogatory comments I would hear my friends and family members would say about gay people. I secretly thought that if they felt that way about others, they surely felt the same way about me.

After I came out, I would still hear occasional derogatory comments made. The friend would quickly add a side comment for me like "don't worry, you are not like those gays."

Finally, imagine overhearing family members talking about a popular TV show that has some gay characters. Imagine hearing a sister you love with you entire heart say that such things make her sick. Imagine the heartache to think that something that I cannot change about myself makes her sick. I still love that sister and her family, but I feel a little awkward whenever I am around her now.

Ogden, UT

Proof positive: Utah loves to beat a dead horse, especially when it costs the taxpayers money.

Salt Lake City, UT

The state of Utah has a valid reason for defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The AG should continue defending the laws of Utah.

I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the best scenario for raising children. I believe that this best case scenario ought to be promoted by our society. Our laws currently benefit marriage; thereby promoting marriage. This is right and proper.

While I do believe that same-sex couples deserve rights and protections under the law; I don’t believe that same-sex unions should be promoted by the law on equal footing with marriage.

I don’t believe that not promoting same-sex unions on equal footing with marriage constitutes violence or a denial of basic civil rights. I do not believe that changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions is required to grant civil rights.


This is a lost cause. II think we should just accept the marriages and get on to something else. Lots of things to legalize in Utah, and lost of things to make better. This fight will not be won in the highest courts.

Rastafari S.L.C. UT
Salt Lake City, UT

I think the State of Utah is doing a good thing. A Supreme Court ruling will put the rest of the states opposing Same-Sex marriage to rest. It's a 95% chance that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Same-Sex marriage. Utah is doing the rest of the country a favor. It will be interesting to see what the people of Utah do to avoid following the rule of law for our country....

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Two federal judges on the 10th circuit ruled that Utah's law was unconstitutional. The 7th Circuit ruled that States HAVE the right to define marriage. When two federal courts rule opposite, it is time for the Supreme Court to rule. No amount of seminar postings from the same-sex marriage crowd will change the outcome.

Lincoln City, OR

I love this state... Its willing to take on issues that are important to families and the future of this country... Too many people and too many Government entities worried about Political Correctness.

The Constitution is clear... Sexual Preference does not qualify one to become a member of a "protected class"...

John Locke
Ivins, , UT

I am a strong supporter of the Church of Jesus Christ's definition of the family, as set forth in "Family Proclamation," on September 23, 1995 by President Gordon B. Hinckley, and which has been supported by Church Authorities since. Until Heavenly Father reveals another definition, that is the one with which I am in agreement; so should every other member of the Church who believes that a Prophet speaks to us today. They raise their hands after a General Conference to support him and all Church leadership. I will do likewise until Christ's return to earth.

I hold no animosity nor do I bear any guile towards my fellow man or woman for beliefs they hold, and will always love my neighbor as myself, as we are taught by Christ, but if their actions (not their beliefs) are contrary to that which has been revealed, and if they act on those beliefs, it is up to their Bishop, if they are members of his ward, to decide what is necessary, and, until then, it is not my place to pass judgment.

Steve C. Warren

Will Utah be the linchpin again? Utah's legislature provided the 36th and final state vote that was needed for the repeal of Prohibition. Perhaps Utah's appeal of the same-sex marriage case will make same-sex marriage legal throughout the United States.

I believe the Supreme Court will merely let the appeals court ruling stand.

Salt Lake City, Utah

In other news, Alito refused today to halt same-sex marriages in Pennsylvania pending an appeal of the case which struck down the voter approved ban.

The Governor decided not to appeal the May decision which declared the ban unconstitutional, so a county clerk decided to take it up. Two lower courts have ruled she does not have the legal right to be involved, and she asked to Supreme Court to stay the marriages while she works on the appeal.

Alito said no without making comments.

Cleveland , OH

@Mike Richards: "The 7th Circuit ruled that States HAVE the right to define marriage."

When? The 7th stayed marriage in Indiana pending appeal but ruled the state must recognize the marriage of a lesbian couple where one partner is dying of cancer. If they did not expect marriage to be legalized, why set the precedent by allowing one?

And, if it was pre-DOMA, I am not sure it counts.

salt lake, UT

You don't hold bad feelings towards LGBT people you just support thier being treated as second class citizens that do not get all the same rights and protections you have, how could anyone see that as intolerant?

American Fork, UT

When the route to appeals was first laid out, it was estimated it would cost the state 3 mill. Looks now like the cost, even with the Supreme COurt appeal, will be more like 600k. I think it is well worth the money to put Utah's name on the case and established a national law.

Salt Lake City, UT

While the health care needs of many Utahns go unmet due to legislative inaction the State of Utah proceeds to deny the rights of its LGBT community. This is a fantastic waste of money (how much health care could these legal expenses pay for), and in the suffering it engenders is criminal. In the future Utah will be seen as the Mississippi of the SSM struggle.

Midwest City, USA, OK

In defining or recognizing marriage in a legal sense, the state is free to define it however it wants. No one has a right to make other people support, endorse, or reward their lifestyle.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

"And regardless which side of the issue a person is on, nothing will be legally determined in any newspaper comment section. It's just a place for people to vent..."

Yes, this forum has been a place to vent, but it has also been a place for people to present and debate their arguments. I believe this has been advantageous to marriage equality proponents. Most human beings value fairness and aren't inclined to deny it without good reason. What has been demonstrated on these pages is that the argument against SSM is neither good nor based in reason.

One's loyalty to his/her religious teachings may suffice for some, but this may be challenged soon as well. I'm seeing more and more stories of believers taking the debate directly to their own churches and using their own holy books and theologies to make their arguments. So I don't know that one's church or temple is going to be a refuge for these ideas either - at least not for much longer. Forums such as this one have simply illuminated the subject to clearly and human nature is kicking in. We value fairness.


@ Tolstoy:

Not sure where you got that from my post. Civil unions provide " all the same rights and protections (I) have". How do you know that I do you know that I do not support secular legal status for gay couples? I did not mention this in my post.

Intolerance and bigotry are just as much alive and well among LGBT supporters as they are among traditional marriage supporters. To deny this is hypoctitical and dishonest....

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments