Federal judge orders recognition of same-sex marriages performed in Utah

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    June 18, 2014 8:26 a.m.

    It makes sense that same gender couples should have the same tax and property ownership benefits as heterosexual couples....

    it does not make sense that same gender couples would need a license to breed.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    June 14, 2014 4:02 p.m.

    Our society is not ready for polygamy and that is next and then there will be something after that, and then something after that. Lawlessness. No ability to choose between good and evil. Loss of freedom and wisdom and light. Cities, states, and nations that have children, have a future, and places that don't have children, whither away and decline economically. The numbers shrink when we don't prepare the next generation. The Bible is more important than the Constitution and religion is more important than politics. True happiness is not living a life of complaining.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    June 1, 2014 12:15 a.m.

    @ Liberty "I wonder why the Judges have not been called in for a bishops interview for excommunication proceedings."

    There is nothing wrong or sinful about activist LDS judges re-defining marriage in allowing same gender couples to civil marry. The horrific sin occurs ONLY upon the horrific abominable act of a legal civil marriage ceremony for same gendered couples, which becomes grounds for excommunication.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    May 31, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    I wonder why the Judges have not been called in for a bishops interview for excommunication proceedings. Certainly a former stake president should know what the definition of a family is, let alone the importance of a mommy and daddy to a child.

  • JKLARSEN Phoenix, AZ
    May 31, 2014 12:05 p.m.


    I agree with you completely, Dale Kimball has been a Law Partner with my Father for 30 Years before he was appointed to the Bench, He is a Very active Member of the LDS Church and has held all those positions in the Church over the years. He is a good man who raised his Family in the LDS Faith. I'm pretty Certain that Judge Kimball has made this decision based on principals of Law as opposed to own personal beliefs, this just goes with what Orrin Hatch has said, Its going to happen, Quit fighting against it and wasting the states and countries Valuable resources that could be used for education in this country and State. And the crazies that are attacking him as Being to the left with Obama, Clinton and Carter are out of their Minds. He is not aligned with them, its nice to see something ruled on correctly.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 24, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    Would you argue that gay people can change and become straight and straight people can become fundamentally gay? How is this achieved?
    View the Wikipedia article on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts. If you are coming at this from a faith-based perspective, look at ex-gay ministries like Evergreen and Exodus and their explanations for closing down.
    I am talking about fundamental orientation being fixed. Of course actions and distressing thoughts can be managed. There are many same-sex oriented people married to women or living celibately. They are still fundamentally romantically attracted to their own gender.
    Just because a left handed person stops using that hand and starts using the right, does not change his fundamental, innate handedness. Sexual Orientation is similar though much more complicated.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    May 23, 2014 11:15 p.m.

    Tiago, sexuality is much more complicated than "fixed" or "born with". Anyone who has worked in a treatment environment for children or teens knows that this.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 23, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    It can be successfully argued that the state has a compelling interest to prevent marriage between close relatives, to prevent incest, marriage to animals, poly marriages, and marriage to inanimate objects. The state has failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in the case of SSM. That's why the equal protection clause is taking precedence.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    May 22, 2014 5:48 p.m.

    It should be pretty clear to all and sundry now that Courts all over the country, both state and federal, are looking at the law regarding treatment of homosexuals with fresh eyes. And fresh results, welcoming those former outcasts into the fold of a righteous nation.

    It's as if a spell has been broken, a spell that had everyone convinced that all LGBT were essentially wanton and immoral, a spell based on unfamiliarity, phobias, misinformation and certain religious dogma. Like "The Emperor's New Clothes," we've had our eyes opened, and realized the foolishness of our old assumptions and of that evil spell. Now, we can see that they're not all that different than us, only in who they love, and all they seek is to be allowed to live unexciting, ordinary lives, like the rest of us.

    The comments here by those still under that spell won't change anything. For the rest of us, that spell will remain broken and we stand ready to put those old discriminatory laws, in the words of the Pennsylvania decision, "on the ash-heap of history."

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    @Darrel..Excellent post Sir. Can hear the crickets all the way up here in SLC!

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 22, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    I wonder how many of those claiming Marriage should be left to the States support Senator Hatch when he tried to pass an amendment to the National Constitution "defining marriage as between a man and woman."

    Is this really about States Rights? Or is that a cover to push an agenda?

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    May 22, 2014 1:47 a.m.

    @USU-Logan...The @Worf retort kept me laughing hysterically throughout the day. Many thanks and how right you are!

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 22, 2014 12:01 a.m.

    Your comment suggests that you might not understand same sex attraction. Millions of gay people (and billions of straight people) explain that their sexual and romantic attraction is as fixed, innate, and immutable as their handedness. The medical/scientific community confirms this.
    We can't make laws that favor right handed people over left handed people and also we can't make laws that favor straight people over gay people. Gay people have a right to marry someone of the gender they love, just like straight people.
    A desire to engage in polygamy or incest is mutable and not innate and our laws equally apply to all that no one (gay, straight, right handed, whatever) can marry a sibling or multiple partners.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 21, 2014 10:39 p.m.

    "Any judge who attempts to apply that amendment to same sex couples being allowed to be 'married' is twisting words in the amendment totally away from any intent."

    True. And the way I read the 14th is that the 'equal protection' clause applies to state law. But, if it applies as well to federal, there is no federal law re marriage.

    Regarding State law... Utah's marriage law applies to all citizens of the State equally. i.e., anyone can marry provided they marry someone who is not already married, both are of legal age to marry, is not marrying a close relative like brother or sister, and is not the same sex.

    If it turns out that 'equal protection' applies to SSM, then it should apply to any and all other marriage combinations that can be conjured such as polygamy, father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister, brother/brother, sister/sister, and perhaps even with a pet or tree in the back yard at which point the society will be in total chaos.

  • 5th Amendment Salt Lake, UT
    May 21, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    This is a false world that they tend to propagate, where judges rule according to personal bias, particular whims or political philosophies, or respond to the perceived public will. A larger issue leads to a crisis in judicial independence. Many judges across the country feel threatened by a public, a punditry, and a political establishment that tends to launch ad hominem attacks against individual judges when they disagree.

    And that gives rise to an assumption on the part of the public that judges should ‘get with the program’ and make decisions according to popular will.

    The framers of the Constitution, designed the legislative and executive branches under Articles I and II to be directly responsive to the public will. They designed the judiciary, under Article III, to be responsive not to the public will–in effect to be a bulwark against public will at any given time–but to be responsible to the Constitution and the laws of the United States.

    The Rule of Law is not a Republican or Democratic value. The challenge for our time, is to ensure that threats to judicial independence–are ratcheted down, and that our independent judiciary is preserved." Judge Jones

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    May 21, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    @Meckofahess...Apparently now there is a correlation between abortion and SSM? Was that on last night's episode of Hannity or did you hear it on Limbaugh? In the future may I suggest including at least some form of facts in your comments prior to any more nonsensical posting. In closing, once again "God" and or "Prophet" are not legal arguments in any courtroom. Care to explain your point without the mentioning of either one? I'll be anxiously awaiting your response.

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    May 21, 2014 11:33 a.m.


    Twin Lights here. Deal. I drink diet.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    May 21, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    Government of the judges, by the judges and for the judges. Isn't it interesting that the judges cannot find the rights that are expressly set forth in the constitution (see Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Tenth Amendment) but can, with the stroke of a pen, disregard the will of the people and impose their own view of how things should be - finding a constitutional right to something at 20 years ago less than 10% of Americans would have argued to be a right. The will of 70% of Utahns is overtuned by one judge and then we cannot even wait to see if that Judge will be overtuned before forcing Utah to follow his opinion. Look at the bright side - now we have all three branches of government disregarding the will of the people.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    May 21, 2014 9:09 a.m.

    An excellent ruling. Everyone should have equal rights and opportunities under the law.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    May 21, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    @Twin Lights:

    Yes, I think it's alarmist nonsense. But, hey, I could be wrong. Let's agree to meet back here in 20 years. If the institution of marriage has devolved into a mess of men marrying their siamese twins and kangaroos marrying houseplants, I'll owe you a Coke.

  • ElmoBaggins Escalante, UT
    May 21, 2014 7:35 a.m.

    Get the message,Utah!The times they are a-changin'!

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 21, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    @ Meckofahess

    Thank you. I appreciate the genuine concern evident in your posts and your efforts to seek common ground even while staunchly defending your position.

    Re: the remainder of your comment - I hear both, "I'm concerned they're coming after religion next" and "If no God, then no meaning and we become rudderless." I'll respond as if this is an accurate reading, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

    I think the applicable guiding principle here is The Golden Rule. The more perfectly we apply it, the more room we create for our respective personal beliefs. I'm not interested in depriving you of your religion. I'm interested in creating strong boundaries that limit your ability to impose it upon me (and vice-versa).

    Why do I believe my choices matter? I don't know. Knowledge/experience suggest that we're hardwired to care. We can argue about the origin of this, but the fact remains that it's there and provides ample common ground on which to form ethical/moral communities. So let's take advantage of this. The "why" is out of our hands regardless. Let's tend to what IS within our grasp.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 20, 2014 10:54 p.m.


    I knew it!

    Then I submit that we have never been a more moral nation than we are right now. And we will become even MORE of a moral nation when same sex marriage becomes legal throughout the land!

    I boldly make this prophecy, once SSM is declared legal in America this nation will NOT decline, it will not be visited by the wrath of a make believe deity. Instead America will become a beacon of hope and justice to the world. America will become stronger and more prosperous. Write it down ye generation of doubters! There is no greater honor, responsibility, or virtue in this life than to love our fellow brothers and sisters.

    After far too many years we have finally proven beyond any doubt that homosexuality is simply a normal variation of sexual identity. Science has shown that not only is this variation normal but it is actually beneficial to our species prosperity (as long as it only shows it about 2-5% of the population and low and behold it shows up in about 2-5% of the human population - what a coincidence)! Hallelujah!

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 20, 2014 10:19 p.m.

    Leviticus 11:10 "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you"

    Shrimp. Lobster. Catfish. An abomination. And liberal activists judges are mocking God by not ordering every Red Lobster padlocked shut.

  • tethered Salem, OR
    May 20, 2014 9:15 p.m.

    I tried to post a link to the complete text of judge Kimball's official decision on this case, but the Deseret News blocked my post because I included an external link!

    I then asked the question: "So, is this the legal opinion of a "rouge judge", or is this a well reasoned opinion from a well respected member of the Utah bar?"

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 20, 2014 8:59 p.m.

    @The Wraith

    I was in college in 1982 and we were never a moral nation during the Reagan years!

  • Spikey Layton, UT
    May 20, 2014 8:18 p.m.


  • Abinadis friend Boise, Idaho
    May 20, 2014 7:23 p.m.

    Maybe it will be legal in Utah, however In the Bible Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." I agree with the Bible, Not the courts. It is an Abomination.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 20, 2014 6:03 p.m.

    @Constitutionalist 4:09 p.m. May 20, 2014

    Please point out to me where in the 14th Amendment it says that this Amendment is only intended to handle racial issues. I'll give you a quick hint to save you time -- there isn't anything. You just voiced an argument that we studied in depth when I was in law school, because my constitutional Law professor knew that people who are not knowledgeable or well-trained concerning the Constitution often (erroneously) make it.

    Let me quote the pertinent part for you (the same protection against federal action is found in the 5th Amendment): "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." As you can see, there is no limitation on the matters to which this Amendment applies.

    It's clear you are trying to twist the Constitution to make it say what you want. Sorry. That doesn't, and won't, work.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 20, 2014 4:58 p.m.

    "What you fail to realize is that the 14th amendment was written to help Negroes receive protection in Southern states after the Civil War was concluded."

    Did you read the equal protection clause? Does it say that it applies to racial issues only? Apparently not, it applies to all Americans, black or white, man or women, gay or straight.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 20, 2014 4:18 p.m.


    And your assertion never makes any sense. Never!

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    May 20, 2014 4:09 p.m.


    You claim that the Utah constitution was in violation of the US constitution, and referred to amendments 9 and 14.

    What you fail to realize is that the 14th amendment was written to help Negroes receive protection in Southern states after the Civil War was concluded. Any judge who attempts to apply that amendment to same sex couples being allowed to be 'married' is twisting words in the amendment totally away from any intent. To then exacerbate this with applying the 9th is to turn the entire constitution on its ear.

    Every ruling that applies these amendments to the same-sex marriage issues is to destroy the intent of those who wrote the amendments. Any judge who loves the constitution and the freedoms we receive as Americans because of the constitution would not have applied these amendments the way they have been applied. These judges are dictators who enjoy twisting words to their own purposes, and in all cases they are thwarting the rule of law and the will of the people. You approve of these actions because a dictator has ruled in favor of your position, not because it is the right thing to do.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    May 20, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    A federal judge has just struck down the marriage ban in Pennsylvania!!! We're on a ROLL!! Get with it Mormon friends.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 20, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    Worf, you need to do some research on the ancient Greeks. They were very prosperous and homosexuality was a large part of their society.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 20, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    Let's not misuse the word equality.

    Gay lifestyle has never led to a prosperous nation. Never!

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 20, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    @Understands Math

    When was the beginning of the great US moral society?

    I've often wondered that myself. We can rule out any date before 1865 because a society that permits the ownership of other human beings cannot be moral (any society, that includes those in the bible).

    The years between 1865 and the Civil Rights movement can also be ruled out because of Jim Crow, lynching, KKK, racism against all non-whites, lack of women's rights, and so on. So while many people tend to have an idealized memory of the 1950's it was a brutal time for many people in this country. Plus when do we mark the end of Jim Crow; 1954, 1957, 1964, 1978?

    The 1980's all the way up to today also have their own issues. My guess would be that we were a "moral nation" for about 5 hours in 1982.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 20, 2014 1:41 p.m.

    gittalopctbi, it sounds like you think every judge who rules in a way that you don't like should stay his/her decision pending appeal. The appeals process does not exist because you don't like the ruling--to succeed in an appeal you need to prove that something about the ruling or the trial was wrong--the judge wouldn't let you testify, the judge showed clear bias, or the judge ignored the law. Not too many appeals succeed when they are based on the religious tracts or "tradition" or the "ick" factor.

    And I don't know why the DN editors don't restrict letters, which the same writers send in every time there is an article on gay marriage, which repeat the same thing (e.g. "I love my sister. Why can't I marry her?" or "No woman can be a husband and no man can be a wife") or which use incendiary phrases like "so-called marriage". These do nothing to foster respectful dialogue.

  • Wonderpus Salt Lake City, Salt Lake, UT
    May 20, 2014 1:07 p.m.


    This is a movement to uphold the constitution. Not some Democratic Party conspiracy, to bring hell to earth. The latest overturning was in Pennsylvania and guess who appointed that Judge? Judge John E. Jones III, a George W. Bush appointee who was recommended by then-Sen. Rick Santorum ….

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 20, 2014 1:03 p.m.

    Yesterday the Oregon ban on gay marriage was thrown out. An hour ago the Pennsylvania ban was thrown out.

    These activist judges! That pesky Constitution!

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 20, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    Furry 1993
    Undestands Math

    Marriage can be between legal strangers but not always. If family members (say third cousins) the marriage realigns the family relationship. In many states there were civil unions yet folks got married afterward to change the nature of an existing legal relationship. So the question remains, if for whatever reason folks do wish to do that with close family members, why not? One of you mentioned the law. Used to be that was the case for homosexual relationships. One of you mentioned undue influence. Could be but that can exist in a host of cases. The issue remains, if allowed for anyone wishing to marry then why not for close family members?

    Note I think it would be wrong. But I would say the same about same sex marriage. So if moralistic views of right and wrong have no jurisdiction here, why is marriage for close family members a problem (again, infertility being assured)?

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 20, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    . . . and now, Pennsylvania.

    Fourteenth straight win in federal court for marriage equality in less than one year.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 20, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    @But seriously folks! wrote: "This is the end of a once moral society. I wonder how long God will allow this country to violate HIS laws before he brings us down on our knees?"

    When was the *beginning* of the "once moral society"? It certainly couldn't have been in the era was slavery was tolerated. Or institutionalized racism.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 20, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    @Twin Lights wrote: "But why the limitation on near family? Is that not just your opinion?"

    Because if a family relationship exists, that relationship may involve a level of undue influence over what should be a free and open decision.

    May 20, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    It seems we've nearly reached a point in life where being anti-gay is a lot like a vegan in a BBQ restaurant. Order some BBQ beans sans the BBQ...you're just going to have to find a way to make it work for you. Meanwhile, don't try to change the menu for the rest of us. :-)

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    @ Karen R:

    Karen, even though I frequency disagree with some of your assertions and conclusions, I think you present many thoughtful arguments. No doubt we already share common ground - I believe that. I also agree with you that "what is required is mutual respect of the right to be there". I would hope that our gay friends and neighbors can also respect our "traditional" point of view too. Even if SSM doesn't become legal, we will still have members of the gay community in our midst and we need to strengthen bridges between the two groups because we are all God's children. One difference is that not all of God's children believe that he is real and that he has provided eternal laws and principles to guide our lives. If we take God out of the equation, then it doesn't matter what our choices and behaviors are. In that world people can with impunity do whatever they want.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    "Will you get on the band wagon to force pubic schools to teach that this is "normal"?"

    Yes. What do you want elementary schools to do when kids inevitably have a draw your family type assignment and someone draws multiple moms or dads? Ignore it? Don't let the other kids know?

    @Let It Go!
    [What will happen if Utah told that judge, "Thanks for bringing that up, but we are going to continue to hold up the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."?]

    Contempt of court charges.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    May 20, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    Yes, and in another time the majority voted to keep blacks from marrying whites in nearly every state. Eventually, the courts found that was a violation of civil rights and overturned the majority vote.

    Why is it so difficult for some folks to understand that basic constitutional principle that majority rule is limited by the enumeration of civil rights? The majority cannot vote away the civil rights of anyone! If there's one thing we should've learned in the civil rights movement of the last century, it should be that.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 20, 2014 11:59 a.m.

    @Twin Lights 11:08 a.m. May 20, 2014

    When all is said and done, the purpose of marriage is to establish a legal relationship between people who are legal strangers. There is already a legal relationship between your sibling and child. Therefore marriage would accomplish nothing, and is not needed. If you wish to commit the crime of incest or child abuse, that is something the government would address with you through other laws.

  • But seriously folks! Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    A prophet once said: "The leprocies of yesteryear is the conduct code of today.

    This is the end of a once moral society. I wonder how long God will allow this country to violate HIS laws before he brings us down on our knees?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 20, 2014 11:35 a.m.


    One of the main purposes of marriage is to create a familial bond where none previously existed. Your daughter (or son, aunt, uncle, sister, brother, godzilla, frankenstein, goldylocks, pet rock, tonka truck, etc.) already has that bond with you, thus marriage isn't required.

  • BlackDiamond Provo, UT
    May 20, 2014 11:32 a.m.

    You are talking as if it is ok to break the rules and still be rewarded. We live in a country with rules to protect us. It is the same with God's Kingdom. He gives us rules to follow so that we can prove our love to him by keeping those rules. Our purpose in life to see if we can align our lives to what God wants us to do. It is sad to see that people wants to change the rules so that they can do whatever they want to do. I am not perfect, but i strive everyday to be a little bit closer to God today than I was yesterday.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    May 20, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    @Constitutionalist - FYI, The US Constitution supersedes all state laws, which is the entire basis of the legal challenge.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    May 20, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    Amendment three is the absolute worst form of "democracy," it teeters on tyranny.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    May 20, 2014 11:21 a.m.


    "It will be recognized in Utah and everywhere else. There is one place that it won't be recognized which is The Lord's Kingdom."

    The Lord's Kingdom sounds like a wicked, horrible and evil place. I sincerely wish that no one ever ends up there.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 20, 2014 11:16 a.m.


    Your approval and "bridges" are not necessary. Somehow you think you have "moral authority" when all you have is bigotry.


    Was your warning directed at Utah's Atty. General and leading church leaders for their efforts to "disintegrate" the families of LGBT Americans? It certainly looks that way.


    Your silly fictional stories are not binding in real life. Thanks for the laugh though.


    What you fail to understand is that the "people of Utah" NEVER had the right to vote on the rights of LGBT Americans in the first place.

    @Laura Ann;

    I also hope you and your ilk are raptured away ASAP. It'll make life so much better for the rest of us.


    You miss the point; this is NOT the "lord's kingdom", it's the USA.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 20, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    Furry 1993,

    Interracial marriage is as old as the bible. Abraham and Joseph married Egyptian women. Moses married an Ethiopian woman. The hysteria over it was also then (seem Miriam and Moses arguing over this).

    Let's not go to animals. The simple point here is consenting adults. And please just answer the question. If I were to (heaven forbid) demand to marry my sibling or child (and infertility was certain) why should society stop me if the ONLY requirement is love and desire for a marriage relationship?

    The only reason we have not is because society has said "that is wrong". But the response is always the same - "that is your opinion but not mine". Can society have an opinion or what is right and wrong?

    Understands Math,

    But why the limitation on near family? Is that not just your opinion?

  • Mexican Ute mexico, 00
    May 20, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    About the ruling:

    Ex Post Facto played a huge role here. This was going to happen due to the chaos of the judge that originally ruled in favor and then denied a stay.

    I am against Gay Marriage, but Ex Post Facto here had to be the correct Constitutional ruling here. A ruling that NEVER should have taken place had Shelby let the stay happen.

    It doesn't matter that Kimball was an Ex SP and Regional Representative. So was Mitt Romney (ex bishop and SP), and I didn't vote for him, because I believed he was shirking on many things.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 20, 2014 10:32 a.m.

    @Constitutionalist 9:23 a.m. May 20, 2014

    "Majority rules" only to the extent that it doesn't violate the US Constitution (acknowledged in the Utah Constitution as being the supreme law of the land). When the Utah Constitution comes in conflict with the US Constitution, the US Constitution prevails. That's waht happened here. Judge Shelby compared Amendment 3 to the Utah Constitution, properly found that Amendment 3 violated several provisions of the US Constitution (the 9th and 14th Amendments among others) and, by applying the correct rule of law, negated the unconstitutional provisions of the Utah constitution. Utah tried a "my way or the highway" approach to negate the civil rights of some of its residents. The US Constitution, the appropriate rule of law, did not allow that to happen. Judge Kimball did the same thing. That is what Judges are suppoed to do.

    If Utah doesn't want its laws to be 'turned on its ear" then it needs to be sure that its laws are Constitutional. It didn't do that in the past with Amendment 3; hopefully it will learn its lesson and do what is right and Constitutional in the future.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 20, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    @pickmerg and @gittalopctbi

    So the two judges didn't rule the way you like, but that does not make them activist. they are simply upholding the federal constitution. Maybe it is time for you to check your understanding of law

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 20, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    @Twin Lights wrote: "...some constraints on marriage are reasonable."

    In this, you are correct. Some constraints on marriage *are* reasonable. I think it's reasonable that marriage only be entered into by competent adults, that those adults both currently not be married, and that they not be closely related.

    The courts have in the past decided that it is *not* a reasonable constraint that both partners be of the same race (see Loving v. Virginia). They are now deciding that the requirement that the partners be opposite sex is also not a reasonable constraint. If there is a rational argument to be made against same-sex marriage, it has not as of yet appeared: all we have seen are appeals to tradition, appeals to religion, slippery slope arguments, debunked studies, and irrelevant (and incoherent) rantings about "complementarity."

  • Let it Go! Omaha, NE
    May 20, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    Man, I love it when we can talk about gay marriage, Utah, the end of the world, equality, and a federal judge all in one. Thanks for bringing up those points of view.

    So, my question is this: What will happen if Utah told that judge, "Thanks for bringing that up, but we are going to continue to hold up the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman."? Will Utah then be "treated as [an enemy] of the state" for not doing that?

    Just curious...

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 20, 2014 9:42 a.m.


    A dictator that tells you that the state will issue marriage licenses to people you don't approve of? Same sex marriage is being forced on you? Has the dictator picked your spouse yet?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 20, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    @Twin Lights 8:52 a.m. May 20, 2014


    Okay, you think it is alarmist nonsense. But within my lifetime the concept of same sex marriage was nearly unthinkable. And yes, I am concerned that soon the message will be that you can marry anyone you want period. The question then is that good for our society? If not, then some constraints on marriage are reasonable.


    That same argument was made when the ban against inter-racial marriage was struck down. In fact, the agruments against inter-racial marriage are exactly the same as the ones being made against same-sex marriage now -- SIN!!!, against God's will, will lead to approval of polygamy, incest, marriage to animals, you can marry anyone you want period, etc. Funny thing -- it didn't happen then. there's absolutely no reason to think the "list of horrible consequences" will happen now.

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    May 20, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    @No Fit in SG:

    Are you serious? You equate the democratic process of majority rule with "my way or the highway", yet you equate the act of a single judge overturning the laws created by the majority as proper governance. This seems totally backwards from what "my way or the highway" means.

    I guess that it is easy to accept a dictatorship when the dictator agrees with you. I would have thought that Americans would champion the rule of law over the rule of a dictator, even when the dictator agrees with them, and the majority does not.

    In the case of this judge ordering the state of Utah to follow an illegal ruling by another judge who does not believe in the rule of law, Utah must, of course, push back against the "my way or the highway" judges, and champion the laws of Utah as created through proper legislative processes.

    Hooray for those in Utah government who are willing to push back rather than allow these dictatorial judges to turn Utah law on its ear!

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 20, 2014 8:52 a.m.


    Okay, you think it is alarmist nonsense. But within my lifetime the concept of same sex marriage was nearly unthinkable. And yes, I am concerned that soon the message will be that you can marry anyone you want period. The question then is that good for our society? If not, then some constraints on marriage are reasonable.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    Twin Lights: "If the law should reflect the concept that any persons who love each other can marry, then why not first cousins, brothers and sisters, or even parents and children (assuming all are adults and there is no fertility)?"

    As for first cousins, that horse left the barn long ago. First cousin marriages are legal in 25 states plus DC (six states have fertility restrictions, but the rest don't). Utah legalized marriages by infertile first cousin couples in 1996.

    The fact that Utah law requires that first cousin couples be incapable of bearing children negates the state's lead argument in court that the primary public policy purpose of marriage is to encourage procreation. Obviously the legislature understands that there are other equally valid policy objectives met by marriage, including encouraging stable, loving, nonprocreative relationships.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 20, 2014 8:31 a.m.

    I learned long ago when discussing this issue to simply move on when someone offers a response that involves predictions about "the end times." Any individual who seriously offers responses of the "We WARN" variety, is not reachable. Much better to concentrate ones efforts at persuasion on rational, reachable people who are not subject to the pronouncements of some external authority. Look, over the last decade or so, fully one third of the American people have changed their minds on this issue. We're winning. We're winning because we have the better arguments. Its best to be kind to people who disagree, but not engage seriously with irrational people.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    May 20, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    Why is it when I read posts that begin “WE WARN” (in all caps!) like sj’s, I have a mini giggle fit?

    And, note to Sasha: You do realize, don’t you, that when you start quoting scripture, the only people who are nodding in solemn agreement are people already firmly entrenched in your camp?

    Twin Lights makes the same alarmist nonsense “what if?” arguments that are so rare in this place called reality that they aren’t worth talking about. Frankly, if someone wants to marry their dad (ew) or first cousin (in Alabama, this is called “traditional marriage”) , knock yourself out. What; are you worried that our children will soon be bombarded with the message that "it's OK to marry your sister"?

    Finally, when did the term "activist judge" come to mean "a judge who interprets any law in a way that a true-blue conservative doesn't agree with"?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    BlackDiamond: "It will be recognized in Utah and everywhere else. There is one place that it won't be recognized which is The Lord's Kingdom."

    Fine. You go right ahead and believe what you want about the afterlife.

    Meanwhile, here in the real world, living in a nation bound by the rule of law and founded upon constitutional protections of individual rights that cannot be voted away, respecting a same-sex couple's right to marry and be treated with the same fairness and respect that you take for granted is the ethical, moral, lawful thing to do.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 20, 2014 6:59 a.m.

    I think the Koch bros are a greater threat to our country than marriage will ever be.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 20, 2014 6:41 a.m.

    Congratulations to all the Utah couples whose marriages are now recognized! Great news!

    @ Meckofahess and your comment on common ground and bridges...

    The common ground has always been the American belief in equality and the right to self-determination/free association. LGBTs have been building a bridge to this ground for decades now. In the last decade, some voters in some states decided that this bridge needed to be burned once and for all. They were wrong to try. Their intentions may have been good, but their efforts actually served to undermine our Constitutional values, not protect them.

    So IMO, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the LGBT activists that refused to allow the bridge to be burned. They have enabled the nation to reaffirm its belief that ALL are created equal, not just some.

    The common ground is already under our feet. We are not required to approve of ANY who share this ground with us and they don't have to approve of us. All that is required is mutual respect of the right to be there.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2014 6:29 a.m.

    BlackDiamond, I think that all LBGT people were also created in the image of God. I wonder how many people won't be recognized in the Lord's Kingdom after this life? We all might be surprised to find out that those who suffered discrimination at our hands might be the first to be let in?

    But I'm sure you know who is going the be there better than any of us.

    May 20, 2014 6:22 a.m.

    A judge ordered the State to honor legally-signed contracts. Imagine that.

  • gittalopctbi Glendale, AZ
    May 19, 2014 10:59 p.m.

    The judge is "upholding the law?" Well, that was the question to begin with. Was same sex marriage the law or not? If not, then the marriages that took place in that brief moment of time--thanks to an activist judge who did not stay her ruling for appeal--are not legal and therefore, can be annulled as the "retroactive" argument is moot.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    May 19, 2014 10:52 p.m.

    You might really enjoy living in an area of homes where owners have lots and lots of control and unrealistic rules.
    This type of "my way or the highway" governing is frequently seen in a areas that operate with a governing Home Owners Association.
    People who like this sort of thing can feel like they live in a thoroughly "democratic" place, as you can exclude many types of people for many different reasons. Voting on "offensive issues" frequently occurs. The association's policy books are filled with page after page of rules.
    Just think of the power!
    Who cares what the Constitution says about equal rights. Correct?

  • CaliforniaSurferGirl Henderson, NV
    May 19, 2014 10:34 p.m.

    I don't know why it bothers so many people that gay people want to be married and legally recognized as equal in society. Who cares?! Who other people marry and have relations with is of no concern to me and has no effect on how I raise my children or who I pick to have relations with. Recognizing gay marriage does not make other people gay or in any way lessen my heterosexual marriage.

    This is a civil rights issue in the most simplest form. Opposition to gay marriage being recognized and their spouses enjoying the same benefits as they would in a "traditional" marriage is based on people passing their religious convictions onto others. Law is no place for religion. Its called "separation of church and state" for a reason - to eliminate institutionalized prejudices and discriminatory practices.

    Marriage and love is for everyone. Equal rights and protection under the law is for everyone as a citizen of the United States.

  • BlackDiamond Provo, UT
    May 19, 2014 10:17 p.m.

    It will be recognized in Utah and everywhere else. There is one place that it won't be recognized which is The Lord's Kingdom.

  • pickmerg gunnison, UT
    May 19, 2014 10:10 p.m.

    After Kimball made a ruling about the beetles that were killing the spruce trees. His office was asked if he could take a few hours and see the situation for himself and then could use some command sense in making his decision. The reply was "Judges can't use command sense they are bond by the law" yet most judges are still activist.

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    May 19, 2014 10:06 p.m.

    I hope the millennium comes sooner than later. No more problems with this whole issue.

  • Constitutionalist South Jordan, UT
    May 19, 2014 9:08 p.m.

    Continuing ...

    Thirdly, the people of Utah overwhelmingly voted to define marriage as between one woman and one man. This is the democratic process. This is what the people want.

    These judges are ignoring the express will of the people, and are so full of their own power, that they think they are above the law, and they feel it is their duty to impose their personal will on us. Yes, same-sex marriage is being forced on us. If it were not so, then same-sex marriage would not come to Utah until a majority of Utahns vote for it.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 19, 2014 8:15 p.m.

    This judge represents the true Mormon values taught so long ago in the early church. He is doing his duty to uphold the law! He is not imposing his beliefs upon anyone. He is honoring and obeying the law. He represents the best of Mormon behavior in word and deed! There are those here who will call him all sorts of names, but I call him honest and brave!

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    May 19, 2014 7:55 p.m.

    Let's stop all the dancing around the issue. Christians and Mormons who oppose same sex marriage do so, not because it is better for children, but because they believe that their god will cease sustaining the "god-ordained" USA, and it will be cursed, like Sodom and Gomorrah.

    There is no better example of the superstitious mindset at work than this. Rather than point out the absurdity of such thinking, however, let's go along with t for the sake of argument. Even IF a (vindictive) god was determined to curse and destroy a nation because it embraced marriage equality for all it's citizens, remember that the god who allegedly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah covenanted repeatedly NOT to destroy it if even TEN good people could be found there.

    Now those same religious folks assure us that they are god's chosen, righteous people, and there are millions of them in the country!

    So we are in no danger at all!

    Relax and enjoy marriage equality!

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 19, 2014 7:48 p.m.

    @ Meckofahess
    You wrote:
    "Well Baccus0902 might have this partially right. Kind of condescending to say that "the blindness is being removed" though. That sort of rhetoric goes a long way toward building bridges that will need to be built when all this is settled (sarcasm here)."
    "A better approach would be to stop the gloating and mean spirited rhetoric and seek to find some common ground with the traditionalists IMO."

    Definition of Hypocrisy: "Hypocrisy is the claim or pretense of holding beliefs, feelings, standards, qualities, opinions, behaviors, virtues, motivations, or other characteristics that one does not in actual fact hold. It is the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another" Wikipedia

    Building bridges? Find common ground?
    You have condemned us as abominations, sinners, perverts, pedophiles, etc. etc. How can you the righteous find common ground with us, second class Samaritans?

    If you can build bridges and find common ground, please teach us the way, we can try once again. You are our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, we would like to be accepted as part of your community.... as equals. Can you do that?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 19, 2014 7:37 p.m.

    I am sorry that my choice of a marriage companion is being forced upon so many people who find my love offensive. The last thing I have ever wanted to do is make other people uncomfortable. In fact, I have always taken extreme precautions to make sure that my personal life remains private to avoid the scrutiny of others.

    This issue, unfortunately, has forced me to actually speak up and finally be truthful about a most personal and often painful reality that I felt needed to be hidden for my safety and the comfort of others. Imagine how stressful this is for us. I am sure I am not the only one who has lost friends, been shunned at church, and become strangers in their own families.

    The reality, my neighbors, is this issue of marriage equality is not about you. You aren't being forced to do anything other than accept that some of us love a little differently and want to share that love with the same legal protections that you have been so fortunate to have for generations.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    May 19, 2014 7:21 p.m.

    The ongoing threat of Fire and Brimstone!
    Here it comes, again.
    Deja vu rhetoric, most recently heard in the civil rights movement of the 1960's

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    May 19, 2014 7:03 p.m.

    If the law should reflect the concept that any persons who love each other can marry, then why not first cousins, brothers and sisters, or even parents and children (assuming all are adults and there is no fertility)?

    If the concept truly is that ANY adult can marry ANY other then why not? Tradition? Because we find it personally troubling? Many have forcefully argued that these do not matter. If they don't matter (and again, if there is no issue of fertility) then what is to restrain such from marrying if they choose?

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 19, 2014 6:44 p.m.

    You can't "win against this". All you can do, all anyone can do, is take care of yourself. If this isn't for you, don't do it.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 19, 2014 6:35 p.m.

    @Sasha Pachev, twenty years ago the idea of a Mormon running for president would have been an April Fool's joke. But in 2012 we had one. What made the difference? Mormons "came out", and the "good Christians" who had demonized them gradually realized that they were ordinary people--just like them--who went to work, mowed their lawns, raised their children, paid their bills, served as the sewer commissioner or chaired the Rotary fundraiser--you get the idea. And although, to this day, there are sects of Christians who say vicious things about Mormons---kind of like some of the letter writers here refer to gays---a majority of people in the US have a favorable opinion of their LDS neighbors. As well they should. You can try your darndest to teach your prejudices to your children, but most of them will look around, see that gay families are an asset to the community, and reject the gays-are-evil doctrines.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 19, 2014 6:03 p.m.

    Judge Kimball noted the 1892 case of "Tufts v Tufts" in which Utah Courts ruled that changes to divorce law could not be applied retroactively. He then states:

    “Plaintiffs’ marriages were authorized by law at the time they occurred. The marriages were solemnized and valid under the existing law so that nothing remained to be done. No separate step can or must be taken after solemnization for the rights of a marriage to vest. Moreover, Plaintiffs began to exercise the rights associated with such valid marriages prior to the entry of the Supreme Court’s Stay Order. As in Tufts, therefore, the change in the law does not affect the vested rights associated with those marriages. The vested rights in Plaintiffs’ validly-entered marriages stand independent of the change in the law. For over a hundred years, the Tufts decision has never been called into question because it states a fundamental principle of basic fairness.”

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 19, 2014 6:03 p.m.

    Unless you are being forced to marry someone of the same sex against your will, then same-sex marriage is not being forced on you.

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    May 19, 2014 5:40 p.m.

    We are seeing 2 Nephi 26:22 in action: "he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever". 20 years ago this would have been an April Fool's joke, but certain powers, some on this side of the veil, and some on the other have gradually upped the temperature, and we did not know when to jump. The time to jump and do something about it is now. We should start with our own families, make sure our house is in order, make sure our testimonies are firm, our faith is strong - that is the only way we can win against this.

  • sj Spanish Fork, UT
    May 19, 2014 5:37 p.m.

    WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

    It won't be long now.

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    May 19, 2014 5:33 p.m.


    Judge Kimball served as a Stake President and as a Regional Representative. I think it would be hard to paint him as anti-family. And I don't see how this ruling is anti-democratic. He was just applying the law.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    May 19, 2014 5:28 p.m.

    Well Baccus0902 might have this partially right. Kind of condescending to say that "the blindness is being removed" though. That sort of rhetoric goes a long way toward building bridges that will need to be built when all this is settled (sarcasm here). He is correct in stating this is by "legal force" - certainly not by moral authority however. Abortion was "legally forced" upon the nation in Roe v Wade, but that certainly has not resulted in acceptance of that practice by hundreds of millions of Americans!. Abortion continues to divide America and always will. If same-sex marriage is legally forced upon Americans and it might be, it will result in the same kind of divisiveness in society and won't necessarily be the kind of world the gays are hoping for. A better approach would be to stop the gloating and mean spirited rhetoric and seek to find some common ground with the traditionalists IMO.

  • wjalden Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 19, 2014 5:09 p.m.

    Yet another anti-democratic ruling handed down by yet another Carter/Clinton/Obama appointee. Funny how that works.

    The court that overruled the voters of Michigan who outlawed affirmative action voted along straight party lines. Seven "justices" appointed by Clinton, Carter or Obama voted to strip Michigan voters of their right to outlaw affirmative action, along with one appointee who was forced on Bush by Michigan's two "Democratic" senators.

    The word "democrat" is quite a fiction when it comes to describing the so-called Democratic Party.

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    May 19, 2014 5:01 p.m.

    I am very delighted that justice and equality has finally come to the state of Utah. Now all that needs to be done is to lift the ban to marry altogether. Live and let live. It's a great way to live!

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    May 19, 2014 4:49 p.m.

    "The Time Has Come Today", just as The Chamber's Brothers sang several decades ago!

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 19, 2014 4:38 p.m.

    This just makes me proud to be an American. Though it pales in comparison to what my gay brothers and sisters must be experiencing it feels like a breeze of fresh air rolling down from the mountain of justice and equality.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 19, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    Justice is coming to the Rockies.

    Utah doesn't know it yet, but it may become the Zion and the light to other states and eventually the world regarding families and the rights of individuals. No, I am not being sarcastic, I really believe that the blindness is being removed , now by legal force, but eventually will be embraced as the wisest decision.

    Congratulations Utah!!!!

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    May 19, 2014 4:18 p.m.

    Did anybody expect any differently? Everyone knew this was coming.