US appeals court tosses Oklahoma gay marriage ban

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 22, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    It's kind of scary how many conservatives want to marry their mothers, sisters, pigs and trees. At least I assume that's what they want to do since they are so sure that's what everyone else wants to do. Good thing the laws that only allow marriage between a man and a woman have been on the books or who knows how many conservatives would have entered into these wacky marriages!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 22, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    "Every child deserves a mom and a dad, and the people of Oklahoma confirmed that at the ballot box when they approved a constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as a man-woman union," said Byron Babione, senior attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom"

    (Defending Freedom? Hardly)

    Denying marriage to LGBT people does nothing to ensure that every child gets a mom and a dad. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Niente. Nothing.


    Hats off to the judges ruling that the US Constitution protect ALL citizens from having their rights removed by other citizens.

    @Something to think about;

    Thank you. Even though you are morally disapproving, you support equality. Thank you again.

  • Something to think about Ogden, UT
    July 19, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    I find the whole SSM debate interesting because of the arguments made against it. They are often the same arguments that were made to defend a State's right to slavery and later segregation.

    I am morally against SSM. As a result I will not marry a person who's the same sex as I am. I'm an American and have the right to choose who I marry. Having said that, I acknowledge that two people, regardless of their gender, should have the same "right" to choose who they marry in this Country.

    If you believe that marriage is NOT a 'right'.. then fight to remove all marriage benefits awarded by our government. Married people are given benefits by the gov't. So, to deny others those same rights would be, and should be unconstitutional.

    Oh, and the talk about 'activist' judges... that wears me out! They're doing their jobs. They're reviewing cases brought before them. Maybe if we had "activists" in the Executive and legislative branches more would get done around here.

  • intervention slc, UT
    July 18, 2014 11:24 p.m.


    "no matter how "bigoted" the atheistic left tries to make us, the religious, sound."
    When you are trying to claim that you are being unfairly branded a "bigot" it might be best to stay away from the stereotyping,

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 18, 2014 10:02 p.m.

    @Avenue: "The only reason the federal government should get involved is if the laws are unconstitutional. This law was not unconstitutional, no matter how "bigoted" the atheistic left tries to make us, the religious, sound."

    Twenty-plus judges, appointed by presidents ranging from Reagan to Obama and then approved by Congress over three decades, and sadly not one of them knows anything about the Constitution or constitutional law.


    Mostly, the best way to make the religious sound bigoted is to repeat what they said, verbatim and without editing.

    But that only works with religious people who are bigots. Religious people who are not bigots don't sound like bigots, no matter what.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    July 18, 2014 7:42 p.m.

    Hats off to Governor Fallin and the good people of Oklahoma who are fighting for the right of the citizens to pass laws in their own state, without intervention from the federal government. The only reason the federal government should get involved is if the laws are unconstitutional. This law was not unconstitutional, no matter how "bigoted" the atheistic left tries to make us, the religious, sound.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 18, 2014 7:02 p.m.

    I read some excerpts on this ruling on another website. This judge, in his ruling, cited some of the clear hate speech that drove the law to be passed in the first place. Quotes from politicians who supported and pushed the law. They were very open, it wasn't religion it was prejudice.

    He cited that as the clear animus that drove the law in the first place and supported overturning it.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 18, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    What's good for Oklahoma is good for Utah.

  • nycut New York, NY
    July 18, 2014 3:45 p.m.

    Cletus from Coalville says: "We should now start seeing wedding announcements for polyandry, polygyny, group marriage, and family intermarriage. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

    Goose? Gander? This phrase would be better used in arguing for equal pay: as in, "What's good for the male is good for the female."
    But it's a strange choice, this hetero-normative gender phrase, given the terrifying future of inter-generational, inter-species marital chaos you're trying to invoke!

    It'll be OK. "What's good for the goose and the gander" is also good for the "goose and the goose" and the "gander and the gander." The gay birds can marry. The straight birds can marry. See? Everybody's happy.

    After all, birds of a feather do flock together. Honk honk.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 18, 2014 3:45 p.m.

    I'm not very sentimental about founder fathers or divine notions of our Constitution. However, I cannot deny that I am very happy with the separation of powers and thank goodness for the judicial system.

    @ A Quaker: Thank you for your entries, they are always on point, respectful and display no animosity. I enjoyed reading your post and this one was no different.

    @ Cletus from Coalville:
    My friend you and your ilk seemed to have fallen and be trapped in a destructive dimension. You attack something, in this case SSM. Yet those being harmed are yourselves. You feel the pain and yet continue doing what generates it.

    Your conclusion and fears based on SSM cannot be taken seriously, they have not been taken seriously, yet you persist.

    My friend, if you believe that innocence should prevail until proven guilty, shouldn't you let SSM take its course and see what happens. You may be surprised.

    In the meantime: CONGRATULATIONS to Oklahoma!!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 18, 2014 3:31 p.m.

    @Father of Four
    After doing some searching it seems that most of the others have their oral arguments in August and so they wouldn't get their rulings until later. Virginia's appeal has been heard though so that should be the next one to come. I think there are five different appeals courts that have cases going through, a lot of them have been essentially lumped together (like Michigan/Ohio/Kentucky/Tennessee and Utah/Oklahoma) so there's something like 10 states altogether in this.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    July 18, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    I'm starting to think the Supreme Court may not hear cases on this issue, intentionally.

    This is a very big issue for the country, certainly, but the Supreme Court has become very acrimoniously divided, and no matter which way they decide, it would further poison the justices against each other.

    It may be wise for them to avoid this issue, or at least to let more appellate cases to be ruled. The longer the Supremes waits, the more public opinion will sway toward equality, making the issue a moot point.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    July 18, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    OK, now it appears the courts are just running up the score. One analogy that comes to mind is the SSM opponents acting like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football one more time.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 18, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    @Cletus: Congratulations on your excellent performance as a fearmonger! You got just the right theatrical tone in there.

    I hope no one is concerned by your performance, though, as it bears no relation to reality. Any court that has been presented with such a "slippery slope" argument has reacted with the judicial equivalent of laughing it out of court.

    Absolutely nothing in any of the decisions gives polygamists, zoophiles, or child abusers any hope whatsoever that legal marriage will ever include their desired partners. The essential definition of marriage is not changing. It remains:

    Consenting (above the state's age of consent and legally competent),
    Unrelated (to the extent of non-consanguinity set by state law),
    Uncommitted (not otherwise bound by marriage or civil union),

    Once you learn to put aside homophobia, one finds that those are the essential factors that society requires.

    It's a very simple fact that homosexuality is legal, that gay couples form marital bonds, and that they can spiritually marry in several denominations. It's not for us to deny them the rights that flow from that that the rest of us enjoy.

  • Cletus from Coalville Coalville, UT
    July 18, 2014 12:55 p.m.

    "Now let us Mormons and non Mormons get ready to celebrate all the upcoming weddings."

    We should now start seeing wedding announcements for polyandry, polygyny, group marriage, and family intermarriage. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Another victory on the march to equality.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 18, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    Another victory on the march to equality. Justice prevails, sometimes slowly, but she prevails.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    July 18, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    26 rulings. 26 activist judges (or panels of judges).

    Or, maybe. Just maybe, such laws really are unconstitutional. Crazy thought, I know.

    July 18, 2014 11:54 a.m.

    So it is my understanding that there are five Court of Appeals rulings expected this summer. We have seen the first two. Does anyone know what the other ones are and when they are expected?

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    July 18, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    I ask you Amerikans do we have a great country or not? Equality always wins in the end.Now let us Mormons and non Mormons get ready to celebrate all the upcoming weddings.