Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: U.S. Supreme Court delivers second message, for Utah, on same-sex marriage requirement

Comments

Return To Article
  • Confused Sandy, UT
    July 31, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    Jeff Harris...
    There is a need for a SCOTUS ruling, it clearly defined that states have the rights to define marriage or even allow marriage.

    The key to rule for SCOTUS is does the State have the right to define marriage. Because no where in the Constitution does it is say marriage is a right. Most people look to the Virginia ruling as proof that it does... if you look into the background of that case, the reason the ruling was given was based that "RACE" is something a person can not change or adapt... he is pretty much stuck with it. I personally don't think Gay Marriage falls under the same as RACE because people who were straight can become gay, while some gay have changed to being straight.. It is not inheritant to be gay.

    that is why the ruling needs to be done.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    July 28, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    This morning, July 28, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's decision overturning Virginia's anti-gay marriage law. This is the second U S Appeals Court that has upheld lower decisions striking down marriage bans post-Windsor. The first was the 10th Circuit Appeals Court which issued two separate opinions upholding decisions in Utah and Oklahoma that overturned those states' anti-gay bans.

    So far, there are no post-Windsor decisions from any federal court that uphold anti-gay bans. There is no reason for the US Supreme Court to intervene.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    July 25, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    While I understand the reasons why DN takes the position they do on this issue... this editorial is rather embarrassing. This passage, in particular:

    "We expect that the Supreme Court will ultimately address the fundamental question in this case: Does the U.S. Constitution impose a requirement upon states to institute same-gender marriage?"

    That is not even close to reality.... that is not the question under scrutiny.

    The *sole* question under judicial examination here is the following:

    "Does Utah's Amendment 3 comport with the US Constitution?"

    That is it. That is all that it is, and nothing more. There is no religious component to this examination. Judges rule upon facts, not dogma.

    Reasonable people with a modicum of critical thinking skills already know the outcome here. Has there been a single judicial outcome since Windsor that has not favored marriage equality? No, there has not.

    Yes, the appeals process still needs to play out, but the outcome is clear enough. Just as "revelations" occurred in the mid-70's regarding African-Americans, another set of revelations regarding marriage equality will help soothe those currently suffering dogma-source angst.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 25, 2014 7:12 a.m.

    J Thompson says:

    "No nation has survived sexual promiscuity - ever!"

    --- Us marrying is not "sexual promiscuity" - EVER! (It's pretty ironic that you won't let us marry and then condemn us for being "sexually promiscuous"; do you see the cognitive dissonance of your position?)

    @Willie deG;

    No "special rights" being requested. YOU TOO will be able to marry someone of the same gender if you so desire; see, nothing "special" about that.

  • Pianoman Salt Lake City, UT
    July 24, 2014 5:59 p.m.

    If SSM passes (which i don't have a problem with) then there is no reason other minorities can't have rights. It's called an Unenumerated Right, and I don't think the general populace understands that.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 24, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    I understand that you are convinced that you have the truth and those who disagree with you are deluding themselves. Please understand that many people who have differing ideas of how we were created and what life there is, if any, beyond this one, are equally convinced. I'm not going to say you are wrong. Describing a gay person's sexuality (but not that of a straight person) as "personal sexual impulses" is arrogant.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 24, 2014 1:05 p.m.

    Come on Willie G

    That "special rights" argument against same sex marriage is so 1990's.
    Your group of folks have yet to come up with a convincing legal argument against same sex marriage.

    All you are left with is the "its icky" argument.

    Time to get over it, and move on to real problems.

  • Willie deG CALGARY, 00
    July 23, 2014 5:08 p.m.

    Well the homosexuals and transgendered still have the same rights as the rest of the population i.e. heterosexual marriage. What they want to be is a special class of citizen who have more rights than the rest of the population. Now I am not denying that they should have the rights of a civil union for benefits etc but to balance things out what special rights should be given to heterosexuals so things are in balance for all.

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    July 23, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    I am anxiously awaiting a decision that lays this debate to rest and allows others to see that the world probably won't implode (hasn't in 19 states) and will allow everyone to worry about more pressing issues that really affect the daily lives of their fellow citizens - case in point - the APPALLING treatment of our veterans. To me, THATS an issue worthy of action, not SSM marriage.

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    July 23, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    I understand the fact that many people on this site have different opinions regarding same SSM. Being gay myself, I certainly have my own opinions. I try to read the perspective of others and learn different ways to view this issue.

    However, it's frustrating when others claim their position is fact. Sorry, it's not. It's your opinion based on feelings, thoughts and experiences.

    The only ones issuing factual decisions regarding SSM is the judicial system. One side brings a claimed injustice/legal argument to judges to decide. The other side brings their evidence to support their justification for such laws and then the judge(s) decide(s). That's what they do.
    Many clamor about "judicial activism" which is interesting because no one claimed such when the Supreme Court stayed that ruling.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    July 23, 2014 3:21 p.m.

    Even the most casual reader of the scriptures has read Christ's admonition, "come follow ME". He didn't tell us to follow a popular minister, rabi, or priest.He clearly instructed us to follow HIM.

    He put the burden on us, not on those who held the microphone. He told us that "this is life eternal to know thee, the only true God and Jesus Chrish, whom thou hast sent".

    Those who try to divide us by telling us that their religious leader disagrees with Christ are only telling us that they disagree with Christ. They're telling us that because Christ does not Agee with them that they don't agree with Christ.

    Fine. At least we know why they will not submit to Christ's doctrine. They think that they are His equals!

    Let them perform the atonement, after having NEVER indulged their passions nor ever failed to live all laws perfectly.

    The Court cannot indulge those who will not control their sexual appetites without destroying this nation. Marriage has been defined. Family has been defined - by Deity, not by man.

    No nation has survived sexual promiscuity - ever!

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 23, 2014 2:12 p.m.

    I am absolutely astounded by the harsh comments that claim to know "god's will", most especially by those with a fundamentalist bias.

    Any rational reading of the christian bible, and subsequent iterations of its foundational doctrine, reveal a number of inconsistencies and contradictions. I know that ambiguity is the enemy of fundamentalism. However, how can so many be so arrogant as to assert one interpretation over another? How the heck do they claim to know what god wants?

    The truly reverent that I know follow a path that is humble, forgiving and understanding of differences. And completely without arrogance. This affirms my belief that the ones who are the most guilty of sin, usually cry out the loudest about everyone else's failings. How else to make yourself feel better?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 23, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    @J Thompson;

    Christ is a "member of the godhead"? Really? I thought the "godhead" was Odin, Thor, etc. When did your god become the god of our country?

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    July 23, 2014 1:43 p.m.

    @J Thompson

    I guess those southern Baptists, southern Methodists who believe segregation is God's will, slavery is God's plan back in 1800s, probably said the same thing as you do to their northern brethren.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    July 23, 2014 1:29 p.m.

    Is it possible to imagine anyone so self-centered that he would dictate to Christ, a member of the Godhead, who was given all authority over all creation, including this planet, that THEY knew more than Deity about the purpose of life and the purpose of family? Can you imagine someone standing before Deity and telling Deity that his personal sexual impulses should be considered when Deity gave all creation the eternal definition of marriage and of family? Is it even possible to imagine that kind of arrogance? Would those who can't alter the times and the seasons be so arrogant that they dictate to Him who put all planets in their orbits and created all life and gave to each form of life commandments on what they COULD do, that THEY have more WISDOM than Deity?

    I'm left speechless at the arrogance of God's children who think that they are greater than God.

    Never before has such arrogance been "accepted". Never before has the "child" been so brazen as to tell Heavenly Parents what is permissible and what is not!

    Nothing good will come from that arrogance.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 23, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    @JThompson

    Because the Court has clearly stated that it willnot define marriage (DOMA act), it seems more than reasonable that it will not reverse itself and define marriage for the State of Utah.

    ==================

    The Supreme Court did not say the States could define marriage all they want. The DOMA ruling was that the Federal Government MUST recognize ALL marriages performed by any State. It could not create a second tier of citizens by recognizing some marriages and not others.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 23, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    @JThompson,

    Congress, nor any other government entity is trying to change the doctrine of any church. We are not required anyone in our temples that we chose not to. Not even all hetero couples are entitled to a "Temple Marriage" unless they prove themselves ready.

    However, in a freedom of religion society, laws must be secular. If they are not, then one religion is favored over another, in explicit violation of the First Amendment. As others have stated, they have no religious problem with Same Sex Marriage, so who wins?

    Freedom of Religion means that government will not interfere with the practice of your religion. It however does not mean your beliefs can be codified into law.

    Laws must be based on protecting our rights to Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and Property. In other words, a specific activity can be shown to violate one of the above, it ought to be legal. We can debate whether or not an activity is moral even if it is legal.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 23, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    "Are you claiming that Christ is trying to force you to accept His atonement?"

    Nope. I'm claimign that YOU, through force of law, are trying to force it. There is an old saying: "I like Jesus, it's his followers that I have problems with."

    "Do you want those of us who know that Christ is the Redeemer to keep that knowledge to ourselves?"

    After I have asked you too? Abslolutely. The 11th Commandment: "Though shall keep thy religion to thyself." - George Carlin

    "He defined marriage as between a man and a woman."

    And for his followers they are free to keep on marrying only between man and women.The United States, however, is a secular state with a secular constitution, Jesus' definition is moot in the public square. I will never try and force you or your church to perform same sex marriage. Never. Now it's your turn to stop trying to prevent the CIVIL marriage of same sex partners.

    "The choice is yours."

    If you truly meant that--and I don't for a moment believe you do--then you would stop trying to FORCE everyone else live the way YOU think they should.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 23, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    J Thompson says:

    "Our religious "feelings" are guaranteed to be respected by the government. "

    --- What about our religious feelings? Do they get the same respect from the government yours do? My "religious feelings" are that SSM is okay. If you say "no" then you're nothing but a hypocrite which is condemned by your bible.

    "How about if we see what the Constitution actually says about religion?"

    --- How about if we see what the Constitution actually says about equality?

    Amendment 14:
    "... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    "Article 4 - Section 1 -
    "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, ..."

    --- SSM from other states must be recognized (guess what JT, this is in the Constitution itself, not just an amendment).

  • Danish American Payson, UT
    July 23, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    @LeDoc: 1861 LeDoc says: "Secession is coming, let's not spend the money on the War to unify the States."

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2014 10:23 a.m.

    Re: Mike Richards "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

    But 1 in 100 live births involves some sort of inter-sex state. And 1 in 1000 births is so inter-sex that the physician gets to determine sex of the infant (though doing this is increasingly challenged - the belief being that inter-sex is in fact the third sex).

    Regardless, in appears sex is not as essential as you think, and that sex may be a thing of this world only.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    July 23, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    Darrel,

    How about if we see what the Constitution actually says about religion? "Congress shall make no law respecting an extablishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    The Federal Government will not insert itself between any person and his God and it will not interfere with the Doctrines of any establishment of religion.

    Our religious "feelings" are guaranteed to be respected by the government. No such guarantee has ever been written into the Constitution about a person's sexual feelings. I'm sure that you understand the difference, even if that understanding makes your point moot.

    The Supreme Court has not ruled on a State's right to define marriage. The Supreme Court has "stayed" same-sex "marriages" in Utah and it has "stayed" the State's obligation to recognize same-sex "marriages".

    Because the Court has clearly stated that it willnot define marriage (DOMA act), it seems more than reasonable that it will not reverse itself and define marriage for the State of Utah.

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    July 23, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    We live in America, where people have religious freedom. You can certainly believe your way of bible interpretation, that same gender couples should not be allowed to get married; and other believers can have different interpretations that SSM is not against the Bible, like Episcopalians, Presbyterians, etc. do.

    Just like sixty years ago, some Christians believed black and white marriage was ungodly, unnatural; while other Christians supported such freedom.

    However, our marriage law is not based on religion. Nobody should force you to marry someone of same gender, and you should not forbid a person to marry someone of same gender based on your biblical interpretation either.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    July 23, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    Confused,

    In saying, "The ONLY court that can make a law unconstitutional is SCOTUS," you are indeed confused.

    Your understanding is deficient on the concept of jurisdiction. If you'd have said that SCOTUS is the only court that could declare a law unconstitutional in the entire United States at once, you'd be correct. However, any court can strike down a law within its own jurisdiction, for any number of reasons, including violating the national constitution. A county court judge could strike down a village ordinance, for example. And, a Federal District Court can strike down a state law within its jurisdictional district.

    The losing party has the right to ask for an appeal, of course, if it can present grounds for that appeal, but unless they can demonstrate that the lower court erred on the law, they're unlikely to prevail. And SCOTUS has what I believe is a unique right, the right to refuse to hear a case at all, for which they need not even give a reason.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 23, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    @Mike Richards

    Isn't our religion "feelings based"? How do missionaries teach people how to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon?

    Aren't you using your beliefs as a reason to deny Same Sex Marriage? Aren't you using "feelings" to deny others the same rights you enjoy?

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    July 23, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    Stormwalker..

    You are mistaken... Judge Shelby and other Lower courts "Believe" that Utah's Marriage Ban amendment is unconstitutional, just because they believe this is the case, does not make it unconstitutional.

    The ONLY court that can make a law unconstitutional is SCOTUS. That is one reason we have lower courts and the avenue of appeals.

    So please don't try to tell me some law that you don't like is unconstitutional until the final decision is made by SCOTUS.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 23, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    @my_two_cents_worth,

    Are you claiming that Christ is trying to force you to accept His atonement? That is between you and Christ. He has offered to pardon everyone who is willing to give away their sins. A sin is a wilful rebellion against His commandments -ANY commandment. Do you want those of us who know that Christ is the Redeemer to keep that knowledge to ourselves? He told us differently. He told us that once we have been "warned", that we are duty bound to warn others, not to cause them anguish, but to keep them from experiencing the most horrid anguish possible. He told us that if we refuse His atonement that we will suffer just as he did.

    He defined marriage as between a man and a woman. He told us that gender is an eternal characteristic. He told us that He is perfect - that He doesn't make mistakes about gender.

    That's about as clear a statement as can be made about marriage, about gender and about our choice to accept His atonement or to suffer as He did.

    The choice is yours.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 23, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    "Just don't call it marriage."

    I'm presuming this stems from the religious view that marriage is a sacred relationship. Given this, I understand why those who believe SSM is immoral would not want something they consider sacred equated with it.

    But this is a civil matter, not a religious one, and many do not share this particular religious view. So wouldn't acceding to this request be government favoring one religious view over another? In other words, wouldn't this just be following one unconstitutional act with another?

    I do get that this is genuinely troubling on the anti-SSM side. If opponents could show some valid reasons for their belief that SSM is immoral, I for one would say, "Okay, let's talk."
    But they haven't and I don't believe they can. The evidence just isn't there. Instead the evidence is that there is no difference. LGBTs come equipped with human nature and a sexual orientation just like every other human. The only difference lies in how we view the latter, and that's a reflection on us, not them.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    July 23, 2014 6:42 a.m.

    The DN continues to state their belief that the states “have the right to define marriage”. A definition of marriage should include some statements about the partners committing to stay faithful to each other, care for each other, and to provide for each other and for any children that may be born or adopted, for the rest of their lives.

    Is there anything like that in Utah law? (Serious question; I don’t know the answer). I do know that there is nothing about that in Amendment 3, which specifically restricts marriage to opposite sex couples. But is there anywhere in this state’s law where marriage is actually defined?

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 22, 2014 9:06 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    "As for me and my house, we will accept the word of Christ without argument."

    As is your constitutionally protected right. You do not, however, have the right to force me to "accept the word of Christ without argument". Please stop trying.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    July 22, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    @wrz
    "I understood it to be slippery slop. Did I misunderstand?"

    Actually, the fallacy you offered doesn't even merit slippery slop.

    "Can't you summarize in a few words in a comment on this thread?"

    Please do you own homework.

    @Redshirt
    "Heterosexual marriage is NOT equal to SSM no matter how many judges rule on it."

    Maybe they are not equal to your eyes, but they are equal in the court of law, and that is enough.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 22, 2014 7:59 p.m.

    No doctor on earth will tell anyone who believes in same gender attraction that he is not male or that she is not female. No matter how much rhetoric is used to tell us that they were somehow born "that way", there is absolutely no physical evidence to support their statement.

    Christ told us through His prophets: "ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

    So now we have a conundrum. Is Christ wrong or are those who tell us that have no control over their sexual feelings mistaken?

    As for me and my house, we will accept the word of Christ without argument.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 22, 2014 7:38 p.m.

    This seems destined to bounce around a while until same sex marriage comes to Utah.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 22, 2014 7:18 p.m.

    @Jazzsmack: "Homosexuality is a chosen behavior...Science has not shown nay genetic cause for it."

    Actually, researchers noticed that homosexuality follows maternal lines, and gene mapping has identified alleles - groups of genes - that seem to connect to homosexuality. One key is gay men tend to have sisters with higher-than-average number of children. And, the sisters have the same alleles as their brothers. Current theory and research is those genes, working in a group, cause a strong attraction to men. In women that means early marriage and frequent childbearing. In men, it means homosexuality.

    None of this is conclusive, but there is growing consensus among researchers that this is a probable cause and that further investigation is needed.

    And, before demanding a black-and-white answer consider the time and money put into other medical research, like cancer or Alzheimer's and the paucity of answers at this time.

    There isn't a genetic smoking gun for "gay," but a growing body of evidence says gay has a strong basis in genetics.

    Google is your friend. Do some research on recently published papers and articles.

  • Anchovey Provo, UT
    July 22, 2014 6:42 p.m.

    I commend the state of Utah for supporting the rule of law and not caving in to demands from the minority. Marriage between a man and a woman has served society and is a noble institution.

  • ~Rico~ Simi Valley, CA
    July 22, 2014 6:01 p.m.

    @Jazzsmack

    "Religion is constitutionally protected.

    Homosexual behavior and practice are not."

    Hate to break it to you, but SCOTUS disagrees with you. See Lawrence v. Texas (2003) 539 U.S. 558

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 22, 2014 5:48 p.m.

    The 14th Amendment says, "No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This means that -- all other things being equal -- one person is treated the same under the law as any other person.

    In Utah's marriage laws, this is already the case. The same requirements for marriage apply equally to everyone. One of these requirements is that the marriage partner be a member of the opposite sex.

    To make its case, Utah should only have to show the rational basis for this requirement. This is easy to do. Statistics show overwhelmingly that children do better when they live in a home with both biological parents. Laws which seek to maximize the likelihood of this occurrence, such as Utah's marriage laws, have a valid purpose.

    The error of SSM proponents who argue the 14th Amendment is in "all other things being equal." Opposite-sex unions have the potential to produce children naturally, and same-sex unions don't. The State of Utah has no interest in the ones that don't -- no reason to promote them or to elevate their status.

  • Jazzsmack Holladay, UT
    July 22, 2014 5:31 p.m.

    @nycut

    What utter rubbish.

    Homosexuality is a chosen behavior. period.

    Science has not shown nay genetic cause for it. Even your own words indicate they chose that lifestyle and choose to be that way.

    Religion is constitutionally protected.

    Homosexual behavior and practice are not.

    Lets hope the supreme court gets it right, and corrects the popular-based and wrong decisions of the lower courts.

  • Zabet Spanish Fork, UT
    July 22, 2014 5:09 p.m.

    "We expect that the Supreme Court will ultimately address the fundamental question in this case: Does the U.S. Constitution impose a requirement upon states to institute same-gender marriage?"

    This is a states rights issue and if the law in question wasn't about legalizing same sex marriage, many of those commenting would be all in arms that the federal government is stepping on the states rights to govern themselves. Losing our right to govern on a state level is an issue that will come back to haunt even the same sex group some day after they're all married.

  • nycut New York, NY
    July 22, 2014 3:45 p.m.

    @Mike Richards:
    This "feelings" argument of yours is a mess.

    Gay people aren't telling you what they FEEL: they are showing you what they ARE.

    People are born. They grow. They discover their romantic and sexual attraction to others. They fall in love. They marry, and sometimes raise families. They grow old together. They die.

    Gay and straight alike.

    WHY some people are gay and some are straight is unknown, and irrelevant. Gay people exist. That's a fact.

    Now along the way, you may have chosen a religion that explains the existence of gay people in a way that (coincidence) makes people just like you the winner of life eternal. Most people are straight after all, so it's no surprise most religions would be.

    But all this twisting and thrashing about what gay is and who should be allowed to do what? It's your issue. Your "feelings."

    Gay people know they are real, and just wonder why you have such a hard time with that.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    July 22, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    The good news for society and especially those that aren't exactly like everyone else, conservatives eventually always lose, always. They can create havoc, & heartache until they do but they will lose.

    Their losses may usher in a divine intervention as some believe but my guess is all that will happen is that over time all or most of those who differ will gain acceptance and happiness, again because conservatives will lose.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 22, 2014 3:40 p.m.

    @Confused: "SCOTUS will have to rule on the constitutionality of these type laws... even though several other courts have ruled otherwise, SCOTUS is the final word. which has not been spoken, therefore nothing is unconstitutional."

    The law was unconstitutional when it was passed.

    Judge Shelby overturned it for that reason. As soon as he ruled it was overturned.

    The 10th declined to stay the decision. SCOTUS did stay it, pending review by the 10th.

    The 10th upheld Shelby's ruling, although a stay was requested while the state appeals to SCOTUS. The Supremes might take the case, in which their ruling will apply nationally. The might decline the case, which lifts the stay and Shelby's ruling stands.

    SCOTUS is only likely to take the case if a circuit court rules that a state ban was constitutional and SCOTUS has to make a decision between two conflicting opinions.

    If, as you claim, SCOTUS had ruled there would be no appeal to SCOTUS. If the state had prevailed the plaintiffs would be appealing, not the state.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    July 22, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    MtnDewer...

    Look at the last line of your paragraph....
    "If granted, a stay of judgment prevents enforcement pending appeal or other circumstances."

    To me, now I am not a lawyer, but if you can not enforce the court decision, then the decision is in error.

    just my way of thinking.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    Confused: "umm Ranch you are mistaken..... SCOTUS ruled that the 10th circuit decision of being "Illegal" was wrong, thus they reinstated the Utah's ban on same sex marriage as a legal binding law."

    ***
    SCOTUS did not rule that the 10th circuit decision was wrong but merely placed a stay on that decision.

    Here is the definition of a stay: "Courts enter judgments or orders following trials or motions. The prevailing party expects that the judgment or order will be enforced. If the losing party appeals the judgment, that party does not want the judgment enforced pending appeal, so they apply to the court for a stay of judgment. If granted, a stay of judgment prevents enforcement pending appeal or other circumstances."

    That certainly does not mean that the 10th circuit was wrong, but the enforcement of the verdict of allowing SSM in Utah has been stayed or put on hold. Pretty simple, really, Confused.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    "Under the law, no person can claim "feelings" as the basis for his behavior."

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

    Mike,

    I think this is a pretty accurate description of religion - and acting on the feelings of religious beliefs, something that is protected by law. How come YOU get to decide what exactly is and isn't protected?

    Please explain your interpretation of Loving v. Virginia and why that was decided as it was. After all, the Lovings were acting on their feelings, weren't they?

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    July 22, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    Ranch...
    "The Supreme Court issued a stay of Shelby’s ruling, reinstating the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages and allowing it to continue until a ruling from a federal appeals court."

    The state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages is NOT legal; the ruling that it was unconstitutional it is simply on hold - but it is still considered unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says otherwise."

    umm Ranch you are mistaken..... SCOTUS ruled that the 10th circuit decision of being "Illegal" was wrong, thus they reinstated the Utah's ban on same sex marriage as a legal binding law.

    You may not like it, but that is what the "Stay"... that it is legal until proven otherwise.

    SCOTUS will have to rule on the constitutionality of these type laws... even though several other courts have ruled otherwise, SCOTUS is the final word. which has not been spoken, therefore nothing is unconstitutional.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 2:19 p.m.

    You are treating stays as some kind of victory. They are not out of the ordinary, but a standard practice. The stays only delay the inevitable. It is likely that the Supreme Court will not even take this case, which will mean the lower court rulings will stand. They did so with California's Prop 8 and when taking on a case and making a ruling, struck down DOMA. So far states with SSM bans are 0-21. Is Utah's appeal so superior, with such brilliant arguments previously not conceived and applied, that the trend will be reversed? If just ruling on Amendment 3 as is, the draconian parts which forbid any kind of civil union or domestic partnerships which provide marriage benefits, will make it impossible for any federal court to uphold its constitutionality.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 22, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    @DaveSJ:
    "Doesn't anybody at the opinion desk read the Constitution?"

    Some people are reading it wrongly. Some say the 14th Amendment requires equal rights for gays to marry each other. What it actually says is that states cannot deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. And the Utah marriage laws say that anyone can marry anyone else. Just pick someone that is not already married; of legal age to marry; not a close relative such as mother, father, daughter, son; and not of the same sex. That seems like equal protection to me.

    "The protection and exercise of fundamental rights are not matters for opinion polls or the ballot box." (Kitchen v. Herbert, Opinion at p. 62):

    Sorry, but that's how state Constitutions get created... by the ballot box. The judge is mistaken because the Constitution says that there are certain rights retained by the people (Amendment 9). And one would assume that one of these rights is the right of the people to decide what marriage will be in the state. And Utah did it by the voice of the people in its Amendment 3.

  • SLC guy Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    This isn't about equal protection under the law, this is about the state providing incentives for citizens that enter into an institution shown to be of great benefit to society. the fundamental differences of a same gender union, in one example, preclude children from being raised by both their biological mother and father. Granted marriage has many failures, but government has limited means of providing incentives for parents to marry and remain married. We should as a society look for further ways to provide incentives that reinforce the "gold standard" of the family, rather than find new and creative ways to devalue marriage and the vital roles of mother and father.

  • DaveSJ Bainbridge Island, WA
    July 22, 2014 1:42 p.m.

    The News wants us to believe that Utah can do whatever it want, to whomever it wants, merely by resorting to "democratic process."

    Doesn't anybody at the opinion desk read the Constitution?

    Let's look at the law:

    * "The protection and exercise of fundamental rights are not matters for opinion polls or the ballot box." (Kitchen v. Herbert, Opinion at p. 62)

    * "[S]tate laws defining and regulating marriage...must respect the constitutional rights of persons." (United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. at 2691).

    Whether the News likes it or not, the good citizens of Utah can't vote to trample the rights of others. They just can't.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 22, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    "Under the law, no person can claim "feelings" as the basis for his behavior."

    So, Mike, has the AG asked you to present this argument for the state should the SCOTUS grant certiorari? It has to be as "solid" and argument as anything else presented by the state.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    July 22, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    I have a question for all of the folks who are basing the argument against Gay Marriage on the fact that Gay's/Lesbians do not have the ability to procreate. Do you folks ever watch the news? I know we are here to replenish the earth and all but I'm pretty sure we are no where near potentially snuffing out our species just because we let they Gay's get married.

    Some scholars and even some Christen Religions believe that God/Mother Nature only intended for 500 million human inhabitants of this planet. Any more throws the entire planet "out of whack" so to speak. I think it's fairly clear this world is severely overpopulated and I think it's fairly clear some bad things are going to come because of it.

    Don't believe me. Try driving on I-15 south at 5:30 P.M. Monday through Friday and then tell me don't have population problems.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 22, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    Is "same sex gender attraction" an inborn trait or is that "trait" cultivated? We have been told that there is no "same sex attraction" gene. We know that doctors can easily tell us which sex we are, if we doubt our own ability to see for outselves.

    A bank robber could easily tell us that his desire to rob a bank is an "inborn trait". He could cite his "feelings" about the real ownership of wealth. He could tell us that he "felt" that his family would benefit from a sudden influx of cash. He could tell us that he "felt" that some of the depositors had used fraud and deceit to become wealthy. A judge would throw his "feelings" out when determining whether the bank robber broke a law.

    In court, "feelings" don't matter.

    Under the law, no person can claim "feelings" as the basis for his behavior. Under the law, there are no prohibitions on marriage. Any man can marry any woman. Any woman can marry any man.

    Changing the fundamental unit of society is too costly a change when that change is based on "feelings".

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 22, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    To "Mickie" you said "Separate but equal is not equal at all". The problem is that heterosexual marriage and SSM are not equal. A heterosexual marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. In SSM you have 2 people of the same gender. A man is not the same thing as a woman, and a woman is not the same thing as a man. You are trying to enter your cat in a dog race. Yes it has four legs, fur, and runs fast, but it isn't a racing dog. Just because you think it is equal or can get a judge to declare it equal does not make it equal.

    Heterosexual marriage is NOT equal to SSM no matter how many judges rule on it.

    To "USU-Logan" the slippery slope argument is valid. Look at the Netherlands. They were the first to allow SSM, first by civil unions, then they legitimized it by giving it full marriage rights. Now, that same country has given legal status to polygamous civil unions. Within 10 years they should be legalizing polygamy there.

    To "Frozen Fractals" since when is homosexuality an inborn trait? All reasonable scientists still say they don't know.

  • nycut New York, NY
    July 22, 2014 12:22 p.m.

    @Meckofahess:

    Marriage equality exists where gay and straight people alike are permitted legal marriage. That's it. No moral, anatomical or biological dimension is required.

    Every day of your life people give you the right to define yourself and your experience of the world.
    They take your word for it that you think what you think, and feel what you feel, and are who you are.

    Why can't you do that for gay people?

    You think marriage is better between a man and a woman. Great. So think it.

    Look more closely at the country you live in, where the majority at the very least acknowledge that who someone else loves and marries is just none of their business. It's their decision to make, not yours.

    They believe gay people who say "this is me, this is who I love, this is who I am." But not you. You take for yourself a courtesy you won't give to others.

    Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of gay people are married, nothing "counterfeit" about it. You judge them morally inferior? Fine, judge away. Your acceptance might be appreciated, but is not required.

    Life, love and marriage belong to everyone.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 22, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    @USU-Logan:
    "@wrz - Don't you think your polygamy argument is getting old?"

    Not as old as SSM proponent arguments.

    "... the fact is, you have nothing to offer but slippery slope fallacy."

    I understood it to be slippery slop. Did I misunderstand?

    "I already told you to read the ruling of 10th circuit court, it explains well. so let me say it again, in case you can't find it..."

    Can't you summarize in a few words in a comment on this thread? Besides, judges and courts often make errors. As do politicians, as we can see in the Edmonds-Tucker Act of 1887 involving (gasp) polygamy.

    @Understands Math:
    "There is a rational basis for not allowing a 12-year-old to consume alcohol..."

    Alcohol affects children and adults the same... kills brain cells. It also is a major cause of deaths on the freeways. We need a return of Prohibition.

    "There is no rational basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples."

    It will negatively effect the concept of marriage and eventually destroy it. Gay folks should just live together. Why do they think marriage is needed?

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    July 22, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    @marxist
    As usual, your telling of history is inaccurate. While black slaves may have been prohibited from doing many things not to their owner's liking, such as leaving, traveling abroad, expressing their opinion, and, yes, even marrying, many were encouraged to raise families much as if they were cattle (I know, it sounds rather crude in light of today's sensibility). Don't leave out there were many free blacks who were not prohibited from marrying as long as they were husband and wife. The whole Civil War was fought to maintain an orderly and organized State of the Union. What we are seeing with these cases is the organized dismantling of the common order and structure of our society.

  • ~Rico~ Simi Valley, CA
    July 22, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    @wrz

    "In which case so is all other forms of marriage including polygamy, siblings, father/daughter, mother/son, etc. You name it. Else legal discrimination will have been installed by action of the courts."

    That comment really demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional issue presented. The constitutional issue is equal protection under the law. By Amendment 3, the State of Utah is seeking to deprive a class of 2 individuals (i.e., same-sex, unrelated, consenting adults) a fundamental right guaranteed to another class of 2 individuals (i.e., opposite-sex, unrelated, consenting adults). It is not a deprivation of equal protection under the law (i.e., a constitutional violation) to deprive 3 or more individuals the right to wed because NO group of 3 or more individuals is afforded that right by any state. As a result, your fears about polygamy and other unrecognized non-traditional forms of marriage are really unfounded.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "Should we change "marriage" so that 1.6% of the population can exercise their "feelings" towards someone else who has the same sex as they have?"

    Sexual orientation is an inborn trait, and since heterosexual people like you or I can exercise their "feelings" towards someone else with marriage, I don't see why homosexual people shouldn't be allowed to do that too.

    @Meckofahess
    "Same-sex marriage is also a divisive construct and will not result in the type of acceptance the gay community thinks it will."

    Actually it kinda is resulting in that type of acceptance, that's why support for it has increased so much the past 20 years. You compared it to abortion but I'd compare it to interracial marriage which around half a century ago most opposed it but now less than 10% of people oppose.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 22, 2014 12:00 p.m.

    "We expect that the Supreme Court will ultimately address the fundamental question in this case: Does the U.S. Constitution impose a requirement upon states to institute same-gender marriage?"

    If that isn't the most ridiculous statement EVER!

    This is no requirement to IMPOSE anything.
    It is simple of striking down any State Laws denying or BANNING a group of people the "equal rights" -- based only on the criteria of Gender, Race, Religion, Age, or Sexual Orientation.

    Which has been upheld over and over again.

    ========

    Mike --
    Being LDS is > 1.6% of the population, but you are guilty of doing this ALL the time.

    And if you fully understood that "marriage" is about Love, Committment, Sharing and Caring --- and not fixating, focusing and singling out ONLY...s-e-x, you'd agree.

    But obvioulsy you ONLY got married for s-e-x, we get that,
    but some of got married for far, FAR more important reasons...

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    July 22, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    AllBlack wrote: "So, for the pro-SSM here, why is it that a man can marry a man but I can't marry three women? (me being a man) Or is it that your lobbying is actually for us too and you are opening the way for a return to legal polygamy?"

    The case at hand is Kitchen v. Herbert. The specific case is dealing with same-sex marriage and has nothing to do with polygamy law.

    If you're so eager to enter into a legal polygamist marriage, then why don't you file a lawsuit and see what happens?

    Unless of course you're just arguing the typical "slippery slope" fallacy because you don't have any real arguments.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 22, 2014 11:51 a.m.

    @~Rico~:
    "The issue is whether it is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution for the states to deprive same-sex couples of the same fundamental rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples."

    Wrong. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment simply says that states will not deny persons within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. And Utah's marriage laws provides equal protection because all citizens can marry... provided they marry someone who's... not already married, of legal age, not closely related, and of the opposite sex. That's equal protection because it applies equally to all citizens of the state of Utah.

    You might argue, as some do, that the denial to marry anyone you wish, such as the same sex, is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. If that be the case so is the other restrictions to marriage shown in the above paragraph.

    So, take your pick... allow (1) all conceivable combinations of marriage or (2) restrict as indicated in Utah law. Number (1) will cause social chaos of unbelievable proportions and the eventual demise of marriage.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    July 22, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    Mickie,

    I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert, so this is just conjecture, but...

    As there are already children legally living in same-sex households, clearly there's some path for that to happen. The important issue for them is in the adoption by a second parent. While a couple in a relationship that is not a marriage cannot adopt, and certainly not as a couple, a single person can, even a single person with a "roommate." If that unmarried person has an adopted or natural child and then begins (or otherwise declares) a relationship with a same-sex partner, without marriage that partner cannot become a second parent through adoption.

    Certainly in the cases where lesbians have their own natural children from failed heterosexual marriages (hey, they tried!), the entire issue is whether their chosen partners can adopt and become legal parents to the children they love and are helping raise.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    July 22, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    @wrz
    Don't you think your polygamy argument is getting old?

    the fact is, you have nothing to offer but slippery slope fallacy.

    I already told you to read the ruling of 10th circuit court, it explains well. so let me say it again, in case you can't find it:

    Please google Kitchen v. Herbert and download the 10th circuit court ruling, it is a pdf file, and read judges' rebuttal to slippery slope fallacy, it is on Page 63.

  • AllBlack San Diego, CA
    July 22, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    "...because the majority hate gay people"

    I don't think the majority hate gay people. It's more about defending what we have now.

    However in the past the majority hated mormons and because of that hatred they legally banned and outlawed polygamist marriages. True they repelled the law back in the 70's but a man STILL can't marry 3 women legally in polygamy.

    So, for the pro-SSM here, why is it that a man can marry a man but I can't marry three women? (me being a man) Or is it that your lobbying is actually for us too and you are opening the way for a return to legal polygamy?

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    July 22, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "We should not be swayed because 1.6% of the population wants to change a fundamental unit of society..."

    FYI, the majority of American people support marriage right for same sex couples. and for young people, the number is 70-80%, it is just the matter of time that SSM will be seen the way as people see inter-racial marriage.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 22, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    @Jeff Harris:
    "The message is, states cannot carve out an exception to the equal protection clause of the US Constitutions because a majority hates gay people."

    The Federal government definitely carved out an exception to equal protection clause with the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 making polygamy illegal and causing the jailing of hundreds of husband and fathers.

    "The US Government cannot carve out an exception to the due process clause of the US Constitution because a majority of congress members hate gay people."

    The due process clause of the US Constitution has nothing to do with carving out exceptions to any conduct, including SSM. The due process clause merely means that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and that all levels of American government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures.

    @LeDoc:
    "SSM is coming, period."

    In which case so is all other forms of marriage including polygamy, siblings, father/daughter, mother/son, etc. You name it. Else legal discrimination will have been installed by action of the courts.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    July 22, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "...by deciding a case based, not on the law, but rather on the fashion of the day, or fealty to the political leanings of politicos who appointed them."

    Just because the rulings did not go your fashion, doesn't mean the judges did not decide the cases based on law.

    In those 20+ unbroken streak of different court rulings, many of the judges are appointed by Republican presidents, if you must know.

    @haggie

    Your comments support the argument that the driving force behind Amendment 3 was animus, not evidence, not rational basis.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    There is no such thing as "marriage equality". Marriage is a unique definition reserved for men and women united in that time honored relationship. So called "same-sex" marriage is nothing more than a counterfeit concept. Same-sex marriage is counter-anatomical, counter-biological, counter-moral and counter intellectual. And for those religious folks it is counter-scriptural as well. If the Supreme Court were to rule that states cannot determine the definition of marriage and the courts dictate this then we will have a mess on our hands. Same-sex marriage would end up being like abortion which is not accepted by a major percentage of Americans and is divisive in society. Same-sex marriage is also a divisive construct and will not result in the type of acceptance the gay community thinks it will. Better would be some sort of a legalized "same-gender partnership" where committed gays can have the typical legal benefits but not the same definition.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 22, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    @haggie: "Inequities of race are substantially different than moral and biological variances in sexual relationships."

    You must be young. When I was in high school, in the 70s, I heard religious and political leaders arguing that not only were interracial relationships immoral, but so were integrated schools and neighborhoods.

    "God says..." or the more rational sounding talk of general "morality" has long been used as smokescreen and distraction for pure prejudice.

    Alabama's population adopted the argument that integration was harmful. It required the US Army to protect children going to school in the face of naked hate.

    The same old arguments are the same old arguments, even if you do slap a new coat of paint on the outside.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 22, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    We should not be swayed because 1.6% of the population wants to change a fundamental unit of society. Their demands are based on race or national origin. Instead, they base their entire case on their "feelings". No doctor would be able to find a physical reason for their claim. No government official would be able to see any reason for their claim that they are discriminated against unless he threw out the law and administered his office on "feelings".

    Should we change "marriage" so that 1.6% of the population can exercise their "feelings" towards someone else who has the same sex as they have? What would be the basis for doing that? They claim "equality under the law" as their reason. Again, no doctor would agree that they have any claim of being discriminated against. ANY MAN can marry any woman who will have him. ANY WOMAN can marry any man who will have her.

    There is NO discrimination under the law. Feelings are not reasons to change marriage any more than letting feelings determine the fate of a bank robber "under the law".

  • Mickie SLC, UT
    July 22, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    Ack. Phone went on the fritz.

    Utah law: title 78B, Chapter 6, Section 117

    (3) A child may not be adopted by a person who is cohabiting in a relationship that is not a legally valid and binding marriage under the laws of this state.

    Am I misinterpreting the law (I would love it if I am)? To me this states that any couple living together that is not married cannot adopt.

    PS: Note that the law makes very specific and stringent rules for adoption when it comes to single parents anyway. So even if one person in the same sex household could adopt, the state makes it difficult for them to do so.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 22, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    haggie says:
    "An argument could similarly be made that a 12 year old doesn't have the same rights as a 26 year old ..."

    --- We're comparing adults to adults. And you mention apples/oranges.

    "Utah's population has adopted the argument that SSM is harmful to its population."

    --- With absolutely no proof whatsoever.

    " The morality or immorality of that lifestyle is a judgment made of the population and a constitutional right to create laws. "

    --- Sigh. The Constitution protects ALL citizens, not just heterosexual citizens. Heterosexual citizen do not have the right to violate the Constitutional Rights of gay citizens.

    "While the relationship of two sexually incompatible people is considered both immoral and a deviation from the natural."

    --- Being gay is natural for me. Nature created gay creatures, thus, we are as "natural" as straight creatures.

    "The population does not want the immoral and the biological deviation to become acceptable ..."

    --- "Immoral" is relative. Bigotry and discrimination are "immoral".

    "Families purpose is to care for offspring which SSM couples can not create."

    --- Offspring which infertile & elderly couples cannot create, yet you allow them to marry (hypocrisy).

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    July 22, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    Reserve the word marriage for one man married to one woman. There is no need to destroy the meaning of the word marriage for a subset of the population who wants to use it for their own unions. There is an inherent, biological difference. And its ok to have a word such as marriage to make the distinction.

  • Mickie SLC, UT
    July 22, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    @A Quaker

    Review the adoption laws yourself.

    Title 78B, Chapter 6, Section 117:

    (3) A cold Matt

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    July 22, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    Why is the DN and the state of Utah so opposed to committed people marrying? I don't understand this irrational fear. You don't want your gay children to marry and live chaste lives? You want to force them to "live in sin"? You don't want to let them into your churches and equal, devoted members? why?

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    July 22, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    @haggie wrote: 'Proponents of SSM use the argument of racial inequities as the basis of their argument for SSM, comparing apples to oranges for the purpose of shaming those who believe differently than they do. An argument could similarly be made that a 12 year old doesn't have the same rights as a 26 year old because they can't drink alcohol or drive a car.'

    There is a rational basis for not allowing a 12-year-old to consume alcohol or drive a vehicle on the public highways: it is a legitimate public health issue on both accounts.

    There is no rational basis for denying marriage to same-sex couples.

    'Inequities of race are substantially different than moral and biological variances in sexual relationships.'

    I think that is a meaningless, word-salad sentence.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 22, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    @Mickie: One slight correction. Same sex couples already can adopt children, even in Utah. But, because of Utah's adoption laws, only one of them can be a legal parent to any one child. They can adopt two or more children, but each child only gets one legal parent. One may have one parent, and another may have the other, or one partner may be the one legal parent to all. Only if a couple (gay or straight) is married, are they both allowed to be legal parents to an adopted child.

    All preventing same sex marriage does in a family like that is prevent adoptees from being legal siblings or having two legal parents. It has no effect whatsoever on how many children they're allowed to adopt. The adoption laws regulate that, and like I said, Utah law doesn't make any effort to prevent single-parent adoption, regardless of sexual orientation.

  • skrekk Dane, WI
    July 22, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    @Oh Really? "Same-sex marriage is NOT the same as interracial marriage. There are inherent, unalienable differences."

    I'm in a mixed-race marriage and one of our daughters is gay. It seems that the states which deny marriage equality to my daughter today are the very same ones which denied my own marriage until just a few decades ago. And it's rather absurd that one of my daughters is denied a basic civil right which her sisters are each free to exercise.

    Simply put, the state has no legitimate interest in the relative race or relative gender of your spouse. That's why states like Utah have lost every single court ruling to date since the Windsor ruling last year. Within a year this issue will be concluded and all my kids will have the same rights no matter where they live in the US.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    July 22, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    "As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe."

    Justice Antonin Scalia
    United States v Windsor
    (CV12-307, June 26, 2013)

  • Robert Johnson Sunland, CA
    July 22, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    The Deseset News is also ignoring the huge message that was very clear in the DOMA case which caused Justice Scalia to engage in a vitriolic dissent in which even he declared that "the writing is on the wall". It is very clear that if the USSC takes up the issue of marriage equality in the next session, barring any change in the balance or change of idealogy, that marriage equality will become the law of the land.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    Honestly the only thing Utah has going for it at this point is that another state will make a bigger embarrassment of itself (like Oklahoma politicians considering for a week or so the idea of abolishing all state marriage recognition entirely).

  • Mickie SLC, UT
    July 22, 2014 9:20 a.m.

    "Families purpose is to care for offspring which SSM couples can not create."

    Yet there are multitudes of children without homes. While a same sex couple cannot create (without the intervention of scientific procedures or a surrogate/donor), they are more than capable of adopting if law did not prohibit this. Same sex couples are capable of providing loving homes for children. They are capable of providing a more stable environment for children than the foster system can provide. Can you tell me why it's better to deny same sex couples marriage, and therefore adoption, and leave these children in foster care? I can't think of any reasons.

  • haggie Visalia, CA
    July 22, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    Proponents of SSM use the argument of racial inequities as the basis of their argument for SSM, comparing apples to oranges for the purpose of shaming those who believe differently than they do. An argument could similarly be made that a 12 year old doesn't have the same rights as a 26 year old because they can't drink alcohol or drive a car. Inequities of race are substantially different than moral and biological variances in sexual relationships.

    Utah's population has adopted the argument that SSM is harmful to its population. The morality or immorality of that lifestyle is a judgment made of the population and a constitutional right to create laws. To deny biologically compatible individuals from marrying because it is immoral (such as no interracial marriages allowed) is symptomatic of prejudice. While the relationship of two sexually incompatible people is considered both immoral and a deviation from the natural. The population does not want the immoral and the biological deviation to become acceptable as it harms and undermines a valuable institution (family). Families purpose is to care for offspring which SSM couples can not create.

  • Mickie SLC, UT
    July 22, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    "Personally, I am 100% behind Civil Unions, but there must a recognition of the difference between same-sax and heterosexual unions."

    Separate but equal is not equal at all.

    Utah boasts the largest number of same sex families raising children. By denying these children's parents marriage, you tell them they are not important. You leave them in a legal limbo should their legal guardian parent die.

    These families already exist and will continue to exist. So the only thing you do by denying same sex marriage is harm the children if these families and stigmatize their existence.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    July 22, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    "Put 100 different same-sex couples on 100 different unpopulated islands and visit them in 10 years and there will not be a single child."

    Are we going to establish laws based on hypothetical birth rates of couples placed on unpopulated islands, or are we going to base the laws on the people who actually live within our state? Like it or not, we have gay and lesbian couples living within the borders of our fine state, and they deserve the same legal rights and protections as everyone else. Their inability to produce offspring in an isolated setting has no bearing in this issue. We are a community, and it's past the time for us to be more inclusive in this community.

    "The Supreme Court issued a stay of Shelby’s ruling, reinstating the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages..."

    Actually, what a stay of execution means is that we are postponing what the two courts have declared unconstitutional until SCOTUS takes a look at it. Based on the common outcomes in over 20 court rulings so far, I suspect SCOTUS will come back to Utah and tell us to go with the 10th Circuit's ruling.

  • ~Rico~ Simi Valley, CA
    July 22, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    Wow DN! If you're going to publish an editorial, you should at least make sure you understand the issue first. The issue before the court is not whether "the U.S. Constitution impose[s] a requirement upon states to institute same-gender marriage" as you assert. The issue is whether it is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution for the states to deprive same-sex couples of the same fundamental rights enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. Big, big difference and you either know it and are being deliberately misleading, or you don't know it and therefore shouldn't be editorializing about it.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 22, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    "....We expect that the Supreme Court will ultimately address the fundamental question in this case: Does the U.S. Constitution impose a requirement upon states to institute same-gender marriage?...."
    ______________________________

    The Deseret News misstates the issue with that statement. Authorizing same sex marriage is not ‘instituting’ anything. It’s simply legalizing that which is already legal for a limited segment of society.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 22, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    Oh Really? says:

    "Put 100 different same-sex couples on 100 different unpopulated islands and visit them in 10 years and there will not be a single child."

    Are you so sure about that? If a gay couple wants children, they could always find a willing lesbian couple to help. If a lesbian couple wants children they could always find a willing gay couple to help. We're not as selfish as you seem to be; wanting to keep others from enjoying the same benefits you enjoy.

    If you are 100% behind "civil unions" then you are still going to have to overturn Utah's amendment 3 because it prohibits civil unions right along with marriage. In any case, it's far too late for compromise. You REFUSED to let us have CU's to begin with, now we are going to get more than just crumbs from the table, we'll enjoy the feast with you.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 22, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    This may not mean much to you, but to those of us who've recited it some 2500 times in the course of our schooling, it ought to mean something:

    "I pledge Allegiance to the flag
    of the United States of America
    and to the Republic for which it stands,
    one nation under God, indivisible,
    with Liberty and Justice for all."

    Note especially, two things. 1) "indivisible"; and 2) "for all."

    The Supreme Court, should it rule, has limited options. A ruling against same-sex marriage doesn't put the toothpaste back in the tube in those 19 states that legalized it. A state's rights decision leaves those in place. The most such a ruling would accomplish would be to divide the country into two distinct segments, breaking the "indivisible" United States into two. Even if they favor "tradition," would they want to divide the US into two separate legal systems?

    As for the second thing... "with Liberty and Justice for all" is pretty self-explanatory.

  • Oh Really? HERRIMAN, UT
    July 22, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    Same-sex marriage is NOT the same as interracial marriage. There are inherent, unalienable differences.

    Put 100 21 year old interracial heterosexual couples on 100 different unpopulated islands, visit them in 10 years, and 99 of those islands will have children on them.

    Put 100 different same-sex couples on 100 different unpopulated islands and visit them in 10 years and there will not be a single child.

    Proponents of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples ignore that difference, seeking to to grant a status or right that that type of union, as the Declaration states, "endowed by their creator," whether you consider that creator to be Nature or Nature's God.

    Personally, I am 100% behind Civil Unions, but there must a recognition of the difference between same-sax and heterosexual unions.

    Some will say there are non-child-bearing heterosexual marriages. Indeed there are, but that does not alter the fact that as a group or class, the differences are inherent, unalienable, defined by nature and marriage should be defined similarly.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 22, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    I strongly disagree with the conclusion the editorial writer draws. Granting stays on a volatile issue like this is not evidence that the Supreme Court has predetermined the outcome. In my view, they're simply granting Utah's government every possible legal courtesy along the way to the most likely conclusion of this controversy. Which, I'm lead to expect you won't like.

    It's not even clear that the Supreme Court will weigh in at the end. While there's a strong chance that they may want to put their stamp on the case, there's also some possibility that they'll "deny cert" and let the Circuit Court decisions, as long as they're uniformly in agreement, stand.

    If you're hoping for this to go to the Supreme Court, you should first hope that one of the 11 Circuits rules in favor of "tradition." You were one judge shy of that at the 10th Circuit, but judging from the fact your AG passed up the opportunity of a full "en banc" appeal, I'm guessing he thought it was lucky to even get that one dissenter.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 22, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    Sigh.... The DesNews puts an unusual twist to their argument. It will be interesting to see how they spin a possible decision that doesn't go their way.

    Let's do this. I want the DesNews to come out and say they do not believe in equal protection under the law and the Constitution. Just say it, once and for all. Just tell us that the founding principles are conditional, depending on whether the application concurs with your view of the world. Come on, say it. I know that's what you think.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 22, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    @firstamendment;

    Banning LGBT couples from marriages does absolute NOTHING to promote "Healthy heterosexual relationships are crucial for our children...".

    Judge Shelby didn't "strike down our Constitution", he UPHELD it. Utah citizens, voting on amendment 3, stripping equal treatment under the law from LGBT citizens are the ones who were "striking down our Constitution".

    Marriage between LGBT couples does absolutely nothing to "harm humanity"; that's all in your head and if you're that frightened, perhaps you should seek help for it.

    If you really are concerned about "the children" and "humanity" then fight bigotry and discrimination; while you're at it, fight against divorce, cheating, war, poverty, etc. All these things are far more important to the success of "humanity and the children" than preventing gays from marrying.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 22, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    For the 2nd time, your opinion is wrong.

    "The Supreme Court issued a stay of Shelby’s ruling, reinstating the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages and allowing it to continue until a ruling from a federal appeals court."

    The state constitutional ban on same-sex marriages is NOT legal; the ruling that it was unconstitutional it is simply on hold - but it is still considered unconstitutional until the SCOTUS says otherwise.

    Utah's "democratic process" is not allowed to violate the constitutional rights of citizens of the USA. Please go read the 10th amendment.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 22, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    Re: "I think the end result is already determined."

    While that may be, the United States Supreme Court is dedicated to the rule of law. Under the rule of law, these things should be decided according to the procedures laid down in the law. Not according to the whim of unelected activist judges, seeking their 15 minutes of fame by deciding a case based, not on the law, but rather on the fashion of the day, or fealty to the political leanings of politicos who appointed them.

    It's gratifying to see Justice Sotomayor, whose vote on the outcome of any case involving same-sex marriage is entirely predictable, and likely formed the basis for her selection by the President in the first place, take her job seriously enough to honor the rule of law, applying long-accepted procedures and precedents, rather than the pandering, illegal shortcuts of judges below.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    July 22, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    Utah's battle against the rising tide of equality is starting to make it look like King Canute!

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 22, 2014 7:09 a.m.

    "...Message delivered — again...".

    2 to 1.

    Again 2 to 1.

    The DN will be equally dismissive regarding the endless 5 to 4 decisions delivered by the SCOTUS.

    Right?

    "...arbiters of this major cultural battleground. But their constitutional role relative to the nation’s inferior courts requires them to damper the rush by federal district court judges to implicitly overturn Supreme Court precedents...".

    Courts are defined as inferior only when rushing to implicitly overturn precedents favored by the DN.

    Right?

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 22, 2014 7:08 a.m.

    It would be dangerous to think one can anticipate a favorable decision from the decision to stay enforcement of the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmation of the same sex marriage decisions.

    Seems to me the Court is merely following precedent. Of course, precedent means little to the current conservative majority on the Court.

  • LeDoc SLC, UT
    July 22, 2014 5:52 a.m.

    SSM is coming, period. It would seem like all the $ being spent to fight it could be better used on something else.There was once a time not long ago when (some) interracial marriage was illegal too. That change doesn't seem to have affected others negatively. Time to move on.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    July 22, 2014 5:03 a.m.

    Why are the State of Utah and the Deseret News overlooking the same message sent by each and every court that has heard a marriage-equality case post-Windsor? The message is, states cannot carve out an exception to the equal protection clause of the US Constitutions because a majority hates gay people.

    For that matter, why are the State of Utah and the Deseret News overlooking the Supreme Court's similar message from Windsor? The US Government cannot carve out an exception to the due process clause of the US Constitution because a majority of congress members hate gay people.

  • Hugh1 Denver, CO
    July 22, 2014 3:35 a.m.

    What is winning? "This latest Supreme Court action is encouraging. Utah’s marriage laws remain intact for now." Intact, really? In law perhaps, but not in the world of public opinion. Try extending the timeline in the story in months and then try decades. Every two months or so gay marriage wins another battle, overcoming opposition mostly built on anti-gay stereotypes. Now, anti-gay marriage activists have retrenched to defending states rights - the best case scenario is a technical 5/4 Supreme Court decision ASAP. hence Utah's direct appeal. It is the threat of a future reversal that is Chief Justice Roberts' dilemma - outlaw gay equality, get reversed; support gay marriage, get attacked by the right-wing (including Scalia and Thomas). Best advice, punt. Same sex marriage is coming to states like Colorado soon, regardless. If winning is viewed as delaying same sex marriage, that's a possibility, but public opinion is on a two month cycle, and within decades, same sex marriage seems a certainty nationwide. So, is this winning?

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 12:51 a.m.

    There was another great U.S. population which was denied the right to marry, and that was the black slave population. Black slavery was well established in the colonies by 1650. From then until the end of the Civil War in 1865 black slaves were denied marriage and the ability to form stable families. Think of it! The denial of the marriage privilege and slavery itself was justified with scripture, which scripture was eventually found to be completely baseless.

    I suspect the justification for denying same sex marriage is to be found in scripture (that's why it is tied to religious freedom). Those who oppose same sex marriage should be thoroughly upfront about the basis for their opposition. They should cite specific scriptures.

    One more thing. Is a scriptural support enough to support a freedom of religion argument, or does the scripture have be rational? I would argue that if the scripture is irrational, the argument fails.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    July 22, 2014 12:32 a.m.

    I still have no idea why Judge Shelby would ever think that governments and taxpayers have a responsibility to legally enforce, promote, etc. homosexuality. Gays are free to love, enter contracts, etc.
    Healthy heterosexual relationships are crucial for our children, and for humanity. Anything that unnecessarily detracts from the sanctity marriage isn't good for us, and no judge should have so much power that they can force their opinions over government by the People and strike down our Constitution.
    Gay marriage benefits only a few, and harms humanity in general, those who truly love should really think about everyone, rather than just what they want right now.

  • Outside-View Federal Way, WA
    July 22, 2014 12:13 a.m.

    If Utah wants a marriage definition of being only between a man and a woman, then the State will also need to provide some type of civil union recognition with benefits pretty much the same as marriage.

    CA Prop 8 provided the same benefits for gays, Lesbians and heterosexuals. If the Supreme Court was inclinded to support this defination and state right, why didnt they rule that way with Prop 8 instead of declining based on a technicality?

    I think the end result is already determined.