Utah joins other states asking Supreme Court to uphold traditional marriage

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    @joseywales Marriage isn't a cause of divorce, but it is a necessary condition for divorce to occur, since divorce is the cessation of marriage.

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Feb. 6, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    These comments illustrate reasons why government of all types should cease its regulation of marriage. Let government focus on civil liberties and let social groups define marriage however they want.

  • TruthisnotPudding Teague, TX
    Feb. 5, 2013 8:47 p.m.

    The Defense of Marriage Act preserves an essential building block of our society. If it is decided that marriage doesn't actually mean what it has for centuries--a contract between one man and one woman, then there will be nothing to prevent the term from meaning a contract between any number of variables. For example, if the term could be 'changed' to include a contract between two women, what's to say about the four people that have tenderly shared their lives, children and beds together for decades. Are they not also 'married' then? And don't forget about the woman who has lived 10 faithful years with the most intelligent canine companion--each looking after the other with unworldly affection and care. She demands that her relationship is 'marriage'. Hmmmm...a kind of 'Pandora's box' huh?
    We must protect the DOMA because it supports the function and continuance of our society. We simply cannot base our contracts on 'alternative sexual orientations'.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 7:49 p.m.

    Why would I?: Marriage is between a man and a woman and involves the potential of off-spring.

    KJK: Then I guess that recent marriage between 2 senior citizens in my ward really isn't a marriage since there is no realistic potential for offspring. After my last kid was born 25 years ago, I got an operation to make sure that I couldn't have kids. If I ever got remarried, there isn't a realistic chance for me either of having kids. Should I be allowed to remarry?

  • joseywales Park City, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 1:06 a.m.

    You know what the number 1 cause of divorce is?


  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 4, 2013 12:40 a.m.

    John Swallow,

    If you want to preserve and protect traditional marriage, then do something about. Denying one group isn't going to achieve that goal.

  • cavetroll SANDY, UT
    Feb. 4, 2013 12:07 a.m.

    John Chairty Spring
    "Hopefully, the Supreme Court will follow the Constitution. The Founding Fathers knew that in order for the country they established to be strong, its people must have strong marriages." I'm curious. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned? Please help me find marriage in the Constitution, I can't.

    "These poppycockish theories are decidedly anti-marriage..." I'm not sure these theories are anti-marriage. They are pro gay marriage. Nobody has ever said heterosexual people cannot get married or anybody else for that matter. That would be anti-marriage.

    Why Would I?
    "Marriage is between a man and a woman and involves the potential of off-spring." So if an elderly couple get "married" but there is no chance of off spring, is it not a legal marriage? What about a young couple who cannot concieve a child? Not a legal marriage?

    History Nut
    Yes your marriage would be meaningless. Just like my grandparents' 65 year marriage and my parents' 40 year marriage. So will Kim Kardashian's marriage. Wait a minute...

    I will note that Mike Richards is suspiciously silent on this matter.

  • History Nut Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 10:06 p.m.

    If they allow gay marriage, my wife and I will get a divorce since our traditional marriage will be meaningless, right?

  • Stable thought FORT MORGAN, CO
    Feb. 3, 2013 9:52 p.m.

    Both Liberials and Conservatives miss the point. Once we redefine marrage to include marriage other than between one man and one women, where do you draw the line? Does not by the same rational argument point towards a man loving two or three women (or more) do they not by the redefing marriage include these? What about a mother marraying a son, a womoen marring two men....where does this end? I can hear the argument coming "well that's differant" Can not these relationship have love and commitment? If you believe other wise than you are not being intellectaully honest. Let contracts between people be drawn such as a gay relationship that allows similar benefits as married couple has, fine. But to redefine marriage, the consquences are many....unintended consquenses.

  • Why would I? Farmington, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 9:34 p.m.

    Why would I be surprised if the pro-gay marriage community produced an argument about off-spring, rather than about "benefits and rights?" It's because the only off-spring gays have is from another party. There have been many studies about father/mother/child relationships as opposed to even single-parent families (called "broken families" for many years).

    Giving a person rights of visitation for illness, executing trusts after death, and having medical leave to "take care of an ill prtner" are all worthy "rights" that all should enjoy. But they are not "marriage." Marriage is between a man and a woman and involves the potential of off-spring.

    I'm all for equal benefits as most often quoted, but don't call it marriage because it isn't. It never has been and only in a deviant society will it ever become such.

    Just because a few justices on the liberal 9th Circuit Court believe something doesn't make it true. They have been over-turned before (pledge of allegiance to the flag for example).

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Feb. 3, 2013 8:41 p.m.

    @the truth – “all you supporting gay marriage you should tell us how the above statement is good for society, and that wanting gay marriage is not a selfish desire.”

    Regarding “selfish desire” can we stop pretending that what we all do in the privacy of our intimate relations is not at its core a basic, “selfish” desire? Or are you suggesting that some do “it” only for procreation… no doubt while angels are singing above their bed.

    And I have no problem “accepting” and “tolerating” people who seem to have been a part of every society on Earth since recorded history. If their desires and behavior (that I admit are… well, sort of yucky) are truly deviant and abnormal, why does God keep making them? Seems Christian to accept people who are different than I am, as long as they are not causing harm to others.

    @ Bill in Nebraska – “Marriage is defined by our Heavenly Father as between man and woman.”

    We must have been out that night… what channel was the announcement on? Can we YouTube it?

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 7:30 p.m.

    Bill, you are advocating that we LDS should let our religious opinions prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. (D&C 134:4). Baptism is also defined by our Father in Heaven. Should we try to pass a law outlawing sprinkling?

    The Taliban believe in mixing religion and politics. D&C 134 forbids it.

    Satan likewise advocated forcing people to live a certain way.

    I'm not saying that gay marriage something LDS should partake of, but thou mayest choose for thy self for it is given unto thee, but remember that I forbid it...IOW God allows us to sin, but as grants us the fruits of our choices.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 7:21 p.m.

    'You really need to look at the eternal perspective for all of our Heavenly Father's children and not your own selfish perspective.' - Bill in Nebraska


    Considering the will of the Heavenly father 'just happens' to support the marriage you are in?

    Awfully convenient.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Feb. 3, 2013 7:02 p.m.

    Kirkam: Your decision to support same-sex marriage is affected by same-sex marriage just as all are. Why, because you fail to see the eternal perspective and not the current day one. Marriage is defined by our Heavenly Father as between man and woman. Your favor of such is in direct violation of that. You really need to look at the eternal perspective for all of our Heavenly Father's children and not your own selfish perspective.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 6:15 p.m.

    @Tyler Dan and others

    Gay marriage does not affect heterosexual marriages personally other than making them less meaningful, and devalues marriage in general.

    It affects society at large and society's acceptance, toleration and even embracing of deviant and abnormal behaviors.

    Perhaps all you supporting gay marriage you should tell us how the above statement is good for society, and that wanting gay marriage is not a selfish desire.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    I love the name of these campaigns - "Defense of Marriage", "Protect Marriage", etc...These are laughable. No one is trying to keep straights from marrying or limiting their existing rights to do so. My 32 year temple marriage isn't harmed by gays getting married. If same-sex marriage comes to Utah, will that invalidate my temple sealing somehow?

    There is no objective reason for 2 consenting adults should be allowed to marry.

    I don't see anything wrong with polygamy for consenting adults. Our ancestors sure didn't either.

    Why are so many people so set on "..letting their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others.." (D&C 134:4)?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Feb. 3, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    What seems to be the "bedrock of society" is people making legally binding commitments to each other. There is no doubt a whole host of things we could do to strengthen those bonds (and heterosexuals have needed no help weakening the institution for decades now) and it seems to me this may be one.

    So arguing against same-sex marriage strikes me as counter-intuitive. So will someone please explain to me how gay marriage weakens the institution of marriage, let alone destroys anyone else's marriage? I'll wait... right here... just let me know......... waiting.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Feb. 3, 2013 1:47 p.m.

    I am also amazed at and can't understand peoples logic and thinking (or lack thereof).
    1) If marriage is good why is preventing marriage also good?
    2) If we relied on 1000 years of marriage history we would find for the most part, marriage's have been a way to consolidate power, increase wealth, provide comfort, a means of survival and to provide labor for the family endeavor.
    3)It's not deviant to teach polygamy?

    denying the right to marry is an unfruitful course for any state to take.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Feb. 3, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    Anyone who is against gay marriage, and other marriages for that matter, are more afraid of their own feelings than they are of any outcomes that might be brought about by allowing gay marriage.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    I have never understood how allowing gay marriage has any impact on heterosexual marriage.

    To those who say the liberals want to destroy marriage and the family, I say for myself, a happily married (29 years) heterosexual with children, that marriage is a great good for society and for the individual. I do not want to take this away from anyone. It is such a great good that I want my gay and lesbian friends, who are living in long-term stable relationships, to be able to marry the one they love. This would harm no one, and would grant these fine people the equal rights that they deserve.

    There are no legitimate grounds to deny these people their equal rights.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    "What factual impact to your live has there been since x9 states now allow gay marriage?"

    It's too early to see much impact. But wait a few years when others want to follow suit with other marriage arrangements such as father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister, sister/brother/sister, brother/sister/brother, grandfather/sub-teen granddaughter, groups of people marrying each other... all so they can get bedside visitation privileges, social security benefits, etc... you get the picture.

    To avoid all the many marriage aberrations that can (and will) be conjured, marriage should be limited to exactly one combination --- man and woman.

  • Miss Piggie Ogden, UT
    Feb. 3, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    "Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond."

    So, has is it that she was kept from the bedside? You never said. Perhaps the problem has nothing to do with marriage.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 2, 2013 11:55 p.m.

    @j s
    Your definition of traditional marriage has only existed in this country and you own church less then 150 years and still does not exist in other parts of the world. Say what you like about those evil ""liberals" but at least they do not have to lie to try to make their point.

    That was a stretch even for you lost.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 8:41 p.m.

    the space shuttle Challenger was brought down by the standardization of deviancy. You would do the same thing to our society?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 7:02 p.m.

    What factual impact to your live has there been since x9 states now allow gay marriage?

    Feel free to give dates, times, names and sources that other can verify please.

    What CONSEQUENCE is there to denying Americans gay marriage? I have already given one example, but here is another reported on, by our own Deseret news....


    'Gay Ca. veteran sues over denial of benefits’ – By Jessica Gresko – AP – Published by Dsnews – 02/01/12

    ‘The lawsuit announced in Washington involves a 12-year veteran of the Army, Tracey Cooper-Harris. After leaving the Army she married Maggie Cooper-Harris in California in 2008. Two years later, Tracey Cooper-Harris was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and she has received disability benefits through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as a result. But her application for additional money and benefits that married veterans are entitled to was denied.’ – article

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 7:00 p.m.

    Victor Hugo once said, "Human meditation has no limits. At its own risk and peril, it analyzes and digs deep into its own bedazzlement. "

    That is exactly the problem here. Rather than listening to thousands of years of history which prove that marriage is an essential institution for a strong society, the left-wing has sought to bedazzle itself with its own theories. These poppycockish theories are decidedly anti-marriage, and are decidedly wrong.

    But that is what the left wants: the destruction of marriage and family. Then, the population will have no one to turn to but the government, which in turn gives the left more power.

    Hopefully, the Supreme Court will follow the Constitution. The Founding Fathers knew that in order for the country they established to be strong, its people must have strong marriages. The Court must uphold their wishes.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 6:49 p.m.

    For a case to even get to the supreme court, there has to be a long-drawn out vetting process. As such, I don't think Prop 8 and DOMA have any legal standing to defend their case from. As exampled by...

    ’Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News – 02/07/12

    ‘"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 2, 2013 6:47 p.m.

    What impact has there been to traditional marriage since gay marriage was first allowed in the US since 2004?

    Answer? Nothing.

    As such, I see no negative consequence that does not involve speculation and heresay to deny tax -paying Americans the over 1,100+ legal rights and protections of marriage.

    Utah is once again, on the wrong side of history...

    'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

    '...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'

    And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information...

    Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.

    They were together for 18 years.