Quantcast
Opinion

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

Comments

Return To Article
  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 21, 2014 6:44 a.m.

    @higv 6:49 a.m. July 18, 2014

    @furry Dale Kimball did what he did based on a previous ruling, Church position does not matter in terms of what is right. Joseph Fielding Smith I read in bio by his grandson refused to go to a 1st Presidency open house on Sunday because he felt it violated the Sabbath, mans position had no bearing on principle. Pulling rank he held such and such a position and agrees with you so it is ok. I support the church leaders who tell us to be civil but oppose same gender marriage legalization.

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

    If Judge Kimball had done what you are advocating, he would have disregarded the law and the Constitution, and ruled agianst the plaintiffs. That's what the Church leaders' comments would have made him do. Instead, he did what was (and is) rigut, and made a sound legal ruling (as you acknowledge). Good for him. He did his job, and did it right.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    July 18, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    Laura Bilington
    Maple Valley, WA
    "Does anyone seriously think that gays will marry straights AND stay with them to raise children if Amendment 3 is overturned?"

    -- If they are mormons, absolutely yes! Just read comments on the DN, and consider the work of the church to convince Gay mormons that the "mormon" comes before the "Gay" in their identity.
    Just think of the official and unofficial mormon groups such as "mormons building bridges", which has no bridge whatsoever, just a mormon moat full of alligators to warn Gay folks to stay in the castle.

    When Amendment 3 goes down:
    -- the church will step up the "stay with us" campaign, and Gay mormons will receive more pressure to stay in the fold.

    That will not work for long --- Gay members, their parents, and siblings will start to insist that all should be treated equally, and push the church to accommodate equality. As it is now, your Gay mormon son or daughter is like a Black man prior to 1978: told to accept that his affliction makes him less than other members.

    God is speaking to America and to its churches with the incredibly rapid changes.
    Some are listening, some are not.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    July 18, 2014 6:49 a.m.

    @furry Dale Kimball did what he did based on a previous ruling, Church position does not matter in terms of what is right. Joseph Fielding Smith I read in bio by his grandson refused to go to a 1st Presidency open house on Sunday because he felt it violated the Sabbath, mans position had no bearing on principle. Pulling rank he held such and such a position and agrees with you so it is ok. I support the church leaders who tell us to be civil but oppose same gender marriage legalization.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 17, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    @higv 6:47 a.m. July 17, 2014

    The 11th article of faith says you can believe how you choose, but lds people who support same gender marriage choose to believe differently from what the church leaders say, and the church leaders did not seek there positions or seek doctrine but get if from above, so to be on wrong side of moral issue that they get from God is to be on wrong side of God.

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

    If I have to either take your word on the subject or the word of Dale Kimball, a judge and former regional representative, stake president, high councilor, and bishop, there's no question where I'll go -- I'll go with Judge Kimball's opinion (as the old saying goes) every day and twice on Sunday.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    July 17, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    Intellectually dishonest editorials like this make DN part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    1st example - this editorial stated (regarding the Dec 20 Judge Shelby ruling): "his refusal to stay his own decision raised expectations of same-sex marriage in Utah."

    This is patently erroneous and misleading. Judge Shelby did not stay the decision because the state of Utah failed to ask for a stay, should the decision go against them. The state was so arrogantly confident of victory that they failed to follow proper procedure for a stay. They did this to themselves - the state is responsible for allowing the marriages performed during the 17 day period.

    2nd example - "Judges should rule narrowly, and be extremely reluctant to overturn democratically passed laws and state constitutions."

    It is their job to overturn laws that are unconstitutional. Amendment 3 was an illegal construct to begin with - civil rights are not subject to a "vote".

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    July 17, 2014 6:47 a.m.

    The 11th article of faith says you can believe how you choose, but lds people who support same gender marriage choose to believe differently from what the church leaders say, and the church leaders did not seek there positions or seek doctrine but get if from above, so to be on wrong side of moral issue that they get from God is to be on wrong side of God.

  • let's roll LEHI, UT
    July 16, 2014 4:53 p.m.

    @higv

    Please consider the following...

    The 11th AOF instructs us to allow everyone to worship the way they please, despite the fact that some creeds were described by God himself as an abomination in his sight.

    If I'm to allow all to worship according to the dictates of their conscience, I believe I owe everyone the same freedom with respect to pursuing their view of marriage. I may not always agree but I don't think I should work to outlaw their pursuit of their beliefs.

    And now with many churches conducting SSM, working to outlaw it may indeed be more than a violation of the spirit of the 11th AOF, it may be violating the language itself.

    I'm not sure how you define a supporter of SSM, just as I'm not sure how you'd define a supporter of the Catholic faith. I don't know that I'd view myself as a supporter of the Catholic religion but I certainly support Catholics' right to pursue their faith. I'd say the same about whether I'm a supporter of SSM.

    I'd be interested in your viewpoint.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    July 16, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    Speaking of fairness....

    Why are we punishing those who married in good faith for a mistake the State of Utah made?

    Keep in mind that the reason Judge Shelby did not stay his ruling was because the State did not ask him for one until after people had already begun to marry. The State then expected him to rule summarily without giving the plaintiffs a chance to respond. Shelby held a hearing with both sides on December 23, 2013 and denied the State's request in part because they had allowed the status quo to change. (See Kitchen v Herbert December 23, 2013 Document 105).

    I fail to see how the State of Utah is harmed by recognizing marriages made in good faith. I do see very real damage to those who followed a legal court ruling.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    July 16, 2014 1:18 p.m.

    First to Ranch: I am so glad you continually post on these discussions. Your common sense rational opinions on some of the more outlandish posts is very much appreciated. Please keep it up.
    To Higv: A cut and paste from your post "The church is a staunch opponent of so called same gender marriage if you read what church leaders have said."
    I don't disagree with you one bit. This is a well known fact nationally and nationally this opinion works to your detriment. If you think the posts found here and on KSL and the Tribune are harsh in refuting the church's position you should review some of the ones on national boards. They absolutely skewer the church making the local posts look very tame by comparison. The negative national publicity and opinion SSM has generated can't be appreciated by your leaders.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 16, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    "Are there really people on this earth who think that they have the political "clout" to force God to change His doctrine?"

    Given that god has been created in man's image the answer is quite clear.

    "They tell us that they have decided that God was wrong"

    No, man has been shown to be wrong, therefore the god he has created is wrong.

    "Of course those who reject God"

    I personally do not reject "god," I do reject, with great vigor, his spokespeople.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 16, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    SLCPorter, the claim that gay marriage threatens "marriage" in general is a smokescreen. The "Gathering Storm" ad for Proposition 8 illustrates this well---it shows a tearful woman with her voice breaking (the subtitle, unfortunately, points out that she is a paid actress) lamenting that her son in grade school is being taught that SSM is OK.

    This is indicative of the fear that underlies the anti-SSM movement--that children will see gay couples doing the same things that straight couples do--go to work, mow the lawn, buy groceries, attend Parents' Nights at school, attend church--and that the kids will conclude that SS couples are no different from the straight ones except for the gender of the spouse. And they will wonder--if the parents were wrong on this, what ELSE were they wrong on?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 16, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    The crux of Utah's appeal to the 10th Circuit was that children do best when reared by their married biological parents and that Amendment 3 facilitated that.

    Does anyone seriously think that gays will marry straights AND stay with them to raise children if Amendment 3 is overturned?

    There are lots of things the state could do to facilitate marriage and child rearing. Since emotional and financial problems are what wreck relationships, the state could require high school classes in assertiveness training and couples communication--these are useful skills for people in any relationship--employer/employee, parent/child, worker/co-worker, peer/peer or romantic. Teach basic life skills in high school-- personal finance, budgeting, understanding rental agreements. Teach teens how to detect the signs that a partner--or themself-- is controlling, knowing that the need to control is the hallmark of abusers. Teach birth control and how to say No. Make trade schooling and higher education as affordable as possible.

    Denying gays the right to marry the person of their choice is not on that list.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    July 16, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    @higv

    "How can someone claim to be a faithful temple recommend holding member of the church and claim to support so called same gender marriage?"

    There was an article in the Tribune on January 15, 2014 that answers that question.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 16, 2014 7:25 a.m.

    To the writers of this article, I have heard this argument before. It sounds very familiar. I heard this argument at a Walgreens lunch counter in Tennessee in 1960. Your side was using the exact same arguments then as now. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 16, 2014 7:01 a.m.

    To higv

    And herein lies your problem. No one is to question self granted authority. This is not the mark of obedience. It is the stain of fear and insecurity.

    It is the job of every member of any organization, be it religious or otherwise, to constantly question and probe doctrine and leaders. It is only through this inquiry that the needed dynamism is sustained to allow the group to grow and change as we evolve.

    The LDS, and other organizations and religions, have changed because their leaders and doctrines were challenged. Sometimes this is external, and often it is internal. It is best when the adherents do it themselves. So, relish those who ask tough questions and debate the leaders. While their arguments may not carry the day, their spirit will.

  • intervention slc, UT
    July 15, 2014 11:22 p.m.

    @higv

    "How can someone claim to be a faithful temple recommend holding member of the church and claim to support so called same gender marriage?"

    Probably the same way someone could claim to be a faithful member and ignore the repeated counsel of the churches leaders to not openly question other members faith.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    July 15, 2014 8:10 p.m.

    How can someone claim to be a faithful temple recommend holding member of the church and claim to support so called same gender marriage? One of the temple recommend questions is affiliating or sympathizing with groups that oppose the church. The church is a staunch opponent of so called same gender marriage if you read what church leaders have said. So how can you claim to be a faithful member of the church and then say the brethren are wrong. Sustaining them too. For those that wonder how it effects there marriage, a wicked and adulterous generation seeks for a sign and a sign is the last thing they want, just hope a sign against them does not happen.

    To the faithful LDS people if you read the account of the people that followed King Noah after he murdered Abinidia, and Korihor there is hope as truth even if it is a generation or two away will prevail and society will change that just maybe a constitutional amendment will protect marriage between one man and one woman. I am optimistic there.

  • let's roll LEHI, UT
    July 15, 2014 7:47 p.m.

    If you criticize a court for deciding not to stay its ruling, you need to do so by setting out the criteria to grant a stay and demonstrate that the facts meet the criteria.

    That's what the court is required to do.

    This editorial wholly fails to do that. No mention of the legal standard to grant a stay and no attempt to demonstrate that this case meets the standard.

    There's no legal or logical advocacy here...it's basically a "because I say so" argument.

    Your readers deserve better.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 15, 2014 7:40 p.m.

    @Mike Richards;

    I don't give a rip about your god. The USA is not a theocracy period. If you think you're going to force us to live by your stupid god, you have another think coming.

    One other thing for you to think about, your "god" told you to treat others as you want them to treat you. You aren't doing that very well and if he's the end-judge, you're in for a big letdown when you get reamed for your absolute refusal to obey his commandment.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 15, 2014 6:09 p.m.

    Are there really people on this earth who think that they have the political "clout" to force God to change His doctrine? God defined marriage . He told us that marriage was between a man and a woman. He told us that the purpose of marriage was to create a family. He told us that families are meant to be eternal ONLY if those families follow His rules.

    Now there are people who tell us that they are more "informed" than God. They tell us that they have decided that God was wrong and that their idea of same-sex sex is far superior.

    Let them make their claims. God will not be mocked. He will hold accountable all who harm His children by substituting their "doctrine" to replace His own.

    Talk about a "hot seat". Does anyone think that their futile attempts to redefine something that God has defined will be "acceptable" at the judgement day?

    Of course those who reject God will reject anyone who believes in God and in His doctrine. That's fine. It won't change the outcome.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    July 15, 2014 4:35 p.m.

    Noting that three quarters of the comments ridicule the editorial and the cause it espouses...

    Wondering how tough it must be for DN editorial writers to put out such obfuscation and nonsense, and wondering how anyone, other than a small minority of older folks who feel themselves as beyond changing, keeps clinging to the blockage of equal rights.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    July 15, 2014 4:32 p.m.

    Fair play? You are kidding! Lets see, do you think they were playing fair when they passed amendment 3? This makes me angry! How fair do you think things have been for gay people? Why don't you people be more honest! If this were done to Mormons, it would not be fair! You know, make up whatever makes you feel good, but as a gay man, I say that it is bogus! We deserve to be treated like human beings. Fair! Huh! If people really wanted to be fair, they would treat us right. I am tired of it! It is degrading and it is wrong to treat us like some disease! What nerve!

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 15, 2014 4:19 p.m.

    @DHScientist;

    The point is that denying marriage to LGBT couples does absolutely NOTHING at all to ensure kids have a mommy and daddy. Nothing.

    The only thing it does is denies marriage to gay couples.

    If you want to ensure kids have dads and moms, you need to work on preventing divorce, single parents, etc. Preventing gays from marrying their partners isn't going to get you to that destination.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 15, 2014 3:17 p.m.

    The title of this piece just hit me: "‘In our opinion: In marriage case, Utah needs SCOTUS to ensure justice and fair play’"

    Religious people insist that nobody can be good or moral or ethical without God making rules and making threats of punishment.

    And the headline here reflects that belief. The state of Utah can't just do the right thing on their own. Some "higher power" has to force them to do the right thing.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 15, 2014 1:07 p.m.

    IMO The role of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution and protect the Constitution, NOT to insure we play fair. That's the role of parents and kindergarten teachers...

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 15, 2014 12:09 p.m.

    @DHScientist:

    Utah has a divorce rate well above the national average. Nobody seems worried about ending divorce and requiring those couples to stay together while the children (do it for the children) are still in the home.

    Nobody is campaigning to make single women marry the father of their child (do it for the children!) even though there are single mothers in the state.

    Nobody is demanding that kids in foster care (do it for the children!!) be returned to their parents to be raised.

    Nobody is speaking out against single parents (do it for the children!!!) adopting.

    The only time people seem to think the children matter is in same-sex-marriage.

    No wonder the courts aren't buying the "for the children" argument. It just doesn't hold water.

  • DHScientist SLC, UT
    July 15, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    Fantastic article. The point is, kids need a mom and a dad. Utah (and all the other states who passed similar amendments) should have the right to ensure that as many kids as possible get to be raised in homes with a mother and father.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 15, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    The piece mentions 2-1 voting by a panel of judges suggesting that a split vote somehow discounts the decision.

    Yet, when the SCOTUS issues 5-4 votes on issue after issue which the DN seems to support, there is no mention of a split vote discounting the decision.

    Why?

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    July 15, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    From the opinion: "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), we believe that the Supreme Court must weigh in and resolve the fundamental dispute."
    The way this is just thrown out there without qualifying the fact that the 8th Circuit's decision was from 8 years ago destroys any credibility this piece may have had. In March 2006 according to a Pew survey 39% were for same sex marriage with 51% against. A March 2014 Washington Post/ABC poll shows 59% for and 34% against. Obviously a complete change of opinion yet you chose to mention the 8th without any qualifications hoping at least in my opinion that the readers would assume it to be current. And you continue to grasp at Judge Kelly's remarks. The one and only dissenter since Shelby's historic and correct decision. Furry1993 said it best. My wife & I at 35 years and counting echo her sentiments. Amendment 3 can't be gone soon enough!

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 15, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    I have to say, this is a stunningly warped view of the SSM issue in the courts. Fair play? Equal opportunity? Fairness? My jaw hit the ground on this one. It is a piece of propaganda that would rival that of Communist China or Fax News. Incredible. Really?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 15, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    Meckofahess said: "Same-sex marriage is nothing more than a counterfeit of real marriage"
    That's OK to feel that way because Catholics think that Mormon marriages are "counterfeit."
    And Mormons believe that non-temple marriage is temporary therefore "counterfeit."
    There are over 20 religions that have no problem with gay marriage, so your saying their religion is "counterfeit."

    That's what religion is all about, herding the sheeple into your religious pool, but you don't get to do so by passing discriminatory laws.

    That's the fun thing with a Country of different beliefs systems, everybody outside your religion is wrong.

    Good thing we live in a Free Country and not another throwback theocracy, because chances are your religion would not be the "chosen one."

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 15, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    2nd try...

    "Judges should rule narrowly, and be extremely reluctant to overturn democratically passed laws and state constitutions."

    --- "Democratically passed laws" that VIOLATE the US Constitution should be overturned without regard to the "state constitutions" violating the US Constitution.

    "..., but also undermine due process and fairness.”

    --- How does equality under the law undermine due process and fairness? The ONLY people being treated unfairly are LGBT American Citizens.

    "It now falls to the Supreme Court to once again rectify the damage, and to allow an equal opportunity to access the halls of justice in contemplation of state marriage laws."

    --- Wrong. It now falls to the SCOTUS to rectivy the damage caused to LGBT Americans by unConstitutional State Laws.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 15, 2014 7:14 a.m.

    @Furry1993;

    Congratulations on 45 years!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 15, 2014 7:07 a.m.

    The Rock says:

    "Only the people can force judges and elected officials to obey the constitution and preserve our freedom."

    What you mean is "protect heterosexual's freedom" and deny freedom to homosexual Americans.

    Marriage bans absolutely discriminate. Marriage hasn't always been "one man/woman" for "thousands of years". Utah, not all that long ago defined marriage as "one man/many women". Many cultures allowed SSM.

    Calling your religion "virtuous" doesn't make it so either.

    @SLCPorter;

    You can't actually find and LDS people who can describe how SSM threatens their marriages because IT DOESN'T.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 15, 2014 6:56 a.m.

    "Judges should rule narrowly, and be extremely reluctant to overturn democratically passed laws and state constitutions."

    --- "Democratically passed laws" that VIOLATE the US Constitution should be overturned without regard to the "state constitutions" violating the US Constitution.

    "..., but also undermine due process and fairness.”

    --- How does equality under the law undermine due process and fairness? The ONLY people being treated unfairly are LGBT American Citizens.

    "It now falls to the Supreme Court to once again rectify the damage, and to allow an equal opportunity to access the halls of justice in contemplation of state marriage laws."

    --- Wrong. It now falls to the SCOTUS to rectivy the damage caused to LGBT Americans by unConstitutional State Laws.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 15, 2014 5:27 a.m.

    @SLCPorter 9:38 p.m. July 14, 2014

    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.

    --------------------------
    I am a faithful and observant Latter-day Saint, and have been for over 43 years. My husband and I are a month shy of our 45th wedding anniversary, and 35 of those years have been after our marriage was sealed in the Temple. How will SSM affect and threaten our marriage? It won't, in any way. The only thing that could affect and threaten our marriage is actions by me an my husband, and we are working continually to make our marriage flourish and prosper into the eternities. This editorial is wrong, and we do not support it. Justice and fair play has already been established by Judge Shelby, Judge Kimball, the 10th Circuit Court et al.

  • Kass SLC, UT
    July 14, 2014 11:42 p.m.

    Contrary to the repeated claims in this editorial, Utah has presented its case(s) to the court(s) - they were told their arguments lacked substance, and the decision of the court was against them, but they did have the opportunity to state their case.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    July 14, 2014 10:58 p.m.

    @ The Rock: What do you call a dog with three legs? How about one with two legs? What if the dog doesn't have a tail?

    Dogs don't always have four legs - even when the tail is a tail.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2014 10:57 p.m.

    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.

  • DrUte Woods Cross, UT
    July 14, 2014 10:17 p.m.

    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.

  • SLCPorter SLC, UT
    July 14, 2014 9:38 p.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2014 9:05 p.m.

    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.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 14, 2014 8:49 p.m.

    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.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2014 8:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 14, 2014 8:12 p.m.

    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.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    July 14, 2014 7:41 p.m.

    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.

  • So-CalAggie Park City, Ut
    July 14, 2014 6:48 p.m.

    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.

  • intervention slc, UT
    July 14, 2014 6:02 p.m.

    @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.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    July 14, 2014 6:00 p.m.

    Now you guys are just sounding desperate...

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 14, 2014 5:46 p.m.

    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.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    July 14, 2014 5:15 p.m.

    "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.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 14, 2014 5:15 p.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 14, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    "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.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    July 14, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    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?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 14, 2014 4:22 p.m.

    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.

  • birdbath SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 14, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    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?

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    July 14, 2014 4:04 p.m.

    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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    July 14, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    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.