Possible outcomes plentiful in appeal of Amendment 3 ruling

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Trihs Der TalCech ISS Challenger, OH
    May 8, 2014 6:33 p.m.


    My first wife had crippling depression, extreme agoraphobia and charts social anxiety. She is the reason I read "Men are from Mars, Women are From Venus," "The Five Love Languages," "The Color Code," "Walking on Eggshells," "Co-Dependent No More," "Alcoholics Anonymous," "Man of Steel and Velvet," and a 15 or 20 other similar books.

    Her mental illness meant she rarely did what "normal" people do in the pop-psychology relationship books.

    We dealt with extreme mental illness that had impact on me, my daughter, my step-son, my wife, our relationship, our roles in the relationship. In other words, our marriage was not like other marriages.

    Your demand that things be "100 percent the same" is as artificial and mistaken as your Gilligan's Island Thought Exercise that you insisted could only have one answer.

    Yes, I have known hetero couples who fit the image you outline. I have known many who don't fit it at all and who have constructed a very satisfying relationship that works for them.

    Opposite-sex marriages aren't equal to each other. Your criteria fails in the face of reality.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    May 8, 2014 2:06 p.m.

    "Give them rights, just don't call it marriage because it is NOT THE SAME as heterosexual marriage."

    So what it comes down to is using the word "marriage" in a way that makes you uncomfortable? You'd "give them rights," presumably meaning that a union would differ from a marriage only in the orientation of the people involved. So, whether someone calls it a marriage or a union, if the legal effect is the same, why the petty clinging to a word?

    "It's OUR word and THEY can't use it!" is what I'm hearing. Not much of a legal leg to stand on, I'm afraid.

    Men and women have the same legal rights in the 21st Century, yet no-one would claim that they are the same. A 21-year-old has the same rights as a septugenarian, yet they are manifestly not the same. Your shrieks of "gay unions and straight marriages are NOT THE SAME" is true from certain standpoints, but irrelevant. My marriage isn't the same as my neighbors' marriage, or even, yes, plural marriages, yet I don't have a problem with any of them calling their relationship "marriage."

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 8, 2014 10:23 a.m.

    To "MtnDewer" but the hetersexual couple that is infertile is biologically and psychologically the same as the fertile couple. The women were born with women parts, and the men were born with man parts. They are indistinguishable.

    Having children or the ability to have children is not, nor has it been a requirement for marriage.

    I have never said that gays shouldn't have protections. I will say it once again. They can have their unions, just don't call it marriage because it is not the same as marriage between a man and a woman.

    The question is what makes gays so special? Polygamists are not given the same rights as gays, why punish them and their children?

    To "A Quaker" why do you liberals insist that anybody who opposes gay marriage wants to criminalize it? Give them rights, just don't call it marriage because it is NOT THE SAME as heterosexual marriage.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    May 8, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    @RedShirt: You have "proved" absolutely nothing. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you were right. So, what?

    Here, in this America, we start from the premise that it's a free country, that people can do what they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone. We all have that gift of liberty, as well as guaranteed individual rights.

    The question is, if you want to criminalize same-sex marriage (and the Utah statutes pretty much do just that and will jail or fine a clergyman who conducts one), you have an obligation to show that it victimizes someone.

    Not long ago, we had a slew of antisodomy laws on the books. While they're still on the books in many states, the Supreme Court ruled that private sexual conduct between non-consanguineous consenting adults was not a matter that could be criminalized, and they voided all those laws. No victim, no crime.

    If SCOTUS ruled that sodom-y is a Constitutionally protected personal choice, why on God's good Earth do you imagine they're going to rule that marriage isn't?

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 8, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    redshirt: "
    Gay marriage involves 2 people of the same gender. That is not equal to 2 people of opposite genders. They are not the same biologically."


    Older couple marriage involves 2 people who are unable to procreate. That is not equal to 2 people who can procreate. They are not the same biologically.


    Now put in infertile couples.


    Gays are only asking for the same marriage benefits that an older or infertile heterosexual couple has. And if it is the same as a fertile heterosexual couple - so be it! If a couple is raising children, whether or not they are heterosexual, they should be able to protect those children using our marriage laws to provide the most stable environment with all the benefits that any married couple can afford to those children. Can you, Redshirt, tell my why those children should not have those things?

    Why shouldn't a gay married couple have the same benefits and privileges that an older couple has? What is their difference that makes the heterosexuals so special? Don't say how they have sex, please...many older couples don't even worry about that small part of their lives and yet we allow them to remain married.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 8, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    To "Trihs Der TalCech" I don't think you understand what equal means for something to be 100% equal that means that in every way things are equal.

    Gay marriage involves 2 people of the same gender. That is not equal to 2 people of opposite genders. They are not the same biologically. Next, you have the psychological differences. Psycholgically a heterosexual couple is different because typically men look to fix and solve problems, and women need to release their emotions related to problems. In a marriage between heterosexuals they must work to overcome the psychological differences. When you have 2 men or 2 women, you typically don't have that.

    Again, prove that gay unions are 100% equal to heterosexual marriage. Why can't you do that simple thing. I have proved that they are not equal biologically and psychologically. You just keep insisting that they are equal. PROVE IT.

  • Trihs Der TalCech ISS Challenger, OH
    May 7, 2014 7:45 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 said: "Despite what your ilk claim, gay unions will never be 100% equal to marriage between a man and a woman."

    To quote a great Spanish swordsman "“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

    To date, you have claimed almost incessantly that gay unions will never be 100% equal. And, to date, you have not backed your claim with any facts or information to support your position.

    You tried to show that "marriage" equals "procreation" and failed utterly. The rate of single mothers in the country is proof.

    You tried to show that "marriage" equals "parenting" and we find that, while Gay and Lesbian couples make fine parents, the state of Utah separates marriage law and family law and in no place requires married couples to parent or parents to marry.

    In fact, the only thing you have done is demand others answer your question and then ignore their answers.

    So: Prove that Gay marriage cannot be equal to hetero marriage.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 7, 2014 5:04 p.m.


    Find out who goes into poverty the most often when there is a divorce with children and report back...hint - It's the one who has the children...

    That is a fact.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 7, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    To "MtnDewer" so, you agree that right now, under the law men and women are not equal, the Draft is sufficient proof of that. It doesn't matter what you say you hope for in the future, the fact is that there is inequality in the draft laws.

    I noticed that you ignored the decency laws and the rulings against women that sexually abuse minors.

    If what you say about divorce is true, why is it that so many news articles, and law web sites state that divorce laws favor women? Based on what is available on the internet, what you say has no basis in reality.

    To "Jimmytheliberal" you are the one who needs to keep grasping. Despite what your ilk claim, gay unions will never be 100% equal to marriage between a man and a woman.

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    May 7, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    @Red Shirt...Continue grasping my friend. Eventually you may come up with something logical to post rather then spewing your particular religious ideology. By the way. Religious ideology is irrelevant in a courtroom! Equality will soon arrive for all rather then a select few.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 7, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    "One prime example is the Draft. Men are required by law to sign up for it and women are not. Divorce laws are set up to favor women."


    Haven't been around divorce court very much lately? They are NOT set up to favor women, but are set up to favor the one who stays home or has given up their career to take care of the children. That can also be the man, believe it or not. That is why there is alamony payments, etc. If both are working and there are no children, it is an even split. Custody cases are again usually given to those who are taking care of the children the most and that too can be the man.

    Right now there is no draft. Men are still signing up at the draft board, but if, and I hope this never happens again, that we need the draft, I believe that both men and women will be drafted. Each will be able to serve where they are best suited. That might mean that because most men are stronger than women, they will be serving on the front line. But women have served there too.

  • Trihs Der TalCech ISS Challenger, OH
    May 7, 2014 2:52 p.m.


    You didn't follow my rules. You twisted things and didn't give the answer I wanted...

    Silly, right? You called it a thought experiment, when Ginger played you were all offended because she actually thought and came up with an answer.

    There are differences between men and women. But in many parts of the world men and women can go bare-chested and it is not an issue. In some countries men and women are drafted, in others women don't serve in the military at all. Many "gender differences" are cultural, none have to do with SSM. And some countries officially define marriage as 2 people, regardless of gender.

    Yes, I read "MAFMWAFV." Spent time studying it because I did not, in many ways, fit the stereotypes he presented. The latest studies in brain imaging show that gay men's brains often elicit results closer to that of women, which may explain my dilemma.

    I got more from "The Five Love Languages," and after two decades still find "The Color Code" a good relationship resource. Both look at personality devoid of gender stereotypes and I find that much more useful.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 7, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    To "MtnDewer" but 1 man is not equal to 1 woman within the US laws. One prime example is the Draft. Men are required by law to sign up for it and women are not. Divorce laws are set up to favor women. Many of the latest convictions of women who sexually abuse minors have shown us that women don't receive as harsh of punishments as men for the same crime. Men can walk around bare chested in public and women can't.

    There are many laws that apply to one gender and not the other, so even within the law they are not the same.

    To "TrihsDer" I can tell you have not read the book Men are from Mars. Yes it was popular at one time, but that doesn't mean that the points it makes are any less valid. It was written by an expert in relationship counciling. It is as valid as any AGW study.

    In your experiment, lets imagine what would happen if on that island they found a herbal remidy that balanced the brain chemistry of those with same sex attraction and eliminated it all together. Gays are not punished.

  • TrihsDer ISS Enterprise, OH
    May 7, 2014 12:41 p.m.


    A Thought Experiment:

    The Love Boat runs aground on Gilligan's Island. Wacky hi-jinks ensue and all radios and lifeboats are destroyed, leaving no hope of escape or rescue.

    The Castaways realize there are 100 straight men and 100 straight women on the island and begin to couple up and, eventually, have children.

    Fifteen years later the oldest children have matured and are starting to pair up. As time goes by the adults realize that 95% of the children are forming opposite-sex pairs, but about 5% are in same-sex couples.

    Do the adults:

    1. Punish those children until they conform?

    2. Kill the same-sex-attracted children to protect the integrity of the community?

    3. Deny them food, water, and shelter for the benefit of the 95% who are obeying the rules?

    You must decide what these adults should do to protect the 95% of their offspring who are in traditional relationships.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    May 7, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    @RedShirt: You and your church are free to tell people (gay, straight, conservative, liberal, tea party, other religions, whoever) anything you want. It's a free country and your right of free speech is protected. As is your right to exercise your religion. They're both in the First Amendment, along with freedom of the press.

    But, so is everyone else's. My right of free speech is equal to your right. My right of freedom of religion is equal to yours. It doesn't matter if you consider me a heretic or I consider you a Philistine. That's also our right.

    But, when it comes to deciding the orderly exercise of individual rights, and interpretation of our Constitution, that's neither of our rights. We can't ban each other's religions, and we can't petition the government to adopt either of them. And a good thing that is, too. As for interpreting secular law and how that applies to Due Process and Equal Protection, that's up to the Court.

    May God guide them to a decision that honors God's Light and Love equally in every person, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 7, 2014 10:18 a.m.


    Legally equal:

    1 man = 1 woman in our laws.

    So, 1 man + 1 woman = 1 man + 1 man = 1 woman + 1 woman.

    Simple math.

    Socially equal:

    This has passed the over 50% acceptance threshhold and so more people accept their equality than reject it. Those who still reject it are dying off gradually and it will soon be a totally acceptable assertion that they are equal.

    Emotionally equal:

    Both same sex couples and opposite sex couples want to commit to each other legally. The statistics that I read the other day is that 26% of heterosexuals are married. That is probably about the same % of gays that want to marry. Emotionally, both fall in love, some want families and some want companionship. I don't think you can make any comparisons between the two without giving gays marriage for a while and see if they are not just as good (or just as bad) as heterosexuals have been.


  • TrihsDer ISS Enterprise, OH
    May 7, 2014 9:59 a.m.


    A glib pop-culture title as a "reference"? What's next? Dr. Phil?

    Be that as it may, I read that and found I identified more with the Venus than Mars, and always have. It gave problems when I tried to be in OS relationships, and it caused some conflict in my over-all much happier SS relationships.

    In real-world relationships - not thought experiments - the differences exist in both hetero and same-sex relationships and must be overcome to form a successful partnership.

    Besides... so what? A successful relationship is successful - it works for the two people involved. Some never have a cross moment, some spend 50 years bickering and love each other dearly. Some have every interest in common, some seem to have no connection to each other. Both can be happy or miserable.

    @GingerAle answered your thought experiment very carefully and thoroughly. She just didn't reach the conclusion you were trying to force.

    Please demonstrate, with something beyond unsupported assertions or religious verbiage, that Same Sex couples are not the legal, social, and emotional equivalent of Opposite Sex couples.

    So far you have ignored that.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 7, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    To "TrihsDer" that is easy, just remember I am speaking in general terms. On a basic level, you have the biological differences. Men are physically different than women. If you want to go deeper, read the book "Men are from Mars". The psychological, emotional, and communication differences between men and women is quite different, and must be overcome to form a successful marriage. If you have 2 men or 2 women, you don't have the same challenges. Marriage is about more than children.

    To "A Quaker" yes, we should tell gays that they can't be married. They can have a union that has equal protections, but no, they are not married.

    To "GingerAle" actually I have not been changing the subject. I have only been after one thing from you and people like you. I want you to prove that gay marriage is 100% equal to hetersexual marriage. The experiment was intended to make you think about the differences and the basis of society. I can't make you think and respond to something you don't want to.

    To "Really???" I am comparing you to neither. Being loved by God is a given. Loving and obeying god isn't.

  • TrihsDer NEO, OH
    May 6, 2014 9:48 p.m.

    @RedShirt: "Prove to us that the union of 2 gays is 100% equal to the union of a man and a woman."

    Prove it isn't. You make a claim here, that a gay or lesbian couple is somehow not equal to a hetero couple.

    You make the claim, then do nothing to actually back it up. You just make the claim.

    You also conflate "marriage" with "parenting," and then confuse the act of parenting with the act of procreation. The former takes extensive commitment, the later requires genitals and (fortunate or unfortunate) timing.

    Please demonstrate, with something beyond unsupported assertions or religious verbiage, that Same Sex couples are not the legal, social, and emotional equivalent of Opposite Sex couples.

    Then please demonstrate, with something beyond unsupported assertions or religious verbiage, that Same Sex couples are not able to provide a healthy, stable, nurturing home to raise children into healthy, balanced, happy adults.

    Thank you.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    May 6, 2014 6:59 p.m.

    @Redshirt: You're asking the wrong question. First of all, no marriage is equal to any other marriage. A marriage is whatever two people make it. Everyone is different, so every marriage is both the sum and the product of that difference.

    Zsa Zsa Gabor, Lana Turner, Jennifer O'Neill, Larry King, Liz Taylor and Mickey Rooney were married a total of 50 times, each of them 8 or 9 times. None of those marriages were the equivalent of my one marriage of 30-something years so far, and counting.

    The correct question is, can we tell people whose only possible romantic affinity is to someone of the same sex that they shouldn't be able to marry their sweetheart? Marriage is much more than sexual activity. (Ask anyone who's married!) No marriage survives without an abiding love for each other. We Quakers believe that that love is God's love, the universal source of all love, and let no man set asunder, etc.

    What Courts are seeing now is that once you consider religious doctrine with neutrality, the legal basis is pretty clear. There's no fundamental legal reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 6, 2014 6:42 p.m.


    You keep changing the subject, your name, and the rules of your thought "experiment."

    Straight and gay relationships include love, trust, mutual attraction, partnership, companionship, and desire for happiness.

    You seem to focus on "parenting," which has nothing to do with being a couple. Even Utah marriage law is separate from Utah family law.

    Creating a child is a biological act, nothing more. Teenagers, drunks, drug addicts, murderers, strangers sharing a physical moment, even a couple on the brink of divorce. All can make a baby.

    Parenting - actually raising a child to be a successful and happy human - requires time, attention, love, consistency and commitment. It can be done by a single parent, but works best if shared by two parents and the gender of the parents does not matter.

    Same-sex relationships are equal and equivalent to opposite-sex relationships. Same-sex parenting has one minor difference, which on the whole is the least important part of parenting.

    Again, your thought exercise is not an experiment. It starts with your conclusion and goes in a circle while ignoring reality. It proves nothing.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 6, 2014 6:20 p.m.

    GingerAle -- I enjoyed reading about the island and how it turned out. It sounds like a nice place.

    Really??? -- I appreciate your testimony. I hope the people who do know you are more supportive than people on these comments who don't.

    For anyone interested in better understanding and having empathy for the complex reality of same-sex attraction, I encourage you to check out a new series on youtube you can find if you search for "ldswalkwithyou." They are stories of faithful LDS families dealing lovingly with LGBT family members.

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    May 6, 2014 6:14 p.m.

    @GingerAle--Two Thumbs Up!
    @Redshirt--I Love the desert island thought experiment!

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 6, 2014 5:30 p.m.


    Are you comparing me more to Mother Teresa or Hitler? I find it interesting that you would insinuate that I am rebelling against God. I don't think you know who I am, nor do you understand my heart. This, you see, is the true problem that we are facing with this issue.

    I have prayed about who I am for years, and I did not receive the answers I wanted for far too many of them. It wasn't until I asked God if he accepted me the way that I am that I finally found the internal peace that was missing for too long. You see, I received inspiration how to live MY life the best way I can with the cards I have been dealt. God's not going to inspire my neighbor or some stranger who reads the same newspaper about how I should live my life.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 6, 2014 4:39 p.m.


    Your so-called "logic" is like 100 years ago, someone argued: since men can vote, but women can not, they are not equal, therefore, men and women SHOULD NOT be treated equally under the law.

    Fortunately, Mr. Schaerr is smart enough not to bring such argument to the court, because he knew it would only fail miserably.

    And BTW, I don't know how many RedShirt ID you have, RedShirt, RedShirt1701, RedShirtMIT, RedShirtUofU, RedShirtCaltech..., you can keep on posting your comments as many as you like. but I don't have time to debate on your "logical" argument. This is my 4th and the last comment on this article. Bye.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 6, 2014 3:32 p.m.

    To "GingerAle" if I read your responses correctly, you agree that a gay union is not the same as marriage between a man and a woman.

    Through your examples, you have left out the fact that on the island with the gays that the rates for physical and emotional abuse are much higher. Then, according to the census only 27% of lesbians and 14% of gay men had children. That means that the longer you carry out the experiment, you would run out of kids or else end up with too much inbreeding to carry on.

    First, from a biological sense where there is not a natural way for a gay couple to conceive a child. Which leads to the fact that 2 women or 2 men are not the same as a man and a woman.

    We can also go into the differences that exist when a man and woman marry that are different than when a gay couple is united.

    Try as you might, you can never prove that a gay couple is equal to a hetersexual couple.

    To "USU-Logan" FYI men and women are not treated equally under the law. Talk to any divorced man.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 6, 2014 3:10 p.m.


    You don't need to reply RedShirt series' sophist posts. His logic is totally deceiving: same sex couples are not the same as hereto couples; therefore, they should not be equal.

    Base on his so-called "logic", men and women are not the same, they should be treated equally under the law either.

    I mean, if his argument or "experiment" is so compelling, why Mr. Schaerr did not use it in court? Is it because his argument is irrational? Or is it because his experiment is irrelevant?

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 6, 2014 2:57 p.m.


    I did the experiment. You didn't like the results so you changed the rules. I played again, and again you object to the simple conclusion.

    According to over 50 courts, starting with the Massachusetts Supreme Court a decade ago and now the US Supreme Court and several dozen federal district courts there is no legal difference between Same Sex and Opposite Sex couples. This has been proven in court case after court case across the country.

    My wife and I are a couple. We have a home, pay bills, are raising our kids. We go to church, I volunteer at the school and help with Girl Scouts. We have 2 cars and worry about retirement as we save to buy a house. We have friends and family and are part of the community.

    We adopted our kids instead of creating them together, biologically. That is the only difference between us and the couple next door - a hetero couple who have 2 kids.

    Prove we are different. Not with a bogus "thought experiment" - actually prove that our relationship is not equal. Some fine legal minds have tried and failed. Good luck.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 6, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    To "GingerAle" again, answer the core issue. Prove to us that the union of 2 gays is 100% equal to the union of a man and a woman.

    I challenge you to do so. So far I just see many taking swipes at it, but they are afraid to actually offer anything showing that a gay union is the same as a marriage between a man and woman. IMHO you and others like you don't want to answer that challenge because you know that you can't.

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 6, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    Ok, Redshirt I'll keep playing.

    On the gay island some people join together to create pottery, including some items to aid reproduction via non-scientific but very doable artificial insemination. Over the next two decades they have well over a hundred children. The second generation is 90 to 95% hetero, but they are raised in a village that values them as individuals who were wanted and planned for.

    Over the next 150 years the society the village builds believes in sustainable growth and joyful living. Because of the gay and lesbian roots men are seen as highly creative and are expected to have a full range of feelings. Women are seen to be powerful and independent and from day one are equals in every part of the village. People are not shamed for being who they are and the society is peaceable.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 6, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    What is it with the liberals, you ask them to do a simple experiment in thought and they refuse to do so. They make things more complicated and have to twist things around just to make it so that they don't have to admit the truth.

    To "GingerAle" since you don't want to actually post your response to the experiment, let me be blunt: Prove to us that the union of 2 gays is 100% equal to the union of a man and a woman.

    I challenge you to do so. So far I just see many taking swipes at it, but they are afraid to actually offer anything showing that a gay union is the same as a marriage between a man and woman. IMHO you and others like you don't want to answer that challenge because you know that you can't.

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 6, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    RedShirt, some couples can't afford medical artificial insemination. The procedure can be done with items from the average kitchen. Disallow kitchens, a first aid kit will suffice. Disallow that, I can think of several ways to create items needed.

    You started with a conclusion and then placed restrictions until the only outcome was the conclusion you started with. It was not an "experiment," at best it is a meaningless exercise.

    And two can play.

    Your hetero island has no science, either, and they follow strict Biblical reproductive rules - intimacy is restricted to the most fertile part of the women's cycle.

    At the end of 12 months there are 100 births. Allowing for nursing, year 3 sees another 100 births, year 5 another 100 and so on to year 17 with 100 original couples, 900 children, and the 17 year olds, who married at 16, add their own babies, making 150 births. Year 19, 200 births, year 21, 250.

    After 150 years we find that resources were depleted in the first 50 years, overcrowding lead to disease, starvation followed, along with total social collapse.

    That was fun.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 6, 2014 11:05 a.m.


    Nowadays, super majority of American people accept premarital sex, especially in young people. No matter how you disapprove it, it will happen. Giving out condoms is just a measure to protect people, also of public health interest.

    Your kids and their friends are free to follow your discipline and only involve with people with opposite gender, but that doesn't mean other kids have to follow your way. They have their freedom too.

  • alanjones520 Tustin, CA
    May 6, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    While I understand the religious point of view on this issue, it should be noted that the LDS church would be the least impacted of any religion or other organization if same-sex marriage becomes legal. Note there are other things legal that go against church doctrine like smoking, alcohol, sex outside of marriage, and the list goes on. These do not break the church. In the case of marriage the church has 2 levels of marriages, it can be said. One is the legal state marriage and the second one is the sealing in the temple. The church teaches the important one is the temple, so even if same-sex marriage becomes legal (which I think it likely will across the USA), it won't touch temple sealings. This is much the case is other countries where churches are not allowed to perform civil marriages, I think Brazil is one of them. And the church is not broken in Brazil.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 6, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    To "Candied Ginger" please do the thought experiment. Imagine you have 100 random couples that are hetersexual and another 100 that are gay. Put each group on their own island with the essentials to survive (that means no test tubes or scientific equipment). Assuming that the couples are all 100% faithful, wait 150 years and observe the islands again. Which island will have people and which one won't?

    Since the island with the gays does not have a natural means of reproduction, can you honestly say that they are equal to the hetersexual couples?

    Since you keep insisting that gay couples are equal to hetersexual couples, it is now up to you to prove it. Prove to us that a gay couple is 100% equal to a heterosexual couple.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    May 6, 2014 3:07 a.m.

    There hundreds, if not thousands, of verses and "rules" from the Bible that people choose to ignore. I don't understand the fixation with homosexuality. Why does nobody care if divorced people or people who commit adultery re-marry? Is that not an abomination according to God? Why aren't we fighting against people eating pork or shellfish? Why have we not outlawed tattoos? Why is it still legal to work on Sunday? Or Leviticus 19:27 “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads. Neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.” So haircuts and shaving should be outlawed too.... Right?

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    May 5, 2014 8:28 p.m.

    @ Tiago
    I can only speak to my concerns - Yes, I think once a behavior is generally accepted, the likelihood that people who might not have tried it otherwise, will. For example - giving condoms without question in schools under the guise of "teens will do it anyway" may give kids who might have abstained, "courage" to have sex. Kids who are questioning their sexual orientation may experiment if it is deemed "OK" and natural. It seems to be the politically correct thing in liberal America to say you are at least "bisexual". If I say, "It's OK to play in the canal", my kids would, and their friends would join them. Remember what happened in the '60's with the "if it feels good, do it" generation. Lots of kids got sucked into lots of risky behaviors because their peers were doing it.

    We want to preserve the morality in this country for many reasons - from the impact of research based social and health ills which homosexuality contributes to, as well as religious reasons already listed in this forum.

    "America is great, because She is good. When America ceases to be good, She will cease to be great". Ezra Taft Benson

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 5, 2014 7:21 p.m.

    Whether or not sexual orientation is changeable seems more important than the cause. The lived reality for the majority of people (gay and straight) is that sexual orientation (the gender of people we fall in love with) is binary, persistent, and immutable.
    I am not arguing we are victims of nature. Highly motivated people can control conscious thoughts and actions. For example, straight guys can act gay in prison even thought they are not romantically attracted to other guys. Religious people who experience SSA can squash romantic and sexual desires that are out of bounds and some even marry someone of the opposite sex and reproduce. But, controlling conscious thoughts and actions does not change what gender a person is fundamentally attracted to.
    Are opponents of SSM concerned that greater social acceptance will diminish the motivation for gay and lesbian people to suppress romantic and sexual desires? Are they concerned that less gay and lesbian people will be motivated to enter into mixed-orientation marriages?

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    May 5, 2014 7:12 p.m.

    @Candied Ginger

    While you may have the "legal right" in some states to be in a same-sex marriage, SSM is not a God given right. It is an abomination, as homosexuality is clearly seen as unnatural, according the Bible, which was written by God's ancient prophets.

    "...God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
    (Romans 1:26-27)

  • pbunny Salt Lake, UT
    May 5, 2014 6:17 p.m.

    Hi Hockeymom, I think Laura already made her maximum number of posts, but I will help you out. The effect you are questioning was first established in the 1990s. Many articles have been published since but the finding has never been refuted. If interested, please read:

    Blanchard, Ray, and Anthony F. Bogaert. "Homosexuality in men and number of older brothers." American Journal of Psychiatry 153.1 (1996): 27-31.

    A PDF of the article is free and available through googlescholar. It is mind-boggling, I agree, as is nature. We are amazingly complex creatures with amazingly complex systems that regulate sexual orientation.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 5, 2014 5:39 p.m.

    @1 Voice

    No, it is you who has missed the point. You get to marry the person you wish to. In your world, however, gays and lesbians only get equality under the law if they choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, someone they wish not to marry. There will only be equality when gays and lesbians can marry who they choose OR you are not allowed to marry who your choose. Now, which way makes the most sense.

    "Those in SS relationship are still free exercise their constitutional right to pursue happiness as they choose."

    Unless, of course they want the same rights as you.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    May 5, 2014 5:29 p.m.


    We were willing to do civil unions, but state after state slammed the door in our face with laws and amendments outlawing any legal recognition of our relationships. Tired of standing outside the door begging, we are kicking it down and demanding, as Americans, our place at the table. Both court decisions and surveys show a growing majority agree with us.

    @Mike Richards

    I am a lesbian, a woman attracted to women. Not a man in a woman's body.

    The causes of sexual orientation are not clear, however brain scans and other testing show neurological differences between straights and gays/lesbians. In other words, there are physical differences even if the causes have yet to be fully mapped. Current research is looking at genetic predispositions and hormones changes in the earliest part of pregnancy.

    But it does not matter. My wife and I choose to be together, have a family, raise kids. Court after court is recognizing our legal right to do that and have the same legal protections as other couples.

    Statistics are not conclusive, but do show patterns researchers are following. Google it.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    May 5, 2014 5:16 p.m.

    @ Laura Bilington
    With all due respect, this sounds like somebody's "theory", and way too bogus to be scientifically backed up. Where is the research for this? Many many many families have multiple boy children who are all heterosexual. That theory boggles my mind.

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    May 5, 2014 4:46 p.m.

    As Stated the Family Proclamation takes precedence over anyone elses as it so authorized by the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Those who refuse can and they can live how they wish but they shall stand before the Chief Judge and have to answer for disobeying the Proclamation to all. There is only one living Church upon the face of the Earth and Elder Ballard didn't mince words with it last night and neither shall I. This is a newspaper that is supported by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and should allow such to be posted.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    May 5, 2014 4:44 p.m.

    @ Candied Ginger & Lane Myer
    True, with science there are all kinds of ways to reproduce. I think the point is that God's plan (which BTW is also the laws of nature) is for male and female reproduction. Only that he has sanctified through marriage for all of His children. The experiment suggested by RedShirtUofU, has to do with what would happen under natural circumstances, not what is possible through science. God's hand may or may not be in those scientific methods, (invitro, surrogacy, etc.) and his hand is certainly not in the immoral circumstances (abandonment, neglect, abuse, etc.). Thankfully, there are good Moms & Dads who are willing to pick up the pieces and raise children brought to the earth through immoral means.

    On the flip side, "Life" may find a way in the animal kingdom - I don't believe we want to be classified as animals, in fact have been given dominion over the animal kingdom, and are expected to rise above animalistic behavior. We have been counseled to "cast off the natural man", which means to rise above our base instincts and bridle whatever passions may "feel natural", but are deemed by Him to be immoral.

  • pbunny Salt Lake, UT
    May 5, 2014 4:24 p.m.

    "RedshirtUofU", you must really like your "desert island analogy" where you hypothetically put 1000 straight couples on one island and 1000 gay couples on another. I've seen you post it here at least 3 times. I guess your point is that gay folks shouldn't get married--since they die on the imaginary island. What would you think of also having 1000 infertile heterosexual couples on another island? When after 150 hypothetical years that island is filled with nothing but hypothetical corpses, will you take that to mean that infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry? If your answer is "No" consider that the desert island analogy is simply a straw-man that you enjoy knocking down and it doesn't really mean or prove anything.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 5, 2014 4:04 p.m.

    Mike Richards--you are confusing transgender people and gays. Transgendered people see themselves as a female in a male body, or vice versa. No, nobody has discovered a gay gene, but it is well established that a) gays felt different, from early childhood, and b) the chance that a boy baby will grow up to be gay rises steadily with the number of boys that his mother has been pregnant with before he was conceived. It makes no difference if the child is raised with these older brothers or if some or all of the older brothers were stillborn. The most likely explanation is that androgen and testosterone present in blood leakage during pregnancy and birth from the male fetus causes antibodies to be formed in the female and this influences the gender preference of the subsequent boys she bears. This is not the only factor involved in a boy being gay, but it is significant.

    The percentage of gay boys in Utah is higher than, say, Vermont, because the birth rate per woman in Utah is higher and any given boy is more likely to have an older brother or brothers than in another state.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    May 5, 2014 3:22 p.m.

    @ Lane Myer

    I am sorry, but your logic is baffling. Heterosexual couples who are infertile or post-menopausal are still heterosexual. I am not sure why you equate them with homosexual couples. I cannot see why having children or not or questionable parenting skills of heterosexual couples are issues at all. I would think that heterosexuality and homosexuality are sufficiently different of themselves to warrant separate legal accommodations.

    I fully support the rights of LGBT couples to legally join in unions of their choice. But to attempt to accommodate everyone within a one-size-fits-all marriage arrangement only leads to a legal and moral morass detrimental to all.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 5, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    I claimed that homosexuals had no gene that caused them to be homosexual. Several posters stated that "studies" showed that homosexuals were different. Okay. What GENE can be found in homosexuals that defines them as homosexual? What chromosome exists in homosexuals that does not exist in heterosexuals? What physical evidence could be used in court under oath to prove that a male is really a female in a male body?

    Without physical evidence to the contrary, there is no discrimination. "Feelings" are not a legal basis for discrimination. If feelings were allowed as an excuse, no bank robber could ever be convicted. All he would need to say us that he "felt" the need to be rich. Under the "equality" clause of the 14th Amendment, he would prevail.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    May 5, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    To "Two For Flinching" I never said that being able to have children was a requirement for marriage. I am saying that the fact that in general heterosexual couples can have children makes their marriage different than the union of 2 gays.

    I don't think that single people should adopt, that isn't good for children either. Yes, I think the divorce rate is much to high and the no-fault divorces should be done away with. Just because I don't list out all marriage related issues that bother me does not mean that I don't care. What about abuse within marriage, are you ok with that or should we spend more time combating abusive relationships?

    To "Candied Ginger" what do you think would be easier for people to accept. Gays telling them that marriage is whatever the gays decide it will be, or the gays asking to have their unions granted the same rights as marriage without calling it marriage?

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    May 5, 2014 2:30 p.m.


    "too bad the ballot that was passed by the people means nothing, when 3 people override it."

    I think George Wallace said almost exactly the same thing when he was standing in the school house door.


    "Had they gone that route they would most likely have laws in every state that would grant legal recognition of their unions that mirrors marriage for hetersexual couples."

    Not in Utah. Amendment 3 specifically said gays and lesbians could not have any recognition of their relationships at all in any way.

    In fact, most of the amendments had language like that.

    So instead of agreeing to something separate but possibly equal, you voted to deny us any possibility of any rights at all.

    Sorry, that ship sailed and it was not by our choice. In Utah it was 66% of the voters who made the decision that lead directly to where we are today.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    May 5, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    @ RedShirtUofU

    Being able to have children has never been a requirement for marriage. Infertile couples, elderly couples, and heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children get married all the time. Conversely, there are thousands of same-sex couples who have, and are raising children. Also, single people can adopt in this state, leaving children without a mother and a father. Why aren't you upset about that? Are you equally appalled by divorce as you are by SSM?

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    May 5, 2014 2:01 p.m.

    To "Lane Myer" so then you agree that gay marriage is not the same as hetersexual marriage based on the simple fact that the gays require scientific means to reproduce and hetersexual couples don't.

    If the gays want something similar to marriage, let them have it, but don't say that it is equal to marriage between a man and a woman because (as you helped point out) they are not the same. If they gays want to be unionized or joined or partnered, or whatver they want, let them, as long as they don't call it marriage. Had they gone that route they would most likely have laws in every state that would grant legal recognition of their unions that mirrors marriage for hetersexual couples.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    May 5, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    @ my_two_cents_worth

    You missed the point. Read Ranch's post regarding why he thinks its OK to restrict polygamous marriage but not SSM.

    If this issue were truly about a constitutional right to marry then states could not restrict marriage in anyway as that would be discriminatory in some way to some group who wants to define marriage according to what would benefit them.

    We define and restrict marriage as traditional marriage, with all its flaws, because that is what is best for society. We do not based marriage on how individuals wish it to be defined. Those in SS relationship are still free exercise their constitutional right to pursue happiness as they choose. They are treated equally under the law.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 5, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    Ajax: Read all about "simularly situated" and how it applies to equal protection of the law. Is there any heterosexuals who are allowed to marry who are simularly situated as gay couples? Hint: infertile couples and older post-menopausal couples.

    Why are they allowed to marry and not gays?

    Why are murderers allowed to marry? How about child molesters? Again, allowed to marry and have children!

    Yet you want to fight against two loving, same-sex partners committing their lives to each other?

    Why are you wasting your time on such a small portion of the populations? Why not work to better society by teaching marriage to the children of the US? Teach them how to abstain until marriage or use safe sex. Over 40% of children today are born to unwed mothers. That is where the problem lies! Not in the small 1.25% of the population that might want a same sex marriage.

    Why the obsession with keeping them from the same rights and privileges that others who are simularly situated enjoy? That is why "equality under the law" or the 14th amendment will rule in this case. Not beliefs or tradition - but our constitution.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    May 5, 2014 1:53 p.m.

    Hi, RedShirtUofU

    About your experiment.

    My wife and I adopted two kids, but before that we looked into artificial insemination. We know several lesbian couples who have children through this means. No cheating, a medical procedure. We also know of two gay male couples who have children through a surrogate, via artificial insemination from one of the fathers.

    But what is your point? If you put 100 infertile hetero couples on an island they wont be able to have children without medical help. Or a hundred couples where the woman is post-menopause.

    But your experiment is flawed from the start, because the parameters are meaningless. We are raising two kids who were stuck in the system because they are special needs. Several couples we know have adopted special needs kids.

    Gays and lesbians who don't have children also help with the children of relatives and friends - one of my best friends says she will never, ever have children but she is my most trusted baby sitter. Oh, and she is straight and intends to never marry.

    About your island? To quote Dr. Ian Malcolm, "Life finds a way."

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    May 5, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    too bad the ballot that was passed by the people means nothing, when 3 people override it.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 5, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    "To the Gay Marriage supporters. Why do you insist on declaring gay marriage the same as hetersexual marriage? They are not the same. Before you respond, lets do an experiment. If you take 100 heterosexual couples and put them on an island and give them the things needed for survival and wait 150 years. Now do the same with 100 gay couples. If the couples are 100% faithful, which island will have people on it ?"


    Both. There are other ways of having children besides being unfaithful. Thank science and ingenuity.


    Now take older, infertile heterosexual couples and put them on an island. Would they have people on it in 150 years? Why do we allow older, infertile couples to marry? With your logic, we shouldn't.

    Give gays the same marriage that you give older, infertile couples. Keep your other marriage for those who are going to have children.

    What? There is only one kind of marriage? Let's pass a law to keep gays from marrying since they are not worthy of that privilege in our beliefs...they are sinners and will bring the distruction of our civilation (and just forget that we are treating them differently than other simularily situated citizens!)

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    May 5, 2014 1:34 p.m.

    @ Ranch

    You are mistaken in your claim of unconditional equal rights for all. Surely you are aware that equal rights are qualified under law. Violate the conditions of your rights to drive, own property, etc. and see what happens.

    And laws vary according to circumstances. By law the rights of children differ from those of adults; the rights and obligations of divorced parents vary according to their circumstances, and on and on. So while there are similarities in heterosexual and homosexual unions, by no stretch of the imagination are their circumstances and conditions identical. To pretend otherwise is short-sighted and limiting to both.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 5, 2014 1:28 p.m.

    @1 Voice

    "It is fair that everyone has the same rights under the constitution to marry one person of the opposite sex. Everyone is treated the same and that would be fair."

    How about we really level the playing field? Here's my suggestion: you (if you are married) divorce your current spouse. Next, find someone of the opposite sex who you really have no desire to spend the rest of your life with and marry them. Don't like that idea? Tough, it is EXACTLY what you are suggesting as the equitable solution for the LGBT community and I think it should apply equally to you as well.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    May 5, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    Hi, dave4197

    "Marriage is a religious institution and its definition is best left to people of religion."

    Ok, the religions can have marriage. But that means marriage has no civil and legal meaning. None.

    Your wife wants your last name after your religious marriage? Get lawyer and file.

    You want mutual power of attorney for medical care? Get a lawyer.

    You want to file taxes as a couple... sorry, "marriage" a religious rite and not recognized by the IRS.

    You want to inherit without tax penalty? Sorry, you are married and that does not help with taxes.

    And your kids? Your church may see them as yours, but the law says they are illegitimate because marriage is only a religious thing.

    Breaking up? Fight over the property as you see fit... your marriage is a religious thing, there are no legal protections.

    Sounds like a plan to me. The church can define marriage any way it wants and the state has no involvement at all.

    Oh. By the way. I am a Unitarian. My church, along with about 70 others, recognize and affirm same-sex marriage.

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    May 5, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    @Laura Bilington...Mam, my I say what an excellent post your wrote to The D.N. Editors referencing the religious card. Now. Try living in Salt Lake City!

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    May 5, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    To "Really???" that is a nice emotional response, but lets look at the grand plan. God loves everybody. From Hitler to Mother Teresa, they are all loved by God. I know that there are people who's heads are going to explode thinking about that, but it is true. God loves all his children.

    The question is do you love God enough to do the things that he has asked? I don't question God's love for all his children, even the murderous ones. I do question the love that God's children have for God when they rebel against His commandments.

    To the Gay Marriage supporters. Why do you insist on declaring gay marriage the same as hetersexual marriage? They are not the same. Before you respond, lets do an experiment. If you take 100 heterosexual couples and put them on an island and give them the things needed for survival and wait 150 years. Now do the same with 100 gay couples. If the couples are 100% faithful, which island will have people on it after 150 years?

    If you want to think about the children, explain how a gay household can provide their children with a mother and father.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    May 5, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    @ Ranch
    Your arguments make the case against SSM very well. It is fair that everyone has the same rights under the constitution to marry one person of the opposite sex. Everyone is treated the same and that would be fair.

    Polygamous marriage is banned by law and you seem to be OK with restricting marriage in that way. Logically you should then be OK with restricting marriages between people of the same sex.

    Marriage is not a constitutional right only that we treat people equal under the law. Supporting traditional marriage, even with all its flaws, is what is best for society and should be law. Everyone is then treated equal under the law which allows marriage only between two adults of the opposite sex. As you say, that would be fair.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 5, 2014 12:01 p.m.


    Sorry but you didn't do your homework. Civil unions in CA did NOT provide all the legal protections and benefits of marriage, only the local ones.

    The only ones who can "destroy the institution of marriage" are those who are married and are not doing a very good job at it.

    May 5, 2014 11:39 a.m.


    The bathrooms in my home and the ones in pucblic are very different. "Separate but equal" exists throughout our society and is perfectly fair and logical. In CA, same-sex couples had every right they could ask for, but still went to court to use the word "marriage". There was nothing to gain but to damage and destroy the institution of marriage. But then, that is the plan for the LGBT....

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 5, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    Dear Editors: If somebody wrote “The pope is the only true earthly representative of Jesus Christ”, it would be flagged as disruptive. As it should be, no matter how fervently the writer believes it. Please, then, tell me why you allow comments such as “Whether you recognize him or not is not the question. The fact is the he is an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ” . This discussion is not, and shouldn’t be of whose religion is the “true” one, let alone making announcements about hell as a destination for anybody who doesn’t follow your religion.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    May 5, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    @bj-hp, you must have and old copy of the Proclamation. The new update can be found here:

    2014 Proclamation from the National Cathedral

    "LGBT men and young women will continue to be vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and heterosexism, to the violence of hate and fear until we in the church can say to homosexuals now what it has said to heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church celebrates it and rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can do no less." Rev Jerry hall

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 5, 2014 11:15 a.m.


    1) You are incorrect. The states are PROHIBITED from violating the US Constitutional rights of citizens (go re-read 10th the amendment).

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor PROHIBITED by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (i.e. states are prohibited from violating the other sections of the US Constitution).

    2) Your bathroom analogy is ridiculous - in your home, the males/females share a bathroom right?

    3) It is absolutely the role of judges to rule on the constitutionality of laws - especially when they disenfranchise a minority.


    You only have the word of your "apostle of the Lord" that he really is one. I don't believe he is so whatever he has to say is, imo, not the truth.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    May 5, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    "...States rights are the future...".

    Back...to the future...

    Slavery and anti-miscegenation laws will be the future?

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    May 5, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    Many of those who wish to legalize same-sex marriage need to listen to an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and what he had to say last night. As he stated and what was stated a few months ago. Courts may legalize same-sex marriage but they can't change the moral law. The Law of Chasity states that sexual relations is only authorized between those that are legally married in the definition the Lord has given to the WORLD through the Family Proclamation. As I stated the world so that applies to everyone that lives on earth, has lived on earth or will live on Earth. Failure to do so will bring the magnitude of punishment from our Heavenly Father as seen in the Book of Mormon and the Flood. If you are willing to give into the deceivings of Satan and become part of his cohorts then that is your choice. It is your choice to act upon your attractions and that was made perfectly clear by Elder Ballard. Whether you recognize him or not is not the question. The fact is the he is an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 5, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    1 Voice said:

    "My opinion stems from my beliefs in God"

    And why should your belief in god trump the civil rights of others?

    "It isn't about ones right to redefine marriage as many try to twist the debate, it is about what is best for society."

    41% of 1st marriages end in divorce (60% for second marriages); number of people choosing to marry is at an all time low; and, 40.7% of all births to single mothers. Looks like "between one man and one woman" is doing a bang-up job.

    "Any legal relationship concerns for these and other people who wish to live together for what every reason can easily be managed through common law relationship laws."

    We already have the legal mechanism in place to meet these needs. It's called state licensed marriage.

    dave4197 said: "Marriage is a religious institution and its definition is best left to people of religion"

    Marriage is a civil function of the state. Churches are granted permission to represent the state in performing marriages; not the other way around.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    May 5, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    The SC ruled today that prayer, even Christian prayer, is allowed to be held in town council meetings. This is all the evidence you need to understand that individual States and communities can have differing laws, based upon the MAJORITY of its citizens desires.

    This can be applied to prayer in school and marriage laws in individual States. Under the Constitution, State majorities have the right to define laws for its own people. Equal Protection does not undermine this one bit.

    If the courts are consistent with today's ruling, they will side with the Constitution and the 10th Amendment in allowing Utah to continue its own definition of marriage.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    May 5, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    Wow. The willful ignorance by the SSM supporters on this topic is pretty staggering (Ranch, I'm looking at you).

    #1. Equal Protection does not take precedence over States Rights under the 10th Amendment. If it did, Utah could be forced to legalize pot because Colorado is doing it, and a thousand other State-specific laws. Nice try.

    #2. "Separate is not equal" is false. We have separate bathrooms for men and women, separate schools for young and old, and the handicapped. Separate universities for the more ambitious and the less so. Separate does not mean not equal. Different people have different needs, true equality will never exist because we are human beings and we are all unique.

    #3 It is most certainly NOT the responsibility of judges to ensure minorities are protected from the majority. Their responsibility is to uphold the Constitution, period. The Constitution does not allow for States Rights to be undermined for any group, minority OR majority.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    May 5, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    "Again, I believe traditional marriage with all its flaws is in the best of society. This is why I support the traditional definition of marriage."

    Good for you. I fully support your right to define your marriage this way. Define away, till you turn blue. I have one of those trusty "tradtional marriages" myself, and it works pretty well most of the time.

    I'll never support the idea that "supporting traditional marriage" has to also mean "forbidding gay marriages." Valuing one thing does not automatically mean you have to actively prohibit the other. The word games we play are just that; games. When someone says "I support traditional marriage," it's just a softer way to say "Gay people ain't getting married while I have anything to say about it!"

    Just drop the disingenuous use of buzzwords and say what you mean. Repeat after me: "All this gayness is icky and I don't like it. Even though it's been happening for ages, if they can't get married, I can kinda sorta ignore it. Something something Satan and states' rights."

    See? Much more honest.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    May 5, 2014 9:08 a.m.

      " What are some findings regarding genetic influences on homosexuality?
       One group of researchers studied identical twins and found that, of 56 sets of identical twins in which one member was gay, the other twin was also gay in 52 percent of the cases. That means that nearly half the identical twins of gay men were not gay, so it suggests a strong but not determinative genetic component (Adler, 1992) In Thomas Bouchard's study of identical twins separated at birth, there were three pairs of male identical twins in which at least one was homosexual. In two out of three cases, the other twin was homosexual also, despite being raised in a different household and never seeing his twin brother during childhood.""
       Psychology: An Introduction
       by Russell A. Dewey, PhD

  • Sank You, Doctor Salt Lake City, UT
    May 5, 2014 9:06 a.m.

    Mike: "Is homosexuality learned, or is it the product of certain childrearing practices, or are homosexuals "born that way"? Evidence points to the latter conclusion.
      First, there is the evidence cited earlier that children who become homosexual are different from an early age.
       Second, there is the ease with which homosexual behavior can be produced in non-human animals by manipulating sex hormones.
       Third, there is the discovery that male homosexuals have brain areas and biological responses to sexual stimuli that resemble those of heterosexual females more than those of heterosexual males.
       Fourth, there is evidence from a variety of sources pointing to genetic influences on homosexuality.

      to be continued...

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    May 5, 2014 8:29 a.m.

    @Badgerbadger I sincerely hope that you do not define freedom as the ability to take away the rights of a marginalized group. Your same arguments were used to try and maintain slavery, prevent interracial marriage. and other atrocities. Also, not all religions/faiths are against SSM.

  • ElmoBaggins Escalante, UT
    May 5, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    Why can't Utah devote it's energy to helping families rather than limiting the definition of these families?Gary Herbert turning down Medicare funds that would insure a lot of people who can't afford it is a good example of how they don't!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 5, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    So many claim that the 14th Amendment guarantees them the right to marry someone of the same sex. That is completely false.

    Nothing in the Constitution gives "rights" to anyone. All "rights" come from our Creator (God), as declared in the Declaration of Independence. Any male can marry any female who will have him.

    Homosexuals have told us that there is no gene that "makes" them homosexual. They have told us that there is no physical evidence that distinguishes them as homosexual. They have told us that there is nothing that medical science can use to prove that someone is homosexual. So, their only "evidence" is that they "feel" differently towards others than those who are not homosexual.

    Nothing in the 14th Amendment gives anyone the "right" to claim discrimination because of their "feeling".

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 5, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    Of all the possible outcomes, I hope freedom rings. First amendment rights and freedoms are so important.

    Taking away freedom of speech and freedom of religion will only make the divide worse, not better.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    May 5, 2014 7:05 a.m.

    @Really??? "Men are that they might have joy". You do deserve to love and be loved. We all do, but within the bounds the Lord has set. I sincerely hope you can find true happiness. You may one day realize it will only come from following the commandments of God. If you choose to live in this life contrary to His commandments, you will be disappointed to find there won't BE any happiness "beyond".

    @Baccus0902 & BJ Moose: I don't know who your "heavenly father" or "god" is, but I know mine is most certainly NOT pleased. If the definition of marriage can be changed, I suppose the definition of God and His commandments will be next. Good luck with that.

    @I Choose Freedom: I agree. I have had SSM supporters vehemently state; "YOU will be on the wrong side of history". I may be. But I choose to worry less about history and more about Eternity. America has been great because she has been good. When she ceases to be good, she will no longer be Great.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 5, 2014 6:48 a.m.

    @MikeRichards 6:28 p.m. May 4, 2014

    What you apparently don't understand is the fact that, while the states can control the decision-making where marriage is concerned, the states' decisions cannot infringe on the protections found in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Judge Shelby correctly found that Amendment 3 to the Utah Constutition violated the Plaintiffs' 14th Amendment rights.

    Shelby's decision quoted a dissenting opinion solely as dicta, and it did not serve as controlling authority for his decision. Shelby's decision was soundly based on controlling authority from a multitude of Supreme Court cases going back to the 1880s. Shelby agreed with the established and authoritative cases from the US Supreme Court.

    Free to preach and argue God's law as much as you want -- it is your 1st Amendment right to do so -- but recognize that "God's law" is not controlling authority in the secular country that is the USA. Shelby's job was to consider and interpret secular law, not God's law, since the USA is not a theocracy. Shelby did not "legislate from the bench" nor did he act contrary to the US Constitution or the Supreme Court.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 5, 2014 6:37 a.m.


    The Constitution guarantees equal protection to ALL American citizens. You should read it sometime. 'God' and 'Satan' are irrelevant.

    @1 Voice;

    Article IV Section II:

    "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."


    Many religions believe in marriage for LGBT. What about their religious views? Don't they matter to you?


    Equal means equal.

    @I Choose Freedom;

    Don't count your chickens before they hatch; Jesus said "treat others as you want to be treated", he didn't say "discriminate against others".

    @Mike Richards;

    Once again, go re-read amendment 10. It PROHIBITS violation of the rest of the Constitution by the states.


    Guess what, dear. LGBT people ARE Americans too AND covered by the Constititution.

    @Back Talk;

    Separate is not equal, besides Amendment 3 precludes Civil Unions.


    Polygamists and bigamists are already married to one person. That is what we are seeking.

  • Cole Thomas Salt Lake City, UT
    May 5, 2014 5:18 a.m.

    Uhhh, hey guys. Satan isn't real. You know that, right?

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    May 5, 2014 12:14 a.m.

    Really? Arguing Satan, God, and The Bible in a courtroom. Good luck with that legal strategy. Posts mentioning this only confirm how many in Utah are in for a serious reality check once Judge Shelby's ruling is upheld.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    May 4, 2014 11:06 p.m.

    @ LovelyDeseret

    "I miss our democracy, and please don't tell me we are not a democratic government because you are wrong."

    Nope. This country never has been, nor will it ever be, a democracy. We are a republic. Listen to the Pledge of Allegiance once in a while. "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands,....."

    Equal protection applies to everybody. Nobody gets to pick and choose who gets rights.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    May 4, 2014 10:32 p.m.

    @ BJMoose

    The fact that we disagree is why this is in the courts. Unfortunately, a few liberal judges in lower courts misunderstand the ramifications of their misinterpretation of the constitution. The constitution does not give individuals the right to define marriage as they wish. It is not about equal rights. If it were then states could not restrict marriage in any way as it would be considered discrimination.

    If polygamy and bigamy can be excluded from the definition of what constitutes a legal marriage then so can marriages between individuals of the same sex. If not then anything goes.

    The constitutions does not guarantee the right to marry whomever you want. Supporting traditional marriage does not, as you say, trample the rights of individuals who wish to live in SS relations or polygamous relationships. They still have the right to pursue happiness as they see fit.

    Again, I believe traditional marriage with all its flaws is in the best of society. This is why I support the traditional definition of marriage.

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    May 4, 2014 9:49 p.m.

    The CA Prop 8 is still the best scenario to be litigated. THere, the government provided a means for gays and lesbians to record their relationships. They recieved all benefits of marriage so no benefits were lost to those groups.

    The term Civil Union was also a resonable term to describe these relationships which are certainly different than what marriage has represented throughout history. From a simple matter of proper communication and understanding using the terms "Civil Unions" and "partner" are better representations of what these relationship really represent. Wives having wives just doesnt make sense.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    May 4, 2014 9:11 p.m.

    This is strange. No one who wrote or voted on the Constitution thought it extended to redefining marriage to gay. No one who wrote or voted on the equal protection clause thought it extended to redefining marriage to gay. No one who wrote or voted on Loving v Virginia thought it extended redefining marriage to gay. Yet, Utah has to spend millions protecting its Constitutional right because a few rogue/shopped Judges one day decided that all those documents extend the redefining of marriage to gay.
    I miss our democracy, and please don't tell me we are not a democratic government because you are wrong.

  • rhappahannock Washington, DC
    May 4, 2014 8:22 p.m.

    The state legislature needed to make a law that if the amendment is found by a court of law to be unconstitutional, all marriages based on "love" should be considered legal. Those "loving" marriages should include polygamy, marriages between close relatives, and marriages between adults and their animal or physical possessions. After all, who are gays to say that people with these "loving" desires should be denied their right to marry what they "love?"

    This law would also force the judges to consider the slippery slope argument up front. It would force those who want to avoid the implications of marriage based on "love" to deal with the logical reality - if there is a right to marry based on "love" it extends to all people, no matter their inclination.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    May 4, 2014 6:30 p.m.

    To Really??? I found your comment very moving and thought provoking. I am glad that you have found your true self and now know what you are seeking and what is intended for you. May you find that special someone and have a lifetime and beyond of happiness.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 4, 2014 6:28 p.m.

    Look at what the choice is. The Federal Government cannot rule on marriage - according to the Supreme Court. The STATES have the right to determine what form of marriage is acceptable within that State - according to the Supreme Court. Judge Shelby disagreed with the Supreme Court. He used the minority opinion as the basis for his ruling; therefore, according to same sex advocates, the Supreme Court is wrong and Judge Shelby is right.

    God defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. God declared that any sex outside of marriage is wrong. Judge Shelby disagreed with God. Judge Shelby declared that he, not God will define marriage.

    The people of Utah voted and decided that marriage in Utah would be defined as a union between a man and a woman. That became part of the Utah State Constitution. The Supreme Court approved a State's right to decide. Judge Shelby legislated from the bench, which is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Again, Judge Shelby decided that he was right, that the Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution are wrong.

    It is a strange case.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    May 4, 2014 6:24 p.m.

    To 1 Voice: I completely disagree with your points.
    Defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman is not constitutional. The definition of marriage cannot trample on the rights of anyone.
    I do not believe societies best interest is to define marriage between man and woman. I believe it should be defined where the maximum number of people benefit from it. My God also allows woman to hold the priesthood and blesses same sex marriages, unlike yours.
    Your statement: "Any legal relationship concerns for these and other people who wish to live together for what every reason can easily be managed through common law relationship laws." Just read the second part of Amendment 3 (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect. It specifically prohibits any other way of accomplishing the rights gained in marriage including your so called common law relationship laws.

    (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    May 4, 2014 5:39 p.m.

    @ higv

    The Constitution exists to protect the minority from the "will of the people." Also, this country is not a democracy. It's a republic.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 4, 2014 3:59 p.m.

    @ higv
    Dietrich, ID

    "Are Judges lawmakers." No, they are not. They are the branch endowed with the power to verify the constitutionality of the laws passed by the US Congress and in this case by the States. You see, Democracy may be a dangerous and misunderstood concept. The SCOTUS is precisely there to prevent the tyranny of the majority over a minority. Our Constitution Rocks!!!! don't you agree?

    Across the land of our country the whisper of justice is "blowing in the wind". (Sorry, I was listening to Peter, Paul and Mary this morning)

    Same Sex Marriage soon will be an option in our country. That, my brothers and sisters is a beautiful thing. My Heavenly Father is pleased!!!

  • I Choose Freedom Atlanta, GA
    May 4, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    Red Corvette said, "Only one outcome counts and that will be the one issued by the Supreme Court granting marriage equality to all."

    No, that is very short sighted thinking. The only outcome that REALLY counts is what will occur at judgement day when we will all stand before Jesus Christ and give an accounting of whether or not we complied with His commandments. That is one judgement that will not be overturned.

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    May 4, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    I can understand the frustration of those of same-sex attraction. Their stand on equal civil rights is obviously constitutionally firm and their full acceptance in society long overdue. Still, I see no advantage to anyone in insisting that straight and gay unions be declared identical. Billions of years of evolutionary growth unmistakably favoring bisexual unions and group welfare prove otherwise. I would think that it is to everyone’s benefit—straight and gay alike—to recognize and appreciate the uniqueness of what got us here.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    May 4, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    @higv - Sir, you have it so terribly wrong. The Constitution is what grants individuals rights not restrict individual liberties. A state law cannot supersede federal law, the ruling found that state of Utah amendment three was in violation of the 14th amendment. Hence, amendment three has been overruled pending the state. The constitution is working as designed.

  • windsor City, Ut
    May 4, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    Find the picture accompanying this article interesting. And telling.

    Supporters of SSM and all things LGBT scream about the immorality and illegality of crosses on highways at the site of car wreck victims--or Nativities on public squares.

    But they don't see the irony of the hypocrisy of co-mingling their 'religion' with the city offices of San Francisco.

  • dave4197 Redding, CA
    May 4, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    Marriage is a religious institution and its definition is best left to people of religion. The US Constitution nor its amendments does not say or imply that marriage is a civil right, thus the court needs to except the proposed changing of the definition of marriage in order to gain equal rights. This court and others need to clear their minds and accept the facts above and decide for marriage as a man and woman union, not something else.
    In California the legislature defined civil unions for those same sexers who want legal recognition for their unions. And the legislature gave equal rights under the state laws to those civil unions. Case closed, and it's a model for other governments. But the same sexers weren't satisfied until they could make over the institution of marriage into something that it isn't for their own (immoral) purposes and justifications.
    We can have a government that realizes and supports equal rights under the law without changing the definition of marriage from its time honored standing and biblical beginnings into something convenient and politically correct in this day.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 4, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    The Oklahoma case is kind of a mess because of the "standing" issue. The Gay couples sued the Governor but the Circuit Court said that was the wrong person to sue. They told them to start all over and sue the County Clerk instead. Unlike Utah, in Oklahoma the County Clerk works for the judicial branch so presumably the Governor would have now power over them. To make matters worse, the State is challenging if the Clerk is the right person to sue. Its a mess.

    Since both sides in the Utah case are in agreement as to the issue of standing I doubt very seriously that's going to be a problem. One outcome however, may be that the justices send the case back to Utah to have a trial on the facts of the case. In particular, the assertion of the State that excluding same-sex marriages is for the benefit of children.

    This is what "full judicial review" is all about though. There will be several rulings by several different District Courts before the Supreme Court takes one up I expect.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    May 4, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    States rights are the future, no matter the ruling! Even the tolerate anything crowd will be annoyed at the federal intrusion into everything in our lives, which is the natural result of not having any morals, but still wanting a civil society! Can't have it both ways!

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    May 4, 2014 11:30 a.m.

    Defining marriage as the union of a man and a women is constitutional.
    If the courts rule (as the have) that it is not in the best interests of society to redefine marriage to include polygamous marriages, then how we define marriage isn’t about rights and it is within the constitution to bar same sex marriages.

    I believe it is in societies best interest to define marriage as between one man and one women. I hold this belief not because I am homophobic or hateful. My opinion stems from my beliefs in God (a constitutionally protected right) and my beliefs about why we are on earth, that traditional marriage with all its flaws is best for society.

    It isn’t about ones right to redefine marriage as many try to twist the debate, it is about what is best for society. People have the right to pursue happiness and if living with a same sex partner is what makes them happy so be it. Any legal relationship concerns for these and other people who wish to live together for what every reason can easily be managed through common law relationship laws.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 4, 2014 11:25 a.m.


    Just like those SCOTUS justice who struck down Colorado Amendment 2 which discriminates gay people, judges on this case they are also just doing their jobs: follow the US constitution to determine whether Utah Amendment 3 is constitutional.

    And my bet is they will strike down Amendment 3.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 4, 2014 10:32 a.m.

    "...Satan does not support those that listen to him in the end..."

    Wasn't his plan to limit--actually forbid--choice? I think we all need to take a strong look at who is listening to Satan when we try to force all people to live the same way. We know that such a plan does not leave room for growth.

    It took me a long time to grow to the point of accepting who I am and knowing that God still loves me. It took years of fasting and praying to realize that I deserve to love and be loved. I finally understand that God does not want me to be alone, and he's leaving it up to me to find somebody I will love for the rest of my life--and beyond.

    For too long I was listening to Satan. I believed that I wasn't worth loving. I believed I was doomed to be alone for the rest of my life. Those are the lies that he has been telling us.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 4, 2014 10:21 a.m.

    higv wrote:

    "Real sad thing is since Satan does not support those that listen to him in the end people that engage in sin and try to make it legal will not get his support once he has them drug down.

    I see a glaring problem with your comment. Concepts such as "Satan" and "sin" differ and conflict amongst various religious groups that profess a belief in them, and are therefore, unreliable.

    The article discusses the complicated and varied possible outcomes of the Marriage Equality issue as they relate to the court system of the United States. Arguments that reference "Satan" and "sin" are simply not relevant in a court of law. In fact, offering them in a court setting would mark you as an un-serious person. You are completely free to hold those beliefs and make those arguments to your fellow citizens as a means of persuasion. Just be clear that they won't get you anywhere in front of a judge.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    May 4, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    Are Judges lawmakers. If that is the case we can throw away democracy, elected representatives and the constitution as the judges find things in the Constitution that are not in there to overturn the will of the people in the name of so called Equal rights. Real sad thing is since Satan does not support those that listen to him in the end people that engage in sin and try to make it legal will not get his support once he has them drug down.