Comments about ‘Utah asks U.S. Supreme Court for stay in gay marriage recognition case’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, July 16 2014 5:30 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Leesburg, VA

Even though Utah's appeals is misguided, I applaud the tenacity and speed the AG office is using to resolve this issue as soon as possible.

I regret the stain the State of Utah and the Church are bringing upon themselves.

Mainly Me
Werribee, 00


What stain? You mean the stain for standing up for what is right? Not right in the eyes of this sick world, but right in the eyes of God? It doesn't matter to progressives what is morally right in the eyes of God, but it matters to the Church.

Logan, UT

@Mainly Me
"...but it matters to the Church."

The court only orders state government must recognize those 1300+ same sex marriage, not church. so your concern is unnecessary.

university place, WA

@Red Corvette

"There is something ironic about waiting until the last moment to file an "emergency" petition. But then again, it is Utah."

Growing up in Salt Lake I was always told Mormons could never be on time to anything. The joke was that Utah had Mountain Standard Time, Mountain Daylight Savings Time, and Mormon Time. Guess there is some truth to it.

Bob K
Davis, CA

How will this affect Utahns?
I am glad for all of you that the State insists on getting this settled, but I don't see much chance of it going their way.

My thoughts:
1- the longer the debate goes on, more and more reasonable folks are accepting that there will be marriage equality.
2- there is danger that the lds and the State will suffer more loss of reputation due to dragging it out.
3- We all know that marriage-based lds culture may face some kind of adjustment, when the non-lds Gays are marrying, but the Gays in lds families, raised to expect to marry, cannot.

When, in all likelihood, SCOTUS tells Utah it must give equal rights, I know that God will help the State and the lds find their way.

Laura Ann
Layton, UT

God has pretty much told us his answer to the question of gay marriage. It is wrong. Just read the Bible. I find it so arrogant that people think they can tell God the rules. Of course, if you don't believe in the God of the Bible, I can see why you think gay marriage isn't such a bad thing. I'm proud of this state for defending traditional marriage. I hope the Supreme Court hears this case.

West Richland, WA

@Laura Ann: "I find it so arrogant that people think they can tell God the rules."

What is arrogant is to assume one "knows" the rules sourced from a supernatural being.

What is arrogant is the religious tyranny of a church that tells people who are not members how they should live.

What is arrogant is a group of people once persecuted for their unusual beliefs and practices persecuting others for THEIR beliefs and practices.

Salt Lake City, UT

Now if all the "traditional Marriages" in Utah were going to be dissolved then I could see the urgency in this matter. But again where have traditional marriages been attacked? Really where?

I have yet to see one attack on "traditional marriage" in any comment that anyone has ever made in this paper.

Leesburg, VA

Mainly Me

You wrote:
" What stain? You mean the stain for standing up for what is right?"

Throughout our history we have had people hurting other people because they were following "rules and laws". They were doing what theyr were supposed to do, it din't mean it was "right".

Proposition 3 hurts individuals, couples, families and children. What is right with that?

You are going to tell me that is god's will. Well, I am not sure the crimes committed in the name of God are less criminal than those committed for other reason.

salt lake city, UT

People opposed to SSM still fall back on the only argument they have left, religon. If you believe God played a role in forming our constitution then you should also realize that our goverment has to support equality for all. Your religon nor yourself have to recognize SSM as legitmate in the eys of God but our society does. To do otherwise is unconstituional.

Seattle, WA

I agree with Judge Dale Kimball's decision to recognize the legal marriages performed in Utah. The state will have a hard time showing a valid reason to extend the stay.

From Judge Kimball's decision:
"Although the state has a general interest in representing the wishes of its voters, that interest does not outweigh the harms [same-sex couples] face by having their constitutional rights violated. Governor Gary Herbert and Attorney General Sean Reyes shall immediately recognize the marriages by same-sex couples entered pursuant to Utah marriage licenses issued and solemnized between December 20, 2013, and January 6, 2014, and afford these same-sex marriages all the protections benefits and responsibilities given to all marriages under Utah law."
"The state has placed [same-sex couples] and their families in a state of legal limbo with respect to adoptions, child care and custody, medical decisions, employment and health benefits, future tax implications, inheritance, and many other property and fundamental rights associated with marriage. These legal uncertainties and lost rights cause harm each day that the marriage is not recognized."

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

I agree with the Governor, that not granting a stay will create moral chaos and that SSM is a affront to the sovereignty and dignity to the people of Utah.

Mr. Bean
Phoenix, AZ

"I regret the stain the State of Utah and the Church are bringing upon themselves."

Your 'stain' comment is misdirected. I'd explain but the monitor would more than likely deny the post.

@Bob K:
"...the longer the debate goes on, more and more reasonable folks are accepting that there will be marriage equality."

I should hope so. I'm getting sick and tired of not being able to marry my mother.

And my siblings are just as anxious to finally get to marry each other. And my polygamist neighbors are chomping at the bit. Liberation day appears to be just around the corner.

"I have yet to see one attack on 'traditional marriage' in any comment that anyone has ever made in this paper."

The attack is almost imperceptible. The eventuality is that it (marriage) will totally disappear. Maybe that's a good thing... but not for a society that prides itself in civility.

Once SSM is approved, all other marriage combinations will follow suit... siblings, parent/child, polygamists, etc. If these other aberrations of marriage are not also approved, the courts will have introduced lawful and legal marriage discrimination.

Phoenix, AZ

"If you believe God played a role in forming our constitution then you should also realize that our government has to support equality for all."

I think you're making an excellent point... equality for all. For all types of marriages... polygamy, siblings, parent/child, grandfather/granddaughter, you name it. Frankly, I'd like to marry the couple next door. I can only now just dream of the myriad of benefits that would accord not only me but them as well.

But, maybe you didn't mean these other types of marriages in your 'equality for all' comment. Just SSM, true?

equal protection
Cedar, UT

Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy.

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. The core of the slippery slope argument is that a specific rule or course of action is likely to result in unintended consequences and that these "unintended consequences" are undesirable (and, typically, worse than either inaction or another course of remediation). - Wiki

Logan, UT


Please read the post of 'equal protection' first.

You have nothing to offer but slippery slop fallacy.

I already told you to read the ruling of 10th circuit court, it explains well. but you said you could not find such explanation. so let me say more clearly:

Please google and download the pdf file and read judges' rebuttal to slippery slop fallacy, it is on Page 63.

Cleveland , OH

@Mr. Bean: "The attack is almost imperceptible."

This sounds like: "the best evidence of a conspiracy is an absolute lack of evidence." Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean was never that subtle. More of a Monty Python satire.

If there is an attack on marriage, it is the rigid gender roles, stereotypes, and father knows best attitude from the 40s and 50s and 60s that conservative religious types are trying to insist should still be the norm. If there is an attack on marriage it is women realizing that they can be intelligent and independent, not dependant and subordinate.

In other words, equality.

One of the best things that is and will come from SSM is the realization that roles within a relationship are actually about personality, ability, and who does what best. Not about gender.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Mr. Bean & wrz, you have used that argument many times, and had the difference explained to you at length with details.
I feel sorry for folks who have such a hard time with right and wrong, vs equality, religion is probably a good choice for you.

Charlotte, NC


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

The LDS Church proclaims in Doctrine and Covenants that it supports a separation of church and state. LDS Doctrine decrees that the right for a person to choose is one of the most precious gifts guaranteed in the Plan of Salvation.
Is the LDS Church bask-pedaling on it's own doctrines? Is the State of Utah trying to avoid it's responsibility to the Union?
What's at stake here IS the involvement of the LDS Church into politics. The leaders of the LDS church are guilty of hypocrisy.
Who will be injured IF SSM is allowed? How will the LDS Church be injured if SSM is allowed?

to comment

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