Utah gay-marriage advocates disappointed

But LDS officials say the California court's ruling is 'welcome'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Weasler
    Jan. 16, 2010 11:13 a.m.

    What do you people think this will
    achieve? Suppose they passed gay
    "marriage" everywhere, in exactly
    the form you wanted it. Do you
    think the whole world is now going to
    view you as "normal"? Guess again.

    Don't like that? Think it's 'homophobic',
    whatever THAT is? Sorry, but that's the way
    the world is.

  • Unpersuaded
    June 1, 2009 1:52 p.m.

    "#3 The actions to take rights from people who do not personally affect you is loving?"

    My actions are not driven by love any moreso than they are motivated by hate. I disagree with the premise of LGBT / hedonism / indulgence / addiction / whatever.

    Are you suggesting that "Well, gee...what can it hurt?" is a compelling argument?

    From a historical perspective, are successful, long-lasting societies built on a foundation of homosexuality? I say "no". Hence, my attitudes and actions. No hate required. Please do continue accusing me of hate, though, if it helps you feel like more of a victim.

  • Unpersuaded
    June 1, 2009 9:52 a.m.

    "You keep saying, 'being gay is a choice'."

    You're right. We do keep saying that. And yes, some of us have opinions that aren't dictated by the leadership of the LDS Church.

    Personally, I'll quit mentioning it--not because I'm giving up the opinion, but because it doesn't matter. Whether or not it's a choice has no bearing on whether or not it's in the best interest of society.

    We can either agree it's good (not likely to happen) or bad (not likely to happen) or indifferent (not likely to happen), or we can just continue waging battles at the polls, in the courts, in the press, in online forums :-), etc. I'm okay with that. I'm not going to throw any parties or lose any sleep over it, one way or the other.

  • Unpersuaded
    June 1, 2009 8:48 a.m.

    Let me cut to the chase: Yeah, I have an opinion about the whole LGBT agenda. It wasn't forged in a Sunday School class, either.

    It was derived from first-hand experiences with homosexuals. In short, for every homosexual in my personal circle of acquaintances (family, friends, roommates, etc.), pornography, grooming, and--in a few cases--public exposure/indecency--have been a part of their life story. Thus, my personal experiences persuade me to believe that LGBT isn't about love and family. Instead, it appears to be more about sex and hedonism.

    I understand if anyone wants to assume I'm just making it up, blowing things out of proportion, making a broad generalization, etc. I understand if someone's reaction is, "We/they aren't all like that." That's okay...I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion.

    Like everyone else, my personal observations and experiences mean more to me than the rhetoric of others. Maybe my opinions will change when I start seeing more evidence that LGBT is based on more than indulgence.

    Fine: it's not a "choice". Birth defects aren't a choice, but that doesn't make them good. Right?

  • Vince
    May 31, 2009 6:54 p.m.

    Unpersuaded | 8:31 a.m. May 30, 2009

    Sorry, on every point your voice, tone, and content does not represent the sentiment of LGBT.

    #1 It is not "lifestyle." It is inherent rights to the rights that heterosexuals have.

    If people that live together "in sin" do so, yet, they are allowed to do so under the law.

    The one legislation in question targets the LGBT community as a community which, acording to the majority view, cannot live committed loving relationships just as heterosexuals can.

    #2 Family, in any sociology textbook, is not defined as a mother and a father who never get divorced, and have children. Yet, this is the very market which "preservation of traditional marriage" is trying to sell.

    #3 The actions to take rights from people who do not personally affect you is loving?

    #4 I have seen people on both sides express anger and victimization on both sides. Yet, after all is over, only one side had their rights to marry taken away. The other wide still has the right to marry.

  • Vince
    May 31, 2009 3:55 p.m.

    Being Gay is not a choice

    To some of you who fail to grasp the meaning of what it means to be gay.

    Some of you have gay sons and daughters, gay neighbors, gay friends, etc.

    Many of them are good, honest people, you know them because they know they are your friends and relatives.

    Some of them have never lied to you about important issues.

    Why do you think they would lie to you about this one issue, particularly about one that affects the way they identify themselves?

    There is nothing for gay people to gain from saying "I am gay" to their friends and family except a sense of self-realization once they finally come out of the closet and affirm who they are.

    Quite the contrary, many of them have much to lose.

    Why would they risk saying that they are gay and inevitably face a life that is altogether different from what the "normal" is?

    You seriously think that they would think, "well, I know it is a choice. I woke up one morning, and I decided to be gay" and that they would risk alienating friends and family?

  • Vince
    May 31, 2009 3:42 p.m.

    Some of you don't know your own arguments. Either that or you fail to accept them?

    You keep saying, "being gay is a choice"

    You are so eager to quote the Proclamation to the World, Romans, Levititus, take your pick, you love those quotes.

    And yet.... The Church has said,

    "ELDER OAKS: Thats where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions whether nature or nurture those are things the Church doesnt have a position on."

    When we turn to the professionals, they quote the same. I have quoted numerous articles, quotes, statements by the APA, for example, all stating in fact, that "there is no conclusive data as to why gays are gay"

    Are we saying that in the course of making a decision we are going against,

    1. What the Church says it does not have a position on --- specifically, gay being a choice
    2. The professionals --- with some studies going back as much as thirty years, and growing

  • Vince
    May 31, 2009 3:24 p.m.

    People don't lose when they fail to win one race.

    People lose when they fail to keep on.

  • Vince
    May 31, 2009 3:15 p.m.

    The Rock | 1:27 p.m. May 26, 2009

    Yes, Rock

    we know your line, is that everything you can add to the issue?


    Abraham Lincoln said a tail is a tail not a leg, etc.

    Ahem, He said that in the 1860s, when polygamy was allowed in a certain territory.

    Question for you, Rock, what was that called exactly?

    Not marriage?

    When we look at the history of polygamy, is that marriage or not - or is it something else?

    Now that Proposition 8 has been upheld as being defined as between "one man and one woman."

    Can we therefore, revisit history and call polygamous marriages something other marriages?

    Please, I wait your reply.

  • Unpersuaded
    May 30, 2009 8:31 a.m.

    Let me see if I can adequately capture some of the principles behind the pro-homosexual marriage movement:

    1. "We are desperate for others to validate our lifestyle choice, and calling our relationship 'marriage' seems like a good way to achieve that."

    2. "Defining a 'family' as a unit designed to provide for raising and nurturing children--and providing a community with the populace necessary to survive--is too restrictive. The definition needs to be expanded to validate hedonism as well."

    3. "We realize that our rationale for and the justifications of our behavior are shaky, so don't take it personally when we accuse _everyone_ who disagrees with us as being hateful."

    3b. "We expect that everyone will give into our demands if we sound angry and victimized enough, independent of our shaky principles or lack of principles altogether."

    4. "We realize that a large number of homosexuals in the liberal country The Netherlands commit suicide, but since we're in Utah, we'll blame the LDS Church. It helps enhance our public perception as victims."

    Lack of space prevents me from continuing, but I think I've captured the fundamental principles.

  • RockOn
    May 30, 2009 7:46 a.m.

    What's the big deal?
    Simply this. No proof, just supposition and conjecture, exists to prove Gay is genetic. If not genetic, then it is behavioral. If behavioral it can be learned or unlearned. If it can be learned, gay pedophile scout masters can influence. So can gay parents.

    However, if proof ever comes that Gay is genetic and never behavioral, then the argument changes.

    Until then gay does not equal skin color. Gay should receive no special protection under the law. Physically harming someone regardless of the justification except immediate self preservation should be prosecuted.

    Gays should have all civil rights as any other American citizen... they now have the right to marry the woman of their choice just like any other man. And if not marriage they should have the right to make contracts of endowment.

    By the way... welcome to the slippery slope. If there is found a 'GAY GENE" then what are you going to say about a bestiality gene, or a pedophile gene?

    In the meantime, gays, you CAN decide who you're attracted to and not attracted to. You aren't turned on by your father... that is a choice.

  • Anonymous
    May 30, 2009 1:21 a.m.

    @Re: Gay divorce
    PAST studies of homosexual families

    First by your chosing to call gays/lesbians homosexuals, I know what your bias is. Not even willing to respect enough to call us what we call OURSELVES.

    Secod I'm all pins and needles to see these "STUDIES" of LGBT families you CLAIM exist, cuz unless they are from Europe there aren't American studies of OUR families...yet.
    So show me your studies, and give links to your sources.....which you folks who just make up garbage can NEVER provide.
    put up or shut up

  • Anonymous
    May 30, 2009 1:04 a.m.

    @gay divorce

    What the would lead you to believe prop 8 had ANYTHING to do with adultry?....which in case you haven't noticed isn't illegal and hasn't been an issue since before the 1960's.

  • Re: Gay divorce
    May 29, 2009 11:55 p.m.

    If past studies of homosexual families are any indication, it seems that future studies will show whatever their biased authors want them to. Unfortunately, it seems that very few objective comparisons of homosexual and heterosexual families have been made; objectivity is made even more difficult by the selective participation of gay families.

  • Gay divorce
    May 29, 2009 10:56 a.m.

    What is often overlooked is that gay divorces are highly discouraged by this decision.
    Maureen O'Connor, head of the Gay and Lesbian Liberation Front, stated: "Sadly, the 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples will not have the chance to remarry if divorced. But the bright news is that these couples will have to work harder to make their relationships work, and future studies will show that gay and lesbian marriage works even better than heterosexual marriage. We also are encouraged by a ruling that adultery cannot be punished by the state, so gay and lesbian couples can have open relationships with no fear of state retribution."

  • the not Vince gay
    May 29, 2009 1:52 a.m.

    ......very very very much

    ~lily allens

  • re - To "Really?" @ 1:53pm 12:37
    May 28, 2009 5:28 p.m.

    ["Something I believe in IS in jeopardy: marriage between one man and one woman."]

    the funniest part of your statement is that you can HAVE the word "marriage". What's going to happen is the gov't will simply change it to "civil union" and that's what everyone will get. If you want to get "married" then first you have to have a civil union, after which if you want to go to your church and have a little marriage ceremony, which won't have any legal standing, then go right ahead.

    and those people that have civil unions (everyone) will still be able to say "yes, we're married". So while you have your little religious ceremony, after all that, and you say "we're married" then the two women right next to you will be able to say the same thing...

    can't wait to see the look on your face...

    so sure - keep the word "marriage". It's just a word anyway. soon it won't even matter.

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 3:21 p.m.

    "Something I believe in IS in jeopardy: marriage between one man and one woman."

    Do you mean that when we have gay marriage, all marriages between opposite sexes will cease? I stand all amazed! I did not know that was happening in Massachusetts where they have had gay marriage for 5 years now.

    Ask you fellow members in Boston if their lives have changed or if they now have different beliefs. I think you might be surprised by the answer. The sky did not fall and temple marriages in the Boston temple are continuing.

  • to - Roger | 1:51 p.m
    May 28, 2009 2:32 p.m.

    ["Yes, I know how bigoted I sound. Merely disagreeing with you makes me a bigot - I get it!"]

    it's not that you disagree. it's that you are a paranoid scitzophrenic and are throwing out bizarre conspiracy theories against a minority.

    or do you actually believe the crazy things you say?

  • Roger
    May 28, 2009 1:51 p.m.

    re: - Roger | 1:49 p.m | 3:21 p.m. May 27, 2009

    Yes, I know how bigoted I sound. Merely disagreeing with you makes me a bigot - I get it!

  • To "Really?" @ 1:53pm
    May 28, 2009 12:37 p.m.

    You said:

    "Maybe when something you believe in is in jeopardy, you will understand and hope for others to respect you and your opinions."

    Something I believe in IS in jeopardy: marriage between one man and one woman. I feel just as passionately about my side of the argument as you do yours. I do "hope for others to respect [my] opinons." I'm hoping you will respect mine right now. I respect your opinion. Let's be clear: "respect" does not equal "agreement" or "endorsement". And in the USA, when parties disagree about law, we hold elections to determine the law of the land. This issue will come up on the ballot again, and we'll see what the majority votes for. What I can assure you is that if Prop 8 would have failed, you wouldn't have seen the behavior from Prop 8 supporters that we have all witnessed from the LGBT community.

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2009 12:28 p.m.

    Just wondering, did the Des News do any piece focusing solely on the feelings of the other side over their victory? I find the focus on the "historically disadvantaged" homosexuals a little annoying, considering everything ...

  • re: 7:04
    May 28, 2009 10:01 a.m.

    Ive heard about gays cross dressing as nuns once. I guess if I've heard it ONCE like youve heard it ONCE then by your logic all gays dress up as nuns.

  • Hooray!
    May 27, 2009 10:39 p.m.

    A win for fundamental values and goodness!

  • True
    May 27, 2009 8:51 p.m.

    Anger from the liberal crybabies. Confidence from the right. Life is good.

  • Boo Hoo
    May 27, 2009 8:36 p.m.

    Justice prevails!

  • To 6:55
    May 27, 2009 7:04 p.m.

    Don't all polygamist have special sex beds? I have never heard of gays having sex beds? I read all about it once on the polygamist compound.

  • Re: Anonymous | 5:52 p.m.
    May 27, 2009 6:38 p.m.

    Very funny. Your wit is astounding. You should be on tv.

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 5:50 p.m.

    This is considered a "moral wrong" under religion. Why should religion be involved at all? I think that this should be up to the individual. Employers cannot discriminate against sexual orientation, why can the state government? It shouldn't be the government's decision who I am allowed to marry. Black, white, gay, straight, who cares? Does this effect others? No. Your life will go on if two people of the same sex get married. Is your marriage so unstable that it will make it mean any less? If so, you have bigger problems.

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 5:04 p.m.

    I am saddened that at this day and age, gays still cannot obtain the basic rights as everyone else. For those against gay marriage, how does gay marriage negatively affect your daily life? I hope we can continue to progress as a nation and I know that one day, gay marriage will be allowed in every state.

  • re: to posters using religion
    May 27, 2009 4:48 p.m.

    It is very arrogant to think you have the final say in what common sense is. What is sad is that I could say to you, "let's agree to disagree", but you believe you are the final authority and do not want to allow me the right to an opinion I've thought long and hard to form.

  • Its Inevitable
    May 27, 2009 4:37 p.m.

    This is not about "gay marriage." It is about equal protection under the law.

    The California Supreme Court's ruling only said that California voters had a right to amend their constitution and that the initiative did not violate the rights of gays under STATE laws. In doing so the majority opinion took great pains to try and limit the decision's impact.

    Now it is rightly being challenged in FEDERAL court under the equal protection clause of the US CONSTITUTION. The fact that the State Supremem Court honored the validity of the 18,000 LEGAL same sex marriages already perfomed will make it very difficult for the US Supreme Court to deny equal protection.

  • Frank
    May 27, 2009 4:35 p.m.

    @re - anao at 2:07pm | 3:09 p.m

    I wasnt aware that marriage was created to provide for easy divorce. Since marriage is just to prepare for divorce why dont we ask wedding couples to provide divorce lawyers as well as witnesses at a wedding.

    I dont know about you but after I learned to divide by 2 I learned to divide by 3 even 4. My math skills might not extend past my ten fingers but I think division by other fractions other than 1/2 IS possible.

  • Rights
    May 27, 2009 4:12 p.m.

    Dear Dallas and all other well intentioned bigots.
    You just don't get it. If you don't approve of a life style that is different to yours, that is O.K., it's your right. You have all the right in the world to disagree. That is not the issue, you have the right to your opinion. But democracy doesn't give the right to a majority to deprive of the benefits they enjoy to a minority.
    We may disagree with gay life style, we can say is a sin, we can say is degrading, etc. etc. but that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But, democracy and freedom of expression cannot be justification for the oppression of a minority. Gays pay taxes and vote as any other citizen. People here have been mentioning children.. Well!! Thank gays, single people, couples without children that are helping to pay for the schooling of your children.
    Freedom of religion is O.K. too, no Gay marriage should be than in LDS buildings. But don't deny the courthouse that is secular and for all citizens.

  • Linus
    May 27, 2009 4:05 p.m.

    Re: ex post facto! I am so pleased to learn that when the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act that outlawed plural marriage, all those who were already in a plural marriage could continue to practice it in peace. . . NOT!!!!!!!!!

    The truth is that a marital practice that is repugnant to society can be outlawed (polygamy and slavery), and the laws can be enforced upon those who were already practicing it. The California justices used this sanction to get a big boot in the door in line with their own personal agenda.

  • Re: to posters using religion
    May 27, 2009 3:51 p.m.

    You take for granted that God does not exist, and base all your arguments on this premise. But you can't know that God doesn't exist; that's just your belief. Therefore your opinions are equally biased by superstition.

  • Solution??
    May 27, 2009 3:40 p.m.

    I read an interesting article yesterday about France & their solution to this polarizing issue. People have really strong feeling on this issue because of the word 'marriage', which currently has legal and religious connotations. France has removed the legal connotation - they now only issue 'civil union' licenses, which are given to both gays and straights. Then people can take this license and have a civil union ceremony, or if they choose, go to a church of their choice for a marriage ceremony.
    This seems to be a workable solution to me.
    For those who oppose gay marriage, they can determine for themselves what other churches do (including gays) to be invalid, thereby preserving their religious beliefs for the term 'marriage' - for gays, they can find a church that will marry them or just have a civil union, with the same legal protections as any other licensed couple. Perhaps this would remove the discrimination charges, yet preserve people's concepts of what marriage is for them?

  • Arthur
    May 27, 2009 3:39 p.m.

    re: Reality Wow, thats awful. I call troll on you.

    And PS: I may be against gay marriage but firmly believe every time someone says Adam and Steve an angel punches a puppy.

  • re:reality
    May 27, 2009 3:33 p.m.

    you sound just like southern whites in the 1950's and 60' that didn't want blacks to vote. They are americans and will be given the same rights as other americans in time.

  • OfManyOne
    May 27, 2009 3:27 p.m.

    There's too much hate, too much contention, and WAY too many misspelled words! Look, I'm straight and I'm a Mormon. As such, I believe it against the teachings of Christ to engage in contentious debate or to hate our neighbors, regardless of what they do. I also believe that the practice of homosexuality is morally wrong and abominable in the sight of God, the same as fornication or adultery. Is it possible for the two beliefs to reconcile? Of course! Read the Book of Mormon and learn of the feelings of the early Nephites toward their brethren the Lamanites. They desired to reclaim them from their wicked ways and only fought them inasmuch as it was necessary to defend themselves and their families from slavery or death. If you call yourself a Christian, you must love your neighbor and avoid contention. You must not embrace the sin, but you must love the sinner. Your judgments must be in accordance with the commandments which, to our belief, condemn the practice of homosexuality, fornication, and adultery. But above all, love your neighbor for he or she is your brother or sister and a child of God.

  • re - Roger | 1:49 p.m
    May 27, 2009 3:21 p.m.

    ["Marriage and equality are just the subterfuge that the gay agenda is using to get what they really want - and it ain't marriage. The truth is darker and seedier than we can handle."]

    well, lets move your comment back in time since it fits perfectly.

    Free slaves? blacks running around free? that's just the subterfuge that the black agenda is using to get what they really want - and it ain't freedom. The truth is seedier and darker than we can handle. Next thing you know, they'll be wanting to have white women, and eat in the same restaurants as you and me. why, they'll force us to let them in our mormon church and expect to be treated just like an ordinary person!!

    Roger - do you have any idea how bigoted you sound?

  • re - anao at 2:07pm
    May 27, 2009 3:09 p.m.

    if marriage stays between two consenting adults, your argument is moot. trying to create divorce laws for multi-person marriages is just not possible. but it's simple for two-party marriages.

    so that explains why it should just be two consenting adults. now pls explain why they need to be different sexes (and leave your god out of it).

  • On leviticus
    May 27, 2009 3:08 p.m.

    If you are going to spout leviticus 20:13 how about also spouting about Kosher laws (better watch out for swordfish) or fabric laws (heaven forbid you combine wool and cotton.) Do you also admire Lot who managed to pretend to be drunk enough to impregnate not one but two daughters? Your daughters need to be concerned if you do. What do you think about Abraham's parenting style? You really okay with a man that ties up his son and threatens to stab him as a sacrifice? Andrea Yates thought it okay as well.

  • Why
    May 27, 2009 2:48 p.m.

    Why do those who oppose marriage equality insist on comparing gay marriage with bestiality, and/or child molestation? One refers to legally consenting ADULTS, while the others do not. Is your faith actually so weak that you demand it be forced upon me? It is the only valid reason I can ascertain especially since you claim: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. My God doesn't mind gay marriage.

  • Dallas
    May 27, 2009 2:29 p.m.

    Michaelitos | 1:29 p.m. May 27, 2009...

    GREAT post!

  • Just wondering???
    May 27, 2009 2:29 p.m.

    Why is it that when my high school team finally gets an article written in the paper, there is only one measly picture of the game. Yet when gays protest, there are multiple pictures of their tantrums? Where's the equality in that?

  • to posters using religion
    May 27, 2009 2:28 p.m.

    such as:
    Common Sense? | 1:03 p.m
    ["For billions of people past and present, common sense shows them by experience that there is a God"]

    that's not common sense by any stretch of the imagination. it is simply what you've been told, even though it flies in the face of common sense.

    Michaelitos | 1:29 p.m
    ["I'm sorry, my opinions are not second-rate, merely because they are born of religious conviction."]

    no - but your opinions are biased by superstition, and not of intelligent quality (or you wouldn't believe in fairy tales).

    To: to religion 12:34pm | 1:08 p.m.
    ["You can't pick a side at all, because every single decision is inluenced by something outside of ourselves."]

    not picking a side. treating everyone equally isn't a side, it's simply common sense.

    and my favorite:
    lynn | 1:13 p.m
    ["If marriage were between Adam and Steve how would the divine commandment to "multiply and replenish" be accompished?"]

    divine commandment? please. and do you really think everyone would suddenly become gay?

    like I said - religious people aren't know for common sense or great intelligence....

  • Reason
    May 27, 2009 2:27 p.m.

    I just hope that all these activists are fighting for polygamy and insest and every other form of alternative relationship. Why do single people have to pay higher taxes and get fewer rights? Marriage is an incentive based program. And it is perfectly okay to believe that every child deserves a mother and a father and create a program (marriage) to encourage this. We don't need to apologize. This is not a religious discusion it is a social welfare discussion

  • Re;anonymous 1:45
    May 27, 2009 2:07 p.m.

    That's a completely valid point. If gay marriage is legal than polygamy must be legalized and must be legal for both sexes. (not that I can think of any reason anyone would want more than one husband) And of course the next step is legalized homosexual polygamy. Yeah, that won't be at all confusing to the adoptive children that will have to be legally allowable. "Wait, which two of you do I call daddy?" I can see the sitcoms now. "My Ten Dads."

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 2:06 p.m.

    Gay is by birth, remember genetics?? not choice.

    The law is the law...if you do not like it, work to change it. Quit acting like fools with your crazy antics. Do some solid work.

    Gays will never win with their present demonstrations and lack of control in the public venue.

    Many of you quote the Bible. I believe man wrote the Bible to control his fellow man..and it is working well with you.

    When you have a child that turns out to be "gay" see how your heart changes. I'm told it seems to run in families...interesting..you'll notice how "uncle charlie" tends to hold out his pinkie and likes pastels...or aunt betty is a little on the masculine side..but, she's just sporty..yeah, get a life and quit judging people..the closets are full...

    All in all...if you don't like the way it is ...work to change it, quit acting like you've been betrayed by the law.

    The California decision was the right one..according to the vote.

    Utah has no place in California state politics.

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 1:45 p.m.

    There needs to be polygamy for women too.

  • re: Lynn | 1:13 p.m.
    May 27, 2009 1:44 p.m.

    That's a simple question to answer: evolution. ;)

  • Michaelitos
    May 27, 2009 1:29 p.m.

    Re: Religion 12:46pm
    The ability to share ideas, opinions, AND beliefs is part of what makes this nation great. Your brand of irreligious imperialism, which seeks to disallow opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious belief, flies in the face of the Constitution and the principles of freedom and democracy.

    As Neal Maxwell said, "If people are not permitted to advocate, to asset, and to bring to bear, in every legitimate way, the opinions and views they hold that grow out of their religious convictions, what manner of men and women would they be?"

    I happily engage you in dialogue, allowing you to bring to the table all your opinions in their various forms, and yet you seek to disqualify mine simply because they are religiously based? Do you not see the terrible irony and intolerance in that?

    I'm sorry, my opinions are not second-rate, merely because they are born of religious conviction. It is you who seeks to shrink my freedom, even as you reject the value our this nation's rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

    Marriage is and should be between a man and a woman.

  • Re Kevin
    May 27, 2009 1:25 p.m.

    I understand all the rights, but eventhough all of those rights can be extended through so called Civil Unions, the gay and lesbian movement continues to insist that they must have marriage. I don't understand that logic, why must it be marriage?, if you have all the same rights.

  • max
    May 27, 2009 1:16 p.m.

    Nation of LAWS not of MEN.

    The PEOPLE have decided this. Courts are not the Legislature for good reason.

  • Art B.
    May 27, 2009 1:10 p.m.

    Re: Kevin @ 12:45

    First of all, I have read a lot of your posts and they are generally very respectful. I appreciate your willingness to foster dialogue. I hope to be equally respectful, and I honestly think the two camps in this debate can find common ground.

    Here is my question. What rights and protections has the government of California not already granted to homosexual couples through domestic partnerships?

  • To: to religion 12:34pm
    May 27, 2009 1:08 p.m.

    Oh, but that's taking a side, that's against the rules. You can't pick a side at all, because every single decision is inluenced by something outside of ourselves. You have to vote "no comment" on the issue, or not vote at all. That's what you're telling us, isn't it? We vote your way, or we can't vote at all?

  • useless arguments
    May 27, 2009 1:07 p.m.

    neither side is going to convince the other. One side sees it about equality and hate the other side sees it as a moral compass for society. One side sees nothing wrong with two men or two women being together, the other side sees that as sinful. I can predict what will happen going forward. Ultimately the younger people will be more accepting of this behavior or lifestyle and gay marriage will pass. If you believe in God let Him decide in the next life.

  • Michaelitos
    May 27, 2009 1:07 p.m.

    There are many commenting that by taking a stance on traditional marriage is tantamount to taking away rights for the minority. Actually, just the opposite is true.

    Examples of heterosexual couples losing previously protected rights:
    1-In the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)), the Courts agreed that under the guise of diversity, any attempt to prohibit instruction of grade-schoolers about gay marriage or to permit parents to opt their children out of it must be stopped.
    2-Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public.
    3-Catholic Charities in Boston have stopped offering adoption services because the State has determined that their religious beliefs cannot trump the redefinition of marriage, and therefore they cannot discriminate in providing adoptions for gay couples.

    And so the list goes on from university accreditation organizations to Canada's C-250 bill, which criminalized public statements against homosexuality (punishable by up to 2 years!).

    It is the gay marriage proponents who are trying to take away my rights!

  • Common Sense?
    May 27, 2009 1:03 p.m.

    Your experiences and beliefs shape your belief that there is no God. For billions of people past and present, common sense shows them by experience that there is a God. It is not your right to define common sense.

  • RE:Jeff 9:03 A.M.
    May 27, 2009 12:55 p.m.


  • Dear Gays and Lesbefriends
    May 27, 2009 12:47 p.m.

    It is with great excitement that the vast majority of people from the great state of california have spoken! They frankly don't want it there and have a better understanding of the word tolerance, than you would ever know in a lifetime. Keep trying though, but you know the definition for insanity is doing something repetitive expecting a different result.


    Ps. Keep California "Golden" . . not rainbow

  • to religion 12:34pm
    May 27, 2009 12:46 p.m.

    I'll do as you say and leave out my "experiences, circumstances, beliefs and influences". I have no problem with that.

    because I don't think the concept of everyone being treated equally has anything to do with my "experiences, circumstances, beliefs and influences". It's just basic common sense.

    now, when you use common sense instead of fairy tales and old books, you let me know.

  • Kevin
    May 27, 2009 12:45 p.m.

    @re: Kevin | 12:27 p.m. May 27, 2009

    Fair question. Answer: The same reason anyone else wants to get married. To have a family and for that family to have the same legal rights and protections granted by the government to opposite-gender marriages.

    I don't expect all people to accept that family unit necessarily. However, I do expect my government to accept it. Why? Because if government is going to be in the marriage business, and grant rights to people based on their marital status, it must be fair to homosexuals, for whom opposite-gender marriage would neither be beneficial nor successful.

  • Re: religion is the problem
    May 27, 2009 12:34 p.m.

    I'll make you a deal: I'll leave my religious and moral beliefs out of the voting booth if you leave out your experiences, circumstances, beliefs and influences, too. It's only fair, it's the same thing. If I can't vote on anything according to my deeply held beliefs, then neither can you. You don't get to vote according to your belief that gays are being persecuted, and that there is intolerance and bigotry on the other side, and you can't actually pick a side to vote for, because that's using your beliefs to influence your decision. You only get to vote neutrally down the middle. If that's not an option, then you can't cast a vote on that issue at all.

    Sound fair?

    Yeah, I didn't think so.

  • Me
    May 27, 2009 12:33 p.m.

    For your arguments sake we'll take God and religion out of the picture. We'll go with evolution. A group of people that can't procreate. Ya that will really work out in a "survival of the fittest" situation. And you think my belief in God is silly. Good one

  • re: Kevin
    May 27, 2009 12:27 p.m.

    Why do you want to be Married? The other things are Civil Rights issues, but why do you want to be married? That is seeking acceptance.

  • To Jane
    May 27, 2009 12:24 p.m.

    So you believe that God will have a change of heart? Mocking God by using His love for mankind is a devious way of lying about real love and commandments from the Lord. Your heart has changed but is it harder or softer to listen to the Lord, his servants, and his word through scriptures? Rationalizing was the way the Jewish leadership used to crucifiy the Savior.

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 12:22 p.m.

    There's a reason that actual minorities, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc., voted against Prop 8 in record numbers - and that reason is that they find this whole "civil rights" declaration to be deeply offensive to the actual civil rights discrimination that they suffered in the past. They were slaves, they were put in concentration camps in their own country just because of the color of their skin, and they were forced to segregate themselves from society on all levels. That is NOT the same thing as not being able to change the provisions for getting a marriage license.

    When you apply for one, nobody asks your sexual orientation, because their is already equal protection under the law. Any male that is of age, of sound mental capacity, and is not directly related to his prospective partner, is able to marry any woman that is of age, of sound mental capacity, and is not directly related to her prospective partner. Those are the rules you must follow in order to get married. If your partnership doesn't fall under the proper rules, you can't get married, simple as that. It is not discriminatory, as it doesn't single anybody out.

  • People know you
    May 27, 2009 12:20 p.m.

    People across this country know the real Gay Movement and its true purpose. Gays hate and distain anyone who disagrees with them. But, they use Judeo-Christian beliefs to smear anyone who does not agree with gay marriage. The voters in California used the Constitution and legal means to express their belief in marriage. But, again, it is Gays who scream that their rights have been taken. It was the rights of the people that were used and the vote is the will of the people; not a few selfish anti- democratic few.

  • Re: Jane
    May 27, 2009 12:15 p.m.

    Gays are already considered fellow human beings. Nobody is the victim in this. The victim is the sacredness of marriage and the moral fibers that surround it. From the beginning of time, marriage has been a man to a women. Marriage between a man and a man or a women to a women serves ZERO purpose to mankind or the growth of the human race.

    This is not about divorce rates, its not about hate or discrimination. It's about the purpose it provides to mankind and the human race. There are moral standards that are at risk here all for the sake of what? What this boils down to is, how valuable is your moral standard. Are you really willing to toss it aside to allow a dysfunctional choice the ability to provide no purpose to the human race? This should not be about feeling sorry for a gay friend or family member because they can't be married. They made that choice. Are you willing to sell the moral meaning and character of marriage all for the sake of pity? NEVER should your core morals be given up for the sake of charity.

  • To: Re; CougarKeith
    May 27, 2009 12:14 p.m.

    "LDS have some of the highest divorce rates in the nation"

    LDS non-temple marriages have a 24% divorce rate. The national average is 25%. Non-denominational Evangelicals, Jews, Baptists, Pentacostals, Born-again Christians, Methodists, mainline Protestants, and non-Christians in general, all have a higher divorce rate than LDS non-temple marriages, per the Barna Research Group and the Associated Press, in separate studies that back each other up. LDS temple marriages, however, have a 6% divorce rate, the lowest of any group in the nation by more than 12%.

    Do your research and stop spreading lies to further your own agenda, please.

  • religion is the problem
    May 27, 2009 12:07 p.m.

    if all these anti-SSM posters had to leave their god out of the argument, they wouldn't have any argument at all.

    The only reason SSM is a religion issue is because the religious insist on pushing their old books onto everyone, and they learned "right" and "wrong" from fairy tales.

    an intelligent person can make logical arguments without referencing magical beings and mythical tales...

  • prediction
    May 27, 2009 12:01 p.m.

    california voters will make gay marriage legal in 2010 ... you guys will not be able to stop it ... better get yourselves a battle you can win..

  • Re: Ex-Post Facto
    May 27, 2009 11:48 a.m.

    "The United States Constitution does not allow for the passage of ex-post facto laws. This means a law cannot be retroactive in nature. It can only have its effect on persons after passage not before. Had the California Supreme Court declared the 18,000 same sex marriages performed before passage of Prop 8, null and void., the U.S. Supreme Court would have quickly overturned their decision. The CA justices allowing those couples to be still be married, upheld the U.S. Constitution. They had no other choice."

    The SCOUS certainly had no trouble supporting the Edmunds Tucker Act, which was a completely ex-post facto law. It not only banned future crimes, but past ones as well, and they went after those who had participated with a vengeance, whether there was evidence or not.

  • Equal Rights Ammendments
    May 27, 2009 11:47 a.m.

    CA and IA both have ERAs in their constitution which was the reasoning behind their State courts ruling in favor of gay marriage. I am so glad the LDS Church also successfully supported the defeated measure of the national ERA of the 1970s. Had that passed than all States today would have been forced by our Federal courts system to accept gay marriage as equal to traditional marriage.

  • Jane
    May 27, 2009 11:18 a.m.

    Someday there will be equality for all. It just takes time. I'm sure it's heartbreaking for gays to watch the discrimination continue, but they must take heart. There are many straight individuals -- including myself -- who have had a change of heart and conscience. It's only a matter of time until the dictates of their own conscience will finally win. Eventually gays will be seen as fellow human beings.

  • wow
    May 27, 2009 11:16 a.m.

    Their is much hate on both sides of this issue, Proposition 8 supporters cant figure out why the Gay community is upset being discriminated against, and the Gay community cant figure out why Propostion 8 supporters are upset by their Discriminitory comments, Seems to me Both Sides are doing the same thing... Discrimination Grow up People the sooner you learn to work together, the sooner you will realize what it means to truly "Love one Another.."

  • RE: The Rock
    May 27, 2009 11:09 a.m.

    I find it hilarious that you edited out Jefferson's declaration that "all men are created equal" and that the inalienable rights he alluded to are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But then highlighting those portions would only hurt your argument.

    Ultimately, the question of marriage access is directly linked to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Even if you go to Locke's social contract which Jefferson was referring to, you'll see that instead of "pursuit of happiness," Locke called on the government to protect property. Considering marriage's history as a property transaction, it seems that Locke would have recognized marriage as a fundamental right to be protected by government.

    And as far as claiming the absolute right to do what God has forbidden, you're wrong. What I'm doing is a much larger threat to your perception of reality. I'm claiming that God has created, empowered, and called on me to be a gay activist. Stick that in your sacrament cup and sip it.

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 10:57 a.m.

    Your bigotry and intolerance is your own... stop blaming God.

  • lynn
    May 27, 2009 10:57 a.m.

    A divine purpose of a man and woman is to propogate the species. Adam and Eve, not Steve -

  • Re; CougarKeith
    May 27, 2009 10:54 a.m.

    Your comments on adultry crack me up!!! LDS have some of the highest divorce rates in the nation and I'm willing to bet the adultry rate is pretty high too.

    Careful that you don't look in the mirror and see something you don't like.

    As for the rest of you that show signs of Archie Bunkierism....bigitry is NOT one of the attributes of Christ. If you can find it in your bible or BofM, then I will eat my words, but I guarantee...it's not there. If you show ANY signs of bigotry...then you my little friends...are fighting the cause of your "other" brother Satan!!!

    So be sure to look closely in that mirror...see if the reflection is one of love and acceptance or one of bigotry and hate.

    By there actions...yea shall know them...

  • To Mormons
    May 27, 2009 10:52 a.m.

    Marriage should ALWAYS be between one man and ONE woman. It should always be between TWO people and no others.

  • I stand my ground
    May 27, 2009 10:44 a.m.

    Welcome to the real world gays. The majority disagrees with your hijacking of the term "marriage". Even if half the states in the country legalize same sex marriage, most people will still not accept it. Get used to it.

  • The Rock
    May 27, 2009 10:34 a.m.

    Do Gay Rights Exist?
    Where do rights come from?
    Some say from government, others say from God.

    If rights come from government, then rights are subject to the whims of those who control the levers of power. In a democracy there are no rights without majority support. Gay rights do not enjoy a majority; therefore, gay rights do not exist.

    If Thomas Jefferson was right when he wrote: "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" then rights are granted by God, and are absolute.

    When Gay activists claim they have an absolute right to do that which God has absolutely forbidden, they are making a religious argument. Absolute rights are dependant upon the existence of God. In this scenario, "gay rights" constitutes an obvious contradiction.

    The further America drifts from her moral roots, the more expendable your rights become!

  • re Utah Dilemna
    May 27, 2009 10:24 a.m.

    Exactly. For all the people saying they're all for Civil Unions, just not Marriage--read this post, and you'll know why no one here believes or trusts you.

  • RE: Old Scratch
    May 27, 2009 10:22 a.m.

    Thank you for making it clear that you and many like you believe yourselves to be God and thus entitled to lord over me. Pardon me if I fail to worship you, though.

  • What it is all about
    May 27, 2009 10:09 a.m.

    The gay rights issue to marry is all about getting power. It is power over others and to promote their desire to control, indoctrinate, and force others to be submissive to them. Don't be fool by their pretend " all we want is to be left alone" montra. If that is what it was, this issue would be resolved by adhearing to Civil Rights mandates in the laws right now. It is all about power over others and destroying the rights of the masses by a few.

  • What About Adulterers?
    May 27, 2009 10:06 a.m.

    Adultery is one of the Big "Thou Shalt Not" Sins--yet Adulterers are allowed to marry, and marry, and marry...

  • Yes!!
    May 27, 2009 10:02 a.m.

    A rare victory for what is right! There is hope after all.

  • jooj
    May 27, 2009 9:59 a.m.

    my uncle is . Do I want him to be happy? Yes. He is in a committed relationship. He is a decent person. I do not him. I do not any person.

    But I will continue to support the ban on marriage. I do not want a couple suing my church for discrimination because they cannot be married there. I believe in the tradition of man/woman marriage.

    I think all of us can agree however, that it won't be long until s have their way with this. The way things are going in this country, it won't be long.

    Let's just try to understand one another. Let's be kind to one another. Both sides are accusing the other of the same thing.

    We Mormons believe just as passionately in our position as s believe in theirs. Please respect that.

  • James Wilson
    May 27, 2009 9:58 a.m.

    The ammendment to the California state consitution simply states that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized. This is interesting because it seems to suggest that other marriages exist (ie between two men or two women) but they are not valid in the state of California. This also suggests that performing a marriage ceremony for same-sex couples is not illegal even though it is not recognized by the state. Gays and lesbians have every right to marry each other but they have no right to force the state, which is the people in our system of government, to recognize that marriage as valid.

  • Joy
    May 27, 2009 9:54 a.m.

    Equal rights? This is about recognizing and protecting homosexuality. Funny how nobody is rallying for "equal rights" so brothers and sisters, parents and children, and polygamists can get married.

  • Try Harder
    May 27, 2009 9:50 a.m.

    Anonymous | 9:26 a.m. May 27, 2009

    Thanks for pointing out a disturbing trend of the sacrifice of high morals being tossed aside in place of nothing more than what is being defined by man as acceptable image.

    High morals formed this great country, yet the need to define image will destroy it. Awesome... thanks!

  • Old Scratch
    May 27, 2009 9:46 a.m.

    And as I look upon my beloved Utah, it's Church and it's People, I am well pleased with what I see has been wrought there.

  • Dallas
    May 27, 2009 9:44 a.m.

    Rights | 9:07 a.m.

    You simply don't get it do you? GLBT have the same rights as anybody else. The problem is not about being married but about bending the moral code that others have? And when does it all stop? Hey, I'd like to have the rights of more vacations so that I don't have to work as much. Should I be fighting for that? Some would like the rights to marry children, others would like to marry their sister or brother. Some Fathers and/or Mothers want to marry their children. WHEN DOES IT STOP? If you give privileges to one dysfunctional society, and homosexuality is being dysfunctional if you want to lay claim to being "born with it", you have to give it to another.

    And Marriage isn't just about being in LOVE. Marriage is about fostering a family through procreation. Thus another sign of homosexuality being dysfunctional since they don't have the means to procreate.

    Marriage has never been a right, it's a privilege that has been handed down from god to Man and Woman.

  • Losing to win
    May 27, 2009 9:43 a.m.

    Supporters of equality: think strategically.

    Losing this battle sets up the possibility of a more important one in the future, before the US Supreme Court. Then it's not just Prop 8, it's Prop 8 and *everything else like it*.

    This ruling is disappointing, but it can become a case of losing the battle in order to win the war.

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 9:26 a.m.

    The first proposition (22) in 2000 to ban same-sex marriage in California clearly won 62%-38%. The next vote in 2008 only won 52%-48%. I don't understand people who are for traditional marriage think that they are going to win in the long term. The momentum is against you (this not my opinion, this is fact).

    Haven't the courts decided on other civil rights issues versus having a majority decide this? Well, I don't think it will matter on this issue: With those against gay marriage diminishing (62% to 52% in a matter of 8 years), it will only take a few more years for those numbers to diminish even more and become a minority which will overturn the gay marriage ban. History is against those who are against giving freedoms to minority groups (regardless of whether you think it is a right or privilege).

  • Rights
    May 27, 2009 9:07 a.m.

    Shouldn't all citizens have the same rights? Why a contributing citizen shouldn't have the right to marry the one he or she loves?
    If being and living a Gay life is a sin. Shouldn't that be a problem between the sinner and his or her God? Shouldn't society treats all its citizens in the same way a grant all of them the same rights?
    Gay people vote, pay taxes, contribute in all ways of life. Why are we depriving them of their right to join for life with the one they love? In what way affect heterosexuals?
    Fear that God will destruct society as a result of Gay marriage is only a reflection of ignorance and supertition. I'm sure there are more than 10 heterosexuals in SLC, or not?

  • Born that Way
    May 27, 2009 9:05 a.m.

    It was within society's interest to protect marriage between races. As children result from the sexual union, there needs to be a place to foster their loving union... The genetic contributors to the child both take responsibility and have access to society. That's fair and just.

    It is illogical to compare a homosexual union to a multiracial one. It simply doesn't have the same weight upon the future of society nor any lasting biological implications.

    Marriage has never been merely about who has sex with whom.

    The gay community however doesn't get this. They come at it as an emotional issue, and make no effort to demonstrate how their wish will make society better as a whole. Instead their only response has been to push for more litigation and claim greater victimization--at times even engaging in domestic terror tactics against religious institutions in order to achieve their insatiable objective to redefine reality such that they become a more privileged class (though they already have more disposable income per capita than any other group of people in this country) and to gain access to the children they didn't produce.

  • people are confused.
    May 27, 2009 9:04 a.m.

    The courts (in CA) decision was NOT pro or anti gay. It turned on whether the change to the constitution was legal. Ansewer, yes it was based on past cases. Now to the 18,000, whether or not I agree with you. The laws of the land at the time allowed the marriages...so they are legal. Remove the emotion, bigotry on both sides, and ask yourself what is the purpose of marriage? It is not for the benefit of the people being married, but rather for the perpetuation of the species and nurturing of the young. Sorry gays, you don't fit the cost/benefit analysis.

  • Jeff
    May 27, 2009 9:03 a.m.

    The California Supreme Court did the right thing in upholding the vote of the people. Homosexuals cannot disagree with that principle. They live in the United States where the vote of the people means something. Had the shoe been on the other foot, while I may not have liked the outcome, I would have supported it. Like the Presidential election, I do not like the fact that Obama won the vote, but the people -- although highly misinformed -- spoke through the voting process. That's the way this democracy works. Of all the states that have a gay marriage law, none were implemented through a vote of the people. Interestingly, of the 30 or so states that have denied gay marriage, all outcomes were a result of the vote of the people.

  • natty
    May 27, 2009 8:52 a.m.

    Pitted against each other while THEY loot our country's Treasury. I respect the feelings of BOTH sides. I do not want my child told man on man sex is "ok". As far as my neighbors being married, regardless of sex or orientation that is fine. But instructing kids that sodomy is "ok" is wrong!!!

  • Pondering
    May 27, 2009 8:50 a.m.

    So, I've seen the signs ("How can 'love' be wrong", etc), and have heard many of the arguments from the LGBT community (it's only fair, right, etc). So, let's say I agree with you. What harm does it do, eh? You love each other. What the heck. And, you're being denied some kind of 'right', after all. Your loving each other and living together, no matter what it is called, is certainly not going to hurt anyone else, or jeopardize anyone else's marriage. All right, then. Fair enough. You have convinced me. We'll call it 'marriage', and give you a piece of paper issued by the state.

    But, what if I really, really love more than one other woman? And they love me? Is it really hurting anyone else if I marry them both? How can our love be wrong? So, I'll support you if you support the FLDS 'right' to have more than one wife. Or, is that wrong? And if so, why? And if you do support it, you should be marching in support of the LDS church, which had it's rights taken away by the federal government.

  • Dallas
    May 27, 2009 8:47 a.m.

    Grandpa Bill, I think what this comes down to is that we have been asked over and over to be accepting and to adjust our moral code of something that is simply wrong. But now that isn't enough and they want more, and again we are being asked to sacrifice the bond and meaning, what is considered to be a sacred, between man and women and god.

    I think enough is enough. I think the very fibers of our society failed to grow and were actually weakened by the first acceptance of homosexuality as just a way of life. The day we start to throw our sacred bonds at the fire of indecency is a sure sign of how weak minded we have become all at the sake of saving our image in the wake of moral standards.

    GLB&T knew the consequences of their actions, if they didn't want to accept those than they shouldn't have made that decision. Blacks and Jews never had a choice and thus comparing this to the civil and human rights of those times is insulting and pure mockery of the innocent lives that were taken.

  • Born that Way
    May 27, 2009 8:40 a.m.

    Marriage is not a right, it's a social institution. There's nothing natural about it. In fact it's defined to be (at least among the heterosexuals) quite the opposite. It is the suppression of biological urges for the fostering of a condition in which children may safely be introduced into society. This is why it has endured since recorded history, because it places a societal responsibility upon the couple to care and provide for any genetic offspring the pairing may create.

    All other perks and exceptions to this initial socio-biological contract are extensions and only exist if the core stays sound. By making marriage about sexual preference and sexual relations, one further corrupts society.

    It is interesting that in some island societies like Bali, where homosexuality is almost ritually accepted if not promoted, they maintain the sanctity of marriage as strictly heterosexual by only granting tribal rights to those who enter into heterosexual marriage and contribute children. Essentially one "grows up" by putting off sexuality of any form (which isnt condemned other than its perception of immaturity) and accepting the ultimate parental responsibility--not by persisting in a lie, as our society seems wont to do.

  • Anonymous @ 5:55
    May 27, 2009 8:37 a.m.

    Very tolerant and non-hateful of you. Seems as if you are guilty of the very traits you accuse others of. And your threat to mormon-owned stores? Shades of Hitler's Germany and Jewish-owned stores. What is it you plan to do, exactly, O Tolerant One?

  • Confused
    May 27, 2009 8:34 a.m.

    If Marriage is a privilege, and not a right, why should only straight couples be allowed that privilege?

  • Utah Dilemna
    May 27, 2009 8:34 a.m.

    At least in California gays and lesbians have some legal protections via civil unions (but no federal protections).

    Here in Utah, I have to wonder if this is really about "Marriage". When the LDS Church promoted, and the Utah Legislature pushed through Amendment Three, which prohibits ANY recognition of a gay and lesbian relationship, they knew this would impact gays and lesbians as individuals, let alone those in relationships.

    Utah's hate crimes bill was defeated for eight years simply because the draft text mentioned gay and lesbian individuals. It passed the moment gays and lesbians were excluded (despite being one of the most targeted demographic groups for hate crimes).

    The Common Ground bills attempted to bridge a few of the legal problems facing gays and lesbian Utahn's, but were instantly scuttled by the legislature, and the LDS Church went strangely silent.

    So is this really about "marriage", or is this part of a broader more insidious campaign to force gays and lesbians out of public sight?

  • Way to go
    May 27, 2009 8:26 a.m.

    Congrats to the Cal courts. They got this one right!

  • Same Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 8:25 a.m.

    That is supposed to say "A gay man"

  • Dallas
    May 27, 2009 8:24 a.m.

    Those trying to turn this into a Human rights or civil rights issue can not be taken seriously at all. This isn't about creating something equal, especially when you are deal with a minority group that isn't functioning normal. They say it's about LOVE... well I love my kids, brother, dog and cat... should I be allowed to marry them? They say they are born this way, which there is no REAL scientific proof of this other than it still becomes a CHOICE of action. If you want to be gay, I'm happy for you and wish you all the best. You know the consequences of those actions and it is what sets you apart from a heterosexual couple. Marriage is NOT a right. It never has been a "RIGHT". It is a god given privilege that was not merely thought up by man. Marriage is a bond between god and couple, a civil union is a bond between state and couple. If gays want to be recognized by state, than a civil union is what they should seek. But I feel this has more to do with insulting religion and morals.

  • Good News Bad News
    May 27, 2009 8:23 a.m.

    California should have never allowed Gay marriages while it was still being appealed. They rushed to open the doors because they knew it wouldn't stand so they had to do it "underhandedly." Shame. They have messed up for many years to come.

  • you're not that special
    May 27, 2009 8:23 a.m.

    You choose this lifestyle and laws aren't up to speed. I just want to say that you feel 'special' for joining and supporting a 'cause' it's just part of your egocentric need to belong and feel liberal...i'm sure the laws will crash soon and you'll get your ways, and society will start to crash as the institution God gave will be attacked. I don't understand why you have targeted mormons just because they believe what they do. Stop attacking them and worry about yourself

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 8:21 a.m.

    Everybody has the same marriage rights. I'm straight but I can't marry a man even if I wanted to.(I can't believe I just said that!)I gay man could still marry a woman just like I can and will.

  • Kevin
    May 27, 2009 8:15 a.m.

    @Why | 3:22 p.m. May 26, 2009

    "If we are so bigoted, why do you try so hard to seek our acceptance?"

    I don't want your acceptance, per se. I want equality under the law.

    Equality means:

    1. The punishment for a Christian beating up a gay because he is gay is the same as for a gay beating up a Christian for being Christian. FYI, they're not the same.
    2. A Christian employer cannot fire an employee for being gay just as a gay employer cannot fire an employee for being Christian. The former is legal, the latter is not.
    3. Homosexuals can marry their same-sex partners as heterosexuals can marry their opposite-sex partners.

    So I don't want your acceptance. We can agree to hate each other. I do need to you to recognize these disparities in civil rights.

  • Grandpa Bill
    May 27, 2009 8:09 a.m.

    I'm a heterosexual Mormon. Many who oppose gay marriage are railing against the claim that they are bigoted just because of their opposition. I agree that just being opposed to gay marriage does not necessarily make one a bigot. However, there does seem to be a lot of bigotry on the side of those who oppose gay marriage. Take the following example from Victory | 1:25 p.m. May 26, 2009

    "The people have voted, now shut up or leave. Those that support gay marriage are parasites looking for ways to bend societies values."

    Certainly this is what many in support of gay marriage are reacting to when they claim bigotry on the other side. For my brothers in the GLBT community, lets refrain from reacting to this type of communication with a similar level of vitriol. Lets stick to the issues and be kind and professional while doing it. When those who are apathetic to your cause see hate spewing from some opposing gay marriage, and they see your levelheaded approach, theyll understand your situation much better. Dont be angered by those who express such anger and intolerance. Use it to your advantage.

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 8:01 a.m.

    This is not about hate or inequality or civil rights. I would defend, with my life, the civil rights and freedoms of any American. However, "marriage" is and should always be - between a man and a woman.

  • Heather
    May 27, 2009 7:58 a.m.

    We all have an equal right to marry. The right to marry someone of the opposite sex is available to everyone.

  • I am LDS
    May 27, 2009 7:58 a.m.

    And I am proud to say that I am against gay marriage. It isn't like we are the only church who are against gay marriage. We are the ones who have the guts to stand up and say it. Gay marriage is wrong. Just as gay people have the right to say that they think gay marriage is ok we have the right to say that it is not. This is a good victory!

  • Sick and Wrong
    May 27, 2009 7:39 a.m.

    I can't believe we have come to this. What is wrong with our society? What's next? Can I make it legal to marry my sibling? How about the 8-year neighbor kid? Or how about my horse? Marriage is not a right. It's a privileged.

  • Don'd Understand
    May 27, 2009 7:37 a.m.

    I just don't get how the gay marriage supporters continue to throw out references to womens rights and slavery as if that somehow automatically makes them right and the majority wrong. Is it really that simple that if i want something and i'm in the minority i just lable people haters and bring up slavery and i should get my way???

    btw, do you gay marriage supporters also support polygamy? how about underage girls marrying older men? the list could go on and by your logic anything should go because "it won't affect my marriage" right?

  • cinbu
    May 27, 2009 7:27 a.m.

    1. Slavery was an issue of real equality and civil rights - Slaves suffered real abuses until those laws were changed.
    2. Women's rights was a real issue of civil rights. Woman suffered real abuses until those laws were changed.
    These things needed a change in legislation so that segment of our population could be treated as humans, these were true issues of Human Civil Rights.
    NOBODY IS ABUSING GAYS based on this "marriage" issue. It is not the same. There is a problem, but the Gays have defined it very badly, and are not clear themselves about exactly what is real in this issue and what isnt.
    Gays are not being treated inhumanely by not allowing them the priviledge of their CIVIL UNIONS to be sanctioned as MARRIAGE. What needs to be adjusted to accomodate these folks is the laws regarding Civil Unions.

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 7:27 a.m.

    Don't be fooled. when they say all they want is to be married. First come marriage, next is to force the State to teach their sinful behavior(Romans 1:24-29) to our children in the public school. yes, their books are already finding their way in the public school library.

    Remember they are waiting for the old to die so they can get their way. What a surprise when they found out Miss California is not old.

  • Constitutional Constitution
    May 27, 2009 7:25 a.m.

    I'm glad they upheld P8. Overturning it would've rendered the state constitution pointless. This particular legal challenge was bad law.

  • AZ
    May 27, 2009 7:24 a.m.

    Yea!!! What a great day in America.

  • Hallsy
    May 27, 2009 7:21 a.m.

    God will not be mocked. The gay mafia would be better spent preparing for judgement day.

  • nottyou
    May 27, 2009 7:10 a.m.

    I should have the right to marry poultry or anything I want. I demand equal rights! Don't be a bigot. Don't hate. Give me my rights! Love is beautiful.

  • logic?
    May 27, 2009 7:10 a.m.

    I find it interesting that gay people speak of how their 'rights' are being denied. It is the reality of democratic ideals that the majority rules. The majority, at this time, does not favor gay marriage. While I support gay peoples 'right' to continue to petition the gov't for change, they need to be more respectful of the decissions made that don't 'go their way'. They attack the majority, call us bigots, etc... They accuse us of violating their rights, yet it's okay for them to violate our right to voice our disapproval. They complain of two standards within marriage, yet allow two standards for their judgement of others. Hypocritical if you ask me. I see the gay lifestyle as a choice. People choose that for themselves. I don't agree with that choice and feel it's my 'right' to voice my opinions against it, just as I voice my opinion against other issues I don't agree with. We call that freedom of speech. I also support their right to choose that lifestyle, just don't force me to choose it! If gay marriage becomes legal, I'll be in the minority. So be it.

  • SLC gal
    May 27, 2009 7:01 a.m.

    If gays want to get married so bad, why don't they just go to the states that already allow it and get'er done already?

    Personally I believe allowing them to be married is mocking God, but what about a CIVIL union which would give them the CIVIL libertys they keep railing about?

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 6:52 a.m.

    The devil is offended too

  • RE anonymous 5:55
    May 27, 2009 6:44 a.m.

    That sounds like a threat from one who wants love and acceptance from all. What if we decided to threaten anyone who is gay or supported them? That would be considered a hate crime. Why do you think you are above the law?

  • Skippy
    May 27, 2009 6:43 a.m.

    Marriage should be between a man and a woman.

  • MJH79
    May 27, 2009 6:19 a.m.

    It's not about Hate! Get over it.

  • Realize
    May 27, 2009 5:56 a.m.

    I just realized that I am really sick of these gay people not understanding what no means. It's kind of like a 5 year old who won't take no for an answer. I say lets boycott everything "gay". No more watching gay actors, no more allowing newspapers that support this behavior into our homes. No means no.

  • Gays <= marriage
    May 27, 2009 4:52 a.m.

    Being Gay is a life style and can be terminated at will therefore no law is needed to sanctify or bless it. What Gay's as well as other non conforming masses seek are financial gains and not really a right. These alternative lifestyles have the same rights and privileges allowed to any other citizens conforming to the laws. Our country was and is established under the doctrine of Christianity that teaches right and wrong and how humanity should treat each other. Not accepting gays does not violate their choices and they are not persecuted because of their choices. Their own guilt is persecuting themselves as it should, Gay is not acceptable as a marriage defined by law, it is homosexual as defined. They do not deserve the rights of family and are not fit as parents or propagating the species. Marriage is the recognition of propagating the species and they do not fit in with this concept. You can call being gay many things but a marriage it is not, even with a law it is no marriage. And I don't think the Supreme court would sanctify a gay union of homosexuals as a marriage.

  • Whats next? Everyone's a Senator
    May 27, 2009 4:45 a.m.


    "I just love the way gays and gay supporters always try to claim that if you disagree with them it's either because you hate them or you're afraid of them. They clearly just can't handle honest disagreement."

    That's obvious. They either win at the ballot and get their way or they try to win in the courts and get their way. Anyone who disagrees hates them or is afraid of them. It couldn't be possible that they are themselves bigots and tyrants who think that they are always right and that everyone must agree with them.

    "And, BTW, Marriage is NOT a right. It is a privilege. That's why you have to get a license."

    The word privilege isn't correct anymore than saying that being a U.S. Senator is a privilege and not a right even though technically marriage and serving in the Senate fall into the same legal category.

    Serving in the Senate is also a civil right which everyone has equal opportunity to benefit from and no one is discriminated against based on sex, race, orientation, religion or any other factor yet it's restricted and has requirements.

  • Chantment
    May 27, 2009 4:12 a.m.

    Finally, a court rules for the citizens. They were scared of losing their cushy jobs...otherwise they would have ruled the other way.

    Californication is such a joke anymore. It's just a mess. The sodomites won't stop, though. They will try to push their evil on Utah and other states as fast as they can. Take courage and hold strong, Utah! You will be a beacon to others.

  • To the moron who votes 4 morons
    May 27, 2009 2:26 a.m.

    Ex-Post Facto | 8:49 p.m. May 26, 2009
    why allow any gay marriage? | 5:27 p.m. May 26,

    "The United States Constitution does not allow for the passage of ex-post facto laws. This means a law cannot be retroactive in nature. It can only have its effect on persons after passage not before. Had the California Supreme Court declared the 18,000 same sex marriages performed before passage of Prop 8, null and void., the U.S. Supreme Court would have quickly overturned their decision."

    So the Courts can overturn the vote of the majority (Prop. 22) which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman and allow gays to marry the same sex and when the people vote to amend their Constitution because the voters on the Court violated the rights of the majority of Californians the Court can then say that the amendment can't be applied retroactively.

    That's really good to know since the 13th amendment outlawing slavery applied to every slave that came before it was passed and freed them but according to you that would have violated the constitution.

    Is that it retarded voter/future congressman

  • @Anonymous
    May 27, 2009 12:26 a.m.

    Why are you railing on Utah for what happened in California? You seem to have a very illogial sense about cause and effect. Tearing down Utah does not build up California nor the gay cause. Threating Utahns only makes them more opposed to anything you might have to say. You should get out of the motorized chair more often and look around you. There are many good people on both sides of this issue. Don't be childish just because you don't get your own way. It is unbecoming of you. Keep writing the books and supporting the organizations. thats the way to go the word out that I think that you want to do.

  • Great news!
    May 27, 2009 12:19 a.m.

    California does have judges who have common sense in intrepreting the law and will of the people. I worry about gays spreading AIDS and making it legal for them to marry would just sanction deviancy.

  • Thank goodness
    May 26, 2009 10:18 p.m.

    I was so happy to hear that the courts upheld the decision to prohibit gay marriage. It is good that the government should support the ruling of the people.

    As far as anyone not agreeing with allowing gay marriage being a bigot, give it a rest. Please stop with the hatred towards those that have as strong of feelings against gay marriage as you do for it. Let's all just try to get along, please.

  • Ex-Post Facto
    May 26, 2009 8:49 p.m.

    why allow any gay marriage? | 5:27 p.m. May 26,

    The United States Constitution does not allow for the passage of ex-post facto laws. This means a law cannot be retroactive in nature. It can only have its effect on persons after passage not before. Had the California Supreme Court declared the 18,000 same sex marriages performed before passage of Prop 8, null and void., the U.S. Supreme Court would have quickly overturned their decision. The CA justices allowing those couples to be still be married, upheld the U.S. Constitution. They had no other choice.

  • anonymous
    May 26, 2009 8:12 p.m.

    i support the decision made today. god defined marriage between a man, and woman. we as humans have no right to try and supercede god, and redefine marriage, just to fit our lifestyle. God created us, we need to follow his words, because in this broken world, nothing will give us true love other than worshipping a good, holy, and just God.

  • Lagomorph
    May 26, 2009 7:02 p.m.

    To: CougarKeith | 3:28 p.m. May 26, 2009:
    See my previous comment at 1:23 p.m. 5/26.
    To advocate marriage to someone you do not love for the sake of obtaining the legal benefits of marriage, and then to advocate adultery for the sake of love is simply absurd. It is contrary to the whole reason marriage as a social institution was created in the first place. Would you advocate such a plan for straights? Say, would you marry an ugly rich woman for her money, but sneak out on Friday nights with the poor babe you really want?

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 5:55 p.m.

    Mormon owned businesses on the yes on prop 8 donor lists and maps.....wouldn't want to be YOU

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 5:51 p.m.

    Since you so kindly offered gays to marry opposite sex partners...ya mean like the 14yo daughters you don't rape and call it some creepy old trolls third wife in TX?

    Mormons you can believe like any other Christians...use the BIBLE as your ONLY holy text.

  • Boy in Boycott
    May 26, 2009 5:36 p.m.

    It saddens me to see those of us who lost a fair election and judicial review to continue to indulge in the hate and anger that we ascribe to those who dissagree with us.

    Let's move beyond these emotions.

  • why allow any gay marriage?
    May 26, 2009 5:27 p.m.

    this ruling was insane. Why enforce prop 8 which prohibits gay marriage and then turn around and allow for it for those that slid under the fence before the law was changed? It's like outlawing all new prostitution but allowing those currently practicing to just keep on doing it. No wonder California is going out of business.

  • The Deuce
    May 26, 2009 5:27 p.m.

    Is this really about relationships or is this about changing a definition. I am confused as to what the Gay/Lesbian side wants at this point. I believe I understand what the supporters of Prop 8 want but I am confused about the other side. If what is wanted are equal rights, then a civil union with those rights satisfies the argument. I don't believe that anyone would oppose this. Leave the definition of marriage alone and focus on what is really wanted, legal rights. Now, if this is not what we are talking about then the problem will continue. Is there any room for compromise at this point?

  • Excellent
    May 26, 2009 4:57 p.m.

    It is a great day for democracy.

  • to: Anonymous 2:35 p.m.
    May 26, 2009 4:19 p.m.

    yep, the same majority who later overturned all of those things. stop whining. if you truly beleived you were right, you would be convincing the people to vote in your favor, not a few judges. that is the american way. the courts might have banned slavery, but they did it with public support. see amendment to the constitution. and you should try reading the constitution from time to time. it did not count blacks as 3/5 of a person, it counted slaves as such because they were still considered property. and that's a stupid thing to bring up for your argument because that provision was added o that the slave states would not have a majority in congress and stop the passage of an amendment to ban it altogether later. you really should brush up on your history before using it as an argument.

  • RE; anonymous
    May 26, 2009 3:32 p.m.

    Boy, have you really twisted that one around. In none of those cases you described was it the majority that believed what you claim. It was a very powerful, well funded minority, which last I checked more accurately desribes the gay community.

  • CougarKeith
    May 26, 2009 3:28 p.m.

    Gays have always had the right to marry like anyone else, just do it right, marry someone of the opposite sex! There is no "Right" to be won here, nobody is preventing them from marrying, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want too, just like anyone else! What is the cotton picking problem? Get married to someone of the opposite sex who is also "Gay" and have an "Open" relationship, it's pretty simple! Just deal with the consequence of adultery like most other indiscriminant people will, that's all, you are all going to the same place anyway, what's the difference?

  • Why
    May 26, 2009 3:22 p.m.

    If we are so bigoted, why do you try so hard to seek our acceptance? Make up your own thing, don't call it marriage. You have all the same rights already. I don't understand why you continue to seek acceptance.

  • Re; Geezer
    May 26, 2009 3:15 p.m.

    It's not a civil right that is at issue. Or at least not as you define it. It is about the separatiom of church and state. If gay marriage is legal the next step is that religions can't speak out against homosexual acts. Don't believe me? That's exactly what happened in northern Europe. (Sweden or Denmark if I remember right.) It progressed in exactly that way and now a preacher can be arrested for saying on his pulpit that homosexuality is a sin. Can you honestly say that the GHLT community won't take that step if they win this one? If you don't think they will then you are purely delusional.

  • Origin of marriage
    May 26, 2009 3:07 p.m.

    To say that the gay marriage issue is an issue that should be a social issue first and religious second is a bit ludicrous. Marriage was originally a religious institution that was later adopted as a legal institution by various governments. For government to go in and try to change the definition of marriage and try to force religions to accept a mandate over a religious belief is a violation of the separation of church and state. Hmm, last I checked that's what the prop 8 opponents are accusing the churches of. Looks to me like they're try to protect their right to worship as they choose.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 2:51 p.m.

    gays = disappointed


    volcanos = warm

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 2:35 p.m.


    Yeah the same majority who thought SLAVERY was swell
    Yeah the same majority who defined Blacks as 3/5ths of human
    Yeah the same majority who denied women the vote, or their being able to divorce, have custody of their children or own property.
    Yeah the same majority that put Japanese Americans in Concentration Camps and stole ALL their property.

  • Mark
    May 26, 2009 2:25 p.m.

    31 for 31. Still batting 100%

  • Geezer
    May 26, 2009 2:17 p.m.

    They can slow the progress of civil rights, but they can't stop it. California will eventually follow the pioneering states that have moved ahead. Same-sex marriage is not a threat to my marriage. It's a shame that some feel threatened by it.

  • Hot Topic
    May 26, 2009 2:13 p.m.

    This really has been an issue that has really good marketing on one side. This is not an issue of equality, it is an issue of CONTROL.

    Just the fact that one justice voted against the majority vote of the people with no basis for an argument is further evidence of that.

    This country is based upon freedom, not control. Were it not so, we may just be supporting King Washington XXIV.

    May we be blessed with continued FREEDOM in America.

    May 26, 2009 2:10 p.m.

    Oh for heaven's sake, the voters voted!! The majority decided! And they did it in CALIFORNIA!! What in the world good does it do to protest, at this late date, at the UTAH state Capitol?? Go to CALIFORNIA and protest!

    Y'all are just mad because you didn't get your way, and now you're throwing a temper tantrum like a two-year-old.

    Fine, go exercize your Constitutional right to protest, but remember that the voters were exercizing their Constitutional rights as well.

    Don'tcha just HATE it when the other guys (you know, the people you don't agree with) have rights, too?

  • doclnemo
    May 26, 2009 2:02 p.m.

    No matter what you call a couple of the same sex it can never be a marriage. For a marriage is only a marriage after the female gives berth to a child sired in a natural way. The is the rules of husbandry set fore by the genetic engineree of the human race. Set yourselves seperate form yur parents and cleave to your spouse, going forth to mulitply.

  • Really?
    May 26, 2009 1:53 p.m.

    I am so sad that you just referred to Abe Lincoln.... Do you know anything about his opposition to discrimination??? I am so sad to see that those that claim to, "judge not that ye be not judged", are so openly judging. I know my creator and I will answer to him when my time comes. I will stand proud that I treated all people as equals! You don't have to agree with all that people believe but you do need to respect the right for each of us to make our own decisions, the same way you want others to respect you. Maybe when something you believe in is in jeopardy, you will understand and hope for others to respect you and your opinions. Until then, equality for all~

  • Right On!
    May 26, 2009 1:51 p.m.

    Now there's a headline we'll keep seeing!

  • Agreed with Scarlet
    May 26, 2009 1:41 p.m.

    I agree with Scarlet. The fight is indeed not over. Bigotry may reign supreme now, but slaves, women, minorities, and our ancestors that fought in the American Revolution all fought for their rights, and won.

    Gays will fight to the end for their rights--and with the help of fellow Americans who believe in equality for all, we will achieve equal rights for all when it comes to marrying according to the dictates of their own conscience.

  • re: Scarlet
    May 26, 2009 1:34 p.m.

    Have a good time exercising your "Constitutional Rights". I'll be exercising mine on the other side of the fence our wonderful non-gay brothers and sisters.

  • Cats
    May 26, 2009 1:30 p.m.

    Dear Scarlet,

    I just love the way gays and gay supporters always try to claim that if you disagree with them it's either because you hate them or you're afraid of them. They clearly just can't handle honest disagreement.

    And, BTW, Marriage is NOT a right. It is a privilege. That's why you have to get a license.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 1:29 p.m.

    America is the greatest country in the world. Proven again by the majority.

  • The Rock
    May 26, 2009 1:27 p.m.

    Abe Lincoln used to ask a question:

    If you called a dogs tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have.

    When people said "five" Abe would reply; "No, callign a tail a leg does not make it one."

    Calling a same sex relationship a marriage doesn't make it one either.

  • Victory
    May 26, 2009 1:25 p.m.

    The people have voted, now shut up or leave. Those that support gay marriage are parasites looking for ways to bend societies values.

  • Lagomorph
    May 26, 2009 1:23 p.m.

    To: Anonymous | 1:03 p.m. May 26, 2009:
    You discount the role of romantic love and affection or physical attraction in contributing to a meaningful (not sham) marriage. Are you comfortable with cultures that practice arranged marriages? Would you be happy in a marriage to a spouse whom your parents picked out for you, with no choice in the matter? That is the position you put the state in when you have the government preclude certain marriages (i.e. same-sex) based on love. Obviously a gay man and a lesbian can now legally marry each other, but what would be the point? They could each have extramarital affairs with people they truly were attracted to, but that undermines the whole idea of marriage.

  • Scarlet
    May 26, 2009 1:11 p.m.

    OK so bigotry has won again, but don't believe for one second that the fight is over for equality in the state of Utah. Once upon a time the same haters would have voted for a ban on inter-racial unions but look where we are today. It will take time but I am positive that love will win in the end. My husband and I will join hundreds tonight in SLC at the state capitol 6:30 to show our support for our wonderful gay brothers and sisters.

  • Thank goodness!
    May 26, 2009 1:10 p.m.

    Maybe they should go find their own country to rule and corrupt as they see fit ... it would only be a matter of time before God destroyed it like Sodom and Gomorrah.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 1:03 p.m.

    We already have marriage equality. Anyone of the age of consent can get married. There is no marriage discrimination. Those wanting to change the definition of marriage, if successful, will further societys decay.

    May 26, 2009 12:53 p.m.

    Yea you could move to Alabama, Mississippi, or Arkansas and those States will accept all gays with open arms right?
    Don't be so short sighted.

  • come on
    May 26, 2009 12:40 p.m.

    What a joke. How does CA now deal with 18,000 people in a special class? They will be the guinea pigs.

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2009 12:37 p.m.

    Utah LGBTs

    you deserve better than living in the HATE STATE

  • Mr. Obvious
    May 26, 2009 12:34 p.m.

    Mueller called it a "hollow victory. From now on, there's an asterisk next to their marriages."

    Actually, there already was.

  • lost in DC
    May 26, 2009 12:29 p.m.

    what a pointless article! Does anyone think gay activists would have been happy with the decision issued by the CA court?