Quantcast
U.S. & World

Prop. 8 declared unconstitutional by 9th Circuit Court; stay prevents same-sex marriages from resuming

Comments

Return To Article
  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 11:36 a.m.

    2-1 decision... we could've guessed it'd go that way months ago.

  • Church member North Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 11:37 a.m.

    This is awesome news. Allowing them to marry will not hurt anyone. I believe in free agency. People should be able to choose to live their lives the way they want (as long as they don't harm anyone).

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Feb. 7, 2012 11:37 a.m.

    I still say "Family First", and ban all gay marriage.

    Congress could of repealed California's Proposition 8 ?. Why didn't they then?. What were the GOP waiting for?.

    Now the Federal appeals court declares California's Proposition 8 unconstitutional. A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year. Prop 8 Overturned, February 7, 2012 The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. Opponents of same-sex marriage have promised to appeal to the US Supreme Court.

    If prop 19 in California is passed, can the federal government repeal the law? Sorry Ron Paul, California's Proposition 19 which would legalize the personal growth, use, and distribution of marijuana appears to have gone up in smoke.

  • Zionide SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 11:41 a.m.

    Before you all start posting nonsense about the "will of the majority" and the voice of the people, please get an education about this country and its judicial, legislative, and executive laws.

    The United States of America is NOT governed by majority rule; if it were, schools would never have been desegregated in the south thanks to Brown v. Board of Education as the MAJORITY of residents in those school districts supported segregation.

    Our Constitution requires the rights of the minority be balanced with the will of the majority. So while the voice of the majority can play a role, it cannot be the only consideration when determining others' rights.

    Whether legally marrying the sole adult individual you love is a right or not is more reasonable a debate; but the "voice of the majority" argument is nonsense in this context.

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 7, 2012 11:41 a.m.

    And is it any wonder that people don't respect the judiciary?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 11:41 a.m.

    So,

    First gay marriage is allowed in California. 18,000 same-gender couples get married.

    Then, Prop 8 passes with voter majoirty. 52% for, 47% against. A majority of...

    3%.

    Then, former federal judge walker rules Prop 8 unconstitutional.

    His ruling, is supported:

    **'Judge's Prop. 8 ruling upheld' - By Lisa Leff - AP - Published by DSNews - 06/14/11

    '...ruling that struck down California's same-sex marriage ban...' - article

    Also, Walkers orientation is noted as not an impact in his 136 page oringinal ruling against Prop 8. Supported by, Judge Ware.

    **'Judge Ware Denies Motion To Vacate Decision Overturning Prop 8' - By Barry Deutsch - Family Scholars - 06/14/11

    This, and even the 'Defense of Marriage Act' is failing in courts:

    **'Gay marriage wins rulings in pair of federal challenges' - By Denise Lavoie - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10

    Popular support, favors gay marriage:

    **'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011

    Washington state passes gay marriage through it's Senate and needs to vote in the House...

    6 other states allow gay marriage. With MA still having one of the lowest divorce rates...

    and, this.

    I choose, the right side of history.

  • charlie91342 Sylmar, CA
    Feb. 7, 2012 11:45 a.m.

    wow. way to freak out all the religious people. this should be fun to watch...

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 11:47 a.m.

    Where does the US constitution say anything about marriage?

    I know that the constitution says that if it isn't specifically mentioned in the US constitution, that the rights are left to the states and people. The state decided that Marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Please tell us what part of the constitution was violated.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    Though not gay myself, I have had a number of gay friends. Uniformly they are good people. To deprive them of the institution of marriage is to condemn them to half a life. Remember, equal protection under the law. Of course, this is going to end up before the supreme court. I predict gay marriage will be an extablished fact within 5 years, like it or not (I do understand why various religions cannot accept this - it's going to be tough on them).

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 7, 2012 11:52 a.m.

    The 9th circuit court is the most overturned, liberal excuse for a court in the world.Newt Gingrich has promised to disband this mockery of justice and I urge all Americans to vote for Newt to reign in the usurped power of this rediculous "court".

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    Feb. 7, 2012 11:54 a.m.

    OH NO the world is going to end! Right? I mean this was important right? We didn't want Gays to mary because... because...?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 11:54 a.m.

    'The state decided that Marriage is between a man and a woman.
    Please tell us what part of the constitution was violated.' - RedShirt | 11:47 a.m. Feb. 7, 2012

    1st, many states scrambled to factually CHANGE thier state constution when gay marriage was 1st allowed in MA in 2004.

    My example?

    The state of Utah. Amendment 3. Passed in 2004 it factually CHANGED the vergabe of people allowed in marriage TOO 'one man and one woman' FROM...

    'two people.'

    So, the very people who claim to want to DEFEND to constitution....changed it.

    2nd, the constitution is constantaly refferenced as a 'living document'. i.e. it can change to reflect our views of an American citizen.

    I support this as:

    The consitution did NOT mention 'slaves' as equal people. Or make the claim that they were worthy of legal protections and rights of the average American citizen.

    i.e. Our black American citizens of today.

    Today, it is my hope, we know better.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:00 p.m.

    Whenever a legal opinion is based on granting or denying "dignity" -- a word that doesn't even appear in the Constitution or Bill of Rights -- you know it will be quickly overturned, probably in the en banc review that will occur in the Ninth Circus, but for sure at the Supreme Court.

  • Mom of 2 Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:01 p.m.

    This is great news. Nobody is forcing churches to recognize gay marriage, but legally it should be available. How is it going to hurt MY marriage if Bob and Joe down the block want to get married? I ask that all the time and nobody can ever answer.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:01 p.m.

    Has the 9th Circuit Court read this?. Ban all same sex marriage in America. "The Family." A Proclamation to the World. The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:02 p.m.

    This 2-3 split was a sure bet months ago when the panel members were decided. But Judge Smiths dissent is fascinating and not surprisingly reads like the Proclamation on the Family. It's obvious he realized how weak the original arguments by the Prop 8 supporters were, so he has gone waaaaay outside the case to try to give it some legitimacy before it goes en banc or up to the Supreme Court.
    His LDS roots, his valentines to Scalia, and his add ons to the case will probably get more scrutiny than the panels actual decision.

  • JonathanPDX Portland, Oregon
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:03 p.m.

    This isn't surprising. While Latter-Day Saints might view this as an assault upon marriage, we must remember that freedom of choice must allow every one to make his or her own choices and we cannot force our beliefs regarding such decisions on any other person or group by legislation or ballot. So long as marriage outside the Church is simply a legal contract, it must be available to all who are legally qualified and able to enter into such a contract. People inherently recognize truth, but often due to prejudices or spiritual darkness will attempt to create something similar to a true ordinance as a mockery and affront to God. We must not contend with evil, but through living the Gospel, demonstrate that living according to God's will bears fruit that is eternal and everlasting. And by their fruit ye shall know those who follow Christ and those who do not.

  • BalancedFulfilledLife MISSOURI CITY, TX
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:03 p.m.

    Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose...Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. I believe these words with all of my heart. I mean no ill will to my fellowmen, but marriage is not our law to change. It is God's law, and if we make a mockery of it, we are choosing to receive the consequences of such mockery.

  • The Missing Link A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:07 p.m.

    Don't worry, after elected, Mitt Romney will ban same sex marriage in America.

    "Obviously, Governor Mormon is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

  • New Yorker Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:08 p.m.

    Then, by the same reasoning, polygamists and any other -ists have a right to do whatever they want interpersonally.

    Government is abdicating any specific role in regulating the inter-personal affairs of citizens. This would probably a good thing, except now in the name of liberalism, they will want to force everyone else and every religion to think like they do.

    Already in our school curricula the government is teaching our very young children that all "life styles" are equal and that everyone must accept this. The government has raised their view to a "religious" dogma that everyone must march to.

    As we move along this road, our freedom of association will soon stop when we leave our private property. Our own children will be listening to hear if we believe in the party line. Things here will not be much different than it has been under past totalitarian regimes. For us it will be the totalitarianism of atheism.

    It doesn't have to be this ugly way. Every vote for every level of government matters in this election, and the president nominates supreme court members.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:08 p.m.

    Conservatives should've just "compromised" with Civil Unions --
    but NO,
    They had to go for the whole enchilada.
    Their All-or-Nothingism, No Compromising on anything has failed.
    Looks like now they will have to settle for NOTHING.

    I knew this wasn't going to go the way they wished, hoped, even prayed for.

    It's the price of living in a FREE society with EQUAL rights.

    Deal with it.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    I have no problem with the idea of civil unions so that 2 people who want to have the same civil protections under the law can do so. I just can't call it marriage. Call me old fashioned. Call me whatever names you want. I just can't call it marriage when it is between 2 people of the same sex.

  • Stay Away From the Edge Sandy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    This is a serious question, so please--no one get your knickers in a twist. Just looking at the possible implications, if a bisexual person should marry a same-sex partner in California then return home to a state where that marriage is not legally recognized, could that person then legally marry someone of the opposite sex in their home state without having to first divorce their same-sex spouse?

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:13 p.m.

    Marxist..."half a life"? Are you serious? They would live together and carry on their relationships regardless of a document stating they are "man and husband" or "woman and wife". They just want the benefits without really qualifying for them. It's blatant selfishness not to mention disregard for children in the mix who deserve a mother and father living in their home.

    Gays and lesbians can share their love and lives without calling it marriage. I can understand their desire to be loved and wanted. But physical relations between a man with a man and woman with a woman are immoral. Calling it "marriage" won't ever change that. It's still wrong. It will always be wrong no matter what the judicial system declares.

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:14 p.m.

    So much for the voice of the people speaking. If Prop 8 is or was considered to be unconstitutional, why was it allowed to be on the ballot to begin with. The only outcome that I can see here is attorneys and judges becoming richer and people becoming upset. It kind of reminds me of a civilization on this continent a few thousand years ago, when attorneys and judges stirred the people up to get gain. Yep nothing has changed.

  • SusanTJ Sandy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:15 p.m.

    The people voted against this. period. the end.

  • SLMG Murtoa Australia, Victoria
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:16 p.m.

    I think we all knew this decision was coming. One battle lost to stop same sex marriage but the war goes on, hopefully the next battle will be won and the next one as well and the fight will finally be won. I have no problem with civil Unions for gay and lesbian couples but marriage has always been a man & a woman couple and should remain that way.

  • GoldieZ Eureka, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:17 p.m.

    Why is it that so many heterosexuals fight for the right not to marry, and have laws go their way, and why do homosexuals fight for the right to marry? What is wrong with this picture???

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:17 p.m.

    America is headed for the dumpster - decaying from within. I feel sad for my kids and grandkids and the kind of country they will have to grow up in. I suspect America is headed - in the fast lane - to be exactly like Europe - bankrupt and without any morals. It wouldn't be at all surprising to me to see America lose it's sovereignty before 2030. Our founders built a nation on a foundation of a belief in God as well as moral integrity and starting with the god-less and moral-less hippie generation of the 1960's we have been in decay ever since. Soon we will be a mirror image of Greece - bankrupt and full of dysfunctional families which is the eventual outcome of all who adopt liberal ideology.

  • ArizonaDad flagstaff, AZ
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:17 p.m.

    "Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel.

    There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself."

    Neal A. Maxwell
    October 10, 1978

  • N.C.Y. Iowa City, IA
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:21 p.m.

    No surprise here. It is becoming one of the most obvious attacks on religion and freedom ever. Not caught off guard to see the 9th trashing the 1st admendment.

  • JKayDS EULESS, TX
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:22 p.m.

    Just an observation..
    It sure did not take all the gay rights people long to get on here and wipe our noses in their joy..
    this is not over, this battle may have been won - but the war is still going.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:29 p.m.

    @ Momof2 It's not going to affect YOUR marriage per se. But you can't deny that it confuses the definition and picture of "marriage". It will confuse children. It will hurt society.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:29 p.m.

    This ought to be a wakeup call to the Republican Party and social and cultural conservatives more generally, as someone who strongly supports traditional marriage, and who believes that further attempts to undermine its special and privileged place in our society will have serious, baleful consequences. Why does this matter? Because the best and most effective way to avert crime, poverty, drug abuse and other social pathologies is to have strong, intact families. Being raised in a married family reduces a child's probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent. Don't let other people bring their trouble into your life. Some people are never happy and want to drag everybody else down to their misery level. It's a good thing to listen to other people's troubles and try to help out if you can but you just can't help some people. They're determined to be miserable. Don't join them. Just ban same sex marriage. My priorities are 1. God, 2. Family, meaning mother and father, male and female, husband and wife, with ot without children, 3. Country, 4. The Charlie Daniels Band. Oh yea, one more, gator hunting in the swamp.

    Ban same-sex marriage in America Congress.

  • DRay Roy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:30 p.m.

    Pagan should be banned from commenting more than once here...as for me, I can't get even one comment into the system...

    If ever this goes through, tell Pagan he will never convince that a 3% majority isn't as good as a 47% minority...he would fit in with the smooth talking lawyers & hypocrites.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:34 p.m.

    Regardless of what elections may decide, judges may rule or legislators may enact, the definition of marriage has always been, is, and always will be âthe union of a man and a woman as husband and wifeâ

    The definition of husband is âa man married to a womanâ; the definition of a wife is âa woman married to a manâ. A same gender couple cannot be husband and wife and marriage does not include two husbands or two wifes.

    Two men or two women living as a couple do not meet the definition of married. The definition of marriage was established religiously thousands of years ago and no one can change that. All the legal rights can be given to couples and the law may call it marriage but does not make same gender couples what they never can be.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:36 p.m.

    As far as I'm concerned, let gay and lesbian couples get married, that's fine, just answer me this question.

    For years, LDS Church critics have said again and again that the "real reason" the church changed in policy on blacks and the priesthood is because of outside pressure, including threats to strip the church of its tax-exempt status as well as supposed lawsuits filed against the church.

    Let's say these critics are correct. (LDS critics never lie are exaggerate things, right?) What pressure can the LDS Church expect in the future before it is "forced" to change its policy on same-sex marriage? What tactics should LDS Church leaders and members expect to be the recipients of in the near future?

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:37 p.m.

    God has not shown his displeaure with the court decision. Earlier this morning in L.A.it was overcast with intermittent rain drops. No dramatic changes in the weather. It has neither started raining big time nor has the sun come out. Also, I haven't felt any earthquakes in L.A. Finally, the trains still seem to be running more or less on time. Everybody go back to work. Next Spring the SCOTUS will hear the Prop 8 case. In the meantime everybody, Straight and those legally married Gay people work on making your existing marriages better, enough said. Peace out !!

  • UT Brit London, England
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:37 p.m.

    @patriot

    "to be exactly like Europe - bankrupt and without any morals"

    Errr you are already bankrupt, when everything is finished in Europe, everyone will start looking at the US and that's when the real fun begins.
    Regarding morals, Americans get divored more, take more drugs, have more abortions, view more pornography, have more DUI's, smoke more than Western Europe. When it comes to most things you would count as "morals", America is already at the bottom of the cesspool.

    We don't have gay marriage in the UK but for some time now we have had civil unions that give same sex couples the full legal rights of marriage. It has not affected me or my marriage in any way at all.

  • Bastiatarian TUCSON, AZ
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:37 p.m.

    When has the 9th Circuit Court ever cared about adhering to the Constitution?

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:37 p.m.

    I have a photograph of my great-grandfather standing with several men in a Utah prison. Did these men commit a bank robbery or a murder? No. They were in prison for simply following their religious beliefs.

    How soon before churches or individuals within certain churches are again put behind bars for simply following their religious beliefs?

    Call me paranoid, stupid, disillusion, or out of touch all you want, but I have the picture to prove that even in the USA, people can go to prison for simply following their beliefs.

  • Duckhunter Highland, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:38 p.m.

    A little bit of premature celebration by the gay marriage proponent's. This is just one more step towards the inevitable Supreme Court decision on it. None of it means a thing until then.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:48 p.m.

    On June 26, 2011, following New York's passage of same-sex marriage, Time Magazine writer Howard Chua-Eoah wrote an article entitled, "The Bittersweet Victory: Why Gay Marriage Still Isn't Marriage."

    Among other things, Chua-Eoah said, "Marriage without a church or temple wedding isn't the real thing. Why can some people have all the bells and whistles in the church of their choice but not me?"

    How many in the gay and lesbian community agree with this idea? If so, how soon before we see churches forced to change their positions, either by lawsuits, court rulings, marches, speeches, or, perhaps, other means?

  • rightascension Provo, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 12:56 p.m.

    Time for a historical review about the development -- decline and fall, some would call it -- of secular marriage. Marriages of necessity. Of convienance. Of alliance. Buying women as brides. Marriages for companionship, not child rearing. Dowererys. Polygamy. Polyandry. Brides as property. La Casa Grande. La Casa Bonita. No wait marriages. No fault divorces. Taking up residence in Nevada to get Reno-vated. It was the heterosexuals who brought about these marriage developments, not the homosexuals. The evolution to same sex marriage is only the latest devolution, and certainly not the worst.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:01 p.m.

    @Brother Chuck Schroeder
    "Has the 9th Circuit Court read this?. Ban all same sex marriage in America. "The Family." A Proclamation to the World. "

    Have they read that proclamation? Well one of the 3 (the dissenting vote) is LDS so I assume he did.

    @SusanTJ
    "The people voted against this. period. the end. "

    So southern states who disagreed with legalization of interracial marriage (some didn't repeal their laws against it until the 1990s) should've not had to deal with the court decision of Loving vs Virginia that legalized it nationwide?

  • Hawkeye79 Iowa City, IA
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:07 p.m.

    I'm not surprised that this was a split ruling, and it doesn't seem like many experts were surprised either.

    What will be interesting is to see whether the 9th Circuit's track of being overturned continues. For those unfamiliar with this record, on average roughly 80% (as high as 88%, depending on the year) of rulings from the 9th Circuit are overturned when appealed. Statistically speaking, betting on a 9th Circuit ruling to be upheld isn't the wisest thing to do.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:08 p.m.

    EJM says:
    " I just can't call it marriage when it is between 2 people of the same sex."

    --- You get to say how you call your own marriage/relationship. Nobody elses.

    O'really says:

    "Gays and lesbians can share their love and lives without calling it marriage. "

    --- Why should we? Why don't you?

    SusanTJ says:
    "The people voted against this. period. the end."

    --- The Civil Rights of Americans Citizens are not yours to vote on.

    @SLMG;

    Separate but equal is not equal. Civil Unions create a "second class" status.

    @patriot;

    Morality is relative. I consider bigotry and discrimation to be immoral.

    Brother Chuck Schroeder says:
    "Being raised in a married family reduces a child's probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent."

    --- Don't the children in GLBT families deserve this benefit then? What about those families?

    @ClarkHippo;

    The LDS Church already denies (temple) marriage (the only "true" marriage) to those heterosexuals they deem unworthy, why should that change for homosexuals? They can always deem them "unworthy". Your question is a red herring. There are already many churches that will perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. If glbt couples want church weddings, they can find a church to perform them - they don't need yours.

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:09 p.m.

    The Constitution grants rights to people. The one time it was used to take away rights with Prohibition was eventually overturned. Declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional is keeping the spirit of the constitution alive and well. Granting Gays the right to marry does not lessen or take away the rights of anyone else.

  • Otis Spurlock Ogden, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:12 p.m.

    The end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:12 p.m.

    Before all you pro-gay activist gets all excited about this decsion just remember one thing.

    The 9th Circuit Court has been over ruled by the SCOTUS more times than all the other district courts combined.

    Just because these wacky judges "think" something is unconstitutional, does not make it so.

    my perdiction is SCOTUS will over rule the decision.

  • Cowboy Dude SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:17 p.m.

    Proposition 8 was to amend the California Constitution. But, the amended California constitution is California unconstitutional? That is a real problem.

    So, the U.S. Supreme Court will look at the court appeal of a state constitution? That is a problem for me in itself.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:18 p.m.

    Unbelievable, that the liberal judges would do such a thing, pushing THEIR agenda on the rest of the people of California, and by legal extension, to the rest of us. Yes, this WILL have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. We can only pray that they will have the sense to overturn it. This ruling will have far-reaching that you and I only partly glimpse in regards to the morality associated with family life.

    Hopefully the voice of the people DOES make a difference here. As Mosiah in the Book of Mormon put it:

    *Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your lawâto do your business by the voice of the people.* Mosiah 29:26

    *yea, well did he (Mosiah) say that if the time should come that the voice of this people should choose iniquity, that is, if the time should come that this people should fall into transgression, they would be ripe for destruction.* Alma 10:19

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:22 p.m.

    I'm wondering... let's suppose gay marriage is legalized in all 50 states... how will that affect me personally, as a married straight male. will some group of gays show up at my house and try to force me into a gay marriage against my will? what about my wife and kids? my job? there are already gays in my neighborhood. they're good neighbors. they keep their house and yard well-maintained. they're quiet and respectful. hmmm... I mean, I'm trying to imagine exactly what catastrophies will occur in my life if gay marriages were allowed and I can't think of one single negative thing.

    on the contrary, I can think of a few positive things. for example, gay people are going to have gay relationships whether gay marriage is allowed or not. we live in a society that tries to espouse the benefits of long-term relationships (typically marriage). if we allow gay marriage, then we allow gays to commit themselves to to long-term relationships via marriage (at least to the same extent as same-sex marriages).

    sounds like a win-win situation. gays get the same rights to marriage as does every other American. straights get the benefit of having gays in committed long-term relationships.

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:24 p.m.

    California voted for proposition 8, but then they voted in Jerry Brown as Governor instead of Meg Whitman. Now, the state won't defend their own proposition for their own constitution or the vote of their people.

  • bjb SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:28 p.m.

    Sometimes I read the user comments on articles in the Deseret News just to get my blood boiling and make sure I'm still alive! Mostly it just reminds me of how many residents of this state need a lesson on the three branches of government and how they operate. If you don't like how judges interpret the law then yell at your legislator who wrote a poor law that is open to various interpretations. And if we want to talk about activist judges, let's talk about this ultra conservative Mormon who was the only dissenting voice and is trying to force his personal religious beliefs on others through his rulings!

  • PAC Phoenix, AZ
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:30 p.m.

    What do we now in the U.S.? Make up the rules as we go? There are people who just live together because they don't think they need a paper to confirm there love, so why to do Gay people need a paper to confirm there love? Where is the world going?

  • chris james jensen Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:31 p.m.

    A mormon activist judge in the 9th circuit was the single vote against gay marriage in today's ruling so if you're upset by "activist judges" then you should probably take a seat.
    Under the 14th amendment equal protections clause it says "no state (even the state of California) shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." You can't have a law benefitting a majority of Californians while it is discriminating against a minority of Californians. It was this same clause that helped Brown v the Board of Education the case that ended segregation in schools. If we did a popular vote on every social issue women wouldn't have the right to vote (seeing how only men would clearly vote against that) and our schools would still be segregated.

  • Michael De Groote
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:31 p.m.

    UPDATES:

    Please keep in mind, as you read earlier comments etc., that this article is being updated throughout the day as we gather more reaction and analysis.

    GROUCHO MARX CITED:

    My favorite part of the decision is where the court quotes from Groucho Marx. Regardless of how anybody falls on this issue, you gotta love it when the Marx Brothers are invoked.

    The court said: "Groucho Marx's one-liner, 'Marriage is a wonderful institution ... but who wants to live in an institution?' would lack its punch if the word 'marriage' were replaced with the alternative phrase."

    Let's try it:
    "A registered domestic partnership is a wonderful institution ... but who wants to live in an institution?"

  • Ginger Ravenna, OH
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:33 p.m.

    Sure is fun watching all the verbal hairsplitting on the definitions marriage, husband and wife. Get over it folks, dictionaries change over time. Definitions aren't facts, they're fungible.

    Equal fun with all the sputtering about the constitutional basis of the decision. Its not in the marriage clause folks. Neither is it in the Tenth Amendment. It's the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection Clause which guarantees that no government may treat one individual differently than another before the law, the oldest and most precious part of our common law with roots back to the Magna Carta.

    Theologically, Bro Chuck, the first commandment was to "dress and tend" the garden, given to Adam. The second commandment given to both Adam and Eve was "a man [shall] leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be done flesh." What are they to do? "cleave", not marry. If you're going to parse words you're stuck with that. The commandment was make babies, not enter into legal contracts or religious vows.

    Bro Chuck you can argue heterosexuality has a scriptural basis from the earliest times, but not marriage. Marriage isn't mentioned until Noah's time, generations after Adam. Sorry, your arguments in favor of marriage based on precedent don't hold water even in scriptural contexts.

    The court has done the right thing: the state has no right to treat anyone better or worse treatment than any other. God said He was no respecter of persons. Government should be no respecter of persons.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:35 p.m.

    Excerpts fromThe Constitution of the United States:

    Article IV - The States

    Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

    --- Public records (i.e., marriage records) are to be recognized in ALL states if from ANY state.

    Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

    --- Marriage, legal benefits, etc. fall under this category.

    Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    --- Many religions allow same-sex marriages. What about their religious freedom to practice as they see fit? Doesn't prop-8 violate that?

    Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights.
    1 ... 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.

    --- Prop-8, like Utah's Amendment 3 deprives Citizens of the United States (i.e. GLBTQ Citizens) of the "priviliges and immunites" of marriage. Additionally, it deprives them of their freedom of "life and liberty" and may also deprive them of joint property if one of the partners should die - since they're not married.

  • lovinglife Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:36 p.m.

    I am an at home mom with a wonderful husband and great children. I do have a college degree. Protecting same sex marriage does not make sense to me. It is like defending a plumber who came and fixed my kitchen sink and tried to convince me that it is a good thing and legal to connect my drain with a female to female part OR male to male part. The drain would be a leaky mess in my kitchen. Am I the only one that can see that whether you believe in God or Evolution, the obvious is that a man and a man or a woman and a woman do not fit together as one and have the power to procreate. It is that melding of two into one and the power to create life that marriage is intended to protect. Where are all the intellectuals when you need them?!

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:44 p.m.

    Three liberal judges uphold the ruling of a gay judge -- big surprise.

    Society has no natural incentive to promote or support same-sex marriage the way it supports marriage because society's interest in marriage is promotion of families (the undisputed best way to raise children and thereby foster a stable society) and legal protection for women and children. Giving same-sex unions the same status as marriage has none of those benefits to society.

  • Ricotta SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:44 p.m.

    Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

    -God

  • CottageCheese SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:45 p.m.

    If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.

    -God

  • chris james jensen Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:45 p.m.

    â"Had Marilyn Monroe's film been called 'How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire', it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie, even though the underlying drama for same-sex couples is no different."

  • dalefarr South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:49 p.m.

    The marrage by same sex couples is an important bed rock issue. On one side were two of the most prominent lawyers in America. Counsel for proposition 8 supporters were clearly incompetent in calling only two immaterial witnesses. The legal system does not work well when one side does a pathetic job in presenting a case. I do not understand why, after expending substantial resources to get prop 8 passed, those who supported prop 8 did not spend the resources to put on a case. Trying to win at the Supreme Court without putting on a decent case is an expensive fool's errand. The LDS Church is going to lose this one.

  • chris james jensen Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:49 p.m.

    @Thinkin\' Man: Clearly you haven't bothered to be informed. The ruling was 2-1 split, the 1 judge opposed to gay marriage was a Mormon (shocker). Get your facts straight instead of spewing your ignorance.

  • mont Cedar City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 1:55 p.m.

    What a waste of Tax payer dollars. Get rid of federal appeals court.

  • Cowboy Dude SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:00 p.m.

    @BJB "Mostly it just reminds me of how many residents of this state need a lesson on the three branches of government and how they operate. If you don't like how judges interpret the law then yell at your legislator who wrote a poor law that is open to various interpretations."

    Laughable that you didn't study the California ruling before your comment.

    In 2004, the mayor of San Francisco issued marriage licenses regardless of applicants' gender. The consolidated lawsuits which resulted eventually reached the Supreme Court of California. On June 16, 2008, the Supreme Court of California ruled in favor of same-sex marriage based on an equal protection argument.

    So, in California, the Judges make and interpret the law. So, much for your three branches of government theory. Yell, at your California legislator, it won't do any good.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:01 p.m.

    "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination."

    -God (Fictional protagonist of several "holy" books)

    "If you eat shellfish, you have committed an abomination."

    - God

    "If you wear cotton and wool together, you have committed an abomination"

    - God

    --- One ridiculous quote deserves another, and another.

    "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

    -God

    ---Bigotry is evil, yet you call it good. Discrimination is evil, yet you call it good. Love is good, yet you call it evil. Committment is good, yet you call it evil. You need to re-evaluate your usage of this "scripture"; you are on the wrong side of the page.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:01 p.m.

    A great day for both reason and civil rights

  • Ms Molli Bountiful, Utah
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:01 p.m.

    Yet another example on these boards where it seems that many posters do not want government interfering with how we want to live, yet if its something important to these posters they do want the government to interfere. I'm glad the Court made the decision it did. This whole concept of defining marriage is nothing more than some churches trying to force agency decisions, and there is only one individual (together with his followers) who subscribe to that notion: the adversary.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:08 p.m.

    "What a waste of Tax payer dollars. Get rid of federal appeals court."

    You realize this decision was in response to the appeal on the prior ruling that ALSO ruled prop 8 to be unconstitutional, right? If there were no appeals court, then it wouldn't have changed anything.

  • KSUBYU Yucca Valley, CA
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:08 p.m.

    The 9th Circuit has more of its ruling overturned than any other court in the land. This one will be as well. To church member I also believe in free agency and the people of California used theirs to vote agains gay marriage. So now three people get to choose for me, not sure I think that was what free agency was all about.

  • Woodyff Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:13 p.m.

    This is the most liberal court in the US, what would you expect? But this will end up in the Supreme Court.
    @Church Member - free agency occurs in sports, not in the Church.
    @Pagan - the only people that refer to the Constitution as a living document are those who don't want to follow it.

  • Navajo Hogan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:15 p.m.

    This is crazy!

    Now if my gay neighbors two houses down get married, our whole street is going to explode! Then the whole country shortly thereafter!

  • trekker Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:17 p.m.

    since gay marriage is allowed it is only fair that plural marriage that is doctrine in D&C be allowed again.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:19 p.m.

    A small yet important step toward liberty and justice for all.
    Congratulations California!

  • NightOwlAmerica SALEM, OR
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:26 p.m.

    The looney lefty's here need to read the dictionary about the definition of "religion."
    The 9th Circus has it share of liberal ideology worshippers.

  • kreese Taft, CA
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:39 p.m.

    Why is anyone surprised? When the "Big One" happens, I hope that court is in session in SanFrancisco!

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:42 p.m.

    To lovinglife | 1:36 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012

    Isn't it wonderful that marriage is contracted by people, not kitchen parts.

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:47 p.m.

    It is a sad day when the people of California speak and we have courts such as the 9th Circuit who don't acknowledge the voice of the people. It is also a sad day when then Attorney General Jerry Brown now Gov. Brown has the responsibility to defend the state of California and he refuses to do so. We need Mitt more than ever since he has signed the National Organization of Marriage's pledge to defend traditional marriage and put judges on the bench who will defend the Judeo-Christian values of our Constitution which the 9th Circuit failed to realize in their ruling.

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:48 p.m.

    Well, I'm extremely sad over this decision, but I cannot force people to choose the right. I know that marriage is only correct when it is between a man and woman, there are no other possibilities. I know some people here believe I will change my mind, but I can assure you that I will not. I can not. If I do, I will violate my conscience. If you believe in the Bible, you cannot condone this type of behavior. Nevertheless, I also allow you the agency to disagree. I used to be proud I was born and raised in California. Not anymore.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:51 p.m.

    First they said they wouldn't teach gay history and gay social studies in CA schools, now they are----give them an inch, they take a universe. This doesn't hurt me, just children and schools and society---adds confusion----nations with lots of youth and children and young families have a better economy---so this is about wealth vs. poverty, life vs. death. Nations with all adult populations become poor very quickly. (See Greece and Italy and Europe and USA). The New Testament is a great book that points out what corrupt law does to a society. The higher law --which is not enforcable, is the law that will bring freedom (no swearing, no anger toward God) Immoral people become bored really fast and move onto new things quickly, many homosexual people today, for instance, are confessing that they weren't born that way, that it is choice. At least they are honest, but still stubbornly defiant.

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 2:56 p.m.

    No, I think the California district court was biased in doing this. The people voted to ban that kind of union between homosexuals and the court should have honored the request of the people. Instead they listened to the loudest voices of homosexuals who don't care about public opinion, only what they seem to think is correct. But that doesn't make it right. Man and a woman should make a marriage. Man and man or woman and woman just can't naturally have that kind of union.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 3:02 p.m.

    From what I read, the people having the greatest heartburn with this decision, base EVERYTHING on "Sex" and not "Marriage".

    I know plenty of Non-married people having sex.
    I know just as many Married people not having sex.

    Do us a favor - purdes - take "Sex" out of the equation - and re-access your thinking.
    My guess you won't find a bit of differnece between Hetero-___ual and Homo-___ual marriage.

    BTW - You should've "compromised" with Civil Unions, while you were ahead.

  • Robert Johnson Sunland, CA
    Feb. 7, 2012 3:05 p.m.

    A great day for California and Freedom loving Americans. Today America moved one step closer to fulfillng the promise of "Freedom and justice for all"

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 7, 2012 3:25 p.m.

    While it is true as far as it goes that 75% of the cases the supreme court decides to hear from the ninth district (keeping in mind they only hear cases where they think there maybe a problem) get overturned. A little fact checking puts these numbers in some perspective. In 2011 the ninth circuit heard over 13000 cases. The US supreme court only hears 90 cases total from all the districts every year. So even if every case the supreme court heard came from the ninth circuit and even if they vacated 100% of those cases it would only be 6.9% of the ninth circuit rulings in 2011. It is also a fact that there are actually two other districts the second and fifth districts, that get turned over more frequently then the ninth circuit making your numbers even that more deceptive.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Feb. 7, 2012 3:27 p.m.

    @ Ginger Where did God tell two men to "cleave"

    @ Ranch Hand- Your rhetoric is so shallow. Bigotry in any form (even against religion) is not good. Disagreeing with gay marriage is not bigotry. It IS trying to maintain sanity and order in society. Discrimination is not evil. It is necessary. We all discriminate between what makes sense and what doesn't all the time everyday. Love is good. Lust and following only our animal insticts is evil. Committment to the right things is good. Commitment to something that is harmful and against the laws of nature as well as inhibitive to the human race is evil.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 7, 2012 3:32 p.m.

    I am not pray gay lifestyle, but I agree the government has no business telling anyone who can marry who.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 3:35 p.m.

    Now what's going to stop ol' Joe here who lives on the corner from marrying his dog? After all, it's a free country and nobody should have to tell Joe what he can't do. What he does won't affect them, so why can't he marry his dog?

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 7, 2012 3:37 p.m.

    @christoph

    "give them an inch" and pretty soon they want all the same civil rights everyone else has.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 3:39 p.m.

    Thinkin\' Man
    Rexburg, ID
    Three liberal judges uphold the ruling of a gay judge -- big surprise.

    --------------

    The vote was 2-1. The dissenting judge was Mormon. - big surprise.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 3:44 p.m.

    O'relly: "Bigotry in any form (even against religion) is not good. Disagreeing with gay marriage is not bigotry. It IS trying to maintain sanity and order in society."

    -----------------------

    Can you prove that? Pro Prop 8 lawyers could not prove that banning gay marriage would keep society sane and orderly.

    That was the problem. If you read the transcripts, you would know that they did not have a legal reason to keep gays from marrying. Can you give us one? One that could be used in a court of law? Remember that beliefs and suppositions are not admissible. Only facts. I'd love to hear your argument.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 3:50 p.m.

    To Riverton Cougar | 3:35 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012
    Riverton, UT
    Now what's going to stop ol' Joe here who lives on the corner from marrying his dog?
    -------------

    Probably the fact that the dog doesn't have the capacity to enter into a contract.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 3:50 p.m.

    Serenity
    Manti, UT
    No, I think the California district court was biased in doing this. The people voted to ban that kind of union between homosexuals and the court should have honored the request of the people. Instead they listened to the loudest voices of homosexuals who don't care about public opinion, only what they seem to think is correct

    ---------
    Serenity,

    They did not listen to the homosexuals. Have you read the transcripts of the trial? Those who were trying to protect traditional marriage did not even put up a defense. Their witnesses seemed to be testifying for the gay marriage people. They could not find one legal reason to keep gays from marrying.

    This is not about our beliefs. It is about the constitution and the right of citizens. If we want to deprive any citizen of rights or privileges we enjoy, we MUST prove how it is going to harm society. Pro Prop 8 lawyers did not do this.

    Read the transcripts.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 3:56 p.m.

    Riverton Cougar
    Riverton, UT
    Now what's going to stop ol' Joe here who lives on the corner from marrying his dog? After all, it's a free country and nobody should have to tell Joe what he can't do. What he does won't affect them, so why can't he marry his dog?

    ------------

    ol' joe must have a pretty smart dog. Only those who can consent to a contract may be married. Yes, marriage is a contract between two people and the government.

    Now, how silly was that question?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Feb. 7, 2012 4:12 p.m.

    It never fails to surprise me how bigotry changes its excuses for existence but never it purposes.

    Some Christians used to accuse LGBT of being sick, oversexed individuals who were incapable of love or maintaining a faithful relationship.

    Society and the LGBT community itself have changed. With acceptance and openness people are finding pride and dignity in themselves.

    The LGBT community is demanding Marriage. Christians should be the first to support this movement toward "monogamy and marriage". But many persist in their condemnation.

    They use verses from the the Bible to support their bigotry, putting aside the main message of Jesus about social justice, peace and human dignity.

    They get offended when called bigots. Unfortunately they are blind to the despair, pain and humiliation they cause.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 4:13 p.m.

    Furry1993 and Lane Meyer,

    You miss the point. Let me change the scenario: instead of "dog", let's say "sister". After all, his sister would be able to enter into a contract. Let's see if you guys get the point now (hint: it's not the contract).

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Feb. 7, 2012 4:27 p.m.

    Brother Chuck Schroeder

    Is anyone voting to make "Family Second?" I don't understand your logic.

    With all respect, I value the Proclamation of the Family, as you quote, but it leaves gay families altogether absent. Alienation is not operative in a gospel that seeks to include all of God's children.

    Charlemagne,

    When the court ruled in your favor I didn't hear the same rhetoric coming from you. Did something change?

    RedShirt

    You are correct, the US constitution does not mention marriage. For that matter, the CA Constitution did not either until Prop 8 amended the constitution. To take the argument into context, however, the states can make regulations regarding marriage - and here is the operative condition - as long as it does not violate inherent inalienable rights. To that effect, the U.S. Supreme Court, to name a case, has stepped in from time to time to expressly dictate where state laws violated federal laws regarding marriage -- i.e. Love v. Virginia, to name one.

    Mom of 2,

    Absolutely, they cannot answer what they do not have an answer to - the best are what-if situations which are not based on reality.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 4:29 p.m.

    Since the equal rights movement for women it's all been downhill for religion, I remember when only men could hold the priesthood, those days now long gone, since religions were forced by the government to accept women as equals.

    But alas this has NOT happened, and it is not the intent to force religion to be tolerant of others, even if they espouse it as a teaching. Religion is still quite free to discriminate against ideas, races, and sexes and will continue to so...Freely!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 4:34 p.m.

    O'really says:

    @ Ranch Hand- Your rhetoric is so shallow. Bigotry in any form (even against religion) is not good. Disagreeing with gay marriage is not bigotry. ... Discrimination is not evil. It is necessary. We all discriminate between what makes sense and what doesn't all the time everyday. Love is good. Lust and following only our animal insticts is evil. Committment to the right things is good. Commitment to something that is harmful and against the laws of nature as well as inhibitive to the human race is evil."

    --- Disagreeing with same-sex marriage is not bigotry. Voting away the rights of American Citizens because they're gay IS.

    Who gets to decide what "the right things" are? You? Your religious leaders? Sorry, I'm not buying.

    You can twist my words all you want, that doesn't change the fact that discriminating against other people because they're gay is evil. It doesn't change the fact that two people, in a loving, committed relationship is good.

    You didn't prove anything shallow about my rhetoric, only that you find evil things good and good things evil. ;}

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 4:48 p.m.

    To Riverton Cougar | 4:13 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012

    Actually, it IS the contract.

    Plus you've missed one important point. One of the purposes of marriage is to create a legally defined relationship between people who are not otherwise related. A person and his/her sister already have a legally defined relationship; hence, marriage would accomplish nothing for them.

  • Dart Thrower Ogden, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 4:50 p.m.

    Thousands of years of history have shown that whites and negroes shouldn't marry
    Allowing mixed race marriages will destroy the country and lead to race riots
    God created different skinned people to tell us to stay apart. We are breaking God's law

    Yet, we all think that mixed raced marriage is a great thing today. Twenty years from now gays will be able to be married in all 50 states and accrue all the benefits that any married couples. This is called progress folks. If you don't want to participate in it, you can lock the door and cuddle up to Fox News, but this is the way the world is going and in the end everyone will agree that the benefits outweigh the costs

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 5:00 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal
    Whenever a legal opinion is based on granting or denying "dignity" -- a word that doesn't even appear in the Constitution or Bill of Rights -- you know it will be quickly overturned, probably in the en banc review that will occur in the Ninth Circus, but for sure at the Supreme Court.

    LDS4
    Don't be so sure. The only reason that Black/White drinking fountains were banned was due to dignity. In the South, one was right next to the other. The water coming out of each came from the same source and was therefore equally cool, clean and clear. Blacks got the EXACT same benefits that Whites got. They were seperate, but equal in every way.

    Gays with Civil Unions and straights with marriage may also have the exact same state rights and benefits, but there is no difference between them and the drinking fountains. It's about dignity. it's about telling people that they are just as equal as another. Should some be "more equal" than others?

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 5:05 p.m.

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HURRAH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The "will of the people" does not always trump. The courts have always been there to protect minorities from mob rule.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 5:06 p.m.

    "Moreover, the sacrifices that fathers and mothers make for their children ultimately will result in the greatest possible happiness for those making the sacrifices. In all of human experience, there are no joys more tender, no love more sweet, no fulfillment higher than that found in the family.Those who honor the calling of righteous parenthood will find their souls refined, their hearts purified, and their minds enlightened by the most important lessons of life. They will rise to far greater heights of happiness than those who engage in the narrow and ultimately unsatisfying pursuit of self."-Elder Bruce D. Porter

    I can think of nothing more selfish, nothing more anti-family, and nothing more un-Christlike than to believe something can bring people such joy, love, and "greater heights of happiness" and self improvement but demand that someone else you don't even know can't even have a chance to pursue that thing.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Feb. 7, 2012 5:09 p.m.

    Our friends and family members have waited so long and worked so hard for this "right". The "right" which has always been taken for granted by most of us.
    We are so very happy for wonderful, loving folks who have refused to give up on their dream.!

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Feb. 7, 2012 5:13 p.m.

    Once again more-enlightened-than-thou secular high priests in black robes have spoken. Same-sex marriage has, of course, been there in the fine print of the 14th Amendment all along! We've just been too provincial and unenlightened and bigoted over the past 140 years to realize it. The arrogance and sophistry is just too much to stomach sometimes.

    LDS Liberal, what do you mean should have compromised? California has had domestic partnerships aka civil unions for some time (something I favor, btw) as stated in this piece. The militant gay agenda, to normalize homosexuality and indoctrinate kids, will never end -- just look at SB 48.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Feb. 7, 2012 5:14 p.m.

    One more step towards FORCED perversion!

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 5:29 p.m.

    ALL the comments here have missed the mark.

    The 9th circuit court overturned prop 8 NOT because of denying civil rights to the GLBT community but rather on the premise that in California marriage was allowed and then disallowed to a narrow band of individuals based on sexual orientation.

    This decision was made so that it is only in effect for California as this scenario does not exist elsewhere in the US.

    This will be appealed to the SCOTUS but may not be heard as it applies only to California.

    This ruling has no effect on the current laws of Utah or other states that currently do not allow same-sex marriage.

  • reasonableUTE Provo, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 5:56 p.m.

    I am an active member of the LDS church, I totally understand why the LDS church was pushing to make Gay marriage illegal, but I also understand and agree with the judges' decision. Their responsibility is not to uphold the decisions of the majority, but to protect the rights of the minority. I personally do not view gay marriage as moral, but I also don't think it's right to enforce my views about marriage on other people. I just hope and wish that more LDS people will make a greater effort to get to know people, and learn to love everyone, rather than judging. By the way, it's not "free Agency," it's just agency

  • Pavalova Surfers Paradise, AU
    Feb. 7, 2012 6:07 p.m.

    What would stop three men or women from marrying eachother? Would that be concidered polygamy? Just wondering...

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 6:25 p.m.

    So many are missing the point. Marriage, as legally defined between a man and a woman, does not deny the right of a gay couple to share their love, as so many are claiming. Technically speaking, a gay couple should be allowed to marry, but the rest of society should not be FORCED to recognize it if they don't want to, including businesses. That is what a truly free society would entail. In a truly free country (which the USA is not, unfortunately due to the loss of freedoms), a life-style will not be sanctioned by the government. The government would have no business denying or sanctioning a marriage.

    Gay marriage expands the intrusion of the government over the lives of the people, and continues to move the USA further away from freedom and closer to control of lives, and even control over thought - closer to a totalitarian regime. Hotel owners, fertility specialists, dating web site owners, photographers, etc. will continue to be forced to accept gay marriage against their will, or be forced to take their services out of society. Force. Force. Force. Until, eventually, freedom of religion will erode.

  • floridadan Palm Bay, Fl
    Feb. 7, 2012 6:42 p.m.

    It is very simple. The constitution does not cover homosexual lifestyle because it is just that, A LIFESTYLE !! It is a choice they make and it is no different than someone wanting to marry a goat and have sex. Wrong is wrong.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 7, 2012 6:53 p.m.

    Utah fan - how are you being forced to do anything by this?

    When people were granted the rights to have interracial relationships - what rights were lost?

    You had one statement that was correct. The government has no business deciding who and how you are married. The LDS Church, my church, argued as much in its preceding when it tried to establish the legitimacy of polygamy (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)).

    Having something legal does not take your rights away, nor compel you to live to another moral standard. Drinking, smoking, gambling are all things we don't think are morally correct... and are known to damage one emotionally or physically. And yet members live where all of these are legal, and no right is lost.

    I believe it is the churches job to battle for our souls. The government needs to make sure one person does not infringe on anthers rights. Its job is not to enforce the religious law of any particular faith.

  • Kdee SLC, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 6:55 p.m.

    @ Riverton Cougar: We know from experience that when two closely related individuals marry, the chance of genetic defects being passed along increases - this results in higher levels of mental and physical birth defects. For an example of this, read "Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language."

    Higher levels of birth defects are a negative social consequence of the behavior of closely related people marrying and raising children.

    Additionally, as Furry1993 pointed out, they are already related and an additional contract is not needed to protect their relationship with each other.

    @ Pavalova: Actually, it would be polyamory, which, if "polygamy" ever becomes legal in the US is what we will actually have as you cannot allow a man to have multiple wives without also allowing a woman to have multiple husbands.

    Current polygamous societies infringe upon the rights of the women in those societies and frequently upon the rights of some of the men in the society as well. Until the known social harms of polygamy can be addressed and accounted for, there are valid social reasons for preventing it's legalization.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 6:57 p.m.

    "Technically speaking, a gay couple should be allowed to marry, but the rest of society should not be FORCED to recognize it if they don't want to, including businesses."

    Why is it ok to FORCE me to recognize heterosexual marriages then? To FORCE me to subsidize them with my tax dollars through the special tax and other benefits they receive? You sure have a lot to say about freedoms and government forcing things upon people but refuse to see that the knife cuts both ways.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Feb. 7, 2012 7:03 p.m.

    OK Ranch. Have it your way. Feel better?

    (I didn't think so.)

    I'm not twisting anyone's words and especially not twisting reality.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 7:03 p.m.

    Nice try, guys. "Actually, it IS the contract." Wow. You know it's a losing argument when you resort to telling your opponent what their argument is.

    "One of the purposes of marriage is to create a legally defined relationship between people who are not otherwise related. A person and his/her sister already have a legally defined relationship; hence, marriage would accomplish nothing for them."

    Maybe it WOULD be about the contract and not about developing a relation with someone with whom you had no relation IF there weren't relatives who wanted to marry. However, there are. So much for that.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 7:29 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil
    "Utah fan - how are you being forced to do anything by this? "

    ----------
    Hotel owners, fertility specialists, dating web site owners, photographers have all been sued by the militant gay-marriage agenda.

    It will continue, as expansion of its life-style and forcing its agenda on society is its ultimate goal. It won't stop, until religion surrenders and is forced to accept gay marriage.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 7:34 p.m.

    @isrred
    "Why is it ok to FORCE me to recognize heterosexual marriages then?"
    -----

    If the govt would mind its own business, you wouldn't have to. Technically speaking, govt shouldn't have the right to sanction a life-style through govt-sponsored marriage. But I already made that point.

  • Abe Sarvis Cedar City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 7:37 p.m.

    Four people, persons A, B, C and D. All are legal adults, all are in normal possession of their mental faculties, and none uses force or coercion against any other. Two people, A & B are allowed to enter into a government sponsored contract. The other two, C & D, are not.

    Take the religion and the tradition out of it, and the pointless discrimination is obvious.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 8:22 p.m.

    As I stated in the other thread on this decision, 120 years ago, the majority used their moral sensitivities to infringe upon our rights. In 2008, a majority used their moral sensitivities to infringe upon others' rights. How can we LDS back Prop.8 when we liken unto today that what happened to us 120 years ago?

    Scripture (1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4) denounces using moral sensitivities/religious opinions to infringe upon the rights of others. The Supremes already stated that marriage was a right.

    The ruling is a victory for those who love and follow the scriptures and for those who back the divinely inspired Constitution and for those who remember our history of persecution. It's a victory for those who believe that people belonging to families (and not just roommates) strengthen society and set an example for others to follow.

    It's a victory for those who believe in liberty and justice for all.

    The Pro 8 side offered no testimony and was overwhelmed by the flood of witnesses by the plaintiffs. No wonder the Pro 8 side is desparately trying to keep the trial recordings away from the public. They couldn't even meet the low "rational basis scrutiny" standard. The Court basically said that there was no conceivable reason for 8 to exist. The pro 8 people commenting here likewise have no rebuttal other than one based in religious dogma.

    I sure hope that we learned our lesson and will keep the scriptures, our history and the Constitution in mind and mind our own business.

  • Christy Beaverton, OR
    Feb. 7, 2012 9:02 p.m.

    We're about 5-10 years out of legalized gay marriage in this country.

    Y'all best learn to deal with it.

    The world will continue to turn. Gay people getting to marry the one they love won't affect the rotation one bit.

    Worry about your own lives.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 9:07 p.m.

    Religion divides us like nothing else. It's pretty evident here.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 9:17 p.m.

    So let me get this straight- the citizens of a state can go through the proper legal channels and amend their Constitution and then a federal court can simply repeal that amendment? So much for Federalism and State's rights....
    btw- can I marry my first cousin now? I may just marry all my cousins- seems to me this makes it ok for anyone to marry anyone

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 9:40 p.m.

    Isn't it odd that all the progressives in favor of gay marriage because "everyone deserves equal treatment under the law" also support a progressive income tax? I guess equal protection goes out the window once you reach a certain level of income. Nothing hypocritical about that in this brave new world....

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Feb. 7, 2012 9:52 p.m.

    I'm trying to find the right adjective to describe my feelings about this ruling, but all the adjectives I would use are too strong for this forum.

    Which of my rights has been violated by this ruling? How about the right to amend my state constitution? How about the right to define marriage as I see fit? How about the right to call something evil when I see it as evil?

    How am I personally hurt by same-gender marriage? The personal hurt is the same that comes from allowing anything that has the power to destroy the species, including (but not limited to) incest, rape, and a long list of prohibited acts that are well described in the Torah, as well as the New Testament.

    Is my opposition to same-gender marriage purely religious? No. It's biological, too, but the biology is much less kind than the religion is.

    Will I live to see the horrible effects tolerance of same-gender marriage will have on future generations? Possibly not; but they will occur, and one needn't be a prophet to forsee them.

  • mtmanmc Colorado Springs, CO
    Feb. 7, 2012 9:52 p.m.

    God create a woman from a man's rib. Woman is to be a help mate to a man. I'm a plumber by trade. Terms used in plumbing refer to male and female parts. I've never in the time I've been a plumber been able to mate those pipes and fittings male to male or female to female together. The Bible has shown the history of man. Each time this issue comes to light. It has cause the destruction upon the Earth. This is only repeat history. But this will be the last time and it will be by fire.

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 10:23 p.m.

    Did any of you notice that Judge Smith, who was the lone dissenter in today's Prop 8 ruling, is Mormon? And his response was similar to the LDS "Proclamation on the Family"?

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 10:49 p.m.

    I'm going to go ahead and take the prophets and apostles at their word. I don't believe the proclamation on the the family was just a nice 'spiritual thought' for the consumption of members of the LDS church. This isn't surprising news and so it won't be terribly surprising when the unintended consequences are felt. This is actually a just a re-run of human history: God: "Don't do that."
    Man: "Why?"
    God" "I said so and here is what will happen if you do..."
    Man: "I'll do as I please."

    We are really going to keep touching the hotplate then I guess.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2012 11:14 p.m.

    @Jeff:

    @Will I live to see the horrible effects tolerance of same-gender marriage will have on future generations?"

    No... you can now see it in the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed by God for despicable evil conduct.

    @red state pride:

    "btw - can I marry my first cousin now? I may just marry all my cousins- seems to me this makes it ok for anyone to marry anyone."

    You have a valid point... one that the State Supreme court failed to see. There is no reason now, that anyone can marry anyone they wish in California... such as a father marrying his sub-teen daughter... or all of his daughters, as well as his dog.

    The true is, so-called homosexuals are not discriminated against re marriage. They can marry... just like anyone else so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex... just like anyone else.

    @Christy:

    @The world will continue to turn."

    Yes, but marriage will soon no longer exist... anyone soon will be able to marry anyone they wish... their aunt, sister, cousin, even their pet hen. Or all of them at the same time.

    @lds4gaymarriage:

    "The ruling is a victory for those who love and follow the scriptures..."

    I think you'll find some scriptures where God abhors such conduct.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:06 a.m.

    @RedShirt:

    "Please tell us what part of the constitution was violated."

    Equal protection clause.

    The problem with that approach is... gays can marry just like anyone else can marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. Same with heterosexuals. In actuality, there is no violation of the Equal Protection clause.

    furthermore, some people probably would like to marry a sub teen... which is prohibited by state law. If you think about it, those peoples' equal protection rights are likewise being violated.

    When the US Supreme Court gets through with this issue, marriage will disappear from the American scene altogether.

    @Mom of 2:

    "Nobody is forcing churches to recognize gay marriage..."

    Oh yeah? Just wait til the courts get their hands on that issue. My bet it, they will force religions to comply... just like the current issue on requiring churches to fund abortion contrary to their teachings.

    @bjb:

    "Mostly it just reminds me of how many residents of this state need a lesson on the three branches of government and how they operate."

    Here's a lesson for you... the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is federal law. It says marriage is only between a man and a woman. And, according to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, it takes precedence over conflicting state laws.

  • crunchem Cedar City, Utah
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:40 a.m.

    I hereby declare the word(s) "Civil Union" to mean MORE than marriage. It's even better. I declare that it equals all the rights, honor and beauty of the word "marriage". Even more, in my Civil Unions, there will be no messy pre-nuptials, no divorce lawyers, no split property problems , nothing. Everything will be perfect. Isn't my version of Civil Unions even BETTER than ordinary marriage? What if my idea catches on! Will the LGBT crowd be rushing to get one of these upgraded Civil Unions? Will the word "marriage" then be said disparagingly, something as less than, um, civil? Will married people rush to get one of the better Civil Unions? No? Oh, so maybe it's all about the word "marriage" after all....

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 5:32 a.m.

    To red state pride | 9:17 p.m. Feb. 7, 2012
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    So let me get this straight- the citizens of a state can go through the proper legal channels and amend their Constitution and then a federal court can simply repeal that amendment?
    -------------------
    IF the amendment violates the US Constitution -- in this case the equal protection of the laws provision in the 14th Amendent to the US Constitution -- a federal court (in defense of the US Constitution) can invalidate the amendment to the state constituion. It did in this case.

  • Jared Average, SE
    Feb. 8, 2012 6:14 a.m.

    We all knew the 9th Circuit would make this ruling. Now the next stop is the Supreme Court where, hopefully, marriage will be supported and we can end this push for same sex marriage once and for all. I support civil unions and all sorts of other rights for homosexual individuals; what I do not support is having the definition of marriage changed to something other than between male and female.

    We already make a large enough mockery of marriage as it is with infidelity and high divorce rates. There is no need to further damage the institution by changing something that is key to the foundation of society.

    Let's just hope that those on all sides of the issue will maintain civility in language and actions towards each other.

  • Dennis Harwich, MA
    Feb. 8, 2012 6:16 a.m.

    A lot of tithing money and misplaced donated time just went down the drain.
    Once in a while it's refreshing when they get things right.

  • Born that Way Layton, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 6:57 a.m.

    I just don't see the longterm civil benefit in this issue. The end result of this won't be any more social stability, instead it will result in further gender confusion, apathy towards children and family, and many young people giving up on all matters regarding real praiseworthy social commitment.

    Religious organizations who contribute so much to the stability of our communities continue to be further marginalized, while a small (already privileged) group of hypersexuals continue to make marriage solely about sex, rather than its real benefit to a stable society--that of propagating the human species to the next generation.

    As a result the stalwart few who cling to their beliefs are mocked and scorned, while the narcissitic continue to rob and plunder what might've been strong families of their children, enticing children to experiment in sexual deadends that leave nothing to the next generation and no source for lasting happiness.

    The creation of families that potentially create children should be enshrined in society. It should be nurtured as an ideal, rather than just another career choice, if you don't manage to succeed in business.

    Children are now being fed a toxic diet of politically-correct moral poison that any stray deviant thought is now a hard-caste of how you must act. They put the thought into your mind and then tell you that you were Born that Way.

    Federally mandated thought police continue dismantling of the founding principles of freedom. This bastardization of marriage proves nothing. It does nothing to strengthen families. Nothing to make a better generation. It does nothing to improve honesty or character. It does nothing to enable birth parents or ensure their responsibilities to their offspring.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 7:17 a.m.

    Sodom and Gomorrah here we come!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 7:39 a.m.

    Re: "We're about 5-10 years out of legalized gay marriage in this country. Y'all best learn to deal with it."

    Corrupt, despotic leftist tactics, motivated by the smug, elitist narcissism clearly evident in this and too many other celebratory comments, will be the cause of the fall of a once-great Nation.

    Leftist political tactics ignore the fact that issuance of dogmatic, unsupportable, doctrinaire government mandates, by tiny, collusive, corrupt minorities -- unelected, unaccountable, out-of control covens in the judiciary and executive branches -- will not change long-held and deeply-felt political and religious views. No one's mind was changed, either by this poorly written, counterintuitive 2-1 decision, or by the trial judge's corrupt, self-interested political screed.

    Smug leftist celebrations of this corrupt, short-term victory will only hasten the inevitable majority backlash. They presage the sad, lawless fury that will follow an inevitable Supreme Court reversal and lead to more leftist "occupational" insurrection.

    That won't be good for our Nation.

  • LDSBORN Nashville, TN
    Feb. 8, 2012 8:05 a.m.

    Why You Can't Ban Gay Marriage

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    Now, let me highlight that first section.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    This, ladies and gents, is why you cannot ban gay marriage. As much as many religious sects like to scream and protest, saying that gay marriage is wrong, the truth of the matter is it's only wrong to them because that is what they believe in their church/temple/synagogue. MY religion has no objections to gay marriage. In fact, my belief system has no objection to any marriage that is between two (or more, as long as everyone is in agreement) consenting adult human beings. Marriage is a deeply personal thing. To say that John and George cannot marry because a religion says it's wrong is really not any different than saying women should be stoned for infidelity because that same religion says you should.

    For all the people that insist that gay marriage is just opening the door for things like marrying animals or children, let me point out that we do have some other laws in place already to prevent such things. There are laws against bestiality. There are laws against pedophilia. Again... Nothing against it being between CONSENTING ADULT HUMAN BEINGS.

    Perhaps I should reiterate those last two words. Human Beings. I don't care what a person's color, religious preference, sexual preference, age, or harmless foibles are. None of it makes them any less human. By saying two people cannot marry because you do not approve of their lifestyle (that is no way affecting YOUR lifestyle, I should note), you are attempting to strip them of their humanity. And that, dear friends, is a wrong move.

  • kemitc Nashville, TN
    Feb. 8, 2012 8:25 a.m.

    Marriage as an institution was originally devised as a means of property exchange and alliance between families. These arrangements were made while one or both participants were still children, or between grown men and children.
    A failure to see the institution as having evolved over time is just myopic. Or do you long for the days when you could take the twelve year old daughter of your serf as his tithe to till your lands?
    btw equating procreation with marriage...you do realize people bred before marriage was invented, right? And even today, people reproduce with and without certification by your state or religion...

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 8:34 a.m.

    'Sodom and Gomorrah here we come!' - Cats | 7:17 a.m. Feb. 8, 2012

    Ok. Where is this place?

    Show me.

    On a map.

    Moving on...

    If we are going to use religion to deny legal rights and protections to Amercians then...

    Women are slaves to men
    We can purchase human beings as slaves
    And you can't eat shell fish.

    Ever.

    Mormons have felt the sting of persecution for their religion before:

    Missouri executive order 44, October 27, 1838.

    And now, people want to use the EXACT same reason, to deny gay marriage?

    Nothing, would have changed.

    Also, there is more than ONE religion out there. Some, even support gay maarriage.

    Is their God not 'good enough?'

    As such, we have laws. And laws should not be passed, unless you can prove what you are claiming.

    The factual RESULTS of gay marriage?

    **'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

    This data was collected from the 'National Center for Vital Statistics.'

    So please.

    Stop trying to SCARE people into supporting discrimination by claiming there will be some disaster because of gay marriage.

    There is none.

    Good day.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 8:55 a.m.

    God tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman. Pagan, Furry1993, Phranc, mcbillay, et al, tell us that marriage is a legal union between any two consenting adults.

    Who should I believe? Decisions, decisions.

  • Stephen Kent Ehat Lindon, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:22 a.m.

    "Equality Utah's Balken finds reasons for optimism in the decision. 'One of the things that is beneficial about the court of appeal's statement,' she said, 'is that the Constitution does indeed apply to gay and transgender people in the United States of America.'"

    I note that the words "bisexual," "bi-sexual," and "transgender" are completely absent both from the main opinion of the Court of Appeals and from the concurring and dissenting opinion. (One footnote, number 18 in the main opinion, refers to the word "bisexuals" when quoting a statement about Colorado's law.)

    Those two groups, bi-sexuals and transgendered, therefore, would likely not have had much to look to in this opinion, at least linguistically. The opinion actually does not seem to extend any "right to marry" to "transgender people in the United States of America." Nor does it seem to extend any such right to transgender people in the State of California.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    @Cats | 7:17 a.m. Feb. 8, 2012
    Somewhere In Time, UT
    Sodom and Gomorrah here we come!

    ===========

    Umm, you might want to re-read your Bible.

    Just like every other civilization --
    Sodom and Gomorrah were destoyed due to their Pride, Greed, and complete lack of compassion on the poor & needy [and their wild party weekends].

    Think "WallStreet" and if it helps you.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    "God tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman. Pagan, Furry1993, Phranc, mcbillay, et al, tell us that marriage is a legal union between any two consenting adults.

    Who should I believe? Decisions, decisions."

    The God of the Bible also approved genocide, murders, stoning of your own children, forcing women to marry their rapists, etc etc.

    God says these things were ok (and not just ok, sometimes he COMMANDED them)...my mommy (and common sense) taught me these things are wrong.

    Who should I believe? Decisions, decisions.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    This is a very disturbing ruling. Judge Walker's ruling was based on a biased trial, excluding witnesses for the defence, intimidating the defence, ignoring many of the defenses pleadings, and declaring certain religios views as inherently wrong. Especially the last is very disturbing.

    One thing though, in general the first step is to ask for a decision by the whole 9th Circuit. It will be some time before the case goes to the Supreme Court, and if the 9th Circuit's ruling really makes it only apply to California the Supreme Court may dodge the bullet. However the very fact that the court was willing to overturn the will of the people with no good reason is disturbing.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:34 a.m.

    @Riverton Cougar
    "God tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman. Pagan, Furry1993, Phranc, mcbillay, et al, tell us that marriage is a legal union between any two consenting adults.

    Who should I believe?"

    Trick question because the answer is both. The religious and legal definitions of marriage don't have to be the same thing.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:36 a.m.

    Liberty and justice for ALL. Fair and EQUAL treatment under the law. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights exist to ensure that the rights and freedoms of minority groups are not infringed upon by the majority. It's why blacks and women have the right to vote and are able to own property. Or would all you neocons rather we go back to the 1800's?

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    Those who speak of "allowing gays to marry" miss what this is about. First off, everyone is allowed to marry, they just have to do so within the present rules. I am serious about this. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

    The question here is what exactly marriage is. Currently marriage is the union of a man and a woman this is in the form to create children, and exists primarily to encorage the raising of children by their biological parents. This purpose is the only way that government involvement in marriage can be justified. In fact since homosexual actions can never create children, there is no justification for the state to regulate them at all by giving them the designation of marriage.

    Marriage is primarily a system of regulation justified because on the whole it has positive effects on children. It is not a system for granting fundamental rights to people. Thus limits on marriage that have the effect of making it more likely that children will be born outside of wedlock need some justification. There is none for regulations on marriage between people of different "races" (especially since there is no scientific justification for race) and we have decided that it is too intrusive for the government to place fertility or upper age limits on marriage. However even there it was a public policy decision made by legislative action. THat is the proper place for marriage to be decided, by the people acting either directly or indirectly through the legislature.

    On the other hand, we justify regulations against underage marriage and incestuous marriage because they involve relationships that are unstable and unhealthy. However the issue here is a thing that is not marriage at all. Marriage must be the union of a male and a female. Anything else is not marriage.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:43 a.m.

    This decision will effect all marriages if it stands. Marriage is an institution that gains its benefits from the way it is defined. If you change the limits and parameters of marriage, you change how marriage is experienced and lived.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:59 a.m.

    I believe the timing of this decision is the main reason that Rick Santorum won in all three states that held caucases the same day that it was announced. Santorum was courageous in speaking on this issue when others hoped to keep it quiet. Now that it has come front and center, he is seen to be a man who understands what matters most. He may not disagree substantially on this issue from any of his opponents, but he has the credibility, consistency and workability his opponents lack.

  • deep in thought Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 10:13 a.m.

    It seems like every comment is arguing for gay marriage based on contracts, constitution, equal rights etc.

    To me it comes down to one simple idea. Is there a God? Does God condone gay marriage? Is God (and his prophets) the author of the Bible? Does the Bible condone gay marriage or is it against it?

    Last I checked, the Bible uses pretty strong language against homosexuality. So, those for gay marriage must believe that the God of the Bible is fiction is a phony?

    I am for traditional marriage because I believe in God - I trust his word. I will not try to argue this with a secular twist. I believe that God's intelligence. Either you believe God is real and you believe in the Bible or you don't.

  • gayldsparent Nashville, TN
    Feb. 8, 2012 10:14 a.m.

    @John Pack Lambert of Michigan Currently marriage is the union of a man and a woman this is in the form to create children, and exists primarily to encorage the raising of children by their biological parents. (Well then , your version of Marriage has really gone wrong so very wrong). Men and women have children then one of them leaves and the other is left raising the child as a single parent. Most men and women are having children without marriage. Then you have Kim Kardishian married for 72 days have a big expensive showy marriage televised. Newt running for president asking his wife for open marriage so he can sleep with younger women, 2 divorces 3 marriages. Gays don't make a mockery of marriage, because Heterosexual people already make a mockery of marriage.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    Most eloquent quote from the article (sadly on page 4):

    "The fact that California voters wanted to leave the status quo, and bent over backwards to be fair, was not out of hatred, but just the opposite," said Duncan. "They wanted to give the benefits, but still do justice to the value society places on marriage being between a man and wife and what that brings to children."

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    Feb. 8, 2012 12:32 p.m.

    As some of my compadres have stated the majority of the people of California voted to limit the definition of marriage between man and woman. This now has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts (GO FIGURE). As President Packer so eliquently put it in a General Conference talk, man can make laws that appear to change the Laws of our Heavenly Father. However, as he also spoke, THE PROCLAMATION TO THE WORLD, THE FAMILY is not meant just for members of the Latter-Day Saints but for every living person on the earth. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has taken the stand it is supposed to take regardless of how popular it is. Our Heavenly Father definied marriage and though man may think he can change this definition, it is beyond his realm to do so. What these courts have ruled in fact is that the people of California do not have the right to change their constitution at all. That the courts are the only ones who can. Twice this has come to the people and twice it has passed, Courts do not run the state nor the country. The people do and they have spoken.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 2:12 p.m.

    How few understand what is happening.

    The PEOPLE hold all power, not the Courts, not the President, not Congress.

    The PEOPLE assign to government limited responsibilities and limited authority.

    The PEOPLE write the Constitution, not the Courts nor any other branch of government.

    When the PEOPLE write the Constitution, it becomes the supreme law.

    The STATE of California has the right to determine its own laws except for those that are found to be explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

    The U.S. Constitution has no clause regarding same-sex marriage. It is not a "right" put in the Constitution by the voice of the people. Accordingly, the 10th Amendment directs the States and the People to handle that responsibility.

    The PEOPLE of the State of California changed their State Constitution banning same-sex marriages.

    That point will be understood when the Supreme Court rules.

    Those who have no understanding of the Constitution nor of the limits and restrictions it places on Courts may gloat now, but they won't be gloating long.

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    Feb. 8, 2012 3:46 p.m.

    No one is proposing denying the right of gays to do what they want. They are free to live together and practice their lifestyle. However, they are asking for a change in the definition of the institution of marriage.
    That would be like arguing that my rights are violated if my business can not be defined as a charitable organization.
    The definition of a divinely appointed and time-honored institution is what is in question, not civil liberties.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 8, 2012 4:30 p.m.

    @ raybies: Actually, Prop 8 changed the status quo. Prior to the passage of Prop 8, gays had marriage.

    @ J Thompson: The Federal (US) Constitution is the supreme law of the land. State Constitutions cannot violate it. The Court found that by the California Constitution giving marriage to same-sex couples and then changing the California Constitution to take that pre-existing right away, the California Constitution violated the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution - California did something expressly forbidden by the US Constitution. And the Judges said they couldn't do that. Look at that - the Courts functioned exactly as you said they should.

    @ ksampow: The definition of marriage changed 30 years ago when Hawaii first voted to prohibit same-sex marriage. At that point, it was acknowledged that same-sex relationships were a part of marriage - otherwise, how could you prohibit it? You cannot prohibit something that does not exist. As proof that same-sex marriage does exist and is part of the definition of marriage, just look at the 18,000 same-sex couples in California who are, indeed, married.

  • ludwig GREENVILLE, SC
    Feb. 8, 2012 5:15 p.m.

    First of all---this is NOT a religious issue because among other things Church and States are separate and only the State has the right to issue marriages in a Secular country as the United States. If your church or faith does not believe in same sex marriage ---then it will not have to marry any gay couple as it has the right to refuse to marry any heterosexual couple for whatever reason.

    This issue is about the legal freedom of everyone to choose whom they love et al and the civil and human rights conferred upon couples by the magic word 'marriage' which the words 'civil unions' do not carry and never can carry no matter how you twist it to make it seem so. It about making the ideals of the United States Constitution and wresting the rights it guarantees from the bigoted fascists of this world who think that the world revolves only about them and to hell with everybody else's freedoms and rights.

    No one is going to force anyone to marry a same sex spouse so I fail to understand why the issue has been made a Mount Everest out of a molehill in some quarters. Procreation is not part of this but just incidental to any marriage. Procreation is not a justification for marriage -----people bring children into this world everyday who are not married and never will be married. There are many couples who would like to have their own biological children but cannot and then there are those heterosexuals who marry and do not want the little brats in their lives because raising a child by the demands imposed upon one---takes upon denying oneself the pleasures of life that one

    Yes, gay couples can procreate and if you do not think so then you do not see the forest for the trees and are way behind the advances of reproductive science and genetics that began with Dolly the Sheep and Orchid cloning. These days a mouse may carry human genomes and those same human genomes can be used to create children with two fathers and no mother or two mothers and no father and other permutations thereof.
    Marriage is about two people who love each other to want to spend the rest of their lives together and Same sex marriages are more stable than heterosexual marriages aided also by laws that deny gay people the right to divorce once married. It is a human and civil right of all people without regards to gender, race, religion et al and Relgion is no excuse to deny someone their legal human and civil rights in a secular country.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 5:15 p.m.

    What legal word should we use (since "marriage" looks to be out) to describe a procreative union? Or is that hateful to use a word that non-procreative unions can use?

    Are we really saying that there is no different between a different-sex union and a same-sex union? They have to be called the same thing legally.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 7:21 p.m.

    'Or is that hateful to use a word that non-procreative unions can use?' - John20000 | 5:15 p.m. Feb. 8, 2012

    Grandparents?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 7:39 p.m.

    All of you using God or President Packer or The Proclamation to the Family to justify your position should realize one thing: Your God and your religion is irrelevant to EVERYBODY but you. He/she/it does not matter. He/she/it has no legal standing. He/she/it and his/her/its rules apply ONLY to those who follow him/her/it. Nobody else, NOBODY ELSE, is obligated in any way to follow the dictates or commands or rules of YOUR god(s).

    All of your religious mumbo jumbo means nothing - except to you. All of it has no relevance - except for you.

    If you don't believe in marriage for gay couples, don't have one. It really is that simple.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 8, 2012 9:27 p.m.

    @ John20000: For a long time now we have let non-procreative couples use the term marriage.

    Do you have an issue with infertile couples being married? And what does fertility or infertility have to do with same-sex marriage? And are infertile couples that adopt considered procreative or non-procreative? What about couples that use assistive fertility technologies?

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2012 11:52 p.m.

    @Ranch:

    "If you don't believe in marriage for gay couples, don't have one. It really is that simple."

    I believe in marriage for gay people... provided they follow federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and marry someone of the opposite sex.

    @ludwig:

    "If your church or faith does not believe in same sex marriage ---then it will not have to marry any gay couple as it has the right to refuse to marry any heterosexual couple for whatever reason."

    Are you ever naive! You fail to comprehend the powers that have accrued to the government in the last few dozen years.

    "Yes, gay couples can procreate..."

    I'd like to see two men, married of not, conceive a child. Same with two females.

    "Marriage is about two people who love each other..."

    Why did you stop there with your definition of marriage? Shouldn't you have expanded it to include several people who love each other... such as one man and several women? Or one woman and several men? Or an adult male and a twelve year old girl. Or an adult female and her ten year old son? Why did you stop where you did in describing marriage?

    @Kalindra:

    "The Federal (US) Constitution is the supreme law of the land. State Constitutions cannot violate it."

    And federal law supersedes state law. See the Constitutional 'Supremacy Clause.' So, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) supersedes any state law allowing same sex marriage.

    "You cannot prohibit something that does not exist."

    What!? Governments do this all the time... A simple example: On the highway that I frequent the government took away my right to drive 65 miles per hour. In it's place they put a limit of 55 MPH.

    "As proof that same-sex marriage does exist and is part of the definition of marriage, just look at the 18,000 same-sex couples in California who are, indeed, married."

    Such marriages are illegal because they violate federal DOMA.


    .

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    Why do the prudes always focus on sex?

    1. I didn't marry my wife just to have kids.
    2. I didn't get married just for physical intimacy.

    In fact, 99.99% of my married life has nothing to do with physical intimacy.
    And children were just an added wonderful blessing to that tiny 0.001%.

    The fact is, Marriage is about 2 people who share the same hopes, dreams, goals, and aspirations in life.

    It's about not having to be alone in this world.

    It's about caring more about another person, MORE than you care about yourself.

    It's about lifting up and support someone else, an they in turn do the same for you.

    It's a legally binding contract, a committment, - that come good times or bad - that "We" are in this together. And that neither of us can just "bail" on a whim.

    If all you got married for was the physical intimacy,
    You got married for all the WRONG reasons.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 9:34 a.m.

    wrz

    @lds4gaymarriage:
    "The ruling is a victory for those who love and follow the scriptures..."

    wrz
    I think you'll find some scriptures where God abhors such conduct.

    LDS4
    1 Cor. 10:29 states that using one's morals to justify infringing upon the rights of others is wrong. D&C 134:4 likewise mentions those who let their religious beliefs prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. WE LDS used our morals/doctrine as justification to infringe upon the rights of gays who had the right to marry in CA prior to 8. Sure, God abhors homosexuality, but 8 dis nothing to discourage homosexuality. All 8 was about was to infringe upon others' rights. It was no different than the South reinstalling White/Black drinking fountains based on the vote of the majority.

    wrz
    "Please tell us what part of the constitution was violated."
    @RedShirt:
    Equal protection clause.
    WRZ
    The problem with that approach is... gays can marry just like anyone else can marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.

    LDS4
    And Christians in Saudi Arabia can attend public worship services and scripture reading all they want as long as it is in a mosque studying the Koran...just like everyone else.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 10:04 a.m.

    wrz
    @ludwig:
    "If your church or faith does not believe in same sex marriage ---then it will not have to marry any gay couple as it has the right to refuse to marry any heterosexual couple for whatever reason."
    wrz
    Are you ever naive! You fail to comprehend the powers that have accrued to the government in the last few dozen years.
    LDS4
    If the feds ever try to force churches to marry gays, a constitutional amendment would be passed SO fast. NO one would DARE oppose it. There are FAR FAR more women than gays and yet there has been no attempt to force LDS or Catholics to ordain women. The sky isn't falling.

    wrz
    I'd like to see two men, married of not, conceive a child. Same with two females.
    LDS4
    A couple in my ward can't, even with fertility treatments. It's impossible. Maybe they should have their marriage license revoked under your logic.

    wrz
    And federal law supersedes state law. See the Constitutional 'Supremacy Clause.' So, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) supersedes any state law allowing same sex marriage.
    LDS4
    DOMA does NOT prohibit same-sex marriage. All it does is forbid the feds from recognizing them and gives states the OPTION to recognize same-sex marriages performed in those states that allow them.

  • guitarboy South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 10:32 a.m.

    Interesting that Obama was against gay marriage, now he isn't. But instead of the calling him a flip flopping, the media gives him a pass. They have given Obama credit for asserting that his views on gay marriage are "still evolving," but they will not give Mitt Romney the same amount of credit.

    If you don't think bias in the media helps influence elections, you don't understand very much about our sound-bite society and its lack of scrutiny and willingness to feed its bias by consuming soundbites that taste good to it. Society will be affected by media bias, no matter how inconsistent, misleading and intellectually dishonest it is.

  • guitarboy South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    (continued from above)

    But instead of the calling Obama a flip flopper, the media gives him a pass for "evolving" his position, but they will not give Mitt Romney the same amount of credit for evolving his position on abortion. The won't allow Romney much intellectual acknowledgment for the difference between statewide healthcare laws, and national health care that removes decisions from the states.

    What a wacky world we live in.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 11:18 a.m.

    Many of us object to gay marriage for a very practical and personal reason -- we're comfortable with the Church's current prohibition on plural marriage, and are not anxious to see it re-instituted among the Saints.

    The 1890 Manifesto states as its basis, "Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws."

    When gay marriage is legally sanctioned, we all know polygamy won't be far behind, as no rational basis exists for permitting the one, while prohibiting the other.

    And, when submission to law no longer requires avoiding plural marriage, does the Manifesto's rationale go away? If so, what about our excusal from living that commandment?

    I don't pretend to know the mind of God, and I freely acknowledge that neither He, nor His prophet, need advice from me on how to proceed, but I can't shake the uneasiness that these shifts in traditional morality may have troublesome consequences for us.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 9, 2012 11:42 a.m.

    wrz says:

    @Ranch:

    "If you don't believe in marriage for gay couples, don't have one. It really is that simple."

    I believe in marriage for gay people... provided they follow federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and marry someone of the opposite sex.

    ---

    Tell me. Did you marry your spouse simply because he/she was of the opposite sex or did you choose to marry the person you loved? Would ANY member of the opposite sex have done?

    Isn't it VERY hypocritical to marry the person of your choice and then require someone else to marry someone they don't choose simply because they meet a critierion you find acceptable in that person?

    btw; DOMA violates the Constitution of the United States (Article 4 sections 1 & 2 and Amendment 14).

  • The truth shall set you free Bay Area, CA
    Feb. 9, 2012 1:40 p.m.

    Gary Marriage and its lifestyle is against The Laws of Nature. Forget about rights, definition, equality, etc...we all know the consequences of going against the Laws of Nature. Most of the results are not good and could cost lives. Imagine if all people accepted and practiced gay marriage, we will all be gone in a little over 100 years.

  • wrz Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2012 12:14 p.m.

    @atl134:

    "Dogs can't consent."

    I've seen dogs consent. They wag their tails in wild anticipation.

    If someone feels discriminated against because they can't marry someone of their own sex in accordance with their desires, others can also claim discrimination if they can't marry several people at the same time (called polygamy) or if they can't marry a minor.

    And don't tell us that a minor cannot marry because they can't give consent. Such minority status is a function of law which, like any law, can be reversed... and should be reversed, because it is discriminatory against certain citizens.

    The US Constitution has no proviso that certain people, because of age, should be prohibited from enjoying certain privileges. Furthermore, states cannot place such restrictions either because the Federal Constitution requires equal protection under the law. Equal protection for all people, young, old, etc, etc.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    Feb. 10, 2012 1:20 p.m.

    Many people are citing the Court's reasoning in this travesty of a decision saying that one reason California violated the US Constitution is because it took away a right already granted to Californians (ie, the "right" to marry someone of the same gender).

    That so-called right was never granted by California. In fact, it was prohibited in California. When the California Supreme Court ruled against Prop 22, the COURT allowed same-gender marriages to occur, even though Prop 8 was already in the docket for the November election (anticipating the ruling by the Court). The Court was asked to grant a stay prohibiting such marriages until Prop 8 could be voted on, but the Court refused and ordered counties and municipalities in California to allow same-gender couples to marry.

    This was never a right granted by the people of the State of California. It had clearly been forbidden by statute with Prop 22, and the passage of Prop 8 was more than likely. It is circular reasoning at its worst for the Court of Appeals to say that we Californians took away a right we had granted. WE did not grant it.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 10, 2012 2:32 p.m.

    @ wrz: ""You cannot prohibit something that does not exist."

    What!? Governments do this all the time... A simple example: On the highway that I frequent the government took away my right to drive 65 miles per hour. In it's place they put a limit of 55 MPH."

    What was prohibited that doesn't exist? Cars exist, freeways exist, the ability to go faster than 55 MPH exists. What was prohibited that doesn't exist?

    ""As proof that same-sex marriage does exist and is part of the definition of marriage, just look at the 18,000 same-sex couples in California who are, indeed, married."

    Such marriages are illegal because they violate federal DOMA."

    You need to go read DOMA. There is not a single word about same-sex marriages not being allowed or not being legal - all DOMA says is the Federal Government gets to violate Full Faith and Credit and the 10th Amendment and not recognize them, and other states get to violate Full Faith and Credit and the 14th Amendment and not recognize them.

    @ Jeff: If rights were something given by the people, that would mean they could be taken away by the people. Since rights are not given by one person to another person but are something that are inherent as part of being a person, they cannot be given by someone to someone else, nor can they be taken away by someone else - or a group of someone else's for that matter. The Courts in California did not grant the right to same-sex marriage, that right already existed in the California State Constitution.

    Prop 8 was still gathering signatures when the Court found that same-sex marriage was a right granted under the California Constitution. Are you really arguing that Courts should limit the rights of citizens because there may at some point in the future be a vote to strip those rights away? You really want to give the Courts that much power?

    @ wrz: You are right - the inability of children to consent is a social construct - based upon the very real, tested, and proven differences in maturity and reasoning abilities that exist between people of various ages. In other words, there is a very valid social reason to limit the ability of children to consent.

    A dog wags his tail for many reasons. The fact that he or she responds with a tail wag to a certain tone of voice in no way indicates consent or agreement with the contents of the words. This has been proven in studies where a negative phrase is said in a positive tone and a positive phrase is said in a negative tone.

    The arguments you so cleverly try to assert have been proven fallacious over and over and over again. There is a reason none of them were used by the defenders of Prop 8.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Feb. 11, 2012 6:53 p.m.

    Jeff says:

    Many people are citing the Court's reasoning in this travesty of a decision saying that one reason California violated the US Constitution is because it took away a right already granted to Californians (ie, the "right" to marry someone of the same gender).

    That so-called right was never granted by California. In fact, it was prohibited in California. When the California Supreme Court ruled against Prop 22, the COURT allowed same-gender marriages to occur, even though Prop 8 was already in the docket for the November election (anticipating the ruling by the Court). The Court was asked to grant a stay prohibiting such marriages until Prop 8 could be voted on, but the Court refused and ordered counties and municipalities in California to allow same-gender couples to marry.

    ---

    Jeff; You are incorrect again. You see, there was NO LAW prohibiting same-sex marriage in California until Prop-22 - at which point the California Supreme Court ruled that prop-22 violated the California Constitution's equal protection clause. Same-sex couples had exactly the SAME RIGHT to marry in CA prior to Prop-22 BEFORE bigots added wording to the CA Consitution prohibiting it. (note: heterosexual marriage was NOT in the Ca. Constitution either). It is NOT NECESSARY for a right to be granted to some Americans if it is already a right of American Citizens. WE DO NOT NEED YOUR PERMISSION - THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS EQUAL PROTECTION TO US.