Same-sex marriage foes scrambling after court setbacks

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Landon F. Huntington, UT
    Feb. 24, 2014 12:22 a.m.

    It's funny that so many people comment on these stories stating that they are members of this church or that church(many claiming the LDS church) but then leave it at that. If you are going to bring up your religion, then you can't leave religion out of it. God clearly defines what marriage is and what it isn't. So the instant you state your religion, keep your comment in check with your beliefs.
    I love all equally even if I don't agree with what they are fighting for. Marriage is what it has been since the beginning of time. It has been morally the same since then as instituted from God. Allowing something that is immoral does not make it moral. So no matter what the laws say or what people may do, SSM will always be morally wrong.
    If they want the tax break that comes with being married, well that break won't be along for too much longer as it is. The government will get rid of it.
    Also, by calling people bigots, intolerant, and they're judging just because they don't support your views makes you the same thing.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Feb. 21, 2014 10:06 p.m.

    @ fireman: Before going further in this debate, I would suggest you read the First Amendment.

  • fireman PAYSON, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 3:56 p.m.

    This issue has far reaching and eternal effects for the world as a whole.Before going further into the debate I encourage all to read The Family: A Proclamation To The World. Below is a link to the site.

  • VariedHue Logan, UT
    Feb. 20, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    The same-sex marriage supporters are the epitome of moral relativism. Rights are being given priority over responsibilities. There is no sin and if anyone says there is then they are labeled as "judgmental". Only time will tell but I can see the day that marriage will ONLY be a governmental definition used ONLY for taxes and other benefits. Maybe one day, ministers will be able to perform spiritual "unions" but not marriages. Seems a little backward.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Feb. 19, 2014 6:36 p.m.

    "Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, known for fighting to display the Ten Commandments in a judicial building, has written to all 50 governors urging them to support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between only a man and a woman."

    If you were confused as to what an actual "Activist Judge" would be, this is your example.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 6:15 p.m.


    I get the feeling you feel LGBT are being selfish to want to marry the loves of our lives. Are you being selfish to want to marry? So why are we?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 5:33 p.m.

    @ fireman: It's great that you believe that, and legalizing same-sex marriage will in no way impact your ability to believe that nor will your church be forced to change its teachings regarding same-sex marriage and homosexuality. But the fact that your religion teaches that same-sex marriage is wrong is not sufficient reason, under the law, for prohibiting it.

    Your religion teaches shopping on Sundays is a sin - but there aren't laws prohibiting it. Nor are there laws prohibiting the use of alcohol or tobacco. There are no laws prohibiting the consumption of pork, shellfish, or cheeseburgers although there are religions that teach these as sins.

    And in spite of the supposed claims by some radicals, no one has any interest in forcing your church to solemnize same-sex marriages. As a matter of fact, most proponents of same-sex marriage would very vigorously defend your church's right to not do that.

    Which is a totally different matter than making businesses honor public accommodation laws and treat all citizens as equal.

    Your religious beliefs are not sufficient reason for prohibiting same-sex marriage nor are they sufficient reason for treating people as second class citizens.

  • SuziQ Springville, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 5:29 p.m.

    Marriage is and has been for centuries, by definition, a legal joining of a man and woman. This union used to be considered a family with the potential to bear and raise children. Our society's disregard for the importance of strong marriages has led to cohabitation, single mothers (often teenagers) who often raise their children in poverty, wide spread use of abortion as birth control, and an attitude that getting sexual satisfaction wherever and from whomever is more important than protecting a nuclear family. We are so consumed with our own personal agenda to have what we want (particularly sexually) that we seem to have lost sight of the consequences of our actions. Why do you think that we have so many school shootings, so much abortion, so much drug use, and so many abused children in our society? I don't think it is because we value individual freedoms too little. Perhaps we value them too much and have become so self-centered that the greater good is irrelevant to most of us. When a civilization is centered in self-indulgence, it will not have the courage and heart to remain great.

  • fireman PAYSON, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    ."Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God to fulfill the eternal destiny of His children. The union of husband and wife assures perpetuation of the race and provides a divinely ordained setting for the nurturing and teaching of children. This sacred family setting, with father and mother and children firmly committed to each other and to righteous living, offers the best hope for avoiding many of the ills that afflict society.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Feb. 19, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    What is really funny is that this is only an issue because there HAD to be a law banning it. This mean that the law can be declared unconstitutional. If there is no law, you can't strike it down.

    This puts the burden on the proponents of SSM to get it legalized in the state.

    In an overzealous effort to ban SSM the state has brought this upon itself. It's almost like the state deserves this for trying to be so pretentious.

    Also, banning civil unions is a bad idea as it makes the marriage or nothing closer to reality. Basically Utah got itself OWN3d

  • portlander Arlington, WA
    Feb. 18, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    I am pretty much ready for a refuge in Zion. How about you? The Constitution as our basis in law, the Gospel and the Holy Spirit as our guide.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    @Jamescmeyer 8:01 a.m. Feb. 18, 2014

    This isn't a new news article, it's a rephrasing of what's already been established in media, including on this site, but with a twist to try and make it sound as though people who desire the integrity of the family unit are some small group of people who are defeated or routed in some way.


    The problem with your comment, of course, comes from the fact that SSM does not threaten "the integrity of the family unit". In fact, the people who are attempting to ban SSM are threatening the integrity of the family units of a lot of families, including those with children, because the family heads happen to be of the same sex.

    I am a woman in her 60s. My husband and I have been married over 44 years. The integrity of our family unit is in no way threatened by SSM. In fact, a family unit's integrity would have to be incredibly weak for SSM to threaten it. Those people whose family units' integrities are threatened by SSM should work to strenthen their families instead of trying to destroy someone else's family.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    Feb. 18, 2014 9:00 a.m.


    To your main point as expressed here:
    "I, and I believe most Americans are OK with two people having a legal, living arrangement that denys no rights."

    Were you a resident of Utah back in 2004 when Amendment 3 was passed? Did you vote in favor of it? If so, did you understand the significance of the second part? I'm quite surprised at the number of DN commenters who seem not even to be aware of, let alone comprehend, the full effect of the state's Amendment on same-sex couples. But maybe that's a testament to the dramatic shift in the cultural landscape in the last decade.

    At the time --(2004)-- I remember discussion of how nothing in the bill prevented any two people (including same-sex couples) from entering into private contracts with each other. What's the problem, right? -- well, besides the enormous cost, I've never seen an adequate explanation of how you privately contract for the spousal privilege, for example.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    Getting Older:
    For those who think the popular tides are turning toward same-sex marriage, then why are they afraid to make their case in the court of public opinion?
    For the same reason that those who believed in mixed-race marriage rights in the South went to court rather than trying to persuade the public that their ideas were wrongheaded. SSM opponents likewise haven't been swayed by reasoning. SSM advocates are going to court to force the opponents to offer objective reasons for denying those couples equal rights and their kids equal rights. The opponents are justifiably losing.

    the truth:
    the gays do not want marriage, they not care about marriage, they believe institution of marriage should torn down and done away with,which, despite there denials, will lead to future legal attacks against churches.
    Sorry, but the absolute worst case scenario would be for churches to quit performing legally binding marriages and have their members get married at City Hall and then return to have a religious ceremony that holds no legal weight. The government hasn't even tried to force churches to ordain women. Women are FAR more powerful than gays.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    @ happy2bhere: I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I attended the legislative sessions in 2004 where Amendment 3 was discussed.

    As an ally of the LGBT community in Utah, I emailed my legislators and asked them not to include the second part of Amendment 3, the part that states, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

    I was on the receiving end of the animus directed towards the LGBT and Ally community.

    Once the Legislature passed Amendment 3, the LGBT/Ally community asked the citizens of Utah not to pass Amendment 3 as it went to far. We asked Utah citizens to leave civil unions available.

    On November 2, 2004, 66% of active Utah voters decided that not only should same-sex couples be prohibited marriage, they should be prohibited any other way of recognizing their relationships.

    If you voted in favor of Amendment 3, than you voted to deny same-sex couples "a legal, equal rights partnership".

    The only way Utah same-sex couples get anything is if Amendment 3 is overturned completely. Once that is done, why should same-sex couples settle for less than marriage?

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Feb. 18, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    This isn't a new news article, it's a rephrasing of what's already been established in media, including on this site, but with a twist to try and make it sound as though people who desire the integrity of the family unit are some small group of people who are defeated or routed in some way.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 18, 2014 1:03 a.m.

    @ bj-hp

    You are not being oppressed. You are free to worship, believe and express your opinions just like you always have been. However, you are not immune from criticism or from other people giving their opinions in return. The fact is SSM has no effect whatsoever on you or your religious beliefs. And you can't use your personal religious beliefs as justification to deny rights and privileges to other people, since that would be an infringement upon their freedom. It begs the question, why do you care how two other consenting adults choose to spend their lives? Live, and let live, my friend.


  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Feb. 17, 2014 9:38 p.m.

    Same sex marriage is not a special privilege, it is equal rights. Special privilege would be if gays didn't have to pay taxes. You know, like churches.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 7:17 p.m.

    @the truth
    "No, they want rights and privileges that come with marriage. Which requires them to be married."

    If that was really all they wanted then civil unions would be sufficient.

    "Marriage has no real meaning to gays"

    That's about as logical as saying that Christ has no real meaning to LDS members because they are using it differently than the Trinity doctrine.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 6:16 p.m.


    No, they want rights and privileges that come with marriage. Which requires them to be married.

    What they want and how they get it, or what they need, are two different things.

    Marriage has no real meaning to gays but for its legal value to them.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 6:01 p.m.


    Why don't you take the term "civil union" and let us have the word marriage?


    Then why do you expect us to call our MARRIAGES something else?

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    Feb. 17, 2014 5:11 p.m.

    In response to Happy Valley Heretic, Orem, UT - I am not quite sure where you came up with the idea that I said religion was being attacked. In my original post, I state no such thing. In fact, I said the following: "I respect the opinions and choices of others and always look for a civil dialogue in all discussions." My point was that based on my life experiences, do you really want to take the bet that religion is a "fairy tale", or are you simply more interested in seeking only what you want at the exclusion of any possible higher ideal? I am going to bet that there is a higher ideal. You can define that as you want. Furthermore, nowhere in any of my statements did I ever make a negative comment related to any group of people. Quite the contrary, I stated that "I respect the opinions and choices of others and always look for a civil dialogue in all discussions." Your apology is accepted.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 3:30 p.m.

    bj-hp, happy2, deuce.

    You claim that you are being attacked or religion is being attacked because someone uses the description of "fairy tales"
    to describe your beliefs. The words being used to describe the LGBT community by the religious right makes "fairy tales" a completely benign statement.
    You also dwell on the word "Marriage" as if religion has the corner on it.
    It was fine for as you put it 1000's of years, then religions decided to add a "New" definition to state constitutions with animus. Why else would they add "anything that resembles a marriage is illegal."

    By the way the father giving away the bride, is a symbol of women as a possession being traded to another man.
    Tradition should never be an excuse to behave badly.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    @The Deuce
    Nobody needs Christianity to know that stealing and murder should be considered crimes...

    "Therefore, to those of you that think of religion as a "fairy tale""

    The only thing that separates you or I from atheists is that they believe one more religion is not true than we do.

    "It is really wrong when people state that religion needs to be kept out of government and off the public square. That means there is no religious freedom in this country. "

    If hypothetically 62% of people voted to incorporate Sharia Law, do you believe that'd be constitutional and allow for religious freedom in this country?

    @the truth
    "the gays do not want marriage"

    1,500+ couples in this state alone disagree. Don't pretend that some random statement from one gay rights activist is what the entire movement thinks.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 2:30 p.m.

    Skeptic, to use your own logic, then why would gay/lesbians care what it is called? A domestic partnership should suffice. Elton John thinks so.

    Kalindra, not sure you really understand my point. Marriage was Biblical long before 1500s. And it really doesn't matter what other governments have done with it. It is still a religious principle long before ever becoming a secular legal one. As for losing ground, I don't know about most people opposed to SSM, but I believe that a legal, equal rights partnership has always been the way to go. Much like a legal business arrangement that two people can make. Address the main point I made though. Is the word "marriage" essential to your cause if you can have all rights under another legal title?

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    Feb. 17, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    To: koseighty, Logan, UT - Thank you for making my point. As I stated, a few of the commandments are related to actual law.
    6. Thou Shalt Not Murder -- an actual law
    8. Thou Shalt Not Steal -- an actual law
    9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness -- perjury, libel, and fraud are illegal.
    These 3 alone make a good argument and correlation. I do feel that your idea of Capitalism seems to be somewhat skewed. A simple definition of Capitalism comes from Webster: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market". In other words, it is the individual who owns and not the government. There are as many ways to actually put this into practice, some of which are greed. But then again, this gets back to my main point of wanting something at the exclusion of a higher ideal.
    I do appreciate the comments of other Bible scholars on this page.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    Take a hint from Utah for your defense. Claim to be affronted. That should stand up.

  • koseighty Logan, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    Also, the Ten Commandments are just the first of 613 commandments given in Deuteronomy.

    The remaining include prohibitions on pork and shellfish, making garments of two different fabrics, mixing dairy with meat, etc. The vast majority of these laws never made it into American law either.

    In addition much of the Old Testament is dedicated to teaching people to be subject to kings and rulers. While the New Testament leans toward socialism. There is no support for representative governments of any kind.

    There simply isn't any support for saying our law comes from any biblical law.

  • koseighty Logan, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    @ The Deuce who wrote:
    "...laws we have .. taken directly from the 10 Commandments."

    No. This is a popular meme on the religious right. But it just isn't true. Our law is based on English Common Law, which was based on Roman Law -- not Hebrew law.

    But let's look at the Ten Commandments:

    1. Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Beside Me -- would violate the 1st Amendment

    2. Thou Shalt Not Worship Any Graven Images -- would violate the 1st Amendment

    3. Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of the Lord Thy God in Vain -- would violate the 1st Amendment

    4. Remember the Sabbath Day to Rest and Keep it Holy -- would violate the 1st Amendment

    5. Honor Thy Father and Thy Mother -- good advice, not a law

    6. Thou Shalt Not Murder -- an actual law

    7. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery -- grounds for divorce, but not illegal

    8. Thou Shalt Not Steal -- an actual law

    9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness -- perjury, libel, and fraud are illegal, but lying in general is protected by the 1st Amendment

    10. Thou Shalt Not Covet Anything That is Thy Neighbor's -- the basis of capitalism

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    Feb. 17, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    First, I am not a hard-core religious fanatic about this topic. I do believe that religious, moral values, have a definite place in society. I do not pretend to be a Bible scholar, however, many of the key laws we have in this and other countries seem to be taken directly from the 10 Commandments. I respect the opinions and choices of others and always look for a civil dialogue in all discussions. However, I am a betting man by nature. I find it interesting that some people make comments that relate anything religious to "Fairy Tales" or "Keep your God out" of the discussion. I have lived long enough to realize that there is more to life than we realize or understand. Therefore, to those of you that think of religion as a "fairy tale", do you really want to take that bet or are you simply more interested in seeking only what you want at the exclusion of any possible higher ideal?

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    Feb. 17, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    All you have to do is to see the comments after my comments to see the hate for anything religious and then you say there is no attack on religious freedom. "Keep your god to yourself". This is hate speech and should never be allowed. Or they are just fairy tells. Again hate speech. You can voice your opinion but you are taking my right to voice my religion in the public square. Your are the ones who are being the oppressors not I.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 17, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    @ happy2bhere: You do realize that many religions support same-sex marriage and, under your suggestion, would marry same-sex couples resulting in same-sex couples having marriage and no actual protection of the word "marriage" occurring, right? All your suggestion would do is cause a great expenditure of time and money bringing every thing in to accordance with your idea while actually accomplishing nothing whatsoever.

    And for the record, marriage did not become a Christian religious sacrament until the 1500's - which, yes, predates Christians in America, but post-dates most other Christian countries and societies. Prior to the 1500's, it was strictly a legal ordinance in Christian countries.

    I find it interesting that now that opponents to same-sex marriage are losing ground they are all willing to give same-sex couples the benefits of marriage (even if they only want to do it without the word "marriage" being attached to the relationship) but until recently they were not even willing to give them that.

    Amendment 3 specifically prohibits any recognition, rights, benefits, or responsibilities associated with marriage to same-sex couples - no matter what it is called.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Feb. 17, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    @happy2bhere, Perhaps Shakespeare said it best: "A rose by any other name is still a rose". So if you wish to call it something different, then go ahead; but you may sound a little fatuous when conversing with others.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Feb. 17, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    Here's a thought. Since it looks like states are now going to be forced into marrying same sex couples, (even if its citizens don't want it) what if the state passed a law that took the word "marriage" out of any legal contract between two people who want to share/live together in a legally binding contract? Marriage was a religious principle long before any American laws were passed, and its traditional definition has been for two opposite sex people. I believe that most Americans are not upset at two same sex people having a relationship, with all the benefits of a marriage. It, for me at least, is the use of the word "marriage" that I think offends many. It is changing the meaning of a word that most of us have held to a singular tradition. So if the state just legally coupled people, and then let the churches deal with making it a marriage, (which is where it should have stayed in the first place, religion) then maybe some of the angst would be defused. I, and I believe most Americans are OK with two people having a legal, living arrangement that denys no rights.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 17, 2014 5:54 a.m.

    @ Getting Older

    I think the anti-SSM side chose the battleground when they banned SSM. It was clearly unconstitutional and their leaders knew or should have known this. Did they think such a blatant disregard for people's rights would go unchallenged?

    And I disagree. Marriage from a society standpoint is absolutely intended to validate a relationship. We want and encourage people to marry rather than co-habitate, thus the many laws and benefits surrounding the institution. The State argues this itself.

    So gay couples are not asking for anything that is not already being enjoyed by heteros. The courts are agreeing. It's discrimination. The majority of Americans may believe that homosexuality is immoral (and I'm not certain this is the case any longer), but our Constitution does not allow the majority to impose its moral beliefs on another absent a rational basis. And the anti-SSM side has been unable to show one.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 16, 2014 10:26 p.m.

    @ Getting: They go to the courts because it is the job of the courts to protect people's rights. No one has to convince you to change your opinion - rights are inherent, not given. (And should never have been up for a vote to begin with and should not be put to further votes.)

    @ bj-hp: "I fought so that we could have freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press but I did not fight to be oppressed by those who do not share my views." So instead you are trying to oppress those with whom you disagree?

    @ rivers: The polygamy ruling just brought Utah's laws in line with the laws of the rest of the US - bigamy is defined as having multiple marriage licenses - Utah added to that by including cohabitation with someone other than your spouse. No other state includes that and the judge ruled Utah should not include cohabitation either.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Feb. 16, 2014 6:36 p.m.

    A polygamous marriage between one man and several women is acceptable by law now?
    Apparently, it just depends on which judge gives the ruling you prefer?

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Feb. 16, 2014 6:13 p.m.

    @bl-hp, Sure, we all have a right to our own believe in our chosen fairy tales, but we don't have the right to inflict them on to others.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Feb. 16, 2014 5:47 p.m.

    As an Gay activist leader pointed out, and I paraphrase,

    the gays do not want marriage, they not care about marriage, they believe institution of marriage should torn down and done away with.

    It is all about legal rights and privileges that go along with marriage, and the forced acceptance and embrasure of their lifestyle CHOICE,

    which, despite there denials, will lead to future legal attacks against churches.

    It is not about loving relationships nor about children, not the constitution, or states rights, not about the country or society,

    it is about immorality and selfishness,

    they do not care about the negative or detrimental affects their lifestyle CHOICE will have on society, regardless of their repeated and deceptive denials of these bad affects.

    Unfortunately we see before very eyes the destruction of moral foundation of this country and the foundation of a good and strong society, the holy institution of marriage and the family.

    With, as some have pointed out, the full support of the liberal media.

  • Getting Older Riverton, UT
    Feb. 16, 2014 5:47 p.m.

    For those who think the popular tides are turning toward same-sex marriage, then why are they afraid to make their case in the court of public opinion? Why do they bully and vilify those who disagree? Why do they run to the courts?

    As for the constitutionality, the courts also gave us the Dred Scott decision. Men and women are equal in the eyes of the law but men and women are not the same. Biologically, physiologically, and emotionally they are quite different. Marriage between a man and a women is a relationship that brings children into the world and studies show it as the best environment for children to be brought up. Therefore, government sanctions it and protects it. Marriage, from a society standpoint, is not intended to validate a relationship and that is really what gays want.

    If same sex marriage advocates truly feel that same sex marriage benefits society in the same way traditional marriage does and receive the same benefits then they should make their case in the court of public opinion and stop the hate and bullying.

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    Feb. 16, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    It is really wrong when people state that religion needs to be kept out of government and off the public square. That means there is no religious freedom in this country. That it is being bottled up to be just a meeting and not to be in the forefront. That is what is wrong with this nation and why it is loosing its faith by keeping it bottled up in the homes and churches only.

    I fought so that we could have freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press but I did not fight to be oppressed by those who do not share my views. That is right when you tell me to keep quiet that there is no place in the public square then you are no better than Russia, Iraq, Syria or a tyrant like Hitler.

    We allow it here because that is what our forefathers fought for to allow us to speak and to be heard. It is tyrannical to allow less.

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    Feb. 16, 2014 3:03 p.m.

    This has never been a fight about rights. It is a strict and adhorrent moral issue that the LGBT has tried to make in a rights issue. Unfortunately, they have deceived people to believe it is a right issue.

    No matter whether this becomes a law of the United States or not doesn't matter to me. As has been stated by so many you can make a man made law but you can't change a law of God. If it happens then all it does is prove the Prophets of the Book of Mormon and modern day Prophets to be true. we have taken an evil and made it good and made a good thing evil in the sight of many people in then country. In the end it won't matter because the only marriage that will be recognized will be those marriages of man and woman or a polygamous marriage between one man and several women. Those marriages will stand but any same-sex marriage will be done away when the Lord returns which can be sooner than anyone thinks thanks to this starting to be law.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 16, 2014 1:29 p.m.

    @ gridlock: Have you read the definitions of marriage in the Bible? The Bible fully supports polygamy. Speaking of Sodom and Gomorrah, do you remember how Lot's daughters conceived their children? Sara was Abraham's half-sister. Nachor married his niece, Melcha. Amram married his aunt. Depending on which version of the Bible you read, 1 Corinthians 7:36 has been interpreted to support fathers marrying their virgin old-maid daughters. And there are numerous places in the Bible where cousins marry each other.

    Of all the relationships you mention in your comment, there are only two that are not supported by the Bible - women having more than one husband and same-sex relationship - regardless of any other relationship between the parties.

    There are valid social/health reasons to limit marriage of closely related individuals. There are many logistical issues that must be worked out before polygamy/polyandry/etc. can be legalized.

    None of what you suggest provides any reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

    @ Deuce: The problem with your suggestion is that those who oppose same-sex marriage oppose any relationship giving same-sex couples equal rights - or, at least they did until they started losing.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Feb. 16, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    Keep religion out of government and off the public square. If society and community have a concern for a political issue then it needs to be resolved though civics and not conflicting religions or bigoted zealots.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Feb. 16, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    Sigh, so many republican legislators sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States displaying how little they actually know about the constitution. They and their supporters cause the founding fathers roll in their graves.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Feb. 16, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    @equal protection: Well said and entirely correct. Any attempt to argue against what you've written, is simply and ignorant attempt, at justifying bigotry and discrimination from anti-constitutionalists and these anti's are on the wrong side of a losing battle.

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    Feb. 16, 2014 12:28 a.m.

    Why is it that common sense cannot prevail rather than letting this issue divide so many. The fight is over the word "marriage" for most. The legal recognition and rights can be wrapped up in a domestic partnership contract that is administered by the states. Everyone walks away with the legal rights and priviledges they need and seek and we keep the word marriage out of the fight. Everyone is recognized for their commitment and love. Yes, understand that same sex partnerships are different than a man-woman partnership. Get over it, they are different. Don't fight about the difference, recognize the needs of both sides from a legal perspective and keep it simple. Society has lost it's understanding of common sense in so many things. Keep it simple never applied more than to this issue.

  • gridlockisbetter Antowuk, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 11:47 p.m.

    Where does this end? If three women wish to get married, is it polygamy? Should that be legal? What about 3 women and 4 men? What if a man loves his now grown son, and they wish to marry? What about a man and his now grown daughter? How do we decide if all that matters are the desires of those who wish to be together?

    The traditional, God-inspired definition of marriage has served society well for a long time. I would say we are headed into uncharted waters that could be dangerous, but I think they have been charted. Sodom and Gomorrah didn't work out so well.

    What if God really exists, really inspired the Bible, and really considers homosexuality a sin? What if He really is the rightful ruler of all He created? It is a possibility, you know.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 15, 2014 10:04 p.m.

    @ Samhill: Sorry - the newspapers, in this case the DesNews, write their own headlines.

    If you don't like the headline, blame the DesNews.

    If you don't like the facts presented in the story, well - that is hardly the fault of the AP is it?

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Feb. 15, 2014 8:51 p.m.

    How Prophetic the First Presidency was more than ten years ago when they issued a plea that the U.S pass an amendment to the Constitution protecting marriage. Others are realizing too late what the First Presidency knew more than a decade ago.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 8:26 p.m.

    "Our nation's uneven but dogged journey toward truer and more meaningful freedoms for our citizens has brought us continually to a deeper understanding of the first three words in our Constitution: we the people. "We the People" have become a broader, more diverse family than once imagined. Justice has often been forged from fires of indignities and prejudices suffered. Our triumphs that celebrate the freedom of choice are hallowed. We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.”-Judge Arenda Wright Allen

    “It cannot have failed to strike you that these men ask for just the same thing, fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as in my power, they and all others shall have.” -Abe Lincoln

    "Gays and Lesbians, and their children too, whose voices are in harmony with constitutional guarantees, also ask for fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as it our courts power, they and all others shall have."

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Feb. 15, 2014 7:37 p.m.

    Ok mormons this case over, the church and the state lost,now lets all get on with our lives.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Feb. 15, 2014 6:50 p.m.

    The other side are "gay activists" and judges decisions make them "activist judges" but you think "traditional" marriage just has "advocates?" Legal cases constitute a "continuing assault?"

    I cannot speak for the AP, but like them, would suggest you look up definition of words, including "accurate" and "objective."

    'Lies is lies Pip ... that don't make you uncommon.' Dickens, Great Expectations, Chapter 9

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 15, 2014 6:21 p.m.

    I implore those on the anti-SSM side to read Judge Heyburn's opinion in the Kentucky decision. He directly addresses the fears discussed in this article and that I read on these threads, and he does so with great respect and understanding. For example, from p. 19:

    "Many others may wonder about the future of marriages generally and the right of a religion or an individual church to set its own rules governing it...Must churches now marry same-sex couples?...

    "[N]O COURT CAN REQUIRE CHURCHES OR OTHER RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS TO MARRY SAME-SEX COUPLES OR ANY OTHER COUPLE, FOR THAT MATTER. (emphasis added) This is part of our constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. That decision will always be based on religious doctrine."

    It is very disappointing to read of legislators who don't know or appreciate this basic truth about our Constitution. They should be counseling their constituents about this and calming their fears instead of stoking their panic and indulging hysteria.

    Judge Heyburn's opinion can be found It is document no. 206728126, or you can search using "Heyburn" and recognition-gay-marriages".

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Feb. 15, 2014 5:47 p.m.

    Folks, let's try to see this as it actually is:

    --- Of course, the opponents struggle, because they have nothing solidly legal to go on.

    --- It is foolish to call grandstanding like the Kansas vote a "setback". Everyone knows it is Republican legislators voting on something they know will not pass the Senate, in order to please older voters and contributors. Ditto similar actions in other States.

    --- The article mentions NOM, which has lobbied for hate to Russian legislators, and is only still going because of a few donors.

    --- As for "protecting the religious by allowing them to discriminate: where do you draw the line? Which taxpaying citizens can expect to be humiliated when shopping? How do we make a law that is Constitutional, but allows discrimination against Gays, or mormons, or Martians?

    There was a startlingly blunt decision in Virginia on Thursday night, making it more and more obvious that the tide has turned.
    The above article refers to it only in passing.
    --- Personally, I say the DN perhaps owes the readers a fair and plain representation of events, so that they can see more of a world view, and not be so shocked when their side loses.

  • Free Agency Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 5:34 p.m.

    “I'm saying keep the state out of my church. I only promote and perform traditional marriages."

    Where on earth does this pastor get the idea that the government will try to require him to perform same-sex marriages?

    Has the government ever required a Catholic priest to perform a marriage where one partner isn't a Catholic?

    Has the government ever even hinted that it would one day require the Mormon Church to allow a non-Mormon partner to be married in a temple?

    There is (to my knowledge) absolutely no precedent in this country for forcing any religion to do such things.

    I suspect the reason this pastor (among other religious figures) is so defensive about this is because he, himself, has tried to do the same with gay people: allow the state to interfere with what gays value most (just as he values his church). In short, he's afraid he'll be treated just as he's tried to treat others.

    We'll gladly agree to keep the state out of your church, pastor--if you'll finally agree to keep your religion out of the state. Deal?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 4:29 p.m.

    Of course you would phrase it in a way that ignores the fact your side has lost something like a dozen court cases in a row on the matter.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Feb. 15, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    Representative Steve Hickey, pastor of a Sioux Falls church that opposes gay marriage: "I'm saying keep the state out of my church."

    Pastor when did your church include every city hall marriage license bureau? Every bakery in town? Every florist, caterer, limousine driver, photographer?

    When you give up the tax-exempt status for your "church" you can tell the state to get lost.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 3:55 p.m.

    "Same-sex marriage foes scrambling after court setbacks"

    I guess if figures that a reporter for the AP would phrase the headline like that.

    Had there been a more accurate and objective take it would have read something like, "Advocates for traditional marriage defend it against continuing assault."

    I would have added, " many forces, including the mainstream press."

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    Here's the bottom line regarding SSM: One camp wants laws reflecting their subjective morals (Justice Roy Moore) and the other wants limits only on activities producing objective harm.

    America isn't a theocracy, so those wanting laws to reflect their morals try to uncover how SSM causes objective harm. Their focus is on children. They claim that since SSM can't produce kids, it provides no societal benefit warranting the rights and benefits awarded traditional couples. The problem comes from their logical inconsistencies since they allow the aged and those knowingly infertile/sterile to marry. They also forget that same-sex couples use surrogates and AI to reproduce. Denying the benefits and protections that those children receive from having married parents objectively harms them. SSM opponents' position objectively harms children.

    SSM opponents state that kids are harmed by being denied parents of differing genders. Perhaps, but aren't kids harmed more by parents who smoke, openly deal drugs, are verbally abusive, criminals, provide unhealthy food, are indifferent to children's education, etc..? Yet such are allowed to marry. Why?

    Should marriages only be allowed to those who can reproduce and then raise those kids in healthy environments?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    It's very simple. If you support "liberty and justice for all", then you support SSM. If you want to force your will upon the minority and discriminate against people, you are for "traditional" marriage. When you loo back, which side of history do you want to be standing on?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    Our nation has seen sweeping changes before that involved strong religious views that impacted how the issues were viewed. Notably, early in the slavery debate, it was widely seen that the Bible sanctioned slavery, and abolitionists really were unable to counter that argument, on religious grounds. Of course, today that issue is seen entirely differently than in the early days of slavery.

    What we're witnessing on gay marriage is social change before our eyes in how the issue is seen. While most opponents of same-sex marriage base their arguments on religious grounds, it's also quite true that many supporters of same-sex marriage base their position on a very general interpretation of Jesus' teachings, emphasizing love and acceptance.

    I predict in 10 years the formal religious understandings will begin to emphasize acceptance and the commitment and love aspects involved in same-sex marriages, and emphasize less the Old Testament condemnations.

    Politically, Republicans are noting the sea change in viewpoint among the public, and are less likely to support discriminatory legislation. They see the wind changing directions.

    Fascinating to watch.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Feb. 15, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    They are "scrambling" because they are rightfully losing.

    The can no longer hide behind thinly veiled dogma, nor any of the other specious and outright ridiculous arguments, including procreation, tradition, 'natural' law, optimal child-rearing... none of that tripe is under judicial review here.

    The sole issue under review is: is the state's interest furthered by denying a minority segment of the citizenry the same civil rights the majority enjoy?

    Of course the the answer is no, if one applies logic and reason.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    Just because men in black robes make something legal, that does not necessarily make it right, or moral, or beneficial.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

    Fifteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

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

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    So if the central government doesn't like a state's decision they overrule it via a federal judge, claiming that the law is unconstitutional. If the Executive cannot persuade the Congress an "executive order" is issued to circumvent the process? That is how it is looking more and more. I am very glad to see some of the states seeking to establish their rights over an increasingly assertive central administration.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    Anyone surprised at all?

  • liberty or ...? Ogden, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    In other words a bunch of judicial activists twisitng the 14th amendmant to include something it has no reference to have basically said the constitutional power over marriage issues gauranteed to the states by the constitution (recognized by the FEDERAL supreme court) and duley voted and supported by the majority of the voice of the people in said states can elect to have gay marriage if they want according to the 10th amendment but you cannot elect to not have it. Tyranny of the minority has been given full power. Before somebody ignorantly cries bigotry the issue is the Federal goverment does not have this power the states do. If newyork elects to have gay marriage the constitution states they can but that means Utah, California etc can elect otherwise and not be held captive by judicial lawmaking from the bench.An amendmant to the constitution must be proposed by either side if this is to be done legally and without oppression from each and in the end the voice of the people must decide and ratify it by 2 /3 majority of the states. Any other way is Tyranny and not what founders intended.

  • Crotty Kid Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    God does not have a political party or affiliation and those who state otherwise are surely using his or her name in vain.

    Think for yourself, question authority. Just because religious, political or social authoritative figures believe something doesn't mean you have to believe it. Use love and logic when supporting a cause and don't fall victim to false traditions, religious dogma or social pressures.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 15, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    "Republican political consultants who were advising the party — which officially opposes same-sex marriage — to tone its rhetoric on the issue."

    "The consultant class of the GOP has been stupid," Eastman said.

    with such intellectual retorts like that from top leaders of the opposition to gay marriage its hard to imagine why they are losing, its mot like they are just using emotional reasoning like they accuse others of, right?