Supreme Court issues stay in Utah gay marriage recognition case


Return To Article
  • SuziQ Springville, UT
    July 27, 2014 5:26 p.m.

    I support civil unions and oppose same sex marriages. I think that our country no longer supports the traditional Judeo Christian values that formed it. Part of that tradition was having a legally and religiously sanctioned union called marriage which produced a family. Because more and more people decided that God didn't really have anything to do with their lives, they decided that we needed free love and became somewhat anti marriage. Love had more to do with who you had sex with than who you were committed to. And children had nothing to do with it. Now things have shifted so that we want to have our sex with whomever, call it love, and then want everyone to accept that as ok. I understand the desire for same sex couples to have the benefits that a married couple has in relation to health and death benefits, but find another way to do that than overturning the definition of marriage. And no, I am not a bigot. I just happen to believe in God and His definition of marriage. I am a mother, not a Parent 1 or 2 just to be politically correct. Acceptance and tolerance is a 2 way street.

  • Aurelius maximus Berryville, VA
    July 23, 2014 6:28 a.m.

    @The Wraith

    "One of the more disgusting things to say to anyone. I've sat around and heard many of my Mormon relatives, teachers (when I was a member), and leaders complain..."

    I am not from Utah but I have lived in the west (Idaho) and I never ever heard members complain about such things. I have attended church in Utah many times as well.

    For this specific point you make I think you have zero or close to zero evidence of people complaining about such things.

    Comparing LGBT vs. Pioneers is a very long stretch. No one is forcing them from their homes at gun point.

    "You have exactly zero evidence to support anything you claim. You have nothing to show that society will change."

    I have exactly Zero evidence to support anything I claim? What did I claim?

    The only thing that I have claimed is that LGBT haven't been treated anywhere nearly as badly as Slaves. I could provide you plenty of evidence to support that claim.

    In my comment I didn't make any claim how society will change.

  • wa1den Sandy, UT
    July 22, 2014 11:01 p.m.

    None of you have yet pointed out anywhere that specifies that laws on marriage are reserved to the federal government. You're side-stepping the matter. If it hasn't been reserved to the Federal government specifically, then it falls to states. You can pontificate til you're blue in the face, it doesn't change that fact.

    Additionally, some seem to categorize marriage as a "right", rather than a privilege. If it were a right, then it wouldn't require a license. Anything that has to be licensed is subject to conditions stipulated by governing bodies. If those stipulations are not met, then no "right" exists.

  • Br. Jones East Coast, MD
    July 22, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    @justsevenup - SSM has been legal in Massachusetts for some time, and to my knowledge no homosexual person or couple has sought legal recourse to demand marriage in the Boston temple. Nor has this happened in any other state. And they'd never get it if they tried: the government won't force us LDS folks to marry gay people in our temples any more than it forced us to marry black people in our temples after the Loving decision in the late 1960s.

    Worst that could happen is that the church may lose tax-exempt status on some properties. Man, if that's the calamity promised in the Proclamation on the Family, we've got it pretty easy.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    July 22, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    @justsevenup: "That's when in all probability the Mighty Hand of the Lord will and could be known to all of us...His house will not be defiled."

    Such dogma-sourced warnings are indicative of the problem: the vilification of a group that does not conform to the desires of those controlled by dogma. Fear-based logic is also employed in the claim that a house can be "defiled" merely by the gays existing on earth as other people do.

    I sincerely hope an appropriate "revelation" occurs within the Hierarchy that will allow these folks the ability to love their neighbors as just people, and not one of "those" people.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    July 21, 2014 8:33 p.m.

    @ Walden " I challenge any of you to demonstrate that the ability to make marriage-related laws has been reserved exclusively to the Federal government, or prohibited to the states ..."

    The Constitution does not permit either a state legislature or the state’s citizens through a referendum to enact laws that violate constitutionally protected rights. And “while the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out, the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.”
    Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012).

  • justsevenup CHEHALIS, WA
    July 21, 2014 4:06 p.m.

    A BATTLE IS AHEAD BEYOND MOST FOLKS UNDERSTANDING....and here it is....If same sex marriage is accepted in all states with Mormon Temples then their future step will be getting married in the Mormon Temples....and that will be the last straw that will force a mighty division between sides that will no doubt be very extremely upsetting to all..That's when in all probability the Mighty Hand of the Lord will and could be known to all of us...His house will not be defiled.

  • wa1den Sandy, UT
    July 21, 2014 3:08 p.m.

    I also agree with some who have commented here that once you say same-sex has the same status as a marriage between a man and a woman, where exactly are you going to draw the line? Someone else earlier pointed out that same-sex previously was universally rejected by societies, officially (not to say it didn't exist - only that it was not officially condoned) and so although other practices are currently abhorred and nobody considers them acceptable (on a society-level basis), just look at what an extended campaign can accomplish. At this point there will be nothing truly off-limits - it will be simply a matter of time until other groups wanting their sexual practices legitimized also mount their own campaigns and follow the play-book until they manage to get their way as well.

  • wa1den Sandy, UT
    July 21, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    Despite all the flap on both sides of the matter (and I have my opinion just as most everyone else), I don't yet see any argument so far that would seem to negate or nullify the policy that states, (based on the Tenth Amendment) that "powers not expressly granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people". I challenge any of you to demonstrate that the ability to make marriage-related laws has been reserved exclusively to the Federal government, or prohibited to the states (if this is not so, then a heck of a lot of state laws around the country are going to suddenly get dumped out the window in the wake of this thing).

  • plundeen Layton, UT
    July 21, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    If I remember my history, the Federal Government had an issue with alternative marriages back in the late 1800's. In order to become a state, the Utah Mormons had to abandon polygamy. I believe there is a clause in the constitution of the state that spells out what marriage is and should be. This is simply not seen in any other state. This is just one more reason that the Federales need to stay out of a state's business.

  • ADN Weiser, ID
    July 21, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    @The Wraith

    Just because you don't agree with another person's position doesn't mean their point of view is of no value or that they don't have truths in them. I suspect if someone were to show you hard evidence you wouldn't see it. You are so caught up in your point of view you have become blind.

    If you believe in a society where the rights of all people are valued, then what of the children? What of the future generations? What of those who need a voice, who come to earth and are placed in an environment they may not agree with?

  • Mr. Owl Layton, UT
    July 21, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    I think the debating is a waste of time and energy. I don't see SCOTUS responding any differently than in the past. The decision will be pushed back to district and state courts who have plainly indicated they support SSM. It's inevitable; Utah will join the ranks of a growing number of states that recognize SSM. SCOTUS only needs to wait it out; one by one the states are adopting SSM. Utah needs to accept it is going to happen and get used to it. Gay marriage isn't going away; it's here to stay--no matter what you say.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    July 21, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    @ Mercy re: "Removing male/female from the family and viewing this as "normal" fundamentally changes society."

    So how does marriage equality "Remove" males and females from the family? Please describe specifically how the removing process works for traditionally married opposite couples, when a same gender couple marries.

    Families of same gender couples have been raising healthy children for generations. Please explain how allowing them to marry suddenly causes armageddon? Could marriage inclusion help strengthen the institution for opposite sex as well as same gender families? Isn't this proven to be the more likely result?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    July 21, 2014 7:54 a.m.

    @ Laura B re: "Who is eligible to get a marriage license in Utah is not a value."

    Amendment 3 for most, is a reflection of sincerely held religious belief. A majority of folks in Utah wanted to codify their religious values into civil law.

    The US Constitution neither knows or tolerates preference for one religious belief over another in the 5th and 14th Amendments of Due Process and Equal Protection.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    July 21, 2014 7:40 a.m.

    This is great news from the Supreme Court. As the Hobby Lobby decision demonstrates, the true meaning of marriage will win out when all is said and done. People of faith or even people of conscience that believe children do best with a mother and father now have a voice and a fundamental right to have their time tested views respected. The lords plan of salvation may take a few turns, but marriage supporters will be victorious.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    July 20, 2014 10:29 a.m.

    @firstamendment and @O'really

    Children of gay parents are speaking for themselves and do well in school etc. They do not repeat the old time speculations made by other uninformed people that you seem to be stuck on. Perhaps you should open your eyes and ears to learn about what is going on today and join us in the 21st century.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 20, 2014 8:30 a.m.


    "I only know God expects us to fill His commands. I know homosexuality is not within His plan of happiness. "

    You don't "know" any such thing. You believe it, but you don't know it.

    Let me tell you what I know. I spent 30+ years trying to change. Praying every day for change. Nothing happened. When I changed my prayer to "let me accept who/what I am and live the best life I know how", at that moment, Hockeymom, every shred of guilt, anguish, pain, self loathing, etc. just vanished, immediately, and I felt the greatest sense of peace I'd ever felt in my life. I know that your belief is not fact. I KNOW this. In the 20+ years since, I have never felt anything other than that God is pleased with me and my life; including my life with my partner of over 15 years.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    July 20, 2014 7:00 a.m.

    @Meckofahess SLC,

    How is it that you and so many others are concerned that some children may be raised in a home with two loving SS parents, but have so little concen for all the children without homes or any parents. Where is Christ's love in this hypocrisy.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 20, 2014 6:56 a.m.

    It has never been uncommon for children to be raised by two people of the same gender (albeit more often by two females), yet we never heard these concerns when the assumption was that they were heterosexual. So I just can't believe in the sincerity of this argument. I genuinely believe it has been made up in an attempt to answer the challenge of just what is wrong with SSM. And I genuinely believe people are hanging their hat on it because it's the only argument that reflects what they believe about themselves and their religion: that they are good, moral, and giving.

    People and religions can be wrong and still be good, moral, and giving. History bears this out.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 20, 2014 6:42 a.m.

    @Meckofahess: Your "rationale" for banning same-sex marriage, on the basis of some theoretical, unsubstantiated worries about child outcomes, is little more than a hollow excuse. If you were really worried about children, you'd focus elsewhere.

    By some estimates, lesbians and gays make up about 5% of our population. Other estimates based on survey results are under 3%. Of those same-sex households identifying themselves to census-takers, less than one in four have children. Taken together, we see the number of children raised in same-sex households are under 1%. Yet, despite the bigotry and bullying aimed at their families, those children's outcomes appear to be on par with those raised in man-woman households.

    Meanwhile, we know perfectly well that heterosexual ("straight," "traditional") single parenthood and divorce have known, deleterious effects on children, and the size of those populations are huge. Out of wedlock births account for 41% of all births. National divorce rates are 50%, and higher in Utah.

    Your argument has a complete disconnect in it. Banning SSM does nothing to improve the lives of children, either in general or individually.

  • MercyNLovelie USA, CA
    July 20, 2014 1:34 a.m.

    @The Wraith

    Marriage and family is fundamental to society. Removing male/female from the family and viewing this as "normal" fundamentally changes society. It tells kids they don't need mothers or fathers, and therefore, they don't need to BE responsible mothers and fathers.

    Give it a generation or two, and you'll have all the evidence you need. After kids grow up with this social experiment, you'll see the following...

    A couple goes to the law to alter marriage again, using the same logic behind SSM. Consenting adults? Plural marriage. Nothing to do with sex/child rearing? Arranged marriage, including child marriage.

    Any two adults will do? Marriage between two feminists, not even sexual - women eliminate men from the family unit.

    When an individual tries to avoid legal punishment using "born with a pre-disposition" as an excuse. Alcoholics, child molesters, incest, etc.

    The government can change other fundamental definitions, that affect school, healthcare, business, every aspect of our lives. Parental rights? What rights, when SSM implies kids don't need a mother or father?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 20, 2014 12:31 a.m.

    @Hey It's Me: "...but let's call it "Pairage"

    Sure!! And we can have pairage drinking fountains and pairage schools and special pairage parts of town and all sorts of other seperate-but-equal pairage stuff.

    Because seperate-but-equal worked so well in the past.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2014 10:35 p.m.

    Dane, WI

    You said "It sounds like same-sex marriage affects your marriage in the exact same way that my mixed-race marriage does". I can see how my comment could have been miss-interpreted. To clarify, I do not view mixed-race marriages any different than same-race marriages. In a mixed-race marriage children have a mom and a dad the same as any other traditional marriage. I do not view so called "same-sex marriage" the same as a mixed-race marriage. I simply believe that children reared in a household with "same-sex parents" have to deal with a set of variables that can be very confusing and difficult for them on a number of levels (socially, psychologically and so-forth). I believe the optimal environment for rearing children is in a household with a mother and a father in a committed marriage relationship be it mixed race or same race.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    July 19, 2014 10:01 p.m.

    @ Ranch

    Woa there!! I'm not even sure I'll be making it to heaven either! I have plenty of my own faults enough to keep me looking through the bars of the pearly gates at my more deserving brothers and sisters on the inside. No arrogance here. No thinking I'm better either. I only know God expects us to fill His commands. I know homosexuality is not within His plan of happiness. He loves you, you are His child. I have been commanded to "Love my neighbor". I have no choice but to love you too. Yes, He is happy when we love our fellow man.

    The command to share physical love was intended by Him to be shared only between lawfully wed heterosexual couples. This wasn't made up by our church leaders. This is God's Law, not man's. No need to think anything different.

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    July 19, 2014 8:51 p.m.


    I absolutely agree, there are activists out there who have an agenda. I'll tell you a secret you probably don't know.... there are plenty of other ultra-conservatives and ultra-religious folks who also have agendas.

    However, I think most people don't have an agenda. They vote and fight for what they feel is right and of importance to them personally.

    I'm pretty intrigued about your claims about all the negatives about these "gays" out there who have nothing better to do than choose to be gay, just like you chose to be straight.

    Could you please cite your sources so we can review them. Just stating all those causes are meaningless without sources to back them up.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 19, 2014 8:16 p.m.

    Meck, what "values" are you talking about?

    Honesty is a value. Integrity is a value. Loyalty is a value. Fidelity is a value. Consistency is a value. Flexibility is a value.

    Who is eligible to get a marriage license in Utah is not a value.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    July 19, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    Hey everyone. You can still voice your anti-gay sentiments, just as you can express sentiments that you don't like people of verious races and sexes. What you can't do is control the way others will react to the things you say. If you say something and people say that you're prejudiced that doesn't prevent you from saying these things. You can say what you want--just don't expect people to agree with you or think you're right.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    July 19, 2014 5:00 p.m.

    Why do people not leave for places where there is already marriage equality when they live somewhere where the law doesn't support it? Because, like any other couple, they would like to marry in the place they love, maybe even in a church where they worship if that's allowed there, or in a favorite location. They have friends and family who are truly happy for them whom they would like to invite to share their special day, and be there to witness as they take their vows. They want to live and work and do all the same things as the rest of us do--the same everyday things we all take for granted. At home, where they love to be, just as the rest of us do. That's why they stay.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 19, 2014 3:56 p.m.


    What about the rest of the anti-marriage equality posters here? They do what you say you don't.

    "We love them and are sad for them as we see it as a loss of their eternal salvation..."

    What makes you think that we're losing our "eternal salvation"? Maybe you're the ones who are wrong. Did you ever stop to think that perhaps your heavenly father is perfectly happy with our loving who we love? Your leaders have been known to be wrong before, this time isn't any different.

    It's pretty arrogant of you to think that you're better than we are and that you're going to heaven and we aren't.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 19, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    Captain Green says:

    "This is a matter that is clearly only within the scope of individual States to decide. It is not a federal issue and therefore federal courts should not be ruling on it."

    --- Are you married when you move/travel from state to state, or is your marriage nullified the moment you cross state lines? Still married? Then this IS a federal issue. The fact of the matter is that it shouldn't have to be decided by the courts, but due to straight people thinking they have a right to vote on the marriages of gay people, it is something that must be decided by the courts. If straight people had just minded their own business, none of this would have been necessary.


    Odin will certainly lead them to the right decision. Marriage equality.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 19, 2014 3:24 p.m.

    @Rocket Science,

    A good public relations campaign can change perceptions of a misunderstood group of people. I don't think anyone understands that concept better than the LDS church. They have put together some brilliant campaigns over the past thirty years, and placings advertisements in the Book of Mormon playbill was genius. There is nothing wrong about putting together a campaign to tell the general public "hey, maybe you were wrong about us."

    @Hockey Mom,

    I am sorry that you are tired of hearing about these stories of rejection. Unfortunately, you will continue to hear them until such things stop happening. I, thankfully, was not rejected to the same extent that I mentioned in my previous post, but I do experience an intense amount of being shunned by people within my ward boundaries and friends from the past.

    If you are tired of hearing about these things, do something to initiate change among the people within your reach. Invite your gay neighbors to sit with you at church. Talk with them when you see them at the grocery store. Visit with them during an evening walk through the neighborhood. We can all be better neighbors, can't we?

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2014 2:47 p.m.

    Leave "Marriage" as defined - between a man and a women! I agree with letting them have their right to happiness as well as laws thatgive them spousal health benefits etc. but let's call it "Pairage". They would have all the rights as a man and a woman, but a different word with the definition meaning"a pair of people united by the law.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    July 19, 2014 2:25 p.m.


    It sounds like same-sex marriage affects your marriage in the exact same way that my mixed-race marriage does.

  • ldsdaniel San Diego, CA
    July 19, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    Reading this article makes me feel like it is so wrong to keep same-sex couples from being married.

    WHY does Utah want to tear families apart? I picture for the people who wanted to get married, whatever the outcome is, it would be an emotional one for them. Tears of joy or tears of hurt. For the people who don't want them to get married, I picture anger if they lost and jubilee if they won. In the latter, seems like they are just out to get them, but for the former, it is emotional no matter what the verdict.

    Yes, my heart strings were tugged to see people trying so hard to make another family work in our society that is badly needing more. While I'm torn about what the other side is doing.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    July 19, 2014 1:01 p.m.

    @Brent T. Aurora CO
    "Minnesota Vikings suspending a coach for exercising his freedom of speech..."

    Vikings suspended the coach because of his homophobic remarks. He has his free speech right to say those hateful things, and Vikings also have their right to suspend him.
    Just like a white supremacist has his free speech right to call blacks N word, but his employer also has the right to fire him because of his speech, because it hurts the company's working environment and business.

    Can a business owner refuse to serve gay couples? Yes, if the owner is in a state without such anti-discrimination law.
    If in a state like Colorado, where anti-discrimination law covers sexual orientation, the business owner must follow the law and serve gay couples.

  • ElmoBaggins Escalante, UT
    July 19, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    It's still bigotry folks...trying to impose your religious limitations on the rest of us!

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    July 19, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    @RedWings "SSM will fuundamentally alter society in ways we are just beginning to see in states like MA, where it has been legal for a while. Some changes are good; some not"

    I have lived with my partner in Massachusetts for over 50 years, married 10 years. Nothing has changed for anyone in the commonwealth during these years except 10 years ago we got married, a good change. I do not nor have I heard of any changes that are not good. Now, since the DOMA ruling last year, our tax guy told us to file our taxes jointly as a married couple this year because we would save over $3,000 which we did. I consider that a good thing for LGBTs. So what change(s) are bad?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 19, 2014 11:07 a.m.

    @ firstamendment

    You've provided a good picture of the biases you hold. Biases are not facts, however. What evidence do you have that the way LGBT individuals react to various environments - accepting, rejecting, equalizing, oppressive - falls outside the constellation of human behavior we expect to see in such environments?

    @ Brent T.

    I believe it’s best for our society when everyone in the public square is treated as equals. Therefore, IMO it is correct to honor equality before the right to religious expression because equality protects EVERYONE from discrimination, including the religious. Honoring what you desire actually removes this layer of civility and invites discriminatory treatment.

    @ Rocket Science

    You complained of children being exposed to normative messages regarding homosexuality. Atheist's children are constantly exposed to normative messages about worshipping gods. It happens in a diverse society. Children quickly learn that their parents' views aren't necessarily shared by everyone. And, hopefully, they learn that it's their right to choose for themselves when they come of age.

    Also, I hardly think school is your biggest problem. Do you have a TV? A computer? Even homeschooling doesn't eliminate the "threat." Information: It's everywhere!

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    July 19, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    Just keep spending the taxpayers dollars on this.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    July 19, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    Marriages today in modern corporate America are old fashion and out dated. Now days all unions should be corporations. After all they are people and they lack sex or gender to argue over and for those who feel the religious need they can be churches.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 19, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    Rocket Science worries that his child will be taught that people who oppose marriage equality are bad and are bigots.

    I guess the same thing happened to Daddies who told their children that blacks were inferior and should be taught in separate schools. But then the kids saw with their own eyes that what daddy taught them was nonsense.

    And you know, the same thing happened to Daddies who told their children that Mormons were strange and clannish and weird and that they were going to "recruit" their children to be polygamists. But those kids, too, saw, with their own eyes, that what daddy taught them was nonsense.

    If you don't want this to happen to you, perhaps you should consider moving to Uganda, where no child would dare argue the government's position that gays should be put to death.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    @Rocket Science

    Thank you so much for taking the time to share what you have learned through research and study to help expose the homo-sexual agenda which strives to confuse people about what is right and wrong. We must stick to our deeply held beliefs about the sanctity and uniqueness of traditional marriage while not hating or ostracizing those who have same gender attraction. The SSM marriage agenda does affect my marriage because it's agenda intrudes in presenting conflicting values in the schools and elsewhere which contradict traditional, time honored values that we teach our children. SSM harms children who are adopted in SSM homes because the adopted children realize that there is something very different about their lifestyle and this often results in confusion and psychological harm to them. In turn this can and does harm society.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    @Brent T. Aurora CO
    "We have other behaviors in our society currently universally abhorred for which this legislation will pave a path of acceptance via precedent."

    No, the precedent would be Loving v Virginia which involved striking down interracial marriage bans. Same-sex marriage would not be the one that sets the precedent. That's why same-sex marriage supporters are so confident (aside from the 19-0 or something like that since Windsor), because the courts have already done something similar.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    We humbly pray that Justice Sotomayor and the other Justices who may hear this case will be guided by God's eternal wisdom and arrive at rulings that are fair and just for all concerned. May there be solutions identified that address the needs and rights of all Americans including those who are mothers and fathers and husbands and wives who for millennia have valued the unique pattern of marriage commitments between men and women that stretch back even as far as Adam and Eve - our first mortal parents. We desire that the rights and needs of persons who feel attraction to others of their same gender who live in committed partnerships may have their legitimate legal rights protected and afford them a just resolution of their concerns in this great country. May the rights and needs of both groups be protected.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    July 19, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    @ Really???

    I'm tired of LGBT's who call traditional marriage supporters, "haters". I'm tired being accused of thinking the LGBT community are "wicked", "evil", or "an organization out to destroy families". I don't believe that, and it's clear you want to have your version of a family. I don't know of any entire families who "reject" their children "excommunication" style. If there is sadness on your part, it must come from within and your in-ability to wholly accept yourself as you are.

    There are many traditional families who are grieving their children who are wholly embracing their LGBT-ness. We love them and are sad for them as we see it as a loss of their eternal salvation and a loss of what God wants for them under His plan. There are cases of people who have identified as SSA and still go on to live monogamous, heterosexual lives with temple marriages even. We see this LGBT "trend" (for lack of a better word), picking up steam, and moving God's children in general, further from Him. That may or may not be viewed as wicked, but is certainly misguided and sad.

  • Captain Green Heber City, UT
    July 19, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    It's good that Justice Sotomayor ruled the way she did on this temporary issue. But it still remains a volatile and dangerous subject that a small group of people, usually decided by one vote, can determine the final outcome of. This is a matter that is clearly only within the scope of individual States to decide. It is not a federal issue and therefore federal courts should not be ruling on it. The vast majority of States have already decided by votes of the people that they do not condone perversion... and that should be the end of the discussion for those States.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 19, 2014 7:51 a.m.

    @RocketScience: I think you need to be reminded that:

    1) Being homosexual is completely legal in America.
    2) Homosexuals form as strong romantic bonds to each other as heterosexuals do.
    3) Private consensual sexual practice is private and protected by the Constitution.
    4) Your religious beliefs concerning homosexuality are hardly universal to other denominations.
    5) Religious freedom includes the freedom for denominations like ours TO HAVE SSM.

    You also need to be reminded that at a time not very long ago, being left-handed was also considered deviant, a mark of the devil ("sinister"), and naturally left-handed children were punished and force-conditioned in school to avoid using their left hands.

    The history of repression of various groups in America is a sad one, but eventually we seem to come around to realizing that and changing our ways. With regard to homosexuals, now is when.

    There is no scientific, medical, psychological, or social evidence that there's anything "wrong" with homosexuals. They can be as productive, creative, stable, supportive, and contributory to our society as anyone else. Your religious prejudice against them doesn't reflect upon them, only yourself.

  • Lolly Lehi, UT
    July 19, 2014 7:40 a.m.

    Gosh, Mr. Warren, I didn't know that opposition to one thing put a person automatically, or by and large, in all of the other categories you mentioned. SSM was never needed if someone in Congress had paid attention to the human needs of those who have a partner and they can't make medical decisions for their partner, spend a lifetime accumulating wealth or income and then are taxed as individuals, children issues, and a myriad of other problems of a committed relationship. But, too late now.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    July 19, 2014 4:48 a.m.

    Justice delayed is justice denied again by the US Supreme Court.

  • Brent T. Aurora CO Aurora, CO
    July 19, 2014 1:18 a.m.

    Wraith asks -- "How exactly will same sex marriage fundamentally alter society?"

    Here's one answer which gets to the heart of my objection to its legality. See the story coming out today about the Minnesota Vikings suspending a coach for exercising his freedom of speech. See any number of cases across the nation where privately owned businesses who do not wish to offer their services or goods in support of gay marriage proceedings are being criminally and civilly prosecuted. Read thousands of articles where objection to SSM is being labeled as hate and discrimination.

    If this is indeed bigotry, citizens of a free nation such as ours (our society) are losing their right to believe and express those beliefs, and to be bigots.

    Hate, discrimination, bigotry -- strong emotionally charged words with legal ramifications being forced upon people with core values and beliefs that are being violated by this "movement" in our society, in the name of enlightenment, to normalize behavior that a generation ago was universally repugnant.

    The LBGT defenders don't like this point being made: We have other behaviors in our society currently universally abhorred for which this legislation will pave a path of acceptance via precedent.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    July 19, 2014 1:07 a.m.

    Once again I hear nothing from those who oppose SSM that hasn't already been debunked many times. There is the idea that children raised in a SSM must be psychologically confused. An interesting hypothesis; if only we had actual data to test it. We do and it shows that hypothesis is wrong.


    What about everyone's right to teach their children what they believe to be right and wrong. Well you're in luck; you still will. The KKK still exists and they teach their children what they believe is right and wrong.


    I see the book After the Ball has been mentioned. By all means lets judge an entire group of people by a book one of them wrote a few decades ago. Kind of like a book I read recently: Five Views on Law and Gospel edited by Stanley Gundry. It was my first taste of Dominionism and since I've read others where the Christian Right feel it is their duty to take over every aspect of our government. I guess we should take away rights from Christians.


  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    July 19, 2014 12:54 a.m.


    The old "they should move" canard. One of the more disgusting things to say to anyone. I've sat around and heard many of my Mormon relatives, teachers (when I was a member), and leaders complain about the horrible treatment Mormons received in the early days. They bemoaned the fact that their ancestors were forced to move. And now we hear the same thing from their mouths. How poetic. A group of people once persecuted and rivaled, forced to flee their homes time and again (in large part due to their strange idea on marriage)now playing the part of the persecutor. Again, disgusting.

    What is more! You failed to answer my question. I can only assume you didn't answer because you have exactly zero evidence to support anything you claim. You have nothing to show that society will change. Nothing at all.

  • Aggie5 Kuna, ID
    July 18, 2014 10:29 p.m.

    Steve c warren. Yes I'm that person.
    It's about stepping up and acting like adults.
    So yes I'm against all that stuff you listed.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    July 18, 2014 10:26 p.m.

    The book, After the Ball – how America will conquer it’s fear and hatred of Gays in the 90’s, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. The book 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...

    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. This is already happening in some states.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 18, 2014 10:21 p.m.

    "And, as it has been shown, increasing homosexuality increases: promiscuity, suicide, drug addiction, racism, anti-religious bigotry (and religion has been shown to be good for humanity)..."

    Actually, the rejection that thousands of homosexuals experience within their own families and religious communities is a major reason many turn to promiscuity, suicide, drug addiction, and anti-religious bigotry. You see, too many lose hope when they are pushed out of their families and their religion, and this is why they turn to these artificial and damaging ways to ease the pain.

    Fortunately, people are starting to realize this and reaching out to make sure this doesn't happen any more. It's too bad that there are still people listening to the lies that want to make us out to just be an evil organization with the sole intent to destroy families.

    Come on, folks, get to know your neighbors; you'll discover that most aren't as wicked as you imagine.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    July 18, 2014 10:14 p.m.

    @ firstamendment I agree with your assessment of "Crafting Gay Children" It opens eyes to what is really going on. If two people of the same gender want to live together as married people do, that's their business.

    When children are brought into it or end up in these homes by default, it's incredibly damaging to them. I have no doubt those children are physically healthy and well taken care of. I believe they can excel academically. But psychologically it must be so confusing for them. Their so-called "parents" are of the same gender and yet it takes two different genders to create a baby. I believe they will feel that something in their lives will feel "wrong" or just oddly out of sync. And this will lead to more and more of these mixed up kids who turn into mixed up adults. That's the next generation. As if they don't have enough other issues to deal with.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    July 18, 2014 10:10 p.m.

    One answer to the question that was posed, how exactly will SSM adversely affect society?

    For those of us who want to teach our children what we believe is right and wrong, the legalization of SSM undermines our efforts. In Mass. they teach in elementary schools that it is just as good to have two daddies as to have a mommy and a daddy, That homosexuality is a good thing.

    If you believe in SSM you will say, but that is a good thing, nevertheless it will affect me in the way I teach my children.

    It will happen here too, and parents will hear: Daddy why is it wrong to have two daddies? My teacher said all people can marry, so it is good and people who teach me it is wrong are bad. She taught us a new word and said those kind of people are bigots. You told me it was wrong for two men to be together are you a bigot daddy, are you bad daddy.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:50 p.m.

    I believe that Justice Sotomayor is sending the message that SCOTUS wants to hear and rule on the issue as the final voice.

    Many SSM advocates mention the recent Circuit Court rulings that have been in their favor. They want to believe that with recent cases SCOTUS will not hear the issue and let Circuit Court rulings stand.

    We should remember in 2006 the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals — which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota — overturned a lower court’s ruling and upheld a ban on same-sex marriage. Granted that was before the Supreme Court struck down DOMA and, by virtue of that ruling, extended federal protections to married same-sex couples.

    I believe it is far from a given on how SCOTUS will rule and I believe that is why SSM advocates just want States to give up now.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:47 p.m.

    For those who claim that pushing SSM will help reduce anti-gay bias, please think again. Promoting hatred against people who disagree with the agenda (as activists do, daily) and pushing something on our children that is harmful, etc. isn't the way to win friends and influence people. I used to be much more supportive of gay marriage (especially since I have gay family members,as you know)before I actually interacted with activists and before I saw what the SSM agenda was doing to our Country and so on. As a result of my interactions with many of you I have started to research SSM and have learned much more about what is going on behind the scenes. SSM propaganda has nothing to do with "equality" or "love" etc. Gays can already work, live, love, have bridal registry, etc. and laws against bullying etc. are completely different (and gays are not only victims of bullying, they are often bullies themselves). The SSM agenda is simply an agenda that financially benefits a few, and harms humanity.

    Please read "Crafting Gay Children" on defend the family. That was one that really started to open my eyes.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:34 p.m.

    Wraith, if SSM doesn't alter society then why do you want it? Judge Vaughn pointed out that the reason he wants SSM wasn't so he could get married (wink wink) but it's for the social meaning ie. it mainstreams homosexuality. As we have seen, mainstreaming homosexuality increases the numbers of children who believe the propagandists who say they were born that way and can't change, it also increases numbers of people who abandon children, spouses, faith, and so on, for homosexuality. And, as it has been shown, increasing homosexuality increases: promiscuity, suicide, drug addiction, racism, anti-religious bigotry (and religion has been shown to be good for humanity), depression, violence, domestic violence, etc. etc. and, as it has been shown, children do better if they are raised in traditional homes etc. I know that those pushing the agenda do their best to suppress information, alter findings on studies, etc. but the truth is surviving still.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    The people who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage by and large are the same people who are anti-immigrant, who supported the war in Iraq until the bitter end, who won't allow their states to accept much-needed Medicaid, who can't find anything wrong with anything Israel does and who want to sabotage the Affordable Care Act in spite of evidence that it's working. In other words, these people are messing up the world.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 18, 2014 9:15 p.m.

    "@Mr. Bean and @WTZ Is there something in Arizona that is affecting your all or nothing thinking about marriage? You think marriage equality should be applied to siblings, family generation? You may as well throw in animals just to spice it up a bit. :>)"

    I don't know Bean or WTZ...

    Marriage equality should apply to all who wish to marry. And that would include... well, that would include all who wish to marry.

    "Why not think a little harder and you may see that marriage equality is for adults..."

    I know sibs who are adults. At least, they look to be adults.

    "...that are not related..."

    We're all related. Have you not heard of the Garden of Eden's Adam and Steve?

    "...and who are able to think such as reading, writing, and answering questions at the marriage license bureaus."

    The adult sibs that I know can read, write and answer questions... Questions such as: "What's happenin' dude?"

    "I assume they have some in Arizona. :>)"

    They do.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:10 p.m.

    "If marriage is so important to them why dont they just go move to a place where it is legal and encouraged instead of trying to force a whole state to do something that they don't believe is right?"

    Because even with some of the flaws in this state, a lot of us actually like living here. We also want to make this place a safer and better environment for all of its residents. It's not the American way to expect people to move to a different state in order to enjoy basic human rights.

    Also, believe me when I tell you that the LGBT community still experience poor treatment. I have been assaulted while jogging in my neighborhood and had slurs painted on my car window within the past year.

    This fight is important because it's long overdue for everyone in our communities to be treated with dignity and respect, feel safe, and enjoy strong and healthy family bonds.

  • AerilusMaximus Berryville, VA
    July 18, 2014 7:40 p.m.

    @ the wraith

    All the answers arent prevalent in how SSM will shape society.

    There are plenty of places where SSM is legal. If marriage is so important to them why dont they just go move to a place where it is legal and encouraged instead of trying to force a whole state to do something that they don't believe is right?

    And don't start down the whole civil rights / slavery issue. LGBT arent slaves they have been treated badly but I think a lot of the public has been a lot kinder to them in recent times.

    Sure there have been a few businesses that wont photograph their weddings or make them a wedding cake but I havent been hearing about hate crimes and such that were associated with the actual civil rights movement.

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    July 18, 2014 6:42 p.m.

    This is a correct decision now lets hope that the 5-4 continues to be correct otherwise society will pay for the error of the lower courts.

  • DHScientist SLC, UT
    July 18, 2014 6:40 p.m.

    GREAT decision by the Supreme Court. Hopefully they'll take up this case eventually and help protect the definition of marriage for future generations.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 18, 2014 6:31 p.m.

    Repubs have used up all their Supreme Court victories on citizens united and hobby lobby.

    Now we get to win gay marriage.

    I don't want to hear any repub complain. You folks told us to deal with the Supreme Court decisions that we didn't like. Now you must learn to deal with the Supreme Court decisions that you won't like!

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    July 18, 2014 6:31 p.m.

    Not an unexpected ruling, but it's telling that Sotomayor (apparently) queried the rest of the justices before issuing this stay, ie, "are you guys sure we want to take on this issue?"

    Assuming the SCOTUS hears an appeal, presumably next year, it will likely be another 5-4 decision, either way, which is probably appropriate, considering how divided our nation is on this - and many other - issues.

    "The Wraith" asks a pertinent question - how exactly will SSM adversely affect society? My sister-in-law and her partner of 27 years got married in late December, and I've yet to detect any impact on my marriage, in any way. Actually, their marriage has had a calming, stabilizing effect, if anything, for *them*.

    Regardless, in 20 years we'll be having to answer to younger generations about why the State of Utah was opposed to people getting married.

    We've seen this movie before, folks.

  • rik-nell San Mateo, CA
    July 18, 2014 6:18 p.m.

    Sotomayor has made a wise decision granting Utah's motion so that there can be no doubt as to the fairness of hearing Utah's appeals. Although I don't believe that Utah has a forceful case, due to their recent February ruling in favor of alternative marriages (polygamy), I believe Sotomayor needed to allow them this chance so they will not have the ability to re-appeal following a nation-wide decision.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 18, 2014 5:45 p.m.

    As I continue to read through the comments on all the articles related to SSM and the State of Utah, I gotta wonder why the State spent good money to hire high-powered lawyers from out of state to plead their case when they have so many home-grown, local legal and constitutional scholars to hand-pick from? My guess is the AG and Governor are not reading these comments.

  • Br. Jones East Coast, MD
    July 18, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    A reasonable decision by the court, even though the families who brought the case will have a bit longer to wait for things to resolve.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    July 18, 2014 5:30 p.m.

    Well I'm sure glad the Mad Max level of chaos that would have unfolded in Utah without this emergency stay has been avoided.

    I have a few genuine questions for anyone who thinks same sex marriage will "fundamentally alter society". I've asked these questions a few times but so far no one has had the courage (or I suspect the facts) to answer.

    How exactly will same sex marriage fundamentally alter society?
    If it in fact does this then why is it that in societies where same sex marriage is legal and has been for years has this fundamental alteration not occurred?
    OR if it has occurred what are the signs of this fundamental alteration?

    I would love to see a detailed list that answers those questions with actual evidence from the nations and even U.S. States where same sex marriage is legal. I say actual evidence because I've seen some reports about the chaos in Mass. but not a single one of the points of evidence listed in these reports is backed up by actual fact. I eagerly await your list.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 18, 2014 4:51 p.m.

    This, by no means, is any indication of what SCOTUS will say in regards to Amendment 3. Personally, I don't think the higher courts will take on the appeal because there still has not been conflicting ruling in any of the lower courts. Today, as a matter of fact, the tenth circuit ruled Oklahoma's law banning same sex marriage to be unconstitutional. SCOTUS has no compelling reason to take up this case, so I believe the tenth circuit's rulings will stand. Then, the courts will also tell the state that is has to legally recognize the marriages that have been performed.

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    July 18, 2014 4:29 p.m.

    So-called "same sex marriage" is ultimately a policy issue not a legal or Constitutional question. As such it should be the people who decide it not a bunch of appointed judges!

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 18, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    The stay is a good idea. Means less marriages that have to be undone when SCOTUS rules against SSM. If they ever get a round tewit.

  • cory.byufan Provo, UT
    July 18, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    Judge Shelby must have known Utah would appeal his decision, so if anyone is to blame for the 1300+ marriages currently in limbo, it’s him for not granting a stay in the first place to prevent the marriages from happening. Governor Herbert promises to recognize those marriages when they are good and legal, but the case isn’t settled yet, so everyone just needs to be patient until the end. The Supreme Court made the right choice today.

  • kimnprovo Orem, UT
    July 18, 2014 4:16 p.m.

    RedWings... what are some of the negative changes in MA?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 18, 2014 4:08 p.m.

    That's too bad. It will come about, of course, but the courts are all being cautious and if they can pass it off, they do.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    The court isn't trying to decide if same-sex marriage is Constitutional, it's trying to decide if Amendment 3 is unconstitutional. Since the verdict striking down Amendment 3 was stayed, however, it's currently law (hence no more same-sex marriages being performed). That means it'd trigger the second clause of Amendment 3 since same-sex couples don't fall under the first so I would consider the stay on this to be the correct decision.

    July 18, 2014 3:32 p.m.

    Rhetoric from both sides of this issue aside, this is a good decision by the SCOTUS.

    SSM will fuundamentally alter society in ways we are just beginning to see in states like MA, where it has been legal for a while. Some changes are good; some not.

    I am glad the SCOTUS is taking a more cautious approach to this issue than some of the federal judges.