Needless confusion

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 3:36 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal 1:46 p.m. Sept. 17, 2013

    The problem is not whether a person "likes" the Constitution. A lot of people "like" the Constitution even when they fail badly when they try to argue its provisions. They think that "reading" it is enough, and fail to realize that it is necessary to STUDY the Constitution in depth and breadth, and over a significant period of time with qualified instructors, to truly comprehend and understand what it says, what it means and how it works. Just reading it isn't enough.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    I still don't see what all of the fuss is about. If the feds recognize SSMs legally entered into in one state, the couple moving to another state shouldn't turn them into roommates. What business is it of the new state whether the feds recognize a couple's marriage from another state. That's between the couple and the feds. The state doesn't have a dog in this fight.

    it seems that the DN simply wants to prevent Utah's gays from going to CA or another states, get legally married, and then return and have some government entity deem it a valid marriage. This is a transparent attempt to be able to continue to marginalize same-sex couples.

    Until the Supreme Court tells states, like they did with mixed race marriages, that they can't discriminate, Utah will still be able to deny gays state issued marriage licenses.

  • facelifter PROVO, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 6:52 a.m.

    The DNews has a well thought out argument. Unfortunately, the Obama administration does not care about trivial things like the constitution, states rights or, Heaven forbid, the will of the people. The homosexual community has a loud, unrelenting voice that champions one, single agenda with no regard for other points of view. And they vote for Obama. So no matter how reasoned an argument, it falls on deaf ears in this populist national administration.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Sept. 19, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    @L White
    Springville, UT

    My, my, my.
    I am beginning to think that we are a nation of idiots. I know that some people would think that if you use the word "idiot" that they cannot post your comment, but it is the best word to describe what is happening in America.

    The people who take Social Security and Medicare from the government. They demand and demand and demand.

    It seems to me that they have no idea how blessed they are to live in America where people care about the poor, the sick and the elderly.

    10:25 a.m. Sept. 18, 2013


    There, I fixed it.
    Does that still make any sense L White?
    Is it still consistent?
    Does it prove and maintain integrity for you?

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    Re: "Did Christ appeal to Caesar for help? Did he go to Herod and ask that taxes be raised to help the poor?"

    Did Christ complain to Caesar that his taxes were too high, or grumble that they were being gathered for and spent on things not authorized by the Roman constitution?

    Did Christ go to Herod and say, "Herod, whatever you do, do not raise taxes to help the poor - in fact, don't have the government do anything to help the poor, the sick, the elderly, or the hungry"?

    Did Christ say somewhere that universal health care was wrong, or that the government should stay out of healthcare?

    Did Christ start, support, campaign for, or donate money to any ballot initiatives to change the civil marriage laws or to keep them from being changed?

    Did Christ, the person who was criticized for being a drunk and for associating with sinners, the man who said to treat others as you would want to be treated, tell business owners to judge their customers, or to refuse their services to certain people?

  • L White Springville, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 10:25 a.m.

    My, my, my. Hasn't the government made another mess? But, what should we expect when the government tries to redefine words? I do not remember anything in the Constiution that allows the government to regulate marriage. It is just not there. If it is not there, then shouldn't it be left to the States to regulate?

    I am beginning to think that we are a nation of idiots. I know that some people would think that if you use the word "idiot" that they cannot post your comment, but it is the best word to describe what is happening in America. The people who make demands on the government do not even know what the government is allowed to do. They demand and demand and demand. If they would read the Consitution, they would learn how few things the Federal Government can do without breaking the law. I think that they do not care about the law. They just want to do as they please no matter how they destroy our society. It seems to me that they have no idea how blessed they are to live in America where the people limit the authority of the government.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    Re: "Some people would have government force us to be charitable."

    Leviticus: "And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field ... And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger." - Deuteronomy: "When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow ... When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow."

    That was the civil law among the Israelites.

    Wasn't the government forcing people to be charitable? Didn't it keep some of the fruits of their labors from those who owned them, preventing them from maximizing their profits, and forcing them instead to support the the poor?

    Yet according to the Bible this law of "forced charity" came from God himself ("And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ..."), therefore "forced charity" must be compatible with his teachings.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    to LDS Liberal 8:13 a.m. Sept. 17

    You just hit the nail on the head.

    Can't help but wonder... what would conservatives (Especially someone from S Jordan) whine/preach about if marriage was not to regulated by the government?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 18, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    Some people would have government force us to be charitable. Did Christ appeal to Caesar for help? Did he go to Herod and ask that taxes be raised to help the poor? Did he demand "HerodCare" to provide health services? Did he campaign for same-sex "marriage" before the Sanhedrin?

    Did he re-define "marriage" and demand that each city accept same-sex "marriage"?

    Christ's doctrine prohibits judging and attacking others. Some claim that they follow the Master even as they go about judging and attacking others. Alma the younger did that until he was converted.

    Millions of people throughout the world ignore the "barking", as Bruce R. McKonkie described it: "What does it matter if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of the weary travelers? Or that predators claim those few who fall by the way? The caravan moves on."

    Although many would redefine "marriage" so that they can claim that their way of life is good and proper, "the caravan moves on". Those who know the purpose of motality will not be moved aways from the doctrine that brings eternal happiness, regardless of the "barking" of others.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    There are, of course, many, many reasons...(to deny SSM).
    How are newlywed seniors, whose marriage can't produce kids, different than 2 lesbians marrying? Why are the former allowed to legally married, but not the latter?

    The burden's on those advocating change to show those they hope to convince that their position will not burden or adversely affect our rights.
    Rights aren't affected. Businesses can't discriminate against protected classes. If you don't want gays listed as a protected class (like religious belief, race, gender, etc..) requiring businesses to serve them, contact your state legislator. Let the majority opinion prevail. I'm sure that bakers and photographers who opposed mixed-race marriages on religious grounds felt justified in refusing business to such couples. How are today's bakers and photographers any different?

    Churches won't be forced to marry gays. If someone tries, even most gays would support a constitutional amendment protecting churches. Churches could also refuse to perform ANY LEGALLY recognized marriage and ask their members to marry civilly and/or have a non-legally binding religious service. The state can't dictate religious practice. No RIGHTS are harmed, only assumed privilege.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 18, 2013 12:15 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    You are free to worship God as you please. I and many millions more made a covenant that we would never, ever, under any circumstances be ashamed of Christ or of His doctrine. We covenanted to stand as a witness at all times and in all places, even when naysayers attacked us.


    Like what Mike?

    Caring for the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the needy?
    How about having All things in Common?
    Where do you stand in judging others?
    Paying Taxes?
    What about War and the Death Penalty?
    Obeying honoring and sustaining the Laws of the land -- ALL of them?

    I'm curious Mike -- what Doctrine is it exactly, and where do you stand on them?
    I know where Christ's is -- it's also WHY I'm a Liberal.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 9:22 p.m.

    @Mike Richard's
    so I am curious were you got that from my comment? I have seen some serious straw man arguments on these pages but that maybe a new all time straw man. How about you address the actual comment which was asking if you in your 2:23 pm post are going against your religious leaders counsel by calling others faithfulness into question.

    As to the rest of your comment once again you made a covenant with your understanding of your god and your understanding is not a universal one and certainly not a universal truth and therefore doe no hold any more validity as an argument then anyone else that uses religion over observable facts as an argument.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 17, 2013 4:21 p.m.

    Spring Street,

    You are free to worship God as you please. I and many millions more made a covenant that we would never, ever, under any circumstances be ashamed of Christ or of His doctrine. We covenanted to stand as a witness at all times and in all places, even when naysayers attacked us.

    A covenant is a promise made between man and God. Only man can break that covenant. God is bound to keep His part as long as we keep our part. I am not a covenant breaker. I could care less about the mocking tone that so many use when they think that they're more capable of running society than our Creator.

    Many people in many religions throughout the world honor the covenants that they have made. They would never accept the philosophies of man as a replacement for the doctrines of God.

    Government is not charged by the People with defining marriage. It has no right to impose a "redefined" marriage on us.

    When mankind sets aside pure docrine and gets caught up in the philosophies of man, he's headed for trouble.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 3:50 p.m.

    @ procurador: Ah, yes - archaic anti-miscegenation laws from the early 1900's. I guess I should not be surprised that those are coming out of the wood-work again - even if they are not enforceable for their original purpose.

    As for your comment that those who wish same-sex marriage must prove it does no harm: never, in the history of the United States has an individual or group had to prove it is entitled to the same rights as everyone else by proving that giving that right will cause no harm. Indeed, our entire government is based on the ideal that rights are not given by the government but exist in spite of the government. It is those who wish to limit or prohibit rights who must prove a valid reason for that limitation.

    @ 2 bits: In early Europe, the church was the government. In many cultures and many times religion and government have been closely related. Indeed, the separation of them is part of what made the US so unique when the Constitution was drafted. However, their close ties do not negate the role of government in recognizing marriage.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Sept. 17, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    Now, procuradorfiscal, name states that actually enforced that law between the years between Loving vs Virginia and when Romney dredged it up. There's a reason Las Vegas stays in business.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 3:19 p.m.

    are you questioning other peoples faith again Mike? Is that also not against your religions leaders counsel?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    Re: "Name one state and its law that invalidates heterosexual marriages that are valid in other states."

    Any state that has adopted The Uniform Marriage Evasion Act, for starters [includes Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Wisconsin]. And that act merely codifies what is already law in most other states, as well.

    The intent of the Uniform Act, as well as the law of most states is to assure that, if a resident prohibited from marrying under the law of one state goes to another, for the purpose of avoiding this prohibition and there contracts a marriage which would be void within the home state, that marriage is held to be void by the home state, just as if it were entered into there.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    I agree with some of the comments I've been seeing....especially "Joe Blow". We are supposed to be the United States of America. That has never meant that we always agree, but what it does mean is that we try to give people equal rights. States have been (and I believe will always be) unique in certain ways. But just as we now give rights to interracial marriage (although not all agree with it) we should do the same for gays. If people don't like these things, then they don't need to participate, but states should still be required to adhere to the law. In Utah, the prominent LDS church (and any others) are not required to perform the marriages that they don't approve. So, the state should not battle giving the people their rights that have performed this in other areas that allow it.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    Democrats keep trying to make the case that this is only confusing because religion got involved. But originally Marriage was a religious rite not regulated by the Government.

    I'm trying to point out that before government got involved it was pretty simple. Involving Government and lawyers in it is what makes it needlessly confusing.

    I say the government should have no say in marriage or who we marry. And yes... gay people should be allowed to marry. All they have to do is find a preacher who will marry them.

    It's the government involvement that makes it complex. Some States recognizing your marriage, some not, etc. That kind of stuff. Back before governments got involved, say cave man days, or adam and eve (if you believe in that)... I doubt they had to go to the government office to get marriage defined or to get the government's permission to marry.

    It was simple.

    I do research on early European marriage records, and they weren't recorded by the government, they were performed and recorded by the church (not the government).

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 17, 2013 2:23 p.m.

    It's interesting to read comments from a former missionary who now promotes gay marriage and another poster who often quotes the "brethern" when it suits him, but now, when it's time to stand up for what they taught and what they claim to believe, they mock Deity. The "Brethern" have clearly stated: ". . . marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

    God instituted marriage for the benefit of mankind to protect men and women from those who were so full of guile that they would present other plans to cause sorrow and pain to the human race. Even if you now claim that you don't believe in God, He still believes in you.

    Marriage is sacred, even when millions trivialize it.

    Marriage is the only institution that will exist beyond the grave. Those who don't understand that concept can learn. There are at least 75,000 young men and women who will glady help you comprehend how sacred and precious marriage is when it is properly understood.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    It's not as cut-and-dry as you pretend.

    RE: "The US Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law to ALL citizens"... then by the Constitution children should be allowed to marry. And any law preventing it is "Unconstitutional". Otherwise they are not being treated equally under the law.

    How about polygamists? We've had the same Constitution for awhile, and they have been prevented from marrying for a LONG time (even today). Is the government violating their Constitutional rights by not allowing them to marry whoever they want?

    You seem to think this is only about same-sex marriage. But by your interpretation ALL people should be able to marry whoever, or whatever they want... or the ACLU needs to get involved. But obviously they don't. Why?

    Because you are wrong. The Constitution doesn't say you can marry whoever or whatever you want. Originally the government wasn't even involved in Marriage (it was a religious rite). Now that government has become involved... the definition of "marriage" changes.

    It used to be a covenant between God and the couple. Now it's just a Government contract (how romantic).

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:49 p.m.

    When Utah doesn't have hundreds of polygamous families living openly then Utah senators can start talking about the defense of traditional marriage.

    You would think hypocrisy would bother people..

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    Here, UT

    You must forgive Mike Richards.

    He doesn't like the Constitution.
    He's pro-Theocracy - not much different than the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Sharia Law extremists we're fighting on the OTHER side of the world.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    Re: ". . . there is no reason on earth why same-sex couples shouldn't be treated the same by the government as opposite-sex couples."

    Says you.

    There are, of course, many, many reasons, both on earth and off. Childishly refusing to recognize or acknowledge them, doesn't diminish their existence. It's simply not helpful to engage in bleating contests, to see whose opinion can be shouted loudest.

    The burden's on those advocating change to show those they hope to convince that their position will not burden or adversely affect our rights.

    To date, the LGBT community hasn't been very effective at that.

    They continue to deny that our opinions matter. They continue to bully and overreach, suggesting our rights to believe, practice our beliefs, associate with those we choose, provide business services and artwork to those we choose, even to speak of our beliefs as we choose, are PROPERLY affected by their desire, not merely to engage in behaviors -- they already have that -- but to force those who disagree with them to validate or celebrate those behaviors.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    @Mike Richards;

    Once again you foolishly expound upon the "god created the institution" when Adam and Eve never even existed, the world is (much) greater than 6000 years old and the bible, upon which you base your comments is wholly fiction.

    The US is not a theocracy and your religious views have no relevance to the governance of this country.

    Furthermore, you do not have a copyright on the word "marriage".

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    @ SEY: And if a couple didn't register with the government, they were not considered married for tax, inheritance, or paternity purposes. As for common law marriages, those still take place - but until they are registered by the government, it is just two people living together - no tax benefits, no inheritance benefits, nothing. And the government sets the rules for what creates a common law marriage.

    Marriage has always been about government involvement and government recognition.

    @ 2bits: Just because the governments that recognized marriages throughout human history may no longer exist, does not mean government was not involved with recognizing those marriages.

    Whether the government was a tribal leader or the ruler of a kingdom or any level in-between, marriage has always had government involvement. It determined community membership, land and food allotments, community requirements, and, in the days before DNA testing, paternal recognition and rights - as well as many other things. Just because the Roman Empire fell does not mean the Roman Empire had nothing to do with Roman marriages. And the higher your class and status, the more money and property was in question, the more the government was involved with your marriage.

  • CLM Draper, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    SEY and Maudine: Marriage may not have always been about government, but it has, for at least the last 5 centuries, been about contracts--contracts that created or fostered financial, social, and even political alliances. Contracts rife for intrusion by the state! In England, the state-run Church of England, seeing a source for revenues by having a say in approving marriages, established laws regarding marriage licensing (or banns)…and continued to exercise its power throughout the American Colonies, many of which later adopted similar laws. Wherever there is power to be had or revenue extracted from its citizens, you can be sure government will have a say.

    SEY & 2 Bits: Agreed! Government has no place in marriage. Here's irony: the dual feature of marriage--constructed by state law and public policy and yet understood as a "natural" and pre-political custom. Does it not follow, then, that if marriage is "a pre-Christian institution written into the human psyche," federal and state laws to define it are wholly unnecessary?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 17, 2013 12:11 p.m.

    As usual, there are those who demand that civilization accept their definition of marriage instead of accepting our Creator's definition of marriage. The first ordinance performed on this earth was our Creator joining Adam and Eve in marriage. That ordinance predated all civil government. That ordinance predated all the self-appointed experts who claim that they know what is best for civilization as they tell us that no matter the consequence to children, they WILL have sex with anybody at any time and that society had better accept it.

    Government cannot "define" marriage. No where in the Constitution has the Federal Government been authorized by the people to define marriage, to perform marriage or to stipulate that States must accept their re-definition of marriage.

    Once you let community organizers re-define religious ordinances to suit their political agenda, you have the "confusion" that the government has created.

    The Court cannot legislate. Since the Constitution gives no authority to the Federal Goverment to legislate marriage, the Court cannot rule on the Federal "definition" of marriage.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 12:01 p.m.

    I still say that it is ironic that in a day and age when marriage is becoming a joke, performed while skydiving, or underwater diving, Elvis impersonators, one day "on line ministers," drive thru chapels in Vegas, ect. ect. that the same sex crowd finally got their way. You can have it. Most people these days have as a first step to marriage "living together." Then children, then an engagement, then maybe a marriage, if the "relationship" hasn't broken up by then. Todays society has so abominated the whole institution, that it is not the "sacred bond" it was intended to be. Let's let people marry their pets too. Why not. Who's to judge? I just don't want any of this secular junk getting into LDS Temples.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    @2 bits;

    It isn't that they agree with me, it IS the right thing to do. The US Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law to citizens. We ARE citizens. It doesn't matter that we have differences of opinion, we need to respect those. And in the case of marriage, there is no reason on earth why same-sex couples shouldn't be treated the same by the government as opposite-sex couples. There would be no confusion if the states actually abide by the Constitution. How often are you automatically divorced for crossing state lines?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    How is it that people only get things right when they agree with you? Is that how tolerance of other ideas works?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    At least the Deseret News got one thing right: The confusion IS needless. If states actually honored the US Constitution and recognized marriages from all states (like they do for heterosexuals), there WOULD BE NO CONFUSION.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    DanO: I'm fine with any kind of marriage that doesn't violate laws of human rights as established under the U.S. Constitution. No marriage can take away individual rights.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    Maudine: look it up. In the U.S., government didn't get involved until the middle of the 19th century. Government merely recorded whatever form of marriage took place, even common law marriage. If a couple said they were married by whatever means, that was good enough.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    IMO "Marriage" is not a government issue. The institution of "Marriage" pre-dates any existing government. People have been uniting in marriage in all civilizations I know of, even ones that pre-date every government currently on the earth. Even primitive societies are known to have a tradition of pairing up as men and women in what they observed as a "marriage". I don't know if they had "Gay Marriage" back then. Maybe they did. But it wasn't a big hit IF the goal of the relationship was to start a family.

    But since governments insist on being involved.... we have to address it the way we are today (politically). Politicians pretty much have to adopt the most liberal definition of "marriage" that's out there... or risk disenfranchising someone.

    So if it's no longer a biological necessity, or a religious thing, and it's just become a government contract... this opening it up to whatever relationship you want is inevitable. I suspect a guy wanting to marry his toaster could sue the government and win (or he would not have equal rights under the law).

    IMO the government should not define "marriage".

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    Re: "It would appear . . . to be ILLEGAL for the feds to NOT accept "married" 1040 tax returns . . . ."

    Only to someone unfamiliar with the law.

    Under the constitution, in matters properly belonging to federal jurisprudence, federal law is considered "supreme" to state law. And, the feds are not obliged to accept state law on a number of subjects, including definitions of marriage, crime, environmental priorities, adoption, etc.

    Just so's you know, the DOMA cases were [wrongly] decided, not upon full faith and credit or comity principles, but upon [flawed] equal protection theories.

    Further, the decision left untouched Section 2 of DOMA, that protects traditional states from overreaching by pro-gay-marriage states. And, nearly every state refuses to recognize a marriage contracted in a foreign jurisdiction to circumvent its own laws.

    Which, by the way is NOT a violation of the full faith and credit clause, but rather, a recognition of it. Such provisions, along with the still-intact DOMA, Section 2 prohibit activist overreaching by liberal-controlled states seeking to dictate the internal affairs of others.

    Sept. 17, 2013 9:13 a.m.


    "by the way, most state's marriage laws invalidate marriages contracted by its citizens in other states or nations to circumvent its own laws."

    By the way that is a direct violation of the full faith and credit clause which is why Utah actually is planning to recognize those marriages for the purposes of state taxes.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Sept. 17, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    So, Sey, you're cool with Sharia law? Because if the government gets out of marriages, religions will be left to enforce the rights and responsibilities of marriage as their own doctrines dictate.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    @ SEY: Marriage has always been about government. It was a way of establishing paternity and who had inheritance rights. It has always been about government recognition - even with the most basic forms of government.

    @ procuradorfiscal: "...most state's marriage laws invalidate marriages contracted by its citizens in other states or nations to circumvent its own laws."

    Really? Name one state and its law that invalidates heterosexual marriages that are valid in other states. (Now, of course, if you look at other countries (not just states), polygamy comes into play - but Federal law as well as state law disallows the recognition of polygamy and there are legally valid reasons for prohibiting recognition of polygamy at this point in time - although that could change. But since this is a discussion of same-sex marriage not polygamy, I will not be distracted and will not discuss polygamy any further.)

    One state and its law that invalidates heterosexual marriages that are valid in the state in which they were contracted. Just one. Prove your point.

    And I again refer you to "In re May's Estate."

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    The confusion is needless, yet perpetuated by states like Utah.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    The Windsor decision requires the Federal government to accept legal marriages of Same-Sex couples performed in countries where we accept their opposite-sex marriages. The Full Faith & Credit Clause appears to require the same of states regarding marriages performed in other states. Some states allow first cousins to marry and others don't, yet the latter still recognize as valid such marriages performed in states that allow them. Why would same-sex marriages be any different?

    It would appear, based on the Windsor decision, to be ILLEGAL for the feds to NOT accept "married" 1040 tax returns from same-sex couples whose marriages were legally entered into in other countries and especially other states that legally performed them. How could it not?

    States may have the right to not perform same-sex marriages, but the Windsor decision and the Full Faith & Credit Clause clearly require that states recognize same-sex marriages performed in states, if not foreign countries, where such marriages are legal.

    SSM opponents simply have run out of objective reasons to justify their subjective stance.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    "The Supreme Court sided with President Obama, and not with Congress." Actually, no - the Supreme Court upheld the Constitution, which is their duty and power under the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution. Congress can legislate all it wants, but that legislation cannot violate the Constitution.

    As for state of residence versus state of ceremony, the IRS is merely following established precedence. For tax purposes, heterosexual marriages that are valid in the state where they were performed are considered valid in the state where the couple resides - even if that marriage would not have been allowed to take place under those circumstances in the state of residence. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, age, familial relationship, who attended the wedding, or who officiated at the wedding. If the IRS changes this rule, numerous heterosexual couples will be affected since there is no legally valid reason why prohibited heterosexual marriages should be recognized over prohibited homosexual marriages.

    Following the Constitution and the established laws of the land, SCOTUS and the IRS are acting in the only legally valid manner possible.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    ‘In our opinion: Needless confusion’


    Needless confusion?

    You mean like get the Feds OUT when it suits my agenda,
    get the Feds IN when it suits my agenda.

    That sort of confusion?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    Wow, this is all about marriage being defined the way you want it, and the government doing things the way you want it. The federal government has always had its fingers in marriage, so you allegations towards the Administration are just plain wrong. You want it both ways from the feds. Let's make this simple. Do away with any tax benefits to marriage. That gets the feds out of the way. As for the states, who should bend? Those states that allow gay marriage, or states like Utah that deny it? What gets me is that many love active government support of religion when it goes their way, and whine when it goes the other way (like the courts interpreting the Constitution). This is one of those instances.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    Re: ". . . the LDS church . . . strongly supported DOMA, which imposed a federal definition of marriage on the states."

    DOMA did no such thing.

    It merely determined that, for purposes of extending eligibility for certain federal benefits, the federal government would define marriage as between a man and a woman. That federalism concept has been endorsed time and time again by the Supreme Court, notwithstanding its nonsensical, politically-motivated, activist opinion in the DOMA cases.

    Federalism clearly permits conflicting federal and state definitions of marriage, just as it permits conflicting definitions of criminality regarding marijuana, and similar conflicts on many, many other issues.

    And, by the way, most state's marriage laws invalidate marriages contracted by its citizens in other states or nations to circumvent its own laws.

    So, good luck trying to enforce Hawaiian law on Utahns.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Sept. 17, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    The belief that a "residency requirement" could be used is blown away by the particulars in the Windsor case. Edith Windsor and Edith Spyer had a Canadian marriage license. Spyer passed away in 2009, two years prior to New York (their state of residency) enacting marriage equality. The courts ruled that the Federal Government recognized other marriages performed in Canada, so it had to recognize Windsor's as well. There was no leeway given for whether or not their resident state recognized that marriage. The administration is just following the ruling when it is providing equal Federal services to all married couples.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 7:30 a.m.


    Curse that Abraham Lincoln for telling States they can't pass laws discriminating who is Free and who is a Slave based on the color of their skin!

    Hallelujah to Gov. Lillian Boggs for sticking up for the Constitutional "States rights" over Federal and issuing the Extermination Order against the Mormons!
    [“Gentlemen, your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you." Pres. Van Buren to Joseph Smith, because at that time [pre-Lincoln] States have the final say so.]

    Perhaps we should letting the STATES continue to make those kinds of decisions!

    [sarcasm, off]

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    There will be NO confusion once ALL states recognize the rights of ALL Americans to marry the person of their choice.

    Discrimination against lgbt couples is bigotry and un-American.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 7:26 a.m.

    For centuries, governments were not a necessary party to marriages. Why did it change? Because there were some who decided it was "improper" for society that certain marriage arrangements were taking place, primarily those of mixed race or plural spouses. As usual, government intrusion creates more problems than it solves. Maybe it's time for government to get out of the marriage business.

  • Church member North Salt Lake, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    This paper seems to be a champion of state rights when it works for them, but against state rights when it doesn't.

    We need to be more consistent.

  • Ohio-LDS NE, OH
    Sept. 17, 2013 6:48 a.m.

    "The Constitution preserves a system of government that reserves power to the states and to the people. As the nation navigates conflicting feelings and emotional views about the proper role of marriage under state law, its leaders must be wise and allow federalism to work."

    I'm confused. For nearly two decades, the LDS church and the editorial board of this newspaper strongly supported DOMA, which imposed a federal definition of marriage on the states. Why is Deseret News now changing it's position 180-degrees and arguing for states' rights to define marriage?

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Sept. 17, 2013 6:44 a.m.

    In the DOMA ruling the courts said the Federal Government must recognize the marriages performed by a State, the Federal Government is complying. How is this confusing? Seems pretty straight forward to me.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 17, 2013 5:38 a.m.

    I really don't understand what the big deal is.

    Government entities should issue a "civil union" license to replace "marriage" licenses.
    They would act the same in all instances as a marriage license and be available to any 2 consenting adults.

    Then, Churches can issue "marriage" licenses. These would be optional and carry no legal significance. They would be available to anyone who the church deems worthy, based on any criteria they want to use.

    Would either side have a problem with this? Doesn't this solve the issues?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Sept. 17, 2013 4:48 a.m.

    The U.S. Constitution provides:

    Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

    Nothing in the article says that the government is trying to tell the states what marriage laws they can enact, just that they have to recognize marriages performed and allowed in other states. The issues mentioned in this article show that the U.S. Government is adhering to the quoted constitutional provision and requiring the states to do the same. In other words, the Constitution is being protected and defended. I thought that's what the far right wanted our president and the federal government to do.

  • Manzanita Las Vegas, NV
    Sept. 17, 2013 1:30 a.m.

    Let me see if I understand the second argument of this article: The Obama administration should basically stop trying to define marriage for the states because domestic relationships are a states' rights issue, e.g., these matters have traditionally been governed at the state and local levels, etc. Based on that logic, I'm fairly confident that when the religious right came asking the LDS church for its support in getting DOMA passed in 1996, I'll bet the church declined the invitation on these grounds and stated it did not support a federal definition that said marriage is only between a man and a woman. Isn't that how it went down? As to the other argument, yes, sometimes the big bad federal government (and "activist" judges) have to step in and protect unpopular minorities from being discriminated against by state laws. See generally Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, Prop 8, etc.