Quantcast
U.S. & World

Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah

Comments

Return To Article
  • Jason Williams Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    Had the U.S. Supreme Court not "dodged" the same-sex marriage equality issue with regard to Proposition 8 in California, the confusion that exists today would not exist. The Justices need to "step up" and rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in a decision that will apply not only to Utah - but to all 50 states. All the justices have to do is apply the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in ruling that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as do opposite-sex couples. It should be an easy case to decide.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    This is sad news for those LGBT couples who want to get married but cannot because of government restrictions. They must now either be patient and wait for the 10th CoA ruling, or go to another state with more freedom and less government intrusion.

  • bradleyc Layton, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    Thank you for the stay.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    I must say I am surprised but pleased that the Supremes did the right thing. Shelby should have immediately placed a stay while the decision was appealed. The fact that he didn't shows his activist bias. ANY good judge would have put the stay on and have allowed the judicial process to work.

    If the voice of the people has any power left in this country, this thing will be overturned.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    They'll examine the case and uphold the lower court's ruling. This is a bell you can't unring.

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    Good move. The people of Utah should not have to put up with a fundamental change to one of their foundational institutions because it had become fait accompli after the tyrannical and narcissistic ruling of an unelected federal judge ho did not understand the difference between not allowing somebody to play the game and not changing the basic rules to suit their fancy.

    There is a Constitutional right to marry but that is real marriage. Same-sex "marriage" is a recent parody of the real thing. There is no right to make basic changes to an ancient and central institution like marriage without the consent of the people. Judge Shelby was making a policy decision not a legal one!

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    Utah made $50,000 in just 4 days when it allowed gay marriage.

    Now, utah will spend $2 million dollars to fight it.

    When conservatives raise the 'false flag' of complaining about national debt?

    I am going to remind them, of Utah.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    Cats:

    The Attorney General's office was the one that was supposed to apply for the stay. Why should have Shelby done their job for them?

  • NT SomewhereIn, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    Shouldn't have had to come to this - but at least the process is working.

    I fear the day when the courts are so stacked that the process will not work as it was intended to.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

    What is certain, though, is that no matter what we humans try to legislate, God's laws are immutable and eternal: the family is central to His plan, marriage is not a social or a constitutionally defined relationship - it is sacred, it is between a man and a woman.

  • sunshiner st.george, ut
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:06 a.m.

    "Man law's cannot make moral what God has declared immoral." DH Oaks

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    Can't wait to read the various "legal briefs" from all the armchair lawyers here on DN. I had no idea there were such great legal minds in Utah until the gay marriage issue presented itself!

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:06 a.m.

    This has more to due with ego and grand standing than judicial rulings.

    The SCOTUS feels someone has stolen their limelight.
    They simply want to make the final ruling and go down in the history books as the one's who made it happen.

  • Visitor from California Berkeley, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    Hopefully a temporary setback. Utahns, look again at the joy on the faces of the same-sex couples married so far, and on the faces of their children and family members! Real human beings are involved here, and their getting to enjoy their rights doesn't take away your rights. Here's to justice and equality for all!

  • Abbygirl East Carbon, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    Hallelujah!

  • sunshiner st.george, ut
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    Some things are worth fighting AGAINST. Same sex marriage is one of them.

  • Normal Guy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    Thank you SCOTUS. One biased judge should not overrule millions if biased Utahns. This deserves further review. I read Judge Shelby's 53-page ruling and determined it is that length because there is no substance, so he instead went with quantity. There was nothing in there that hasn't been endlessly debated in these comment boards. Due Process and Equal Protection as required by the 14th amendment is very unclear when applied to the definition of marriage. In such cases, the will of the people rules..

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    'Same-sex "marriage" is a recent parody of the real thing. '

    Tell it to Utah before 1890. When Utah allowed Polygamy marriages.

    Not much monogamy when your marriage is between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman…

    is there?

    The double standard to claim to want 'traditional' marriages from persons who's grandparents might have factually been part of a very UN-traditional marriage in Polygamy is truly shameful.

    Now, let's talk about the case.

    'Shelby should have immediately placed a stay while the decision was appealed.'

    The state did not request a stay until AFTER the ruling. Not before. If this was truly a 'critical' issue for Utah instead of the 1.3 million cut of food stamps, action should have been taken by the state.

    How has the record action gone, on this?

    *'Judge Rules Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) Is Unconstitutional..' - ABC News - By Jake Tapper - 01/08/10

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

    *'Judge STRIKES DOWN Utah's same-sex marriage ban as UNCONSTITUTIONAL' – By Fox News – 12/21/13

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    Great news!

    Wonderful day!

  • Ryfren Coralville , IA
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    "Wha'eva, wha'eva, I do what I want....!" Not a real age of leadership, this era we're living in, is it?! Oh, to be a Federal Supreme Court Justice, living the life of Riley on our hard-earned tax dollars, and not having to give any reason for my rulings!

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    Uncle Rico,

    No court ruling can make you a bigot. You have to do that all on your own.

    This is hopefully a temporary setback in the struggle for marriage equality.

  • Utah_1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    (ORDER LIST: 571 U.S.)
    MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2014
    ORDER IN PENDING CASE 13A687 HERBERT, GOV. OF UT, ET AL. V. KITCHEN, DEREK, ET AL.
    The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is granted. The permanent injunction issued by the United States District Court for the
    District of Utah, case No. 2:13-cv-217, on December 20, 2013, is stayed pending final disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    Awesome! States have the right to govern without the federal govt. intervening. It's not a right to have homosexual sex as a man and declare under the constitution that you are now a women and I titled to the same benefits that are reserved for real women.....this is known as the gays water down women....gays war on women!

  • @Charles not from utah, 00
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    Awesome news!!! Great to see some sanity to the ridiculousness that 1 judge can invalidate the decision by the citizens of a state with the swipe of a pen.

    Homosexuality never was, nor will it ever be marriage.

    I challenge any LDS member to detail how homosexuality is congruent with the plan of salvation and is doctrinally sound.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    'Great News. I expect now to see negative posts from a very well designed campaign from the gay community around the world telling Utahns that we are bigots etc.'

    So has anyone actually CALLED you a bigot…?

    No?

    Why is that?

    Because people in this state are showing their Hate.

    Gay marriage factually did nothing to bring any harm to any citizens, but we are hearing all kinds of false quotes from God today, aren't we?

    Nothing like threatening people with burning in a lake of fire for eternity to show how much you are 'not' against them, right?

    Theocracy aside, LGBT are first and foremost, human beings.

    Vilifying them by claiming you are 'oppressed' when no factual example is present? Is a false flag.

    What did Jesus say about False Witness?

    Straight couples in Utah have access to the 1,100+ rights and legal protections of marriage.

    LGBT Americans, do not.

    If your God teaches you to lie, and treat people differently and promote discrimination.

    It is a bad one.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    Conservatives want the government/courts off their backs and out of their business...

    Unless, of course, their business is other peoples business.

  • Duckhunter SLC, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    Actually sotomeyer is one of the more liberal judges on the scotus and this indicates where the court itself probably falls on the issue. Not that the libs on the court are not in favor of gay marriages but that they realize it is a perogative of the individual states and not something the judiciary has the right to "legislate" on an unwilling populace. Occasionally they get things right despite their own bias.

    This is a slap down of judge shelby and he is no doubt humiliated by it. Kinda funny.

  • dave Park City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    Uncle Rico,

    Nice when the oppressor plays the martyr card.

    Let the courts decide without all of the hype and emotion.

  • JonathanPDX Portland, Oregon
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    @Charlemagne - There are two kinds of marriage: secular and religious. Due to the U.S. Constitution's freedom of religion imperative, while the state may not impose its power over religious marriage, it may impose its power over secular marriages. Just as the state should keep its nose out of religion unions and the free exercise thereof, religion should do likewise and keep its nose out of secular unions.
    The secular freedom of two individuals to marry (regardless of gender) does not weaken the status of any religious freedom nor any marriage performed under such auspices except in the small minds of people unwilling to allow others to exercise their free will to decide for themselves with whom they want to share a life.
    While I believe in the sanctity of Temple Marriage, I also understand that each person must be afforded the same freedom of choice within their own lives. It is not the right of the Church or its members to impose their beliefs on other persons...something the Church has found itself fighting against from opponents since its restoration.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    SCOTUS made a wise decision. Judge
    Shelby was ruling from the bench.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    >>The Attorney General's office was the one that was supposed to apply for the stay. Why should have Shelby done their job for them?

    The AG's office did apply for the stay. Shelby rejected it. So they appealed. The fact that SCOTUS overturned Shelby and imposed the stay makes him look bad. No judge ever wants to be overturned by the Supreme Court, even on a procedural matter.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    The interesting thing about this is that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has stated they don't think the State of Utah will win the appeal.

    I wonder if the new AG will remember to request a stay?

    @ Cats: Any "good" lawyer (heck any first year law student at even the most pathetic law school) would know to request a stay and would know that Judges cannot rule on motions that are not before them. You want to see judicial activism and overreach? Start demanding judges do whatever they want instead of being restricted by the motions before them.

    The voice of the people has never had the power to take away the rights of the minority.

  • LibertyInLaw Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    Jason:

    Yes, it would have been helpful if SCOTUS had not dodged the issues behind Prop 8, but applying "equal protection" as articulated in the 14th amendment is not as straightforward as you suggest. That amendment was adopted to address civil rights such as voting for recently freed slaves. Marriage is not a civil right like voting. (At least I have not seen the SSM folks make any compelling argument for this position.) And those in same-sex relationships are not slaves. Marriage is about much more than the affection of two people-it is the foundational institution of our society and we need to be very thoughtful about such radical efforts to change its makeup.

  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    @ Pagan

    Nice try with trying to compare Polygamy and Homosexuality. Any third grader could tell you a natural vs unnatural act.
    Its "Reasoning" like this where you can yell all you want, and it still doesn't make sense.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    I hope Shelby recognizes his mistake in not issuing the stay immediately.

    He should be removed from office.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    This is just one more reason why I will never, ever walk into an LDS church ever again.

  • DrewC Fort Wayne, IN
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:29 a.m.

    How the US Government is attacking the Family. Definitions below from US Census dot gov.

    1)A married couple, as defined for census purposes, is a husband and wife enumerated as members of the same household. The married couple may or may not have children living with them. The expression "husband-wife" or "married-couple" before the term "household," "family," or "subfamily" indicates that the household, family, or subfamily is maintained by a husband and wife. The number of married couples equals the count of married-couple families plus related and unrelated married-couple subfamilies.

    2)A family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family.

    3)A household consists of all the people who occupy a housing unit. There are two major categories of households, "family" and "nonfamily".

  • Ruthey01 Bremerton, WA
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:29 a.m.

    Loved the quote from sunshiner! I am happy about this ruling also. God created man and woman - not man and man or woman and woman. They were also told to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Two men or 2 women can't do that without science stepping in to help.

  • Jeff in NC CASTLE HAYNE, NC
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    It's interesting to see that everyone calling Shelby an "activist" judge also says something in their post that indicates their religion is the reason they would use to uphold the law to ban gay marriage. A judge who cites religion as the reason to uphold a law...now THERE is an activist judge. In this case, all the state of Utah has to do is to give a reasonable basis (not religious principles) for why the law is needed, and it wins. Shelby said there was no reasonable basis, and I still haven't heard one yet either.

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    Visitor from California-

    You want equality for all? Does this mean you are also suggesting equal tax rates for everyone -- from the super poor to the super rich?

    Since the Obamacare individual mandate is a "tax" as well, are you suggesting everyone should be equal and pay the same monthly insurance premiums -- whether poor/rich, smokers/non-smokers, healthy/unhealthy and so on?

    Setting aside the "equality" argument, so-called same-sex marriage is a moral issue. It's unfortunate it has been twisted to become a civil issue in our day.

  • Jleydsman utah, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    IT is the basic difference between natural law and unnatural law. Marriage between a man and a woman, as defined in the scriptures, is natural. Anything else is unnatural!

  • Hoosier87 American Fork, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    YES!!!

    Could not be happier with this decision.

    Unfortunately though, I think it's only a matter of time before Gay Marriage sweeps the entire country. In fact, with the recent court rulings, I think it's only a matter of time before Gay Polygamy marriage sweeps the country too.

    In trying to explain this gay marriage issue to my children, I had to tell them that our objection to gay marriage is based on God's Word (scriptures, prophets). And when speaking to someone who supports gay marriage, my argument simple falls on deaf ears - because the homosexual community does not even understand that argument. their logic is based solely on "man's rights". God has no place in their decision making.

    Because if He was part of their decision making, and they were truly honest with themselves and others, they would admit that homosexuality is a sin. So you can't argue God's law with someone that only believes in "Man's rights".

    And for that reason, gay marriage is destined to sweep this country...

  • Adalaide OREM, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    No matter what you personally think is right or wrong, or what your moral stance, it is not fair or right to use a state constitution to deny another human being a basic right that everyone else enjoys. So you think marriage is sacred? Do you have a problem with atheists getting married? You should. So you think marriage is about the children? Do you have a problem with divorcees who are parents? People who can't conceive? Widows who are parents?

    Marriage is supposed to be a personal choice to share a life together. It should be about love. How narrow the view to think that your world will be turned upside down because more people get to share their lives in love. How horrible that must be to live like that.

    So many went on with their lives over Christmas as if nothing had changed for them. Because nothing did! If you aren't gay this doesn't change anything for you. Let it go. Let other people be happy. Let them marry.

    And for the record, I am otherwise conservative member of the LDS faith.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    It is common for the trial judge to issue a stay in cases where it is apparent that an appeal is going to be made and where the ruling is "new ground" with little precedent. You can't ask for a stay until after a ruling - since you wouldn't know what needs to be stayed. The process is functioning the way that it always does. A stay doesn't mean that there is a leaning on one side of the other as far as the merits go. Shelby's ruling was threadbare on precedent - ignoring the rule of "stare decisis" ordinarily required of judges in making rulings. We will all stand by and see how it all turns out.

  • sjames AMERICAN FORK, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    @Jason Williams

    You make a decent argument, except for the CRUCIAL fact that California (and most other states) voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman. If you truly value our constitutional freedoms and rights, then you will agree that the voice of people is to govern. I'm all about equal rights for all. I think that same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into binding civil unions that offer the EXACT same rights as marriage. The problem is that now 5 judges can completely overrule what the people voted for. That is wrong on any level. Bottom line, the govt (state or fed) should have no business of being involved in marriage period. If they can completely diminish the voice of the people because they disagree, then we no longer live in a republic, but an aristocracy.

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:36 a.m.

    Once the legal process plays out right-minded americans can only hope that equality triumphs over the bias of the religious majority . . . at least the religious majority in Utah. Most members of the Church stand steadfast with the leadership and their statement that "what God has said is immoral cannot be made moral by man's law". The problem with that statement is "who said GOD is against marriage equality?" If you believe God's word is handed down from the pulpit at general conference, then what's to argue? However, this country is not bound by the pronouncements of the brethern in Salt Lake City. It is not immoral for gays to seek love and companionship in this life . . . and marriage is what is recognized by the US government as an expression of that commitment. Once gays achieve marriage equality, the Church will likely continue to oppose these unions, but life will go on. And for the better.

  • DrewC Fort Wayne, IN
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    Historical attack on the definition of Family, originally husband and wife, (see legal-dictionary and Family+Law).

    Historical Background. Most of the changes made in family law in the late twentieth century have been based on overturning concepts of marriage, family, and gender that go back to European Feudalism, canon (church) law, and custom. During Anglo-Saxon times in England, marriage and divorce were private matters. Following the Norman conquest in 1066, however, the legal status of a married woman was fixed by Common Law, and Canon Law prescribed various rights and duties. The result was that the identity of the wife was merged into that of the husband; he was a legal person but she was not. Upon marriage, the husband received all the wife's Personal Property and managed all the property owned by her. In return, the husband was obliged to support the wife and their children.

    This legal definition of marriage continued in the United States until the middle of the nineteenth century, when states enacted married women's property acts.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    As a supporter of equality, I will admit to some disappointment, but can't say it was a surprise. To reject the state's application for a stay would have projected bias by the Court in a case they will ultimately decide.

    But, let's look on the bright side. This temporary stay may give LDS Utahns a chance to calm down. You could smell the panic-sweat all the way from New York. Perhaps now there will be a chance to lower the adrenaline level and have an intelligent conversation. I don't hold out much hope that the Church hierarchy will moderate their hard-line stance in the next several weeks, but perhaps some rational thought and discussion will take place in the media.

    Meeting some committed gay and lesbian couples was all it took for me to see that allowing them to marry was only just and right, and that there wasn't anything to be afraid of. I hope Utahns get that same opportunity.

  • heavyhitter Lehi, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:43 a.m.

    This makes my day!

  • BYU_Convert Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    Now, if only the South can have its legal right to enforce slavery again. I mean, the majority of its citizens voted to legalize slavery but the North insisted on invading the South and denying the citizens there their right to majority rule. I suppose the rights of black people meant more. Of course, Christian and Mormon heretics in Utah will continue to shove their religion down the throats of the minority in the state, and that's a dang shame. No wonder the Church struggles to get new converts from the state of Utah. Utah religious extremists are a poor example of God's love to those who have WAY different religious and political views than they. I feel bad for Utah residents who live such sheltered lifestyles because they never figure out how the real world works, just what's important in their small little worlds.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    @Duckhunter
    "Actually sotomeyer is one of the more liberal judges on the scotus and this indicates where the court itself probably falls on the issue. "

    Nope. How'd that stay on Prop 8 turn out for your side? It's pretty common for them to be issued (that's part of what made your side so annoyed it wasn't granted).

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    Don't get too excited, opponents of equality. This is just dotting i's and crossing t's. This way, another full appeals court (in addition to the 9th) is likely to get behind equal marriage, adding to the momentum.

    When enough circuit courts have chimed in, and I believe they will chime in on the side of equal marriage, it will make it virtually impossible for the SCOTUS to finally decide for any other option but full equal marriage rights. It's slow and laborious, but this way no one can (legally) claim in the aftermath that steps were skipped, rights were trampled, etc. Sotomayor is playing it smart.

  • Jefferson, Thomas Bluffdale, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:45 a.m.

    It becomes mandatory for the Governor to stand up for a change and void the same-sex marriages that were rammed through by a single Federal judge. He has the US Supremes on his side without a single dissenting vote. Those marriages, according to the Supremes, should never have taken place like the were. He most likely doesn't have the backbone to do it but it sure would be nice to see a politician with that kind of backbone.

  • DrewC Fort Wayne, IN
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    From US Census dot gov. Unmarried couple or married couple is between a husband and a wife.

    Definition of Unmarried couple: An unmarried couple is composed of two unrelated adults of the opposite sex (one of whom is the householder) who share a housing unit with or without the presence of children under 15 years old. Unmarried couple households contain only two adults.

    Definition of Married couple: A married couple, as defined for census purposes, is a husband and wife enumerated as members of the same household. The married couple may or may not have children living with them. The expression "husband-wife" or "married-couple" before the term "household," "family," or "subfamily" indicates that the household, family, or subfamily is maintained by a husband and wife. The number of married couples equals the count of married-couple families plus related and unrelated married-couple subfamilies.

  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    Only a matter of time.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    The court should recognize that this is a biological issue. The purpose for sex is reproduction: 1) to unite the sperm and egg; and 2) to help the zygote to develop into a mature individual. In the human species permanent heterosexual pair bonds have evolved because it takes such a long time to train humans into mature, responsible, productive adults. Humans who grow up in a home where there is a strong heterosexual pair bond are more likely to mature into well-adjusted adults than if the heterosexual pair bond is damaged, corrupted or missing. In the past this heterosexual pair-bonding has been called marriage. Changing the definition of marriage will not change the biological reality of the need for strong, heterosexual pair bonds if we want well-adjusted children and a strong, healthy society. If we legalize homosexual marriages or unions, the biggest victims will be more children raised in dysfunctional environments resulting in more crime, school dropouts, poverty, social unrest, disease and misery. We already have enough social problems so whatever our personal desires may be, the responsible thing to do is to maturely and unselfishly behave in a way that will not undermine our society.

  • BeSmart Cheyenne, WY
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    @ Father of Four
    So I assume you will never read the bible again? Homosexuality is condemned in that text.
    Now I do not condone the homosexual lifestyle, but the question lies does the constitution ban the right of same-sex marriage? That I don't know and it is up to the courts. If they rule that according to the Bill of Rights that same sex marriage is valid, then we have to live with it.
    If it is not an unalienable right then it won't be allowed. If it is not then the voting citizens of any state should be able to decide what the people of the state want.
    Father of Four it is hilarious you blame this on the LDS population, California voted against gay marriage and they are not LDS dominated.
    That is similar to saying I am never going watch or attend an NBA game of any sort because the Millers own the jazz. It show incognizant knowledge.
    The judge should have stayed his ruling pending appeal, it is incredibly rare that judges do not stay a ruling such as this. That in my opinion was grossly negligent on the judges part.

  • orem_man_am_i orem, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    I find it interesting that one of our local radio talk show hosts is using Facebook poll as "the tide has changed" in Utah. How scientific....

    I also find it interesting all of the "pro" gay marriage folks crying about the $2 MILLION DOLLARS WASTED! Oh the humanity. Really, two million is peanuts in terms of our State budget.

    As a member of the predominant faith I support The Proclamation on the Family which concludes with - "WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

    I invite all of my Mormon friends to re-read the Proclamation and re-think what side of this argument they are really standing on.

  • nellie83 Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    As with any state, not just Utah how marriage is defined in each state is up to the state and its residents. If a state and its residents vote to keep a law traditional marriage between a man and woman the courts should not overturn it. Likewise if a state and its residents vote for a law to allow same sex marriage it shouldn't be a decision even brought to the Federal Government or appellate courts. If a state truly defines what a marriage should be, then the California law should have not been overturned nor should the Utah law. IF marriages in a state were a Federal decision then all 50 states would be told to allow same sex marriage. As far as the commenter who posted about the non traditional marriage law of polygamy before 1890, that was then, this is now. 124 years ago, really? There were a lot of unconventional laws on the books in all states back then. Things and times change. In my opinion though, the marriage that really counts in the eyes of God is the sealing in the temple.

  • DHuber Palmyra, NY
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    Marriage is not a human right. The government regulates and prohibits all sorts of marriages. It does this as an expression of the will of the people. Government regulates underage marriages,close relatives, and multiple spouse marriages. Why does the law regulate marriage between people? Because it would not be good for them. And when enough people do things not good for them then it begins to affect everyone. No state has voted for same sex marriage. It has been enacted by single persons. Judges, county clerks, Governors, or city government. It is ALWAYS permitted against the will of the people. If you call an apple an orange it will still be an apple no matter what is permitted by law.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    Finally we can get this heard properly, put all the noise about procedure behind us, and get the ban overturned properly so we can move forward, ideally in all states, with same sex marriage. 900 couples got married here in the freedom window, however, and I think that's fantastic. They're not going away.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    VOICE OF THE PEOPLE!

  • byufootballrocks Herndon, VA
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
    And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly.
    And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind." (Romans 1: 26-28)

    "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

    There it is. We only fight against the truth at our peril, and if there is a quarrel, it is between those who choose to live in this way and God.

    In the meantime, citizens have every right to protect the sanctity of the marriage covenant in society, which is a holy and sacred covenant, without being ridiculed and branded as homophobic.

  • Duckhunter SLC, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    @kalindra

    Do you really think that pretending inconvenient facts don't exist makes them really not exist?

    Here is your quote.

    "I wonder if the new AG will remember to request a stay?

    @ Cats: Any "good" lawyer (heck any first year law student at even the most pathetic law school) would know to request a stay and would know that Judges cannot rule on motions that are not before them."

    The state of Utah DID request a stay and judge shelby rejected it. No one "forgot" to do it. A stay cannot be requested until a ruling is made, once judge shleby made his ridiculous decision the state requested a stay at which time judge shleby made another ridiculous decision and denied that stay. The state then appealed to the scotus and one of the most liberal justices on the court embarrassed and humiliated judge shleby by issuing a stay and completely rebuking him.

    Any "first year law student" would actually know that a stay was requested by the state and was rejected by the judge that was later slapped down by the scotus.

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    The issue is whether a state has its own right to decide its own marriage laws. The 10th Amendment says certain powers are delegated to the States and certain powers and delegated to the Federal Government. Amendment 3 is a State Law not a Federal Law. I got my marriage license for my marriage to another women from my County who is under the jurisdiction of my State. After watching a video from a same sex activist who said that gay marriage is not the real agenda I am convinced that it is not about same-sex marriage, it is about eventually destroying traditional marriage and accepting ideas contrary to what the creator of this universe intended.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    This is what equality looks like. Hang on for the ride.

  • Tuffy Parker Salem, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    Shelby was wrong not to issue a stay along with his ruling and thereby became and an activist judge. his hands have now been duly slapped by Justice Sotomayor.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    Cheer while you can. The 10th circuit court will uphold Justice Shelby's ruling.

    This is nothing more than a temporary setback.

  • non believer PARK CITY, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    It is very obvious who reads the Deseret News and it is not a diverse group!

  • Duckhunter SLC, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    @schnee

    Uh....the scotus never made a ruling on prop 8, it simply issued a stay and sent it back to the federal courts. it basically punted. But we are getting to the point where the scotus is going to have a hard time continuing to "punt" and they are going to have to take it up and make a decision. But they would not issue a stay if the states argument had no merit. The fact they have issued a stay, despite judge shelby refusing to do so, shows they have already rebuked him on one of his rulings and shows they do not think his ruling is altogether correct, or at least he has not proven his point and it needs further vetting by the court as a whole.

    I understand how frantic this makes people like you but it will play itself out over time. I personally think the ultimate decision will allow individual states to decide if they want to allow gay marriages or not rather than the scotus decreeing it as an absolute.

  • Unclefred Ticonderoga, NY
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:21 a.m.

    Regardless of the various issues stated in the story, and in these comments, the real issue is: Can any legal entity define what marriage is? In my opinion, either marriage is between a man and a woman, or it's undefinable. If it's undefinable, Dad can marry son, or the neighbors goat or whatever. Every argument I've ever heard for same sex marriage applies as well to any arrangement of consenting adults, and adult age is defined by the state. If you want to live together, great, do it, no one is stopping you... If you want to use the mens bathroom, be a man, if you want to use the ladies room, be a woman, if you want to get married, be a man and a woman, any other arrangement destroys the institution. Because I say so? No, because if it's undefinable, it will wither away, if you just plain don't care, go for it, but I do care, and I will stand up for marriage...

  • Jeff in NC CASTLE HAYNE, NC
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    @JSB: "If we legalize homosexual marriages or unions, the biggest victims will be more children raised in dysfunctional environments resulting in more crime, school dropouts, poverty, social unrest, disease and misery." Wow...just wow. Please share your sources. Or if this is just you shooting from the hip reflecting your personal/subjective belief, then you are the perfect example of why a judge would strike down a law for which people like you voted that unreasonably hurts a discriminated-against minority.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    The comments here are proof that religious belief is the root of all evil.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    To all those saying that that same gender marriage won't harm traditional marriage go back to yesterday's article written by the Ericksons and look up with reference to a gay right activist who said that gay rights activists are lying when they say that traditional marriage won't be affected.

    Explain, how that statement is wrong. That is the evidence that many people are using to oppose same sex marriage. If you simply make ad hominem statements that traditional marriage won't be harmed without responding to this statement, it makes people wonder if you are talking from some set of PC dogma that is the official way of thinking for which it is forbidden to question.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:29 a.m.

    @Jeff in NC:
    "If we legalize homosexual marriages or unions, the biggest victims will be more children raised in dysfunctional environments resulting in more crime, school dropouts, poverty, social unrest, disease and misery." Wow...just wow. Please share your sources. "

    Google the social science study done by Mark Regnerus.

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    The pre-trial ruling was not binding, and the Supreme Court saw it as way over what the judge in California did. Anyone on either side needs to see this for what it is - a rejection of judicial activism, which either side should decry.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    @Charles
    not from utah, 00

    I challenge any LDS member to detail how homosexuality is congruent with the plan of salvation and is doctrinally sound.

    9:17 a.m. Jan. 6, 2014

    =========

    Free Agency
    Freedom of Choice
    Jesus's plan...

    Moses 3: 17
    "...nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee."

    Lucifer's plan was to take away freedom of choice,
    and force everyone to only choose the right.

    Right or Wrong,
    No matter how noble the cause,
    I fought against that plan then,
    I fight against that plan now.

    We are to show a better way [by example],
    and ask others to join us to follow.

    THAT is the plan of salvation and is doctrinally sound.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:37 a.m.

    Unfortunately Utah does appear to be a bigoted, hypocritical and mean spirited state not helped by all the self-righteous citizens patting themselves on the back for upholding what they think are "God's Laws". The Federal government has a long history of trying to regulate marriage in the State of Utah. Apparently man's law can make men behave morally even when they think God has given them other directions.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    @morganh
    Orem, Utah
    The issue is whether a state has its own right to decide its own marriage laws. The 10th Amendment says certain powers are delegated to the States and certain powers and delegated to the Federal Government. Amendment 3 is a State Law not a Federal Law. I got my marriage license for my marriage to another women from my County who is under the jurisdiction of my State.

    10:04 a.m. Jan. 6, 2014

    ===========

    Better not move then,
    because using your flawed logic,
    your marriage can not then be recognized in another county, another State OR another Country.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    >>Nope. How'd that stay on Prop 8 turn out for your side?

    Prop 8 doesn't prove your assertion that SCOTUS will uphold Judge Shelby.

    SCOTUS struck down Prop 8 not on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, but on the grounds that no third-party had standing to defend it in court after California declined to do so. By doing so, SCOTUS went out of its way in Hollingsworth v Perry to avoid imposing a federal definition of marriage on the states when it could easily have done so.

    But Utah, unlike California, is defending its constitution; and Judge Shelby's legal reasoning in overturning Utah's constitutional ban leaves SCOTUS only two options. SCOTUS will either have to overturn Shelby or go even further than it did in Hollingsworth v Perry and impose its own definition of marriage on the states.

    It could, but its refusal to do so in Hollingswort v Perry creates doubt as to whether it will.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    In the meantime, hundreds of LGBT citizens continue married.

    Whose marriage was demeaned because a loving bride married another or a groom became another man's husband?

    Whose children suffered because of it? Chances are, the children most affected already were part of a gay parents' family. Going forward, more children will enter into those families.

    This just in: Ducks did not marry chickens and no churches were sued.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    For the ongoing debate there is something left out here.
    The original term "marriage" and the State Solution to it, or the asumed traditional interpretation of the Constitution or ...etc....but :

    There is one law that is not found in any book, that is the law of conscience.
    People just know what is right, they just love to twist things for entertainment.

    Who would not know what marriage is all about by looking inside of your head and inside of your feelings to do best for others ? We just celebrated Christmas, and with it the birth of a newborn, a child with parents. Who can deny such thing ?

    So whatever the ruling will be, we all know very well what it is supposed to be.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    One must wonder if the state of Utah is being teased a bit.
    Remember the analogy of the crab in the barrel? The crab(Utah) just about makes it to the top of the barrel, only to again fall back to the bottom of the bucket.
    Numerous states are doing just fine with SSM. There are more on track ready to initiate the law in their states.
    This clarification by the Supreme Court was necessary so there will be no more hiccups as the law is initiated throughout the country.
    Patience, my friends, all will work out for the United States to show the world we are the leader in equal rights for all.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    FatherOfFour
    WEST VALLEY CITY, UT said "This is just one more reason why I will never, ever walk into an LDS church ever again."

    Is Justice Sotomayor LDS?
    Is any of the rest of the Supreme Court who issued this stay LDS?

    This has nothing to do with the LDS Church.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    >>Free Agency
    >>Freedom of Choice
    >>THAT is the plan of salvation and is doctrinally sound.

    I think you misunderstand the role of free agency in God's plan. Free agency isn't license to choose to do whatever you want. Rather, it's the freedom to choose to submit your will to God. That's really the only choice we have in this life. All of our other important "choices" are really just tactical decisions about how we're going to implement the first one.

    Of course, you're free to choose not to submit your will to His; but you're not free to demand that He (and His followers) redefine His gospel to accommodate your choice. He sets the terms of what constitutes a righteous life. You just get to choose whether you're going to accept the terms.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    >>Whose marriage was demeaned because a loving bride married another or a groom became another man's husband?

    But that's not the only yardstick by which we should measure a change in society's moral standards. What will the effects be on society writ large over the longer term?

    The problem is that, from a sociological perspective, we don't know. Gay marriage hasn't been around long enough for sociologists to develop tests and measures to determine its larger effects (positive or negative). Traditional marriage supporters can't prove empirically that it will be harmful; but neither can gay marriage supporters prove empirically that it will be helpful or neutral.

    So when anyone asks, "who does it hurt?" the appropriate response is "how are you defining 'hurt'? What's your metric?"

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    Children are the victims of those who desire to destroy the command "....Be fruitful,and multiply,
    and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion ..."
    Abortion prevent the birth of a child, and homosexual marriage cannot produce a child. Both are
    intend to negate the commandments given by God when this earth was formed for the purpose
    of bringing forth children, forming families.
    There is only one individual who would desire this effort, he who was cast out of Heaven, Lucifer.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi: Mark Regnerus basically lied about who was in that "study." He wasn't looking at same-sex households. Instead, he studied troubled opposite-sex marriages where one of the partners also had same-sex relations outside the marriage. That's hardly the same thing and his conclusions have been rebuked by most sociologists.

    @Ranch: As a member of a denomination which stresses peace, love and equality, I'd like to take issue with your blanket statement that religion is the root of all evil. Without religion there would still be evil committed by evil people, they just would hide behind some other banner while doing it. Fascism, nationalism, xenophobia, racism and tribalism have caused more deaths than religion. Well, maybe altogether.

    To Traditional Marriage "supporters": Look. Knock off these tortured redefinition arguments. Just come out and admit that you're opposed to letting homosexuals marry because you don't like homosexuals. Sex and birth occur outside marriage, lots. (41% of US births are out of wedlock.) Many straight marriages produce no children. There's no birth requirement on a marriage license. THE TWO ARE NOT LEGALLY RELATED, so you can't use that as an excuse.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:42 a.m.

    mhenshaw says:

    "Gay marriage hasn't been around long enough for sociologists to develop tests and measures to determine its larger effects (positive or negative)."

    We've been around since the dawn of man. We've had relationships since the dawn of man. We've raised children since the dawn of man.

    If that isn't "enough time"; it will never be enough for you.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    People are going to get these "rights" no matter what happens. It's only a matter of time. Where the tide of public emotion and opinion carries the blind crusade for "justice" next is anyone's guess. It doesn't really matter. It will overcome everything in its path.

    Those opposing these causes have nowhere to stand that anyone else other then themselves will find credible. Whether there is a God in heaven or not; or whether or not he speaks; and whether or not you actually know what he is speaking matters not. You can't prove it. No one has ever "proven" such things. Perhaps the truth that governs the universe will be made clear sometime.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    @ duckhunter: The State of Utah failed to request a stay before the original ruling was issued - that is the stay to which I believe Cats was referring. ("Shelby should have immediately placed a stay while the decision was appealed.")

    And yes - stays can be requested before rulings are issued. That is actually standard procedure in cases like this. If Utah wanted a stay of the ruling before it went into effect, it was their job to request one - at the very latest/least, they should have indicated to Shelby their intent when his office called to state he was about to issue his ruling.

    When the State finally got around to requesting a stay, Judge Shelby refused it - but the State should have requested a stay prior to the ruling.

    As to stays requested after the original ruling - the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals also refused (3 times) to issue a stay. The first two times they refused were based on procedural issues - the third time was because they do not think the State has a chance of winning.

    As you stated, "Do you really think that pretending inconvenient facts don't exist makes them really not exist?"

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    @ Tekaka: One activist individual has stated that she believes marriage should not exist at all and you assume she is speaking for all homosexuals? I know men who believe women should not have the right to vote - are they speaking for all men? I know Mormons who believe same-sex marriage should be legal - are they speaking for all Mormon? You live in Saudi Arabia - when you speak do you represent all Americans in Saudi Arabia?

    One person - or even several people - espousing an idea does not mean they are speaking for anyone other than themselves.

    And, by the way, I know several heterosexuals who think marriage should not exist. Do they represent all heterosexuals?

    As for the Regnerus study - Regnerus himself states that his study should not be used when determining the issue of same-sex marriage. There is nothing in the Regnerus study that addresses children being raised by parents in committed same-sex relationships - the study questions only pertain to dating relationships of the parents.

    Likewise the Canadian study does not examine married same-sex couples.

    All the studies prove is that broken homes are bad for children - and most broken homes are, by default, heterosexual.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    "@Tekakaromatagi: Mark Regnerus basically lied about who was in that "study.""

    I am sorry but this statement is simply not true. I have read his study and the LGBT critics of the same. I encourage anyone who has the time to read his study and even the critics of it and come to their own conclusion.

    My daughter who works in the medical profession working with abused and neglected children in California has found that a disproportionate amount of her patients come from same-sex couples and single parent households. She is only 25 and more strongly opposes same-sex marriage and changing the definition of the family than I do.

  • Duckhunter SLC, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    @kalindra

    False. Until there is a ruling there is no stay to request. The judge issued his ruling on Thursday the 20th and immediately commanded it to be in effect before any request for a stay, other than a verbal one, could even be submitted. Utah immediately requested a stay and the judge waited around a few days and let a bunch of marriages be performed befor ethen denying the stay. You need to educate yourself not just on what actually happened but also on how the process works.

    Now the judge could have automatically put a stay on his ruling knwoing it was going to be appealed and let the process play out but this judge did not do that, he ordered the gay marriages to commence immediately.

    That you don't even know the most basic facts of this case, and apparently have no clue about legal procedure, makes your "points", well you don't actually have any real "points". Try again.

  • Michael-D Riverton, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    A commenter made this statement:

    "Utah made $50,000 in just 4 days when it allowed gay marriage. Now, utah will spend $2 million dollars to fight it.
    When conservatives raise the 'false flag' of complaining about national debt? I am going to remind them, of Utah".

    I say to this,, some things were worth fighting for back when and some things are worth fighting or now... This statement reminds me of the Politician pitching the income on taxes for Alcohol, Tobacco and now Marijuana,,,, We see where the first two took us,

    For the Majority of Uahn's,, I am sure they are supportive of the expenses.. As far as the National Debt,,,, irrelevant in this discussion..

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    The United States does not issue marriage licenses nor does it issue birth certificates or insurance licenses or teacher's certificates. All of those things are issued by the State, as required by the 10th Amendment. The 14th Amendment is not about issuing a marriage license. There is no inequality in marriage laws in Utah. A man may marry a woman and a woman may marry a man. It does not matter his race or his ethnic origin, nor does it matter for the woman. There is no discrimination. ANY man is permitted to marry ANY woman (excepting those who are too close genetically).

    There is no provision in the Constitution to allow those who feel that a doctor made a mistake when the doctor declared their gender, using all available physical evidence, that that person should think that he or she has been treated unequally because that person feels different about sex acts than others.

    If the Supreme Court declares that "feelings" define a person, then watch out. There will be those who "feel" that because they were not invited to ride on Air Force One, that they were discriminated against.

  • mauister Wailuku, HI
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    The logic some commentors propose is that God's law is not always man's law. The question is, who is God and who speaks for God. Religious freedom dictates that everyone has a right to the God of their choice. Why should one religious group get to use their opinion of what God says to trump the civil rights of other people that do not belong to their religion? Is this a theocracy or a constitutional democracy? We live under a constitution that establishes basic civil rights that no church or legislative body should have the right to take away from others, even if a disfavored minority.

  • aunt lucy Looneyville, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:55 p.m.

    My experience has shown me there are three groups of gay people: First, those who were born that way; secondly, those who have been abused and struggle to deal with all that comes with that; and thirdly, those who just choose it as they would choose a dinner item off the menu. The main problem I have with all this "live your life and let me live mine with the same rights" logic is that it only increases the numbers in group number three. The gay and lesbian groups have been very active to change the public's view of SSM as just a personal choice issue to the point that most today would just say "it's their life." You see many today who marry a same sex partner only to announce they are done with that and now have fallen in love with heterogeneous partner. Still all of this would be fine with me if I didn't feel a responsibility to bring my children and grand children up in the ways of God. Sorry, but that's the deal breaker for me. I will continue to love the sinner and hate the sin.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:18 p.m.

    I don't recall reading anywhere in the scriptures of any religion where Jesus said: Discriminate against the "sinners" and make them behave the way you want them to.

    @aunt lucy:

    "I will continue to love the sinner and hate the sin."

    Therein is proof of your disregard for your fellow men. Demeaning others as "sinners" in order to justify legislating away their equal rights shows animus. You would classify LGBT as "sinner", yet, according to your God, you fit into that category quite well yourself; in fact, according to the Bible, every human ever born is a "sinner" due to the fictional "Adam".

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:33 p.m.

    Happy days are hear again. Shelby has been shown to be an irresponsible activists judge who has no respect for the orderly enactment of the law.

    I am not sure what the actual outcome in the 10th circuit will be. I hope it will be a victory for Utah, Man/woman marriage and the one form that will allow us to connect marriage to child rearing. However, this is at least a victory for orderly development of the law, and the fact that radical rulings should not be implemented before they have been properly appealed.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:39 p.m.

    Bigotry and prejudice won a small battle today but the probable results of the war being fought seem obvious. The times they are a changing.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    "To Traditional Marriage "supporters": Look. Knock off these tortured redefinition arguments. Just come out and admit that you're opposed to letting homosexuals marry because you don't like homosexuals."

    That's not true for me and I bet it isn't for most opponents of SSM on this thread. I've had friends, clients, relatives who were gay. I've treated them all with kindness and respect. I don't have to think homosexuality is a good thing to love the individual. I don't like drinking either but have plenty of friends who drink.

    I don't want homosexuality taught to my kids at school at a young age. That doesn't make me a bigot.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    I would be hesitant to say that this ruling tells us anything about what Sotormoyor would rule on the substance of the case. It is a procedural thing, and staying enforcement is the standard decision during appeal.

    The court punted on Prop 8, but they will have a real hard time punting here. I think Utah has a good chance of winning in the 10th circuit, but either way the 10th circuit rules it will be appealed to the Supreme Court. If Utah wins in the 10th Circuit there is a good chance though that the Supreme Court will just deney cert, and postpone judgment. A majority of justices currently on the court do not want to have to rule on same-sex marriage at all.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    @JSB
    Sugar City, ID

    The purpose for sex is reproduction: 1) to unite the sperm and egg; and 2) to help the zygote to develop into a mature individual. In the human species permanent heterosexual pair bonds have evolved because it takes such a long time to train humans into mature, responsible, productive adults.

    In the past this heterosexual pair-bonding has been called marriage. Changing the definition of marriage will not change the biological reality...

    If we legalize homosexual marriages or unions, the biggest victims will be more children raised in dysfunctional environments resulting in more crime, school dropouts, poverty, social unrest, disease and misery.

    9:51 a.m. Jan. 6, 2014

    =====

    1. Nice biology lesson.
    When is marriage defined by sex, and not love?
    Animals have sex, yet animals are not married.

    2. And then you throw out the evolutionary theories. Since when did you start believing in evolutionary theories? Let me guess, when they suit your agenda?

    3. The children being adopted by gays and lesbians were most likey already abused victims living in more crime, school dropouts, poverty, social unrest, disease and misery from their heterosexual parents. If anything, this gives them a better chance to escape the viscious cycle.

  • aunt lucy Looneyville, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    @Ranch

    I would encourage you to reread the scriptures. I know of many places where Jesus called on those to repent and sin no more. He stated that we should strive to be as he- perfect and that his atonement would provide a way to be forgiven of sin.
    As for me being a sinner as well. You nailed that totally. I am indeed a sinner and when I sin, I with myself as with others, hate the sin and love the sinner. SO thankful for the power of the atonement working in my life. If only the gay/lesbian group would take their sin to their Savior and allow the power of the atonement to work for them. This would be the exact opposite of actively trying to legislate it as non-sin. Hate to think who might be the grand architect behind those efforts.

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:37 p.m.

    Same sex marriage is here to stay and the great LGBT community of Utah will get their rights back. So those who are jumping with glee that the future marriages were stopped until Utah loses their appeals, better not jump too high. Love will prevail and same sex marriage will become law again in Utah and other states will follow.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:17 p.m.

    SoCal Chris-
    Where does it say anything in the ruling that homosexuality is being taught in school? If you deny a person a social right or privalege that you currently enjoy because of one's color, creed or beliefs it makes you prejudice. To justify it because of your religon does not change the fact it is a prejudice. How your religon or any religon views and practices marriage is not a relevant fact for this issue. The issue in front of us here is how our goverment recognizes marriage. Quit with the straw man arguments about children being converted to homosexuality if LGBT's are allowed the same privaleges as hetrosexuals.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:23 p.m.

    Justice delayed but we will not be denied, full citizenship full equality nothing less.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:48 p.m.

    Cats
    Somewhere in Time, UT
    "I must say I am surprised but pleased that the Supremes did the right thing. Shelby should have immediately placed a stay while the decision was appealed. The fact that he didn't shows his activist bias. ANY good judge would have put the stay on and have allowed the judicial process to work."

    --WRONG -- the Utah AG office completely bungled the case. With typical lack of seeing the possibility of losing, they did not file for a stay properly.

    If the voice of the people has any power left in this country, this thing will be overturned.

    --Sorry that you are for mob rule. I would remind you that for most of the history of the lds church, until recently, a popular vote on which religions should be allowed would have gone against you.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2014 4:16 p.m.

    @ duckhunter: Every other state has requested a stay before the judge issued a decision - are you really trying to claim they all did it wrong and only Utah did it right?

    Perhaps you need to review the FRCP.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 4:32 p.m.

    @aunt lucy;

    Jesus may have called the sinners to repentance, but he NEVER ONCE denied them a place at the table where he dined.

    You have no idea how much we've "taken our sin the 'savior'". How many hours we spent on our knees only to have NOTHING change. How many nights we contemplated suicide because of our church or people like you who just "love the sinner but hate the sin". Do you know how much harm you have done? I hate to think who might be the "grand architect" behind all that harm.

    The USA is still not a theocracy, and until we are, your god takes no precedence over any other god.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 5:33 p.m.

    All these people who are so afraid that children will learn about homosexuality at school need to realize that their children are already learning about it -

    they are learning about it from their homosexual friends
    they are learning about it from children currently being raised by same-sex parents
    they are learning about it from reading the news
    and they are learning about it because they are dealing with it themselves.

    All prohibiting same-sex marriage does, is teach children that it is okay to have parents that are not married to each other and that there are ways to form families other than through marriage.

    By prohibiting same-sex marriage, you are devaluing marriage as a social contract.

    So, yeah, kids are learning about homosexuality and marriage, but not in the way you think and probably not in the way you would prefer.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 6, 2014 6:19 p.m.

    SoCalChris
    Riverside, CA
    "'To Traditional Marriage "supporters": Look. Knock off these tortured redefinition arguments. Just come out and admit that you're opposed to letting homosexuals marry because you don't like homosexuals.'"
    That's not true for me and I bet it isn't for most opponents of SSM on this thread. I've had friends, clients, relatives who were gay. I've treated them all with kindness and respect. I don't have to think homosexuality is a good thing to love the individual. I don't like drinking either but have plenty of friends who drink."

    --- You need to consider that married Gay people having sex MAY not be a sin, and certainly is not your business to like or dislike. If you are not open to that, you do, in practice, look down on Gays.

    "I don't want homosexuality taught to my kids at school at a young age. That doesn't make me a bigot."

    --- Maybe it makes you someone who swallows propaganda.
    --- And maybe it is helpful to kids to know that Gay people exist, in case they or classmates are Gay, but NO ONE would teach sex practices to young kids.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Jan. 6, 2014 7:33 p.m.

    re. Open Minded? Mormon

    I've believed in evolution since I was in high school and have a masters in biology. Biologically, we are a pair bonding species and when societies have deviated very far from this norm, there have been tragic consequences. If same sex marriage is legalized, then what will happen next? Since there are no long term (multigenerational) studies that show the effects of gay marriage on a human society, what we must do is try to anticipate what might happen. "Families" with multiple partners (e.g. 3 men and 2 women or polyamory) are anxiously looking forward to legalization of gay marriage because it will open the door to legalization of their relationships. There are hundreds of thousands of these "families" in the US today. And we could also see 3 or more men or 3 or more women wanting legalization of their "families." After all, they claim to love each other. This of course will lead to more venereal disease, divorce, child abuse and neglect, poverty, crime and social chaos.

    It would be wise not to mess with thousands of years of human evolution so that some people with unnatural desires can have a so-called civil right.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:03 p.m.

    SoCalChris says he opposes same-sex marriage because, "I don't want homosexuality taught to my kids at school at a young age. That doesn't make me a bigot."

    But, homosexuality is already taught to your children at school at a young age. By other children. From their earliest years, they hear anti-gay slurs aimed at them and others either for not conforming to idealized gender stereotypes, or because children have learned that it's the worst form of insult, a way to gain social capital against your rivals. Strong, active girls and small or weak boys, or even just smart kids, are regularly called gay and lesbian slurs.

    Is this the way you'd like them to learn about gay people, or wouldn't you rather have them learn that there's a place in society for everyone, that everyone has strengths, that every child is loved, by God and their parents, and that children who call other children names are just insecure bullies?

  • johnashleymarriott Finland, 00
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:37 p.m.

    I think the phrase "Though the church has softened its stance toward gays and lesbians in recent years..." may be a little misleading as according to my knowledge the church's stance towards gays and lesbians has remained the same. I think among the members there is a more heightened awareness of issues dealing with gays and lesbians and that the church has addressed this increased awareness with more frequency, however the message has been the same: Love all people everywhere and be politically active in causes that you believe will better society or against causes that you believe would damage it.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:55 p.m.

    "I don't want homosexuality taught to my kids at school at a young age. That doesn't make me a bigot."

    Ever watch an episode of Glee? Teen wolf?

    If I don't want my children taught about Mormonism, can I prevent them from getting married?

    No.

    As such, the claim about what you want for children is moot. You don't want your kids to learn something?

    Keep them at home.

    The second you release them into the world with the rest of us, you are on your own. And I should not be forced to adhere to your prejudices.

    Are the supreme court justices LDS?

    I don't know, but more than half the comments on this board mention God. Let me be clear.

    I do not care, what your God thinks.

    I care, about what you are trying to force, upon my life.

    Because marriage equality has never factually brought harm to a religious persons teachings.

    But we have plenty of examples of religious persecution. Inquisition, 9/11, shootings of Mormons in the streets.

    This, is what we should go 'back' too?

    I disagree.

    Infringe on my rights?

    And Utah deserves the scrutiny and ridicule that is coming.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    "Ever watch an episode of Glee? Teen wolf?"

    No - And neither do my children because it is voluntary. Attending Public School is not.

    "You don't want your kids to learn something? Keep them at home."

    Yes - All conservatives who believe in God should stay out of public discourse and hide.

    "And Utah deserves the scrutiny and ridicule that is coming."

    Yes - Utah and 32 other states who have the same law.

  • BYU_Convert Provo, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:00 a.m.

    Being gay or having same sex attractions for whatever reason by whatever circumstances is something that happens in this life to some people. To every single person bashing gay marriage in these comments, you obviously do not know what that it is like to be gay in America today and know what kind of suffering and separation that entails. And that's unfortunate for you. You concentrate so much on the sexuality aspect of it, that you forget that these are real people with real feelings created in the image of God. To all you happy-go-lucky heterosexually tended Utahns, I congratulate you. Thankfully, your lot in life is a little easier because you don't have to have something going on in your life that the majority of the country hates. I'd much rather have to deal with sins against the Word of Wisdom, Tithing, or even heterosexual Law of Chastity. All these things are forgiven in the eyes of the Church, but for people who have homosexuality, there is no forgiveness, and there is no support. Utah does not support its gay community--it condemns it, and much of these comments support that fact.