Comments about ‘In our opinion: In marriage case, Utah needs SCOTUS to ensure justice and fair play’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, July 14 2014 3:05 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
salt lake city, UT

Seems the DNews plea is more of a prayer than a request. No matter what the outcome my marriage of 25 years is not threatned and I hope the SC upholds our constitution and the rights of all citzens.

South Jordan, UT

This article is full of misstatements. For example, the Constitution doesn't require that a court stay its decision until it can be appealed to a higher court. Nor does it say that judges should be reluctant to invalidate portions of a state Constitution. These are the sort of fantasy that the religious right would have you believe, but it is not true. What the Constitution does state, however, is that everyone must be treated equally under the law; something same-sex marriage bans do not do.


These 10th Circuit judges shouldn't be acting like politicians. I think we all know what is going to happen at the U.S. Supreme Court, which I think is pretty cool, but why not wait?

American Fork, UT

What's fair is protecting rights of people, not the state. The people need to be protected, even if from states that try to deny them their rights.

Bob K
Davis, CA

This editorial has more holes in it than a sieve.

"That equal opportunity has been denied to the state of Utah in the debate over same-sex marriage."
-- Clearly telling us that the Utah has rights which are more important than average taxpaying citizens who just want their marriage recognized.

"When a federal district court judge struck down Utah’s law and constitution governing marriage on Dec. 20, his refusal to stay his own decision raised expectations of same-sex marriage in Utah."
-- The judge was not asked by the State to grant a stay. It would have made him an activist to impose one on his own.

" Dissenting Judge Paul Kelly had the better argument."
-- Only if religious views trump the Constitution. Kelly is open to accusations that he, a conservative catholic, put in a dissent to please his church, knowing that justice would be done anyhow.

"Given conflicting circuit court decision on whether a state may be compelled to recognize same-sex unions (8th Circuit says no; 10th Circuit says yes)"
-- Nearly a decade, and a world of social change, apart.

Why isn't the Deseret News doing more to help Utahns face reality and the truth?

Salt Lake City, UT

"Given conflicting circuit court decision on whether a state may be compelled to recognize same-sex unions (8th Circuit says no; 10th Circuit says yes)"

Post-Windsor every ruling has gone in one direction. I would welcome a Supreme Court case because with that we would most likely have same-sex marriage legal in every state before the end of 2015.

Ogden, UT

Justice and fair lay (and good legal reasoning) can already be found in the judgments entered by Judge Shelby, Judge Kimball, and the majority decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Kelly's dissent was legally questionable and deficient. This editorial isn't worth the cyber-paper it's "written" on.

Jeff Harris
Edmonds, WA

"Given conflicting circuit court decision on whether a state may be compelled to recognize same-sex unions (8th Circuit says no; 10th Circuit says yes)"

The US Supreme Court already issued a ruling recognizing marriage equality in Windsor. Every court decision on marriage equality since Windsor has cited that decision and honored it. There is no conflict, no matter how much anti-gay theocrats hope to find one.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The 10th Circuit has ruled one way and the 7th Circuit ruled the opposite way. No amount of "seminar" posters can change the fact that two circuit courts are in disagreement over same-sex "marriage". ALL same-sex "marriages" should be put on hold until the Supreme Court rules.

Eugene, OR

Now you guys are just sounding desperate...

slc, UT

@mike richjards
And no amount of condescending tone will cover the fact that you are ignoring the fact that the comments you are talking about addressed the fact that the 7th circuit court was before the winsor. supreme court ruling.

Park City, Ut

I have yet to be presented with a thoughtful well reasoned legitimate argument against same sex marriage. All I ever see are antidotal arguments fraught with logical fallacies, flawed logic and pretty much outright lies with no evidence to back up the baseless claims. The reality is that there are same sex couples who obviously love each other and wish to be allowed to enter into the same contractual bond that is afforded to heterosexual couples. The State cannot “bless” your “holy” union, only the religious organization that you might belong to can do that. Thus, there is no legitimate government purpose served by denying a marriage license to same sex couples.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

The only protection our freedom can ultimately experience is a well informed and virtuous electorate. Only the people can force judges and elected officials to obey the constitution and preserve our freedom. Trouble is that most people have never read the constitution and some of those that have read it only did so to see what they could do to destroy it. (A certain law professor comes to mind.)

Same sex marriage bans do not discriminate. Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for thousands of years. Redefining marriage is what should be prohibited.

Abe Lincoln used to ask a question: "If you were to call a dogs tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have?"
Some brain surgeon would always answer "five", to which Mr. Lincoln would always say "No calling a tail a leg does not make it one, a dog still has only four legs."

Calling a same sex union a marriage does not make it one either.

Cleveland , OH

Where was this sense of fair play 10 years ago when amendment 3 came into law? And, similar amendments in some 30 other states? Where was the discussion? Where was the fairness when a group of citizens was relegated not to second-class but to no class – no voice, no place at the table.

You reap what you sow.

Salt Lake City, UT

Same-sex marriage is nothing more than a counterfeit of real marriage between a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is counter biological, counter anatomical and counter moral. Like abortion, if the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is legal and it is likely they will in this degenerate era of mortal history, it will not unite Americans. Same-sex marriage will be controversial and divisive in society. Gays will only achieve part of what they desire at best. A much better solution would be a legal "same-sex partnership" with legitimate legal rights for legally committed relationships but distinct in its definition from real marriage. There will be huge negative consequences to society which cannot be detailed in this limited space. Stay tuned.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

Okay, Deseret News. After you get your Justice and Fair Play and still don't like the result, what's your next move? Are you going to lead some charge to impeach the Supreme Court? Where does your crusade end, if ever?

The country has moved on. Amendment 3 and its copycats in other states, have awakened reasonable people to the unreasonable animosity that homosexuals face not only on a daily basis, but on an institutional basis, and they've reacted to that. It's clearly unfair and Americans generally don't like unfair. That's why, nationwide, marriage equality for LGBT Americans now polls favorably. Before Amendment 3 and its ilk, most people just would have sided against LGBT Americans, perhaps for fear of being considered one. But, the bullying went too far, and now, decent people not only won't stand for it anymore, they're willing to extend rights that we never even thought of before.

Pat yourselves on the back, Utah. You did this. You thought you could lay down the law against gays. Instead, you lit the fuse of something that eventually woke up America to the injustice of this discrimination.

Salt Lake City, UT

State Senator Jim Dabakis has presented pictures and descriptions of SSM families on his facebook page. These seem to be fine families with fine people in them. The Deseret News should look at them. If you do you will see real people on whom you are inflicting real harm.


Even for the Deseret news these comments are very one sided in favor of same sex marriage. Where are all the comments from faithful members of the Church? I would love to hear my fellow church members support this editorial and and explain how gay marriage threatens their marriages, but there seems to be silence. And that is a silence that should trouble the church and this news paper.

Woods Cross, UT

While I am neither for or against this issue, I am concerned that Utah continues to purchase tickets for the Titanic in a useless attempt to change repetitive legal decisions concerning the banning of same sex marriage.

Utah's law is not going to be upheld. Stop wasting taxpayer money and state employees' time with this useless demonstration of archaic conservatism.

Let all people live the way they prefer to live.

Legislating discrimination will result in this situation every time.

Get over it.

Live the way you want to live, and stop trying to force everyone else to live your way.

Salt Lake City may as well become The New Tehran.

News Flash: We are not all white, we are not all LDS, we are not all straight, and we have overarching federal laws that limit the right of some to impose their will on others.

What in the world is Utah becoming. The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.

Salt Lake City, UT

RE: SLCPorter "I would love to hear my fellow church members support this editorial and and explain how gay marriage threatens their marriages,..."

Yes, I want to hear that too. SSM is a big change. If it threatens traditional marriage, we need to hear the argument.

to comment

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