Judge Shelby’s ruling does not change our view of traditional marriage

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • K55 leamington, UT
    Jan. 27, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    I support traditional marriage and traditional families. SSM with its best face forward substitutes basic biological science and thousands of years of established family structure with a new norm that creates more confusion and problems than it proposes to solve. With SSM, do same gender relations get taught in biology class as part of human reproductions sections? How could they not be? Do youth select restroom facilities based on anatomy or feelings (CA and CT school policies)? If the criteria for marriage is solely based on two people who proclaim romantic feelings for each other, how do you legally protect children from predatory relationships? Again more confusion not less. The need to protect all people from persecution and protect personal agency are absolute. But changing our definitions of right and wrong will not change consequences of personal decisions to individuals or society.

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    Jan. 26, 2014 3:00 p.m.

    Actually what Mrs. Bunker has said is entirely true. Nothing she has said is false or untrue. The fact is that with the Rose Bowl and now the Grammy's the LGBT community has started to do exactly what they wanted to do in the first place and that is to make a mockery of what God has intended for marriage to be. If everyone is ok with that then let the world have it. However, in the end they will all be greatly disappointed when they stand before the Lord to be judged and told to depart from his presence. He has already stated through his living prophets that this is not ok with him nor should it be okay with society. God's law over rules everything man-made.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 25, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    @Alfred 10:15 p.m. Jan. 24, 2014

    Loving v Virginia is the controlling case. Pace v. Alabama is a 883 case which has been supplanted and negated many times over.

    In Windsor (the DOMA case), the court held that (quoting with emphasis added) "SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONSTUTUTIONAL GUARANTEES, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404." Those constitutional guarantees can be found in the 9th and 14th Amendments to the constitution -- the ones which formed the basis for the Kitchen decision.

    As to the issue of plurality -- while no harm comes from SSM, the potential for harm exists in the inequality found in a plural marriage. I would want to see laws in place detailing how the inequality arising from one person of one gender and multiple people of another gender would be mitigated before addressing this topic.

    A 10yr old is not capable of contracting and marriage is a contract; therefore a marriage with a 10yr old is not possible.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 25, 2014 1:51 a.m.

    @ Alfred

    "What's your reason for denying an 95yo geezer marrying a 10yo boy/girl... or both? It better be good."

    A ten year old boy/girl can't give legal consent and can't legally enter into a contract, such as a marriage license. Is that good enough?

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:15 p.m.

    "Look at Loving v. Virginia."

    Look at Pace v. Alabama... Which confirmed as valid, Alabama's miscegenation laws.

    Perhaps the SCOTUS is a bit confused as to what it really means. In DOMA, SCOTUS ruled that defining marriage was a state, not a federal power. So, how is it that SCOTUS can now say it's a federal power?

    "The 14th amendment was violated. They now are still defining marriage, but without harming a segment of the population..."

    Oh? What about Cory Brown and his four 'wives' (as recently covered in the DNews)? What about that segment of society? And what about a mother/son relationship? Or a brother/sister relationship?

    "Marriage was declared (not for the first time, btw) a right. So now marriage is looked at under Amendment 9, and 10 - it has been reserved to the people---All people, not just the ones that some people think are worthy."

    Would that include polygamy? Inquiring minds wanna know.

    "If you want to deny some people marriage, you better have a good reason"

    What's your reason for denying an 95yo geezer marrying a 10yo boy/girl... or both? It better be good.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:13 p.m.

    "An invalidated law is not a law any longer."

    Shelby was assigned to rule on Amendment 3. He was not assigned or authorized to rule on Utah's marriage law already on the books. So the law stays intact.

    "Judge Shelby ruled that the law is Unconstitutional..."

    Not so. He ruled on the case in front of him... Utah's Amendment 3. Nothing else. If he thinks he ruled on anything else, he's in error. Not too smart for a supposedly smart judge.

    "...and had no good argument from the State to stay his decision..."

    True, there were no good arguments. They missed the one point that would have sealed the case for Utah... Marriage law is not discriminatory in that it applies to all, ALL citizens alike, that marriage is to be one man/one women.

    "Those marriages, regardless of what happens next, will be declared valid as they were entered in good faith under a federal court order."

    Not so, those marriages are against Utah's marriage laws... and thus, invalid. The clerks issuing the licenses acted illegally.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 5:43 p.m.

    May He who knows all things and whose earth this is, return soon and settle this mess. I think I know which way he is leaning. As Jehovah of the Old Testament, he said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and in modern times he added, "nor anything like unto it".

    Both of these statements need to be clearly understood in the context of His command for a "man to cleave unto his wife and none else". Did you all catch that? If was not for a man to cleave to his "husband" nor for a woman to cleave to her "wife".

    So while those of you who do not believe as I do, are welcome to believe what you will. I am content to let Him decide, and sincerely hope He comes soon and puts this nonsense to rest.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 24, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    @ Arizona Rachel: As your husband will tell you, state Constitutions cannot violate the Federal Constitution - no many how many people vote that it should.

    It is interesting that both you and Mike complain about your right to take away someone else's rights is being violated.

  • Arizona Rachel Mesa, AZ
    Jan. 24, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    Mr. Richards said it best. Our constitutional rights have been ignored. One unelected official took upon himself the authority to undo the law that was created when we voted to change our State's Constitution to read "marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman." That is the issue. Period.
    Judge Shelby...My husband is also a Judge. He honors the Constitution more than life itself. He would never use his position of authority to usurp the rights of others. Until the Constitution is changed, Judge Shelby should have patriotically put his agenda second to his duty to honor the Constitution.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    I must say, I agree with most everything this woman said about marriage. It certainly has all of the benefits she ascribes to it and more. As a happily married man with 2 kids myself, I agree that there is no better way to raise my kids.

    The misstep here is in our response to non-traditional marriage. There is nothing about it non-traditional marriage that will change or affect the strengths and benefits of traditional marriage. I grant all of you that the strongest traditional marriages are probably better for children than non-traditional ones. But we all know traditional families that are broken, filled with violence and lacking in love. This is NOT a better place for children than a family comprised of 2 loving gay men. I challenge anyone to say so.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:04 p.m.

    There was an old, lovely, Nat King Cole hit, "Pretend"

    In this case, the writer would have us:

    Pretend that everyone fits well into her traditional categories.
    Pretend that Utah does not have a high divorce rates and stakes for unsatisfied unmarrieds.
    Pretend that present policy tries to force mormons born Gay to fit in with the family and church by lying to everyone and to God.
    Pretend that everyone does not know it is unfair to vote away the rights of others.

    Basically, you want to pretend that it is 1950, when all these ways worked better.

    This is the worst part:
    "Steady as she goes, Utah. This is not a time to give up, it is a time to wake up. Our view of marriage is not hateful or irrational, it is ...a critical viewpoint to be able to discuss and defend in the public square."

    --- Your view for YOUR life is not hateful or irrational. You PRETEND that enforcing it on others is neither, and you pretend that it is OK for you try to do that.

    Dear God: Please let the inevitable thousands of Gay kids born into mormon families each year be born in understanding homes.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:25 p.m.

    @Kent Francis;

    The whole idea of amendment 3 makes mad. Heterosexuals feeling they have the right to deny homosexuals the legal benefits and privileges that they, themselves enjoy for a small fee at the county offices.

    Judge Shelby did exactly what he is supposed to do; he ruled on the constitutionality of Amendment 3 and found it wanting.

  • Marriage & Morality Advocate Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:22 p.m.

    To the person who complained about people trying to impose their personal morality in our laws I ask; Whose morality (or amorality) do you suppose we should utilize in making laws? Every single law has behind it some type of moral stance for or against something. For those who do not believe in any absolute moral truths or laws backed by God's authority for which each every person will be accountable to God in an afterlife there can be no philosophical foundation or basis for any sort of morality and anything goes if you can enforce it. If indeed there is nothing after this life (no afterlife) when our "candle" goes out and our "hour upon the stage" of life is over (See Macbeth Act 5 Scene 5) then life is indeed "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." If that is the case why then, for example, was it immoral for Hitler to take the measures he did to control the Jewish population? Was it Wrong? Yes Indeed!!! But "Says Who?"

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:21 p.m.

    @Susan Roylance;

    Ask the children if they'd rather have a loving gay couple as parents or waste away in an orphanage or passed from foster-home to foster-home like a piece of unwanted, unloved burden.

  • Kent Francis West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:08 p.m.

    The whole gay marriage thing makes me mad that one federal judge would defy the whole state of Utah population and impose their warped view of marriage on us.
    We should spend whatever treasure necessary to protect our basic values.

    In addition I see attempts to impose additional penalties for "discrimination" against LGBT people. Are they going to wear a pink triangle so I know what their sexual preferences are?

    How about penalties for discrimination against FAT people? Shouldn't we be given legislative relief? (ours is much worse than LGBT discrimination). How about requiring wider seats on airlines or other transportation? I can think of a dozen new laws I would like if we are going to pander to a 5% part of the population. I think we could carve out a number of other categories; people with long hair, people with tatoos, muslim women dress and so forth. This law would increase hate and discrimination not protect LGBT people.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 6:03 p.m.

    @ tomof12: Which "moral and social" meanings of gender roles are you advocating for? The ones where women were property? The ones where it was legal to beat your spouse and children? The ones where women were forced to marry their rapists? The ones where men were expected to be manly men and it was shameful to show caring and nurturing towards their children?

    Perhaps you long for the days when children were sent to work at very young ages to help provide for the family? Or where the children were farmed out to the rich relatives because there wasn't enough money to feed them?

    Mayhap you long for the days when the children of wealthy individuals were raised by nannies and tutors and sent off to school or apprenticed to learn a trade?

    The current idealized mom and dad and gender roles are very recent phenomena - phenomena your grandparents wouldn't recognize as reality.

    Why should we all of a sudden choose this as the stopping point in the ongoing evolution of social and moral ideals and the family?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 5:51 p.m.

    @ SusanRoylance: "Ask the children[.]"

    I find that a very interesting idea. What age children would you ask? What information would you give them to prepare them for this question? Would you also question them about other things - things we have proof affect their future outcomes? How much weight should we give the opinions of children?

    Are you really prepared to live with the outcomes of these questions?

    Children know what they are taught. Children idealize people, places, and events. Children do not possess the same capacity for rational thinking as adults.

    There are very valid reasons why we don't let children make binding decisions about important events. Are you suggesting we do away with all that and give children complete control of their own lives?

    Even if we just limit the questions to what kind of family a child wants, how do you propose to provide for each child their ideal family? What happens when that ideal falls apart or is not really ideal after all?

  • tomof12 Provo, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 3:58 p.m.

    The hard thing about all this is that "mom and dad" and the category of gender still have enormous moral and social meaning, and we have been accustomed for millennia to laws and customs that recognize this. Now the law is quickly turning against this reality, and we are left feeling insecure about the social fabric we are part of. Why would you even want to trivialize mom & dad or collapse the rich structure of gender? Does it really make the world better for anyone, once all hullabaloo has died down? Aren't we just getting more and more proficient at believing in less and less? And the law carries a lot of weight...

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    Susan Roylance: "Ask the children -- if they would prefer growing up with a married mother and father."

    Please refer to my 1/22 1:20 p.m. comment.

    There are already many children who want dearly to have married parents, but organizations like the First Freedoms Coalition, Utah Families, Eagle Forum, and Sutherland are working hard to keep them from getting their wish.

    I suspect children care less about having "a married mother and father" than having the two people who have loved and nurtured them from birth (and before) be married, irrespective of gender. They want their parents, their family, to be married.

    This paper, in an editorial last Sunday, stated that it is beyond argument that children fare better in life when they have married parents. Why then, are so many dead set against letting the children of same-sex couples have the benefits of married parents? How can one argue that the purpose of marriage is for promoting responsible procreation and then deny marriage to those who have already procreated? How is that in the best interests of the children?

    4th/final comment

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    Susan Roylance
    Ask the children -- if they would prefer growing up with a married mother and father.

    9:55 a.m. Jan. 23, 2014


    Only if we ask that of ALL children --
    including those with single parents.

    [My hunch is about 97% of the time would be "yes" and the remaining 3% could probably careless, so long as it was in a stable home.
    Co-indidently -- that's about the same ratio as homo-to-heterosexual now.]

  • Susan Roylance
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    Ask the children -- if they would prefer growing up with a married mother and father.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    Darling this fight is over and lost,just get over it .

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    @Meckofahess, 1:47 p.m. Jan. 22, 2014, on the civil rights movement and Dr. King versus gay equality.

    Gay marriage (and gay rights in general) was completely off the radar in the 1950s and 1960s, so it's hard to know how the African-American civil rights leaders would have come down on it. Homosexuality was still stigmatized, closeted, and largely illegal then. Any suggestion of gay marriage would have been incredible. The gay rights movement nominally began with the Stonewall riots a year after Dr. King was assassinated. It's difficult to discern the attitudes of that time through today's lenses.

    That said, we have some hints. Bayard Rustin, a gay man, was a key figure in King's inner circle and the architect of the 1963 March on Washington. Coretta Scott King, who should have some credibility on the issue, supports gay rights and says that her husband would have, too. It certainly fits with his embrace of the oppressed and disenfranchised. Sen. John Lewis, who marched with King and shared the Washington podium with him, supports gay rights. I believe many others of his colleagues, like Andrew Young and Jesse Jackson also do so.

  • jcobabe Provo, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    The whole argument appears to stem from misunderstanding. Changing the marriage law will never establish "equality", it only mandates an attempt to force "equivalence". How many legs does a dog have, if you call the tail a leg?

  • Red San Antonia, TX
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    This Law certainly doesn't represent the State of Utah. It is a lone wolf judge who wants to become famous by appealing to the crowd.

    We are sliding down fast!

    More people forget about the Alamo everyday!

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    @Meckofahess: Your arguments appear to be largely concerned with the notion of pro-creation and child-raising.

    The state of Utah tried to use both of these exact, same arguments in the Shelby case (referred to by the state of Utah as "responsible procreation" and the "optimal mode of child-rearing"). They actually attempted to argue that tired old canard that same-sex couples were not “qualified” to marry because they can not naturally reproduce with each other.

    Judge Shelby then asked the state if this means the state believes that post-menopausal women should be denied a marriage license, or that men who have undergone a vasectomy should be denied a marriage license, is this what the state is proposing?

    The state had no answer for the judge.

    Amendment 3 went beyond denying gay and lesbian individuals the right to marry and held that no domestic union could be given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as marriage. It is transparent to any casual observer that the basis for Amendment 3 is, at its core, simply animus.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 7:18 a.m.

    @2 bits;

    Prove that any of that vandalism was done by the LGBT community. All arson stories I've read relating to LDS chapels and such were committed by disillusioned LDS. Prove that the white powder came from an LGBT person.

    If you were "just keeping my own values and beliefs" then you would not support Prop-8 or Amendment-3 because they DO NOT AFFECT YOU. They only affect LGBT couples. You are not being forced to have a same-sex marriage, but you are preventing LGBT couples from marrying.


    So, you would force LGBT citizens into heterosexual marriages? Some "equality" that.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 23, 2014 5:51 a.m.

    @ voice: You and a few other commentators frequently make the comment that anti-SSM laws are equal because everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. And whenever this comment is made, the commentator making it acts as if it is the winning argument for the legal case. (This argument was made way back in 2011, if not earlier.)

    Yet for some reason, all the oh so brilliant very expensive legal minds who defend anti-SSM laws don't bring that up when they are arguing in court. Why do you think that is? Could it be because the last time a similar argument won at the SCOTUS level was 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson? Or because similar arguments lost in Loving v. Virginia in 1967?

    Obviously, it is a flawed argument. And that flaw will prevent it from being used in the Utah case - which means you need to try again and come up with something else. Maybe something that actually addresses the question the court asked the State?

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 22, 2014 11:13 p.m.

    Refreshing to hear both sides, I like the article no question.

    It is an endless exchange of opinion, since it all depends where you stand with your foot on what door. Do you like to go by the letter of the law, which is spiritual death, or would you like to learn something about the spirit of freedom that would come if you see all things around and within the matter, not blinding yourself from new ideas and unusual sights.

    The word traditional marriage is bringing traditional marriage down. Why ?
    Because it is stuck in the old, and the refreshing comes from accepting new views, which are spiritual.

    To open that door to refresh your soul, it is needed to go far back where we come from, and far forward to what we shall become. The SCOTUS does not provide such knowledge, it is just touching it.

    People need to understand, that SSM is another form of god denial.
    We need to respect them, but tell them to change if they want to become happy.
    But they must stumble and fall before they can see the good in it.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 10:19 p.m.

    @a voice of reason
    "How about this, there is no inequality in amendment 3. Gays and lesbians have the same right to marry as straight people - they can marry one individual of the opposite sex"

    You could make the same argument with interracial marriage bans. That didn't work then.

    "Where does the law say that love is a condition in marriage?"

    I am disturbed by the number of people who don't consider love an integral part of marriage. No wonder the divorce rate is so high.

    "It proclaims the false notion that a man can be a mother and a woman can be a father"

    The only way it could matter is if you believe there are gender roles that one has to conform to like a mother staying at home raising kids while men have all the leadership roles...

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 22, 2014 10:16 p.m.

    Our judiciary is a vital part of our democracy. Dismissing some ruling you disagree with as the action of one man denigrates the mission, professionalism and impartiality of an entire branch of government. That ruling can and will be appealed, but if you lose the appeal, and the other appeals, up to SCOTUS, what then?

    Comments here imply that you value your church over your nation and mob rule over individual rights, as long as it's your mob. My religion has been on the receiving end of mob rule (see: Boston Martyrs), and so has yours.

    It's not our right to compel others as to which church to worship in, which gods to believe in or dogma to accept, whose idols to bow to, which sacred texts to read or how to interpret them, which prophets to follow, or which mutually-consenting unrelated adult to fall in love with. And, it's not our right to use the power of government to vanquish a peaceful minority in our midst.

    That being the case, nobody's rights are violated by allowing SSM.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Jan. 22, 2014 9:24 p.m.

    This is tough. I imagine what Mormon Christians are going through is the same thing our ancestors went through when the Federal Government took away women's right to vote in Utah more than 100 years ago. We ask the federal government once again to give us our civil rights back, let our votes count.

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 9:12 p.m.

    @Reuben Dunn:

    I am honestly interested. What in your opinion, has been the repercussion in California from the Proposition 8 outcome?

  • Reuben Dunn Whittier, CA
    Jan. 22, 2014 8:56 p.m.

    History is, sad to say, repeating itself.

    Utah voters are going through the same thing that we voters in California went through with our own vote on marriage, Proposition 8.

    If you want to know what the probable outcome of all of this, take a look at what has happened here in California.

  • Baker Boy Westminster, CA
    Jan. 22, 2014 8:23 p.m.

    Mike Richards stated "all laws pertaining to marriage belong to the states or to the people." He also went on to declare that the Utah vote on marriage is binding according to the United States Constitution. However, in 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia overturned laws in several states that prevented persons of different races to marry, an African American and a Caucasian in that particular instance. It would seem very possible that Utah's anti-same-sex proposition could meet the same fate. It's all about that pesky little 14th amendment guaranteeing equal rights to all citizens.

  • moniker lewinsky Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 7:15 p.m.

    Betrayed? Do those who voted to strip away civil rights ten years ago now feel betrayed? Wow. Those must be hard feelings to deal with. Please accept my condolences.

    I imagine that my friends who have spent years being marginalized by their government also felt feelings of betrayal. But I wouldn't want those feelings to appear to violate your right to believe what you want.

    After 13 years of marriage, I am experiencing some betrayal of my own and I must divorce and raise two children with little reprieve or financial support. I'm sorry that my family is one more that violates your idea of the "ideal".

  • koseighty Logan, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 6:50 p.m.

    We MUST legislate the "gold standard" -- for the children!

    To that end:

    • Any pregnant woman MUST marry the biological father of the child prior to the birth of the child.
    • No biological parents (father and mother) will be allowed to divorce before the child turns 18 years of age.
    • Any marriage that does not produce biological children within 1 year MUST be dissolved by the state.
    • All marriages will be dissolved by the state when the youngest child turns 18 (no more children, no more reason for marriage)
    • As biological parents are the gold standard, adoption will not be allowed, by anyone for any reason.

    Because legislating morality and human relationships is what freedom is all about.™

  • Julie gluten free mother SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    I agree with the author, I see many comments from people who don't and I appreciate that the comments are mostly civil and polite even though they disagree. People can debate without name calling.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    @ mpo, "Children do need a mother and a father. This critical principle is sooooo often overlooked."

    Please educate me, as specifically as you are able, how denying someone else the ability to marry is going to actually make that happen?

  • mpo South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 5:11 p.m.

    Well said. I agree.

    Children do need a mother and a father. This critical principle is sooooo often overlooked.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    @Mike Richards - I read the Court's Windsor decision - I'll summarize the arguments I found there.

    The court agreed states have authority to regulate marriage - subject to Constitutional guarantees; states' right to regulate marriage is not unlimited.

    The decision points out that legalizeing same-sex couples was intrinsically related to the historical purpose of marriage, granting persons dignity by recognizing their relationships. DOMA deliberately contravened that purpose; in the court's words, "avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States."

    By refusing to recognize same-sex marriages, DOMA deliberately identified a group of legal marriages and rendered them unequal. By extension, it rendered the persons in those marriages unequal and violated constitutional protections. The lives of gay/lesbian persons are improved and lived with greater dignity through having access to the rights, responsiblities and protections of legal marriage. Lack of access to marriage imposes real economic and material harm to gay/lesbian couples and their children. That's why Judge Shelby ruled as he did.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 4:32 p.m.

    I think there are consequences for every thing, cause and effect, action an reaction. disrespect for human life may be one. When women an children is took care of, I can see that it will be every man for them self.

  • Llew40 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 4:12 p.m.

    The real argument Utah is too scared to confront is the widespread acceptance of cohabitation. Gay marriage is just a legal recognition of what Christians used to call "living in sin". Mormon families with straight parents married 20 years have been doing it for years. They turn a blind eye to straight young single adult son or daughter moving in with their significant other in hopes they will repent and go to the temple later. How often has that worked out? Your advice for everyone to strengthen their own marriage kinda falls flat for those forced to choose between living alone or cohabitating. If gay marriage pushes everyone to address this social issue of more gays than straights rushing to tie the knot then we have nothing to fear.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    The author argues marriage exists to provide a "connection" for children, to guarantee they will be raised in a certain family configuration. Conceptually, she treats marriage as strictly utilitarian, it serves a purpose, which implies that once it ceases to serve that purpose it ceases to be relevant.

    That is wrong. Marriage is intrinsically and inherently good for persons. Marriage as a commitment, an ongoing, consensual, intimate relationship benefits the married persons, provides them with emotional stability and intimacy which is required for humans to thrive. With or without children, marriage is good for adults.

    Author Stephanie Coontz's book Marriage: A History examines the fact that our contemporary model of marriage - in which two persons make an emotional commitment to one another - is incredibly rewarding when it works. As a social institution, marriage has shifted and changed from a political and economic relationship to an avenue for personal fulfillment and emotional wellness. It benefits adults to be married to someone they love and the benefit has nothing to do with gender.

    Reducing marriage to nothing more than a way to make and raise children, while dismissing its value as an emotional bond beteen adults, cheapens marriage.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 22, 2014 3:53 p.m.

    Has anyone who defends Judge Shelby taken the time to read the Supreme Court's ruling on DOMA? The majority opinion clearly stated: "(a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States. "

    That is the ruling. Utah is one of those "separate States". The people of Utah, using their right to define their own constitution voted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. The ruling supports the State's right to do that. The ruling upholds the United States Constitution, particularly the 14th Amendment, that those who believe in same-sex marriage are so fond of citing, by acknowledging that all people are protected under the laws, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Even the most foolhardy would not suggest that the judiciary can legislate. If they do suggest that the judiciary can legislate, then they are stomping all over the Constitution, where Article 1, Section 1 tells us, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 3:29 p.m.

    re: "When marriage ceases to have its historic meaning and understanding, over time fewer and fewer people will marry. We will have an inevitable increase in children born out of wedlock,...."

    Sky will fall argumentation is simply not valid argumentation in a court of law. Courts cannot rule based on fantasy, what someone thinks might, could or should happen. Courts rule based on evidence and findings of fact, that clearly demonstrates what is the reality today. Would you like to try again with a better argument that will withstand constitutional muster?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 3:26 p.m.

    Woods Cross, UT

    "But we can't marry who we love!" Where does the law say that love is a condition in marriage? Where is it even suggested? Where does it consider marriage to someone you love a right?

    2:35 p.m. Jan. 22, 2014


    THAT is why you fail.

    You can't define marriage,
    because you don't even know what marriage is.

    good day!

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 3:22 p.m.

    re: "Gays and lesbians have the same right to marry as straight people - they can marry one individual of the opposite sex. Same right. They can choose to exercise it or not. "But we can't marry who we love!" Where does the law say that love is a condition in marriage? Where is it even suggested?"

    See Loving v. Virginia, where folks were free to marry as long as they were of the same race. "But we can't marry who we love" was proven to be a valid constitutional argument that in part struck down anti-misegenation laws based on immutable characteristics. Race, and Sexual orientation, un-like religious belief are considered to be an immutable characteristic for most people.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 3:13 p.m.

    66% of the people in Utah don't like say -- Yugo's or lime green cars.
    So the majority passes a law and banning all tax paying, law abiding, Yugo or lime green car owners the right to be on or use the same the roads as everyone else.

    and their "logic"?
    they are trying to protect their own cars or their children's cars from turning into Yugos or changing colors to lime green.

    If they are obeying all the traffic laws, what is the crime other than being "different"?

    Can anyone see how silly, baseless and discriminating this is?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 3:08 p.m.


    Perhaps most importantly, shifting the focus of our marriage laws away from the interests of children and society as a whole, and onto the desires of the adults involved in a same-sex relationship will result in the most profound long-term consequences. Such a paradigm shift says to children that mothers and fathers don’t matter (especially fathers) – any two “parents” will do.

    It proclaims the false notion that a man can be a mother and a woman can be a father – that men and women are exactly the same in rearing children. And it undermines the marriage culture by making marriage a meaningless political gesture, rather than a child-affirming social construct.

    When marriage ceases to have its historic meaning and understanding, over time fewer and fewer people will marry. We will have an inevitable increase in children born out of wedlock, an increase in fatherlessness, a resulting increase in female and child poverty, and a higher incidence of all the documented social ills associated with children being raised in a home without their married biological parents. From Minnasota for Marriage

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 3:01 p.m.

    How about we call it "Traditional Slavery",
    or "Traditional Bigotry"...
    that still wouldn't make it right.

    How about we let the States vote on it...
    and allow them to pass Jim Crow type Laws -- you know, Separate but equal...

    That still doesn't make it right, nor Constitutional.

    Why not go one step further,
    and ask the States to self-determine if they will recognize "Mormon Marriages" from Utah.
    Put it up for a vote.

    Would that be fair? Would that be right?

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 22, 2014 2:48 p.m.

    @dianeect: "A single judge taking the power of law away from the people hurts everyone."

    This sentence reveals an apparent lack of knowledge with regard to the "checks and balances" built into our form of government. This "single judge" did not - in any way, shape or form - "take the power of law away from the people". That is not even close to reality.

    Rather, what Judge Shelby did was rule on a state constitutional amendment that failed to comport with the U.S. Constitution. Amendment 3 was in direct violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution, and that produced the following ruling:

    "The State of Utah has provided no evidence that opposite-sex marriage will be affected in any way by same-sex marriage. In the absence of such evidence, the State’s unsupported fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State’s refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens."

  • a_voice_of_reason Woods Cross, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    I'm sick of hearing that there is no "legal" reason that Amendment 3 can stand. How about this, there is no inequality in amendment 3. Gays and lesbians have the same right to marry as straight people - they can marry one individual of the opposite sex. Same right. They can choose to exercise it or not. "But we can't marry who we love!" Where does the law say that love is a condition in marriage? Where is it even suggested? Where does it consider marriage to someone you love a right? "But I'm genetically pre-disposed not to want that kind of marriage." So don't get one. There are plenty of men who are genetically pre-disposed not to get pregnant yet Obamacare (a government program) has said that their health plans must include maternity coverage. "But I don't want that marriage and I'll miss all the government benefits like tax deductions." Tough. People who choose not to donate to charities, own a home, or don't buy health insurance also miss out on tax deductions. There is no inequality in Amendment 3. We all have the same RIGHTS to marriage and its benefits.

  • dianeect north salt lake, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 2:12 p.m.

    I have two points.

    1. What happened in UT is and will be bad for all citizens-- gay and straight-- those for gay marriage and those against. A single judge taking the power of law away from the people hurts everyone. There is a strong history of the government being of the people, for the the people, and by the people. If the judiciary continues to rule against the people, the republic will be lost.

    2. I agree whole heartedly with Laura Bunker. Children do need a mother and a father. There will be a time in the future when we will have plenty of data on this topic, until then same sex marriage is a social experiment. However, it is natural for mankind to wonder who they are and where they come from. Children from same sex couples will want to know the biology of their beginnings and they will keenly feel the loss of their missing parents just as children from single parent households have for years.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    66% of the voters (voice of the people) is like two hungry wolves and a delicious and tasty lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Minority rights do not normally depend on the outcome of any election, it is un-constitutional.

    Every main stream pediatric, medical, psychological, psychiatric, and sociological organization that is concerned with child welfare show no difference in child outcomes for same-sex couples. Even if there were some gold standard or ideal, convicted child molesters, spousal abusers and other felons are not barred from marriage where the child outcomes are well known and documented. The US constitution simply does not permit Utah's desire to target a minority for discrimination based on animus, regardless of strongly held beliefs. Moreover, marriage law does nothing remove children from same-sex couples. Adoption, custody and reproductive law are the correct legal tools. There is no evidence of any kind that banning same-sex couples from marriage makes children more likely to be raised in opposite sex households. Civil laws must be rational and be able to show actual cause and effect. More than "wishful thinking" is required in order to withstand constitutional muster.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    Many people are equating legal rights for homosexuals with the black struggle against racism. This is not a valid argument. There is a specter haunting America. It is the movement to promote and legalize homosexual marriage. The movement has adopted a cunning political strategy to appeal to everyone. It has packaged its demand for the radical redefining of marriage in the rhetoric and imagery of the U.S. civil rights movement.

    This strategy, though utterly cynical and possibly racist, has enormous strategic utility. For what reasonable and fair-minded American would object to a movement that conjures up images of Martin Luther King Jr. along with pacifist marchers facing down unleashed attack dogs and men with fire hoses? In the aftermath of that struggle for racial justice, who today is prepared to risk being branded a bigot for opposing the homosexual activist agenda?

    But the partisans of homosexual marriage have a problem. There is no evidence in the historiographical literature of the civil rights movement or in the movement's genesis in the struggle against slavery to support their political and moral argument of equivalence". by EUGENE F. RIVERS III AND KENNETH D. JOHNSON

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    Judicial Tyranny?

    Citizens United.

    My view of traditional marriage has not changed.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 1:37 p.m.

    Right on Laura. The truly compassionate care about children. The truly charitable steer youth away from destructive lifestyles and hold up traditional marriage as the safest standard for them and for society. The truly loving tell the truth about the health benefits of traditional marriage and the consequences of alternative lifestyles.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    I have a few questions for Laura. As children fare better in a family with two biological parents, would she suggest we discourage or bar step-families, where children just have one biological parent, from forming? And how about the estimated 8 million children in the United States already being raised in same-sex partner households? They only have one biological parent (yes, gays do bear and sire children). Would these children not do better if they were in a legally recognized family with all the benefits and protections of marriage? It might not be your ideal, but your ideal is now the minority of families in the United States. Being a child in a step-family or same-sex partner family is far better than being a child raised by a single parent.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 1:28 p.m.

    So this whole issue is about a LOT more than just marriage. It includes such concerns as the following:
    (1) "California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation that requires all public schools to allow transgender K-12 students to use whichever restroom and locker room they want.
    This means that if an anatomical boy feels deeply(no definition given) that he is a girl, he must be allowed to use girls restrooms. And must be allowed to participate on girls athletic teams. And shower in their locker rooms.
    (2) FARMINGTON, Utah - "The Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter to the Davis School District in support of its policy that requires parental consent before children can check out a homosexual advocacy book titled "In Our Mothers House" from elementary school libraries. The American Civil Liberties Union contacted the district and demanded that it allow children to access the book without the knowledge of their parents.
    Public schools should not surrender to ACLU intimidation when it asks them to expose children to sexual content without parental knowledge, said ADF Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. Parents, not the ACLU should decide whether young children have access to this type of propaganda”..

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    Meanwhile, in a lawsuit challenging the state's decision not to recognize the validity of the marriages performed in the two week window, one of the plaintiff couples is literally begging the court to give them the gold standard family that Ms. Bunker professes to prefer. They have a son and the nonbiological father wants their marriage recognized because he currently has no legal status with respect to the boy. They desperately want to give their son two legally married parents for all of the reasons described in the column. They want to do the things that guarantee chances of a better life outcome for their child, like be married. To me, that's golden.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    The op-ed is a rehash of the optimality argument (or in the terms of the state's argument in the Kitchen case, the gold standard). Fine. Let's accept as a given that children do best in a married Mom+Dad+Kids family structure. There is research and common sense to support it. If the social policy goal of marriage is to facilitate child welfare and improve life outcomes by incentivizing the optimal (gold standard) family structure, then Utah family law goes about it very inefficiently. Marriage is not a prerequisite to bear children. Divorce results in single parenthood. Singles can adopt. Some married couples get all the legal incentives of marriage but are prohibited from having children. It's a messed up system. There are so many loopholes and exceptions that it fails to deliver the gold standard. Suboptimal family structures (let's say silver, copper, and lead standard) abound and are completely legal. In this environment, it is hard to accept as convincing an argument that the gold standard is the only possibility.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    Re: "What, exactly is the LGBT community doing that is not showing tolerance to your views"...

    This from Wikipedia (not anti-gay source, fairly impartial)

    "In the ten days following the November 4 election, seven houses of worship in Utah and ten buildings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) in the Sacramento area were targets of vandalism, arson, graffiti and meeting house glass doors shattered....

    A copy of the Book of Mormon, an LDS religious text, was found burning at the front of a meetinghouse"... An affiliate group of the radical trans/queer organization Bash Back! claims credit for pouring glue into the locks of LDS meetinghouse and spray painting its walls.

    Before the vote, Alan Autry (the mayor of Fresno) received an email containing death threats against both himself and Pastor Jim Franklin. This caused police to assign the pastor officers for his protection and motivated the mayor to obtain a bodyguard.

    In November 2008, the United States Postal Service delivered envelopes containing white powder to two LDS temples (one in Los Angeles and one in Salt Lake City) prompting a hazardous materials response and a federal domestic terrorism investigation.

    That's not tolerance.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    Re: "What, exactly is the LGBT community doing that is not showing tolerance to your views"... (Ranch)

    -How about GLBT violence and vandalism at marches in Utah and California at Mormon chapels and temples after Prop-8 including death threats, vandalism, arson, etc (From the GLBT community). That's not "tolerance".

    -How about the anti-LDS documentary the GLBT community just made? I watched it, and it's full of hate and lies.

    -How about the comments in these pages, that assume that if you don't support their agenda, you're a hater (I'm not). I'm just keeping my own values and beliefs.


    If you don't know what I'm talking about... Google "Prop 8 protesters target Mormon temple in Westwood" (LA Times)

    Or Wikipedia. Search "Protests against proposition 8 supporters". Especially the section on "Death threats and vandalism"... That's NOT tolerance.

    Read about the death threats sent to business leaders and religious leaders who were on the wrong side of Prop-8. That's not tolerance.

    I'm out of words here... but if I have more comments I'll give you more specific examples...

    Jan. 22, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    Susan Roylance, The majority of the people of Utah will still be able to participate in a marriage between a man and a woman.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    Susan Roylance said: "Those of you who are trying to get same-sex marriage recognized in Utah are hoping that judges will make the decision, because a majority of the people of Utah are more likely to support marriage between a man and a woman."

    You are incorrect in your thinking Susan. Majority isn't always right, and you need to respect the legal system of checks and balances which keeps prejudice laws from becoming "Traditional."

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    @Susan Roylance;

    It doesn't matter how many people vote on the rights of other American citizens. If they violate the Constitutional protections of those citizens, that law will be overturned. The majority does not get to vote on the rights of minorities.

    @2 bits;

    "I hope when this is all said and done... that MY views will be tolerated as well (by the GLBT community)."

    What, exactly is the LGBT community doing that is not showing tolerance to your views other than requesting equal legal treatment? We don't care if you disapprove, we just want you to stop using your disapproval against us in civil society.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    Regardless of how this court battle works out... I hope that the GLBT community can acknowledge that just because you don't support their agenda, doesn't mean you have "ill will" towards your fellow citizens.

    -Just because you don't support the agenda doesn't mean you hate anybody.
    -Just because you have different beliefs about what's "moral" and what's not, doesn't mean you hate people who disagree with you.

    I hope when this is all said and done... that MY views will be tolerated as well (by the GLBT community).


    EVERYBODY needs to be more tolerant of other's views. Not just one side.

    I can have my views (and it doesn't mean I hate you, or have ill will towards you).

    I hope you can have your views and not have ill will towards me.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 22, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    Consider the source:

    "Laura Bunker lives in Lehi and is the president of United Families International and co-chairwoman of the Utah First Freedoms Coalition."


    United Families International (UFI) is a United States nonprofit organization founded in 1978 by Susan Roylance
    [btw – thanks for checking and chiming in this morning at 9:09 am, Susan.]

    First Freedoms Coalition and is made up of well-known conservative organizations such as the Utah Eagle Forum, the Sutherland Institute, United Families International and Citizens of Strong Families.

    …enough said.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 22, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    @Mike: You are presenting the same tired arguments, dating back to the Prop8 and DOMA rulings, that actually resulted in the Shelby ruling to begin with!

    You are correct in that the Windsor ruling last summer, the SCOTUS specifically stated that individual states can indeed regulate marriage within its state borders.

    What you failed to include, however, is that SCOTUS *also* said that among all the laws a state might enact regarding marriage, it can not enact any laws which violate the U.S. Constitution.

    Clearly, Utah's Amendment 3 utterly failed this most basic of legal inspections. It enacted state-sponsored discrimination against a minority of law-abiding, tax-paying Utah citizens.

    And that's why Utah's Amendment 3 was properly and correctly struck down in a court of law. At its core, this amendment was un-American. Just like in Oklahoma. And many other states that will soon follow. Several years from now, all this bru-haha will be a mere afterthought, a historical curiosity.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    Nevermind, this one's from an outside writer... one from a group who thinks freedom means being able to fire someone just because they're gay.

  • Susan Roylance
    Jan. 22, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    Laura Bunker is expressing her opinion, and it should be respected. As you know, it was also the opinion of 66% of the people of Utah, when it was placed on the ballot for a vote. Some of you might think that number has changed, that more people are now accepting of same-sex marriage, but there is no way of knowing that without a secret vote in a voting booth, and all citizens do not vote. So, we need to respect the legal process which allows citizens the opportunity to have a voice in the laws which govern them. Those of you who are trying to get same-sex marriage recognized in Utah are hoping that judges will make the decision, because a majority of the people of Utah are more likely to support marriage between a man and a woman.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 22, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    You say: "This is not a time to give up, it is a time to wake up."

    It is indeed time for those who elect to be controlled by celestial indoctrination to "wake up" and realize the world does not revolve around a particular dogma.

    The reason that you feel so much angst, Laura, is that you fail to grasp the concept that marriage equality is a civil matter in which all disagreements will be resolved under the law of the land: the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by SCOTUS.

    Civil matters are not subject to any religious inspection. Marriage equality is a secular, civil matter, and you will find peace when you understand this concept.

    When the 10th District Appeals Court rules in favor of the Shelby decision, you will still be free to harbor ill-feelings to your fellow citizens simply because they are not like you. But you need to understand that not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringment on your freedoms.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 22, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    The Declaration of Independence tells us that we receive all rights from our Creator, not from government. The Constitution limits government to do only those things specifically allotted to it by the people, things that are enumerated. The voice of the people supersedes the "right" of government. Government cannot overrule the voice of the people without declaring the Constitution to be null and void.

    Marriage is not listed as a responsibility of government; therefore ACCORDING to the Constitution, all laws pertaining to marriage belong to the States or to the People. Utah followed the Supreme Law of the Land and had the PEOPLE of Utah express their vote on marriage and then incorporated that vote into the Utah State Constitution, where it is binding, ACCORDING to the United States Constitution.

    Even the 14th Amendment requires that people be treated equally according to the laws, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The only laws on marriage that are allowed are those laws written by the States.

    Judge Shelby ignored the very foundation of law when he ruled, no matter what his supporters think.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 22, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    ‘My view: Judge Shelby’s ruling does not change our view of traditional marriage’


    And repealing prohibition does not change your view of alcohol.

    There are 300 million Americans, there are 300 million views and opinions,
    and then there are the laws.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    Your opinion doesn't change, and we're moving on without you. See ya....

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    IMO it's not a Judge's job to change our views. He changes the law.

    I'm OK with laws not matching my beliefs. They are two totally separate things.

    I don't need laws to force my views to conform to somebody elses values/beliefs. My beliefs are things I will understand and follow without government force (self-motivation).

    Laws are needed, but they don't replace personal beliefs. And personal beliefs don't trump the law. But our laws should not be focused at forcing people to change their religious views/beliefs.

    If that is what Judge Shelby was trying to do... it was wrong-headed.

    If he was only trying to protect the rights of the minority from being suppressed by the majority (and not trying to change anybody's views or beliefs)... it was the right decision.

    I think I can keep my beliefs regardless of how this law turns out in the end. So it doesn't matter a lot to me.

    I personally think the campaign to "normalize" the gay lifestyle is wrong-headed for society as a whole (long run). But my personal beliefs will be tolerated also (I hope).

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 22, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    My gosh, how many times do we have to hear this irrational argument? EVERYONE supports "traditional marriage." But denying marriage rights to some does NOT improve another's family. Please stop repeating this lie.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 22, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    And here we go again.

    This is just like sitting in Sacrament meeting and listening to a talk on Baptism for the umpteenth time in your life.

    No new information just personal testimony and stories.

    Really DN how many times are you going to do this? We get it you don't like same sex marriage.

    The one piece of advice this article had that wasn't too bad was slow down and take a deep breath (my interpretation).

    It's out of your/the publics hands now and up to the courts. Stalwart said it well. Your opinion doesn't matter now, and trust me we know what your opinion is.

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 7:19 a.m.

    While Judge Shelby's opinion may have left some Utahns upset, it made many others jubilant. I would add that people don't wait in line for hours in a snowstorm waiting for a clerk's office to open so they can obtain a marriage license because they want to destroy traditional marriage. They wanted to participate in it.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 6:50 a.m.

    ”…eons of time and decades of social science…” is not even an accurate assessment. “Traditional” marriage has changed repeatedly.

    “In the wake of “Judicial tyranny,” many Utahns feel like their voice has been taken away…”

    And there are many who FINALLY feel like their voice has been returned.

    Denying LGBT couples the legal benefits you enjoy is not even close to “treating everyone with kindness and respect.”

  • Gibster San Antonio, TX
    Jan. 22, 2014 6:48 a.m.

    Ok Laura: A couple of questions for you:

    Are you in favor a law banning the adoption of children by LGBT couples?

    If the natural parent of an LGBT Couple dies should the children be taken from the other parent and placed in a traditional family?

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 6:15 a.m.

    And then there are the many many times when a mom and dad in the home just isn't possible. My mom passed away when I was very young. I can come up with dozens of other plasable scenarios. I can also know families that should not be together because of the poison the mom and dad create in the home.
    So sure, its best to have the ideal situation, but since I never had it, and I ended up being a productive member of society, I'm sure there are many more just like me.
    It really is a situation where those for "traditional" marriage are riding a high horse and need to get off.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 3:22 a.m.

    How could or why would this ruling change views regarding traditional marriage? This ruling doesn't affect or have anything to do with traditional marriage.

    What this ruling does is legalize gay marriage.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 1:26 a.m.

    So the opinion was barely able to stumble three steps before falling flat on its face. The state of Utah allows single people to foster and adopt and the only research that begins to support your claims all examined the differences between married couples and single parents not SSM. Further as was the case with the states argument the writer fails to provide any evidance that banning SSM will somehow improve the likelyhood that a child will be raised in what they consider the ideal.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Jan. 22, 2014 1:20 a.m.

    Fine. No one's telling you to change your view of traditional marriage. Just don't rewrite the law based on no real reason besides "because God said so."

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 1:04 a.m.

    Judge Shelby's ruling need not change anyone's view or opinion or belief about anything. He ruled on the law. You will be free to believe whatever you want forever. But the whole point is that law is not based on your views or beliefs about the ideal marriage. And marriage laws are not based on what is ideal. If so, divorce - even contention in marriage - would be illegal.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:59 a.m.

    In his important work "The Great Transformation" Karl Polanyi describes the rise of capitalism as a process of change - going from setups where economies were inside of societies to what obtains today - a society inside of an economy. He describes the great stresses the current situation places on traditional forms, especially the family, extended and nuclear. He establishes that life is intolerable in a modern commercial society absent the family. Most of us can agree that life today is intolerable without family life.

    So what does Ms. Bunker propose homosexuals do in order to survive in the world we know? They need family life just like heterosexuals. I presume her prescription for them would be therapy of some sort to make them heterosexuals. Such procedures have been thoroughly discredited and have often been brutal in the extreme.

    So here's the situation. Homosexuals need families. Ms. Bunker means to deny them. Ms. Bunker, what should they do?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:53 a.m.

    As a straight, male Latter-day Saint who is married in the Temple, let me be painfully frank: your view of traditional marriage does not matter in this debate. Your personal, moral convictions are literally irrelevant in the court of law. Rather, credence is granted to the COTUS which is why opponents of marriage equality are going to lose the legal battle.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:52 a.m.

    How _exactly_ does prohibiting same-sex marriage further "gold standard" relationships - especially when the law allows other relationships that are not "gold standard"?

    It is great that you would prefer all children be raised in households with two opposite sex parents, but current law allows single people to adopt. Current law allows single people to access reproductive assistance technologies. Current law allows divorce.

    And current law allows two unmarried same-sex people to have and raise children.

    How does preventing marriage for those same-sex couples who are already raising children further the goal of having children raised by opposite sex parents? (Obviously it hasn't made any difference up to this point, why is it going to make a difference going forward?)

    And why do "traditional marriage/family" supporters feel it is okay to ignore the reality of families/marriage prior to the fiction of "Leave it to Beaver"?