Quantcast
U.S. & World

Supreme Court tackles DOMA, Prop 8; legal experts lay odds on decisions

Comments

Return To Article
  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    June 8, 2013 11:02 p.m.

    Well this sort of ruling from the supreme court will not surprise me. Even straight and religious folks across the country are supporting gay marriage. What saddens me is that the country on the whole seems to be turning its back on God's laws regarding morality. The Proclamation on the Family states that dire consequences await us if we allow traditional marriage to be eroded. The country has been warned.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 8, 2013 11:21 p.m.

    The LDS church and its members should start by trying to set a better example.

  • Scott Zwartz Beverly Hills, CA
    June 8, 2013 11:30 p.m.

    Acknowledging that Gay and Straight individuals both have the inalienable and constitutional right of Liberty to marry another consenting adult does not force any religious organization to perform that marriage any more than a minister, priest or rabbi now must perform an inter-religious marriage. Any minister or priest who makes such a claim is either very ignorant or very dumb. I notice that no rabbi has been so foolish as to make such a silly claim and the Haredim will certainly not be performing same sex marriages.

    The fact that there is no danger that any American priest, rabbi or minister will be forced to perform Gay marriages is highlighted by the fact that the only place where this fear has arisen is in Great Britain. BTW, the Brits do not follow American constitutional law. Remember?? We had a revolution and then wrote our Constitution?

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    June 8, 2013 11:39 p.m.

    What implications will this have on members of the LDS Church seeking to get married in the temple? Will the ability of the LDS Church to only marry a man and a woman be denied in favor of forcing anyone authorized to perform legal marriages to also perform gay marriages on request? Hopefully the fact that the LDS Church was not forced to perform marriages for just anyone before will be in force still.

  • Mainly Me Werribee, 00
    June 8, 2013 11:40 p.m.

    This is wrong, plain and simple. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

    BTW, right on Big Bubba!

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    June 9, 2013 1:21 a.m.

    Re. Tolstoy: What do you mean by setting a better example?

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    June 9, 2013 2:20 a.m.

    @Tolstoy

    Actually, the LDS Church is making slow, but steady steps towards better understanding towards those in the LGBT community.

    For example, while some Christian denominations are abandoning the Boy Scouts of America due to their recent change in allowing gay youth to be scouts, the LDS Church is supporting the decision.

    Openly gay and lesbian students can now attend BYU.

    And while many in the gay community still are not pleased with the church's new instructional videos regarding the issue of same-sex attraction, the fact of the matter is, many LDS Church members who 20 years ago may have seen homosexuality as the ultimate perversion, are starting to see it from a new perspective.

    Same may say this is all "window dressing" but in the event the LDS Church finds itself compelled to welcome LGBT people more fully, it will indeed be ready to do so.

  • nrajr SANDY, UT
    June 9, 2013 4:17 a.m.

    Re: Scott Zwartz

    I wish you were correct, but you are obviously not aware that there are current active prosecutions occurring in states which have legalized same-sex marriage (Washington and Colorado), against persons who would not provide services to same-sex marriage ceremonies because same-sex marriage conflicted with the business owner's religious beliefs. The state's position in each case is that defendants religious convictions must give way to the gay-lesbian communities right to equal treatment. If marriage laws were in federal jurisdiction, which, thankfully, they are not, considering his record thus far, can there be any doubt where the Obama administration would stand on protecting religious rights?

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    June 9, 2013 6:02 a.m.

    What's cool, what is righteous. What's respected and what's honored. Respect and trust is earned. Honor is having good manners [being considerate and appreciative], Doing your duty to God and your country [you obey the law]. In order for anything to be sacred, it has to have the purpose, of the continuance of life. It's none of my business what anyone does behind closed doors between consenting adults. I don't want to hear about it.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    June 9, 2013 7:06 a.m.

    The real issue in California is the "voice of the people". The California Courts effectively negated a legally binding vote. The reasoning on DOMA then is concentrating on what the "wishes of the people" are. You can't have it both ways. Anthony Kennedy is the "swing vote". Actually, he will decide both decisions. I am against gay marriage. However if the people decide, then the courts have to support. That is what makes the decision in California so gigantically troubling. The courts are going to negate the "vote" of the people. Ultimately, if the people decide that abortion is wrong, then the courts could rule that it is the constitutional right of a woman to do so. How far do we extend that right? Governor Andrew Cuomo wants to take it to eight months. What if it is decided that babies can be put to death on the birthing table? Actually, that is what "partial birth" is all about. All that it will take on the Supreme Court is for Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Bryer to add one vote. Our country has to be based on law. The voice of the people must be heard.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 9, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    The decision will be great either way! It gives those who have been absent from deciding whether homosexuality is right or wrong the chance to come clean. There is only so long you can hide behind the so-called 'tolerant' view of God's word. You will either declare to God that His commandments are valid or you will mock Him and His word. Eventually, all will 'fess-up' to the truth. In the meantime, social chaos will continue. It is when the children don't have a chance to learn His word that God will decide to clean house.

  • hamaca Baton Rouge, LA
    June 9, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    @ Scott Zwartz

    "Acknowledging that Gay and Straight individuals both have the inalienable and constitutional right of Liberty to marry another consenting adult does not force any religious organization to perform that marriage..."

    Agreed...as laws now stand. However, laws and legal perspective change and evolve and it's only a matter of time that those with an agenda of more than just equality begin the process of attempting to require religious organizations to perform any and all marriages. The political will to prevent this from happening will begin to erode--not right away, but over time--unless sufficiently strong legal/constitutional structure is put into place to protect the ongoing rights of religions.

  • bricker pleasant grove, ut
    June 9, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    The world is changing and you better get use to it. The claims that same sex couples getting married somehow endangers regular marriage is pretty silly. My marriage and yours is safe no matter what the supreme court decides on this.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    June 9, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."
    Pretty sure God made everyone.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 9, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    I'm looking forward to the Court's decision. :-)

    We've already heard many anti-gay folks saying that civil marriage should be separated from religious marriage. Well, here's your chance! The Catholic Church in England seems to be headed in that direction already. I see no reason why other churches shouldn't follow suit. Let couples go ahead and get their church weddings, then just walk on down to the county clerk's office for their civil contract. No sweat.

    NOBODY is forcing ANYBODY to perform gay church weddings. NOBODY. But when pastors/preachers/priests sign **civil** marriage contracts, they are signing **government documents**. And people who do government business MUST be bound by the laws of that government. If you don't want to uphold the laws of the government, then stop doing the government's business. Very simple.

    As for the "Adam and Steve" nonsense --

    When the Lord created Adam and Eve, the people of that time didn't have in vitro fertilization or other reproductive technologies, or even much in the way of adoption. They also didn't have airplanes. Should we automatically assume that everything that isn't in the Bible is automatically evil?

  • woolybruce Idaho Falls, ID
    June 9, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    The answer is clear, the Government needs to get out of marriage completely and only be involved with Civil Unions for everyone, and let the churches do the marriage thing. If your church doesn't like gay marriges, then you can go find a church that is OK with gay marriage.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    June 9, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    There are already numerous suits againt companies that do not want to be involved in gay marriages. The gblt community will use antidiscrimination laws to go after anyone who does not fall in line. In their minds, their need for acceptance outweighs your right to religious or economic freedom. Tolerance is not the goal, compelled acceptance is.

  • AmericaV Huntsville, AL
    June 9, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    @Scott Zwartz, yes we do remember the Revolution and know that Great Britain does not follow American Constitutional law. However, what we have here are a number of men in DC trying to destroy the original Constitution. The Constitution is not much good when it's in the trash heap.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    June 9, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    Having agency to choose is not any easier today than it was in ancient times with God's commandments to know what He wants one to do. That kind of choice is so hard even in a family as you want to take Lucifer's side and force your children to do right as that is what I told you to do.

    Loving one another is a tough job for parents but is harder in life of agency and choices as we don't have control over other people. We can show love and is our challenge everyday in everything that we have to choose.

    We don't have a choice in choosing our children and our challenge is to show love unfeigned. We live in a time when people choose to adopt children who need love, encouragement and support for all of life's challenges.

    Love is a challenge but I am grateful to know there is a plan to help us get through this life and support from a Father and His Son to get through it under a law and order for our life. The one that doesn't have a physical body is blessed.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 9, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    Big Bubba: "What saddens me is that the country on the whole seems to be turning its back on God's laws regarding morality."

    Oh please. This is exactly the same set of "God's laws" that forbids the eating of shrimp, permitting women to speak in church, permitting people with birth defects to attend church, wearing cloths made of multiple fabrics and allowing people of different religions to even exist. All of these are explicitly set forth as "God's laws" in the Bible.

    I am deeply grateful that so few Americans actually obey all of the "God's laws" contained in the Bible (or the Quran, or the Torah) because it is only by ignoring those arcane and wholly irrational "laws" that we have a sane and just society.

    If you lament ignoring Biblical rules regarding homosexuality, then why aren't you just as loudly lamenting our ignoring of all the other equally bizarre and irrational rules contained in the Bible?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 9, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

    I'm sorry, but I thought God created all of us. Am I wrong? This always seems like a backhanded way of telling our homosexual brothers and sisters that they aren't loved as much as their heterosexual counterparts. To me, that is wrong, and it is not a part of His true gospel.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    June 9, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    From the story, "As the new British law stands, Catholic clergy performing marriages are deemed to be performing a state function,..."

    And this, people, is why it is so important to maintain a separation of Church and State.

    Here in the United States we have long allowed churches to determine who can and cannot marry in their establishments and, while state laws determine who is eligible to perform a marriage and a state-issued marriage license is required for the marriage to be valid, marriages performed by churches have always been recognized as religious ceremonies.

    Churches in the US have never been forced to marry anyone they did not want to marry and who did not meet their membership requirements. Heck, as recently as this year a church refused to marry an interracial couple and, while the couple and many members of the church were not happy with the decision, it was recognized as the right of that church to make that decision.

    As long as the separation of church and state is maintained and civil functions and religious functions are different, churches in the US will be able to protect themselves from having to perform marriages they oppose.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 9, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    Perhaps there is another side to this story, not being reported, as it doesn't fit the "religion is being persecuted theme?"

    Culture Secretary Maria Miller has promised a "quadruple lock" for religious groups who oppose gay marriage, involving:

    No religious organisation or individual minister being compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises
    Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
    Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple
    The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples.
    (BBC June 4, 2013)

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    June 9, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    "...Ducking the issue would keep the Court out of a social and political maelstrom. Most experts think the justices tend to avoid bold actions that would weaken the Court's legitimacy by drawing attention to the Court's unelected character...".

    Scalia avoid bold actions?

    Some observers would opine that the SCOTUS has weakened its legitimacy with the decisions on Citizens United as well as the ACA.

  • Civil Rights SANTA ROSA, CA
    June 9, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    Vladhagen asked,

    > What implications will this have on members of the LDS Church seeking to get married in the temple?

    None. Remember in 1966 when interracial civil marriage was legalized? The church chose not to officiate religious marriage then. The first amendment protects that right.

    The abridgment of religion is happening now,
    There are a number of Christian and Jewish groups that want to be able to offer religious marriages to their congregants.

  • Kass SLC, UT
    June 9, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    @ nrajr: There is a difference between a church and a private citizen who owns a business.

    A business owner chooses to enter into the public sphere and offer a service. The business owner receives many benefits from society but also has certain obligations to society - one of those obligations is to follow state laws and not discriminate.

    The only examples of Churches being forced to follow non-discrimination laws pertain to churches interacting with the public outside of normal church parameters.

    Catholic Charities in MA - acting as a state agency placing children in state custody into adoptive homes, including homes headed by same-sex couples. Catholic Charities changed their policy and violated their contract with the state. They now only do private adoptions.

    Ocean Grove, NJ - the Methodist Church owns ocean front property open to the general public. Some of the buildings are occasionally used for religious services, but not exclusively and they are not churches. The church was given a tax exception directly related to allowing public use of the buildings. When they chose not to allow all the public access, their property was taxed at the same rate as all other non-public property in that area.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    June 9, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    re: bricker

    Agreed.

    FISA, the court associated with it, & The Patriot Act are genuinely destroying this country. Yet, its obviously more important to whine about an emotional wedge issue.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 9, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    @nrajr --

    "there are current active prosecutions occurring in states which have legalized same-sex marriage (Washington and Colorado), against persons who would not provide services to same-sex marriage ceremonies"

    Businesses have not been allowed by law to discriminate since the days of racial segregation and lunch counter sit-ins. There is nothing new about that. If you wish to conduct a private business, you must do so without violating the laws of the jurisdiction in which you operate. That shouldn't surprise anyone.

    @JBQ --

    "However if the people decide, then the courts have to support. "

    No. The US Constitution is there to **protect** our civil rights **against** the "tyranny of the majority".

    @banderson --

    "You will either declare to God that His commandments are valid or you will mock Him and His word."

    Hmmm. I must have missed the commandment that said "thou shalt not be homosexual."

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 9, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    In the 1967 Loving v Virginia ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down anti-miscegenation laws and legalized interracial marriage. The LDS Church did not authorize such marriages in their Temples until June 8, 1978, thirty-five years ago yesterday. I believe the same protections that existed for the LDS Church during those eleven years will apply to any ruling on same-sex marriage.

    There has been much discussion of religious liberty in the pages of this newspaper. I think a useful way for my LDS friends to look at this issue is to examine their own past. Mormons were the objects of intense discrimination for years, all under the guise of the "religious liberty" of others. The Latter-day Saints were denied the social, political, and economic benefits available to others in the public sphere because their beliefs and practices (including marriage customs) offended the religious sensibilities of others. Replacing "Gay" with "Mormon" as a rationale for discriminatory behavior in the public square may shed light on what is religious liberty and what is not.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 9, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    Completely overlooked in this article and in this paper's ongoing coverage of assaults on religious liberty is the liberty of those many denominations that have no problem solemnizing gay unions yet are prevented from doing so by the government. Do they not also have the right to practice the dictates of their faith without government interference, or is freedom a one-way street?

    The relevant legal precedent for the DOMA review is first cousin marriage. Half the states allow them and half do not. Does the Federal government recognize lawful first cousin marriages in those states where it is legal when it comes to federal benefits and joint tax returns? If so, the same should apply to same-sex marriages.

    Mainly Me: "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."

    David Sedaris had the best rejoinder to this tired trope: "Of course God didn't make Adam and Steve. No self-respecting gay couple would be Adam and Steve. It's Adam and STEVEN." Seriously, though, if gay marriage opponents can't come up with compelling secular arguments and rely only on the Old Testament to make their case, they will never win in court.

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    June 9, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    Inconsistency in the projected decisions cause intelligent people to scratch their heads!

    How can the Supreme Court say in one decision that the federal government cannot define marriage, yet on the other hand allow a federal court overturn state law on marriage?

    They are supreme - supremely political, but not supremely fair.

  • Kass SLC, UT
    June 9, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    @ JBQ: The people cannot vote to take away the rights of other people. Prior to the vote on Prop 8, the California Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples in California had the right to marry. Prop 8 took that right away. The Courts than asked the Prop 8 supporters to defend and justify that removal of a right.

    In order for the removal of a right to be Constitutionally valid, there must be a social harm created by the practice of that right or prevented by the restriction of that right. Something being a "sin" or "icky" is not a Constitutionally valid reason for removing a right. The defenders of Prop 8 have never been able to define any harm to society or any reason to prohibit same-sex marriage other than sin, ick, or animus towards homosexuality.

    Citizens in California cannot vote to take away rights - no matter how much they dislike the people exercising the rights.

  • idablu Idaho Falls, ID
    June 9, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    Scott Zwartz
    On what do you base your claim that churches and pastors have no fear of the government forcing them to perform same sex marriages. It is already happening in the military where chaplains are required to perform same sex marriages, and there are a number of cases (just a few examples by nrajr) in which one's religious rights are being challenged by gay-lesbian community.

    You are the one who is naive if you don't think the gay & lesbian community will aggressively pursue the right to be married in any church they want. Religious freedom is under attack in this country, and this administration and his liberal minions have shown little regard for any of our constitutional rights. If it can happen in Great Britain it can certainly happen here.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    June 9, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    Mr. Leavitt, abortion is a life/death issue for many people, and the secular "outs" given to hospital employees reflect that. I doubt that anyone will be given legislative permission not to perform marriages for gay people. After all, marriage is a celebration of family and a commitment to fidelity, and why should anyone be allowed to discriminate in performing a civil marriage? It is most definitely NOT a life/death issue--not even close.

    Meanwhile, temple and religious ceremonies will maintain their religious rights already guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Religions' right to discriminate is one of the most firmly held and historically defended of all rights. Mormons and Catholics have no reason to fear. I believe the staunch LDS opposition to gay marriage has its roots in the hierarchy's fears that it will lead to legalization of polygamy (something else that won't happen any time soon).

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 9, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    idablu: "You are the one who is naive if you don't think the gay & lesbian community will aggressively pursue the right to be married in any church they want."

    Wrong. Churches have _never_ been, nor ever can be, forced to marry couples who don't belong to their sect or don't satisfy their internal rules. Specifically, the LDS church can make its marriage ceremonies as exclusionary as they want. Their internal rules may be short-sighted, unjust, and really bad PR, but it's never illegal.

    As has been described above, it is only when a religion mixes its business affairs with public or private secular activities (e.g. adoption services or public space rentals) that they find themselves required to obey secular laws.

    "Religious freedom is under attack in this country, and this administration and his liberal minions have shown little regard for any of our constitutional rights."

    Wrong. What you perceive as an "attack" is merely your discovering that you can't use your religion as an excuse for depriving non-members of their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 9, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    @jsb

    Starting with sticking to the facts supported by the research and/or biblical justifications for their position on this subject instead of repeated lies, deciet, fear mongering and mischaracterization would be a good start.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    June 9, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    Restore Our Humanity, a local non-profit group, has sued the State of Utah over Amendment 3, which was voted upon and added to our Utah Constitution in 2004. It specifically prohibits gay marriages, gay civil unions, or anything that confers the rights of marriage to gay people. It is so filled with obvious animus that it shouldn't be allowed to stand.

    Even if SCOTUS does not issue a broad ruling, I believe it is only a matter of a year or two before gay marriage is permitted in Utah. The advance of justice can't be stymied for long, people.

  • Civil Rights SANTA ROSA, CA
    June 9, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    Jesus said,
    Treat your neighbors the way you would want to be treated.
    There are no words from Jesus that contradict that.
    The anti-gay stuff was said by people that never met Jesus,
    paraphrasing Leviticus.

  • first2third Elmo, UT
    June 9, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    Why is government involved in Mariage at ALL in any way?

    I guess the government historically has had an interest in keeping families together and have children reared in that environment.

    However, that doesn't account for childless mariages or couples where children have moved out.

    If you open up gay marriage what prevents polygamy, marriages of convenience for legalization, marriage to family members of age, marriages for insurance purposes only and who knows what else?

    Does society care anymore? Probably not is my guess.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 9, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    Blue: That is why today there is a living prophet in the land. God still speaks to man, including the issue of marriage. It is clear, beautiful, and perpetuates the truth!

  • Civil Rights SANTA ROSA, CA
    June 9, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    A commentator said, marriage is only for procreation.
    So you wish to stop the old, infirm, infertile, and ovarian cancer
    survivors from marrying? Couples that use contraception?
    Think of why they should be allowed to marry. Most of those same
    reasons apply to same-sex couples.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    June 9, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    A significant part of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is to interpret what the law states in the Constitution and the laws, acts and regulations passed by Congress. If the basic Judeo-Christian law meant one thing relating to marriage for hundreds if not thousands of years in different nations, cultures and people's lives, then the Supreme Court should not re-interpreting what is established.

    That is one problem with the non-elected Supreme Court appointed by the Executive Officer and approved by the Legislative Body of the Senate that is elected by the people of their state for 100 years. The Court doesn't have a dissenting body except that Congress can pass a law or act to make the requirements different, which is sometimes having the fox guarding the henhouse get hungry and eat everything in sight.

    We live in hard times and one that is not getting any easier for our nation. Freedoms that people want now are not necessarily freedoms that endure. Real freedoms don't put you into jeopardy with real freedoms.

    Courts have defined civil and individual rights over 50 years in a way that has influenced the next law segments.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 9, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    @JWB --

    "If the basic Judeo-Christian law meant one thing relating to marriage for hundreds if not thousands of years"

    For "hundreds if not thousands of years", Judeo-Christian law said that slavery was fine and dandy.

    Do you really want to repeal the Emancipation Proclamation just for the sake of tradition??

    @first2third --

    "If you open up gay marriage what prevents polygamy..."

    Lots of things. For instance:

    1. polygamy carries a known danger to women and children, and public safety has always been a valid legal reason for limiting personal freedoms.
    2. informed consent is necessary in the US to sign valid contracts. Children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent.

    And so on.

    @ThomasJefferson --

    "State and Federal governments should not be in the business of marriage at all."

    Civil marriage conveys literally thousands of governmental benefits, from tax breaks to insurance to inheritance to visitation rights to guardianship of children -- and on, and on.

    If you are willing to give up all of those benefits, then by all means refrain from signing that civil marriage license. But don't expect to get ANY of those benefits unless you do sign that contract.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 9, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    @JWB

    what makes you think that judeo christian laws trump our constitution or has a place in the supreme court rulings? the reason we do not do so is the same reason we do not base our laws on sharia law we are not a theocracy.

    second why exactly do you think we have an independent judiciary that is not up for election? there is a reason.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    June 9, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    @ wwookie: Your comment conflates two different issues that are being addressed.

    The DOMA decision does not apply to the Federal Government defining marriage, but to whether or not the Federal Government has to accept the states' definitions of marriage. Never before has the Federal Government declared that a marriage that is legal in the state in which it was performed is not really a marriage and does not qualify for marriage benefits provided by the Federal Government. Interracial marriage, marriage by first cousins, marriage of an uncle to his niece (when it was legal in some states many years ago) - all these the Federal Government let the states define as marriage and receive Federal benefits. Why should the Federal Government now be allowed to interfere with the states' determinations?

    The other issue is whether or not a state which has previously recognized a Constitutional right to marriage has the right to later remove that right when those who wish to remove that right can provide no reason why it should be removed.

    Two separate issues.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    June 9, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    "... turning its back on God's laws."

    Well, the Constitution explicitly allows me to tell you that your God is not my God. And my God says marriage equality is cool. Religious freedom goes both ways, and you are not allowed to make your religious views the law of the land.

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    June 9, 2013 3:09 p.m.

    Maudine,
    Do you really not see the inconsistency?

    I am afraid your comment about "those who wish to remove that right can provide no reason" shows the bias that is clouding your judgment. It seems that depending on how the rulings lean, you could change your mind very quickly.

    The California constitution allows for propositions to be voted on and become law if passed by the citizen vote. That is a very silly provision that has made california the financial and political mess it is, but that is what the constitution allows.
    The play between the different clauses in a state's constitution are not the business of the federal government.

    So, if the Supreme Court allows the lower federal court to interpret a states constitution, then there really is no state government at all and it's a sham. They say the federal government cannot create a federal marriage law but they have the sole authority to determine if a states marriage law is valid or not. How absurd.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 9, 2013 3:28 p.m.

    Contrarius: Self-evident truths don't need to be spelled out. I don't see the words 'abortion', 'incest', 'homomsexuality', 'bestiality', or 'physical, mental, or emotional abuse' in the bible! If your bible believes in those things, then the rest of the Ten Commandments, which are listed, won't make a heck of a difference for my Christian beliefs. Even so, it might be worthwhile to seek for God's mouthpiece today. Evidently, He spoke in ages past to them. Why not today? If it is all up to private interpretation, then as Dostevsky said, 'If there is no God, everything is permissible.' or in this case, 'If you can decide what is right or wrong, anything is permissible.' My neighborhood doesn't believe in the 'anything is permissible' values. I'm sticking here.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 9, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    @Wwookie

    Not the business of the federal courts? Actually that is one if their esentual roles. thery are charged with determining if state laws violate the federal consitution which is question before the courts, this is civic 101 .

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 9, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    Supporters of gay marriage often use the argument that anti-gays are inconsistent in following the prohibitions in the bible forbidding homosexuality but ignoring the other laws and regulations also contained in the Bible.

    The problem with that argument is that the Law of Moses with all its do’s and don’ts as observed up to the time of Christ, was abolished by Christ after his resurrection. It was no longer binding. The only thing that remained of the law is the Ten Commandments. "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Romans7:6

    Christ added another provision to the one about not committing adultery which was if a man looked on a woman with lust he was guilty of committing adultery in his heart. And it is also apparent that the prohibitions against homosexuality were still valid because Paul preached that it was sinful.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 9, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    Let's get this marriage thing on the go and get past it.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    June 9, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    Maudine,

    You are wrong. The DOMA decision is to answer whether or not the federal government can deny benefits of marriage to a same-sex couple. It is challenging the constitutionality of the law. It has nothing to do with federal recognition of state definitions of marriage.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    June 9, 2013 5:49 p.m.

    We know that the constitution allows freedom of religion. However, that does not mean that God does not exist. God has laws for us to follow, and the U.S. Constitution came as divine inspiration from Him. He warns that if this country turns its back on Him and His laws, we as a nation will suffer the consequences. That is what He said, and someone refusing to believe it does't suddenly make it not so (if I refused to believe the sun existed, would that cause it to cease to exist?).

    The bottom line is that homosexual behavior is immoral. Marriage is ordained of God and He decreed it as being between a man and a woman. We cannot prevent homosexual behavior; everyone has their agency and they are free to choose, but that does NOT mean that we have to condone it. However, we should not allow the divine institution of marriage to be defiled with this immoral behavior.

    If you disagree, then we must agree to disagree. However, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and do what He tells us to do, even if it's unpopular.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 9, 2013 6:35 p.m.

    Utah repealed its laws against inter-racial marriage in 1962. The LDS Church never had any policy that prevented inter-racial marriage on such grounds.

    On the other hand the only way to find animus in the Prop 8 campaign is to ignore their well reasoned worries about infringement of religious freedom and to treat desire for protection of religious freedom as animus. It only works if people ignore reality, which sadly the Supreme Court is good at.

    However finding against Prop 8 on procedural grounds will also empower elected officials to ignore the will of the people as expressed in referendums. It would be a sad day for democracy.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 9, 2013 6:37 p.m.

    The worry about Churches being forced in the US is a false worry, that avoids the real issues.

    The real issues are will people be compelled to use their artistic skills in support of ceremonies they disagree with. In Washington state the answer is clear that the current government thinks it can force someone to artistically support a wedding they disagree with, a clear violation of the Free Speech section of the 1st amendment, as well as the free exercise of religion section. However it is less clear the courts will find such a violation.

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    June 9, 2013 7:19 p.m.

    @Tolstoy
    "Not the business of the federal courts? Actually that is one if their esentual roles. thery are charged with determining if state laws violate the federal consitution which is question before the courts, this is civic 101 ."

    Thanks for showing the exact inconsistency. In oe case, they will probably rule that the FEDERAL constitution does not allow nor ban marriage (of any kind). But in the other case, they will allow a federal courts interpretation of California's STATE constitution to stand. In the first case they are saying that the state constitution does not contradict the federal constitution.

    ...and please explain to us dummies where in your civics 101 course you learned that:
    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the FEDERAL government respectively"?.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    June 9, 2013 7:33 p.m.

    It's true: just because someone refuses to believe something, that doesn't mean it's not so. One the other hand, just because someone believes something, that doesn't mean it IS so, either.

    Just because you believe there's a god, doesn't mean that there really is one. Many people believe that there isn't, and their beliefs are as valid as yours.

    A person may believe that a giant lizard created the earth and gave us rules to live by, but that doesn't mean that it's true. Still, he's free to believe it, and to live by those rules, but he has no business demanding that the rest of us do.

    Can't you live your religion unless you make its doctrine the law of the land?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 9, 2013 8:06 p.m.

    @wwookie

    It's article V clause 2 it's called the supremacy clause state laws cannot violate federal laws or constitution. 101 folks it really is.

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    June 9, 2013 9:04 p.m.

    ...and if the Supreme Court says it does not violate the federal constitution in one case, how in the world can it allow a federal court to rule on a state law regarding the same matter in a second case?

    It really is common sense.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 9, 2013 9:24 p.m.

    Wwookie
    Past cases from other states were all from states were it had never been legal.

  • George New York, NY
    June 9, 2013 9:41 p.m.

    @wokkie

    You need to be careful changing your argument so quickly you will strip a gear. Please tell us exactly what case the supreme court ruled that California's prop 8 were they took away a right that had been allowed was constitutional? Then please acknowledge you were wrong about the supremacy clause.

  • Bill in Nebraska Maryville, MO
    June 9, 2013 9:43 p.m.

    The Supreme Court should look into the reason's behind why Polygamy was outlawed. For many it was aimed entirely at one group, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is so funny that those who propose same-sex marriage toss this out the window. However, when the Supreme Court found the laws constitutional over polygamy they also at the same time defined marriage then as now as between one man and one woman. If they now strike that down then they have basically reversede themselves and the courts in this country to redefining marriage as ANYTHING anyone wants to make it. That is what they are doing.

    Whether you want to agree with this means nothing to me. Man has no right to change the laws of God and our Heavenly Father's law currently stands and has always been between man and woman. He states this from the beginning until now. The natural man feels he can change this on his own WHIMS but that is a lie as told to the natural man by Satan. He is real and you are his if you agree to diminish marriage and family.

  • LiveLongAndProsper Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 9, 2013 10:33 p.m.

    Wwookie: You should know that the US Constitution has sections that apply to the states, not just the Federal government. It has been argued that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the 14th Amendment which includes "no STATE shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This is known as the Equal Protection Clause and specifically requires it of the States. The argument is that if a woman is allowed to marry a man, then the State cannot prevent a man from also marrying a man without a legally justifiable reason. So far no legally valid reason for banning same-sex marriage has been presented in court.

    Bill in Nebraska: Arguments for polygamy are completely different than those for same-sex marriage and needs to be considered on its own merits and problems. For example, no State allows marriage between more than 2 persons so the 14th Amendment violation argument used for same-sex marriage does not apply to Polygamy. There is no slippery slope leading from SSM to Polygamy due to these differences.

  • Wwwookie Payson, UT
    June 9, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    Stay calm Spring and George, I will try to help.

    1. Doma will be struck down, not because it violates the 14th amendment, but because it would limit states' abilities to define marriage as they see fit (hence the reference to the tenth ammendment)
    2. The ninth circuit ruling stated that Prop 8 violated the 14th ammendment as their entire basis.
    3. It is inconsistent for the Supreme Court to say it is up to the states ( I.e. declaring that a ban on gay marriage is NOT against the fourteenth ammendment), and then allow a federal court's decision to stand if that decision was entirely based on noncompliance with the 14th ammendment.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    June 9, 2013 11:08 p.m.

    @amazondoc...Polygamy causes danger to women and children? Really? Proven fact? I'd like to see some references and documentation that all polygamous marriagies are a danger to women and children. What about studies that show that many children with same gender parents have "issues"? ( that will undoubtably be denied by pro gay marraige crowd) The studies are out there, even appear in pediatric journals. That doesn't seem to have any effect on the hearts and minds of the Supreme Court.

  • George New York, NY
    June 9, 2013 11:59 p.m.

    @wookie

    So then no you are not going to acknowledge your claim about federal supremacy was wrong and pretend you never made that argument shore striping gears?
    As to your new argument, the federal law violates the same portions of the constitution as the prop 8 law, it does also violates the states right to instill those rights on it citizens and have those rights recognized by the federal government, rights as stated above protected by the constitution which is the subprime law of the country, so no they are not conflicting at all.

  • Wwwookie Payson, UT
    June 10, 2013 12:07 a.m.

    Another silly argument in the ninth circuits ruling. They outright acknowledge that the early California law that made all rights and responsibilities of marriage and civil unions did just that with the only exception being the title of "marriage".
    Very creative judge who can claim that the legal title of a relationship is as important as the actual rights and responsibilities. It escapes reason as to how the use of a legal title falls within the scope of the 14th ammendment.

    For those of you arguing that this is a civil rights issue (which are many), why are you not then arguing that black people should now be legally referred to as white people? That having the same rights and responsibilities of white people is not enough, and that blacks also need to have the same legal title? It's nonsense, and the attempt to link this to the civil rights movement is shameful.

    the judges should follow the constitution and allow states to define marriage, while requiring all states to recognize a marriage validated in any other state.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    June 10, 2013 12:37 a.m.

    Ah yes the old "if you are going to allow Gays to get married then why outlaw Polygamy" card. Fine I'll play along. I'm actually fine, just fine with Polygamy if all parties are consenting adults! No 14 year olds, no marriage under duress; if consenting adults want to enter into an Polygamy or a Polyandrous marriage then why stop them? The biggest issue with Polygamy has pretty much always been that fathers basically promised their daughters away to someone, much like what still goes on in countries we consider to be barbaric. And for good reason, because that practice is barbaric and antiquated. If a Woman of her own free will without coercion wants to marry a dude who already has a wife, and all parties agree, who cares? They'll do it anyway.

  • Civil Rights SANTA ROSA, CA
    June 10, 2013 7:00 a.m.

    I said,
    >Jesus said,
    >Treat your neighbors the way you would want to be treated.
    >There are no words from Jesus that contradict that.
    >The anti-gay stuff was said by people that never met Jesus,
    > paraphrasing Leviticus.

    Please note that the anti-marriage-equality poster confirmed this.

    Know Jesus, know the truth.
    No Jesus, no truth.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 10, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    @O'really --

    "Polygamy causes danger to women and children? "

    Courts in the US and Canada certainly believe so.

    Two or three years ago, a case was brought to the Supreme Court of British Columbia relating to the polygamists in Bountiful (the Canadian Bountiful).

    The court easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban.

    From various newspaper articles:

    Chief Justice Bauman said "The prevention of [the] collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial," ...He also found that Canada's ban "minimally impairs religious freedom".

    He also said "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

    Further excerpts rom Bauman's decision: "I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm," -- "Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse" .

    The Canadian Justice Minister stated: "The true victims of polygamy are the women and children this trial court decision protects"

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 10, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    @O'Really --

    "many children with same gender parents have "issues"?"

    All the reputable national groups of child-development experts SUPPORT gay marriage -- because they recognize that kids grow up just fine with same-sex parents.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics position statement declares, in part: “There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" .

    @zoar --

    "Paul preached that it was sinful."

    Paul also supported slavery and believed that women were inferior to men. Do you really want to insist that he was infallible?

    Jesus himself never said a word against homosexuality.

    @banderson --

    "I don't see the words 'abortion', 'incest', 'homomsexuality', 'bestiality', or 'physical, mental, or emotional abuse' in the bible!"

    This one's easy. Just one small example: "Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Romans 13:10

    Most of the things you mentioned cause harm to another. Therefore, they violate principles stated many times in the Bible. In contrast, homosexuality causes harm to no one.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    June 10, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    "Russell thinks the court will rule that DOMA creates two separate classes of marriage because some states allow gay marriage, leading to unfair treatment from one state to the next."

    Not true. DOMA creates one class of marriage... between one man and one woman. Any state law to the contrary is illegal and needs to be struck down. Why? Because of the US Constitution's supremacy clause which states that, where there is a discrepancy between state and federal law the federal law is supreme and the aberrant state law is null and void.

    Furthermore, all people, including gay and lesbian people can marry... provided they marry someone of the opposite sex... just like the federal law says. So, where's the discrimination?

    And on a related issue, if laws against gay/lesbian marriage is unconstitutional so are laws against polygamous marriages. In which case the LDS Church will have a gianormous claim against the federal government for discriminating against multiple marriages in the church's early history.

  • mcdugall Layton, UT
    June 10, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    @JBQ The judicial system is the mechanism to protect all from discrimination. Just because the majority belives in something, does not make that belief right.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 10, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    @wrz --

    "Furthermore, all people, including gay and lesbian people can marry... provided they marry someone of the opposite sex... just like the federal law says. So, where's the discrimination?"

    This is the same argument tried in Loving v. Virginia. "All people can marry, provided they marry someone of their own race." The Supreme Court didn't buy that argument then, and they won't buy it now.

    "And on a related issue, if laws against gay/lesbian marriage is unconstitutional so are laws against polygamous marriages."

    No. Public safety has always been a valid legal reason for limiting personal freedoms. And as I detailed in a previous post, courts are already well aware that polygamy conveys serious risks to women and children.

    As Chief Justice Baumann (of the Supreme Court of British Columbia) noted, "women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems."

    In stark contrast, consensual homosexuality harms no one.

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    June 10, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    Re: "Russell thinks the court will rule that DOMA creates two separate classes of marriage because some states allow gay marriage, leading to unfair treatment from one state to the next."

    This is what Justice Ginsberg meant when she referred to "skim milk marriage".

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    June 10, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    @ wwwookie,

    Re: "the judges should follow the constitution and allow states to define marriage, while requiring all states to recognize a marriage validated in any other state."

    Unfortunately, the (mis-named) "Defense" of Marriage Act forbids this. It very specifically EXEMPTS ITSELF from the Constitution's Full Faith & Credit Clause. Sadly, this was not even argued at the hearings. It is observably un-Constitutional, but may require another case to hear that argument.

    Oh, and "D"oMA DOES "allow states to define marriage". Its authors just never figured that SOME states (12 and counting) would define it to include same-gender couples. And, now that same-gender couples CAN get legally married, the 'dilemma' is what to do with them vis a vis the Federal Government, which regulates those pesky 1,138 "effects that flow from marriage". This 'one-way anti-federalism' is what Bob Barr (R) now decries. Also clearly quite un-Constitutional, but again, was not argued at the current round of hearings at the SC(R)OTUS.

  • 2 tell the truth Clearwater, FL
    June 10, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    @ Bill in Nebraska,

    Re: "Man has no right to change the laws of God and our Heavenly Father's law currently stands"

    One would have to believe as you seem to in order to make that 'argument'.

    But, unfortunately (for you and your 'argument'), EVERYONE gets to have freedom of religious belief. Your beliefs do not trump others'.

    Secular, civil "man" has no right to insert his religious beliefs into secular civil law. Nor to force others to abide by the beliefs of a faith to which they do not subscribe.

    Have a nice lifestyle.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 10, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    For the Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8 on grounds of animus would ignore the clear fact that the state proactively endorsing a ceremony that many people object to on religious grounds without providing clear wording to grant such objectors religious liberty in that instance would be gravely detrimental to people's religious freedom in practice.

    As we have seen in Washington state, the ability of an individual to chose to not violate their religion in the way they conduct their artistic activity of creating floral displays will run up against the state endorsement of ceremonies they object to. If the court dismisses this objection as mere "animus" it will be a sad day for individual freedom.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 10, 2013 11:45 a.m.

    What happened to the progressive Church of the 1830s - when they were at the forefront of major civil movements?

    Baby steps need to be replaced with lengthening strides - at a fast pace.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 10, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    John Lambert,

    Why will it be a sad day?

    Keep in mind we are talking, specifically, about Prop 8 - not about any other type of legislation, and keep in mind, also, that the federal government has many times superceded individual state statutes because they violated guaranteed rights.

    Is it a sad day because of that as well?

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    June 10, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    God is in control; He knows all; He knew this would come even before the creation of the world; this is a sword splitting society right down the middle; the sword is God giving us free will; we are all being forced to choose; you either believe the morality taught by Peter and Paul, or you do not. God wants everyone to choose. It is a time to choose. I am not talking of marriage. The constitution probably does grant equality on that issue. Yet the Bible is more important than the Constitution. And religion is more important than politics. Messrs. Obama, Clinton, Harry Reid, Dick Cheney, Chuck Schumer and so many others (from both parties) in society put their college education ahead of believing Peter and Paul. For 50 years now our nation has worshipped the university more than the Bible. Christianity is traditional family. Once a new volume of scripture comes forth allowing sin, greed and addiction----I'll consider it, until then, I'll stick to following Peter, Paul and Joseph Smith.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    June 10, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    @amazondoc:
    "Public safety has always been a valid legal reason for limiting personal freedoms. And as I detailed in a previous post, courts are already well aware that polygamy conveys serious risks to women and children."

    Your argument holds no water. Any risk in a polygamous marriage is not due to the marriage arrangement but due to the mentality of the persons in the marriage. In fact, there is ample risk in many monogamous marriages if one or the other of the partners fails to honor the commitment to love and cherish.

    Case in point, a certain mid-east religion is known to beat their wives into submission. It's grossly unfair and misleading to include that group in any study. Barring that, there are few, if any, groups of significance to include in any study. Furthermore, the Judge you cite gives no source for his conclusions. And if he is thinking of the early LDS Church, he very well could be relying on prejudices since many were and even now are prejudice against that church for some sick reason.

  • Zadruga Guy West Jordan, UT
    June 10, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    I agree that Civil Unions for everyone is the best way to proceed.

    It sounds like the Catholic Church in the UK will soon be on the same footing there as the LDS Church. The LDS Church's temple marriages there are not regarded by the government as also being civil marriages. So a couple there has to make an extra stop at their local registrar to get the civil ceremony, in addition to the temple ceremony.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    June 10, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    I think it would be a travesty for the Supreme Court to rule that those defending Prop 8 do not have "standing." It will mean that, in the future, if the people of California pass any sort of proposition (nominally valid under the California constitution), all that has to happen to disallow the proposition is for government officials to encourage a lawsuit, then stand aside and refuse to defend the law, thereby eliminating it.

    Regardless of how one feels about this particular proposition, the ramifications for Californians' right to direct democracy are devastating. It will effectively grant an executive veto over the people's will, something currently disallowed under California law.

    I agree that our courts have the duty to rule on the constitutionality of any law. In California, the courts ruled that Prop 22 was unconstitutional, so the people changed the California constitution--their only recourse in such a situation.

    To skirt the issue by ruling that the people have no right to defend their own duly passed laws will cut a very broad swath through the California tradition of direct democracy.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    June 10, 2013 1:34 p.m.

    Why all the hatred and bigotry toward single people? They deserve to not be stigmatized or discriminated against.

    They should be allowed to enter into "same-person" marriages. That way, if anyone asks, they can say -- yes I'm married. So what if it creates confusion. Feelings and equality are more important. After all, it's just a case of changing definitions once again to be more inclusive.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 10, 2013 1:38 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "Your argument holds no water."

    The courts say otherwise. I trust them to know more about the law than you do.

    "Furthermore, the Judge you cite gives no source for his conclusions."

    My brief excerpts aren't his full written decision -- of course. If you want his sources, look em up.

    @christoph --

    "you either believe the morality taught by Peter and Paul, or you do not."

    First, Peter never mentioned homosexuality.

    Second, Peter and Paul both supported slavery ("obey your masters") and believed that women were inferior to men ("the weaker partner").

    Peter also called Lot "a righteous man", even though Lot committed incest with his own daughters AND offered up his daughters to be raped.

    Do YOU believe **all** of the morality taught by Peter and Paul?

    Jesus himself never said a single word against homosexuality.

    "Yet the Bible is more important than the Constitution."

    Not in this country.

    This is not a theocracy. Your God doesn't win just because you say so.

    @John Pack --

    "the ability of an individual to chose to not violate their religion..."

    Businesses haven't been allowed to discriminate since the days of racial segregation. There's nothing new about that.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    June 10, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    SoCalChris

    Right on!!!

    Perhaps we should have self baptism instituted by the government. Anyone who has ever run through a sprinkler, or has gone swimming, is now baptized.

    It makes just as much sense as the government defining and regulating marriage.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    June 10, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    nrajr of sandy: Re: lawsuits in CO and WA

    You are conflating anti-discrimination laws that have nothing to do with civil marriage. The WA and CO cases are about invidious discrimination in business - the same type outlawed by racial segregation. Remember "whites only" restaurants and hotels? If you serve everyone except gay fiancees, then you deserve to be held accountable. Otherwise, don't offer any of your services to the public. Are you in favor of bringing back those "WHITES ONLY" signs? Absent public accommodation laws, they can easily be re-lettered to read "NO MORMONS or DOGS".

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    June 10, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    JBQ in St Lou: Your "voice of the people" argument ignores the facts that our government is a CONSTITUTIONAL republic. We've decided as a society through our founding fathers wisdom that there must be a brake sometimes on a tyranny by the majority. That is the whole reason for a constitution! "Majority rules" is and never has been part of our system. Otherwise, LDS rights would be voted out of existence as we are a tiny minority.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    June 10, 2013 3:06 p.m.

    Wookie: Here it is real simple like. SCOTUS will rule that Congress overstepped its authority in enacting DOMA. SCOTUS will also rule that a bare minimum of CA voters overstepped their authority in Prop 8. Both will be based only on the US Constitution. That's what all constitutions are for: to put thoughtful limits on the exercise of government power. BLAG and Prop 8 proponents want unbridled power. We all do. But we have all agreed to be constrained by the Constitution for our own collective good.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    June 10, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    @amazondoc, Jesus himself never said a single word against homosexuality. Wrong,

    Genesis 2:22,Then the LORD=(Jehovah=Jesus) God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man….24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his Wife, and they become One flesh.

    (Mt19:8-12)In context, It is good not to marry; not as an objection against the prohibition of divorce, as they intended it, but as giving them a rule, that they who have the gift of continence, and are not under any necessity of marrying, do best if they continue single (1 Co. 7:1 ); for they that are unmarried have opportunity to care more for the things of the Lord, how they may please the Lord (1 Co. 7:32-34 ). The increase of grace is better than the increase of the family, and fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ is to be preferred before any other fellowship. i.e.. St.Paul and Catholic Nuns.

  • Wwwookie Payson, UT
    June 10, 2013 4:19 p.m.

    Marco Luxe,

    Read the article. The likely ruling of the supreme court on Prop 8(the basis on which all of my comments have been made) is that they will not rule on it. ...Even simpler than you thought. The expected ruling on DOMA is that it will be overturned, which I whole-heartedly agree with.

    But in what way will the court say that DOMA overstepped its bounds? They will say that it is not for the federal government to decide what marriage is - that this is the states´ privelege (i.e. read the 10th ammendment if this is really what happens).

    That is then a shot in the foot to the current federal ruling on Prop 8. It would completely contradict the expected ruling on DOMA. And therein lies the inconsistency.

    One more time: if federal law cannot determine what does or does not constitute "marriage", then the federal courts cannot invoke the 14th ammendement in the other case, because it is about the states ability to define marriage, which the court would have just said is the state´s right and doesn´t contradict federal law (i.e. you cannot use the supremacy clause).

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 10, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    @Amazondoc

    "Jesus himself never said a word against homosexuality"

    Paul was a witness of the resurrected Christ and as an ordained apostle he was a representative of the Lord when he preached to the Saints in Rome who would have been very familiar with what he was counseling them against.

    Acts22:6-21 Paul tells the story of his conversion and the mission he was called to perform.
    He must have been a prophet also because here is the criteria:

    "And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream." Num 12:6

    Due to his extraordinary experience which fulfilled the qualifications to be a spokesman for God, Paul when he was preaching was speaking in behalf of Christ not of himself.

    In the first chapter of Romans it is perfectly clear what he is talking about.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    June 10, 2013 4:57 p.m.

    @ amazondoc: You, and several posters previously, say things about the Bible that suggest that you are not entirely secure in your understanding.

    "First, Peter never mentioned homosexuality."

    True, but it wasn't necessary. Peter was an observant Jew, and, for him, sexual relations between people of the same gender was punishable by death. He probably understood later that Jesus' atonement rescinded the death penalty, but not the attachment of sin. Jesus was also an observant Jew, and there was no need for him to mention homosexuality to his audience of observant Jews. Jesus was very clear that marriage was between a man and a women (when he cited Genesis).

    "Second, Peter and Paul both supported slavery ('obey your masters')"

    They support obedience among converts who were slaves. It's a far different concept.

    "and believed that women were inferior to men."

    Check out 1 Corinthians 11:11.

    "even though Lot committed incest with his own daughters AND offered up his daughters to be raped."

    Do you really want a discussion on Sodom? In the context of, and in comparison to Sodom, Lot was righteous. One could easily read that Sodom's gay-friendly culture corrupted an otherwise righteous man and his family.

  • DUPDaze Bakersfield, CA
    June 10, 2013 5:31 p.m.

    From the Biblical perpsective, this issue is all about rebellion. Period. Call it what you want. Just don't call marriage Biblical, if it contains any 2nd party other than God.

  • 2nd lantern Payson, UT
    June 10, 2013 6:34 p.m.

    Homosexual communities honestly desire every right and privilege already enumerated under life, liberty and the original right to own property. The Constitution does not discuss marriage. Homosexuals desire to be equal and endowed with all unalienable rights by their Creator. Yet,they choose to be different. How? They choose to deny God was speaking to them when He declared ANY sexual behavior outside of marriage was sin. Some don't like that truth. People squirm when gay or straight friends or family have desires and resultant problems from choosing or acting out weakness. You say what weakness? The greatest weakness is being at odds with God. He provided for continuation of the human family through birth and laws governing family. He desires to bless his children. Marriage provides the contract between man, woman and God that together future generations of family will be protected. God would cease to be God if he gave his children what is contrary to his law and nature's law. Both laws witness this truth. Desires or behaviors behind closed doors by straits or gays cannot hide from Heaven's eye. No court can force God to change truth.

  • George New York, NY
    June 10, 2013 6:45 p.m.

    Wookie

    As has been pointed out to you over and over not only is your reasoning wrong but so fails to reflect constitutional law. Hoping that no one will bother reading all the previous responses to your ever changing arguments does not make them go away.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 10, 2013 6:46 p.m.

    @ Wookie: You are seeing a conflict where none exists. There are two issues being debated.

    DOMA states that the Federal Government will not recognize same-sex marriages even from the states where they are legal. If that part of DOMA is struck down, then the Federal Government will recognize legal marriages regardless of the genders of the participants.

    The Prop 8 trial deals not with defining marriage, but with whether or not passing Prop 8 and removing a pre-existing right violates the Federal Constitution. The fact that the right that was removed pertains to same-sex marriage is merely coincidental as far as a relationship with DOMA. The case could just as easily deal with any number of other state recognized rights.

    Again, the issues are 1) Does the Federal Government have to recognize all legal marriages? and 2) Can the voters of a state remove a state recognized right or is that a violation of the 14th Amendment?

    This is not about can states define marriage and can states define marriage. It is can states define marriage and can states remove rights. Two totally different issues.

  • Mr. Bean Pheonix, AZ
    June 10, 2013 11:07 p.m.

    "Russell thinks the court will rule that DOMA creates two separate classes of marriage because some states allow gay marriage, leading to unfair treatment from one state to the next."

    There is no reason for the court to overturn DOMA which creates but one class of marriage... between a man and a women. Any state law to the contrary would have to be abandoned due to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. It's not rocket science.

    There are those who maintain the US Constitution does not allow the federal government to be involved in defining marriage. That's nuts. The federal government has put itself square in the middle of many issues that are not specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. One example, abortion... which is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

    If, perchance, DOMA is overturned, the door would inevitably be flung wide open for all kinds of marriage arrangements including polygamy, child/adult, groups, sibs, or any other combination the human mind can conjure. Anything else would be discriminatory and thus, unconstitutional.

    Again, it's not rocket science.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    June 10, 2013 11:18 p.m.

    wrz
    (A)ll people, including gay and lesbian people can marry... provided they marry someone of the opposite sex... just like the federal law says. So, where's the discrimination?

    LDS4
    Christians in Saudi Arabia likewise can have religious freedom...as long as they choose to attend a mosque and read the Koran. Both the gays and Christians are simply CHOOSING to not to meet the requirements for those rights. It's their own dang fault.

    John Pack Lambert
    As we have seen in Washington state, the ability of an individual to chose to not violate their religion in the way they conduct their artistic activity of creating floral displays will run up against the state endorsement of ceremonies they object to.

    LDS4
    Those "artists" felt that selling to gays wouldn't violate their religion when the got their business license saying that they'd abide by the state's antidiscrimination laws. Aren;t they subject to kings, rulers magistrates...?

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 11, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    @sharrona --

    "Genesis 2:22" -- This speaks of the creation of Eve -- not condemnation of homosexuality.

    "Mt19:8-12" -- Still not speaking against homosexuality. In fact, this is where Jesus specifically says "For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb...".

    -- And as we know from ancient language scholars: "in translations of ancient texts, 'eunuch' may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent, celibate, or otherwise not inclined to marry and procreate." -- IOW, homosexuals.

    -- Clement of Alexandria wrote, regarding this passage: "...their (referring to followers of Basilides) explanation of this saying is roughly as follows: Some men from their birth, have a natural sense of repulsion from a woman..." (Stromata, III. 1.1). IOW they already recognized that "born eunuch" meant "homosexual", **1800 years ago.**

    "1 Co. 7:1", "1 Co. 7:32-34" -- we already know that Paul didn't like homosexuality. He wasn't Jesus.

    Once again: Jesus didn't say a single word condemning homosexuality. Homosexuality is never even mentioned in the Gospels, except for that one passage where Jesus acknowledged that some eunuchs are "born that way" -- and that such men should not marry women.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 11, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    @Jeff --

    "Peter was an observant Jew...."

    Interesting, then, that Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative Jewish denominations of today are all happy to perform same-sex marriages. They seem a bit less hung-up on ancient laws than some of today's Christians. ;-)

    "Jesus was also an observant Jew...."

    Refer to my preceding post about "eunuchs" and Matthew.

    "They support obedience among converts who were slaves. It's a far different concept."

    That Biblical "obey your masters" concept was frequently used to justify slavery in the days surrounding the Civil War.

    "Check out 1 Corinthians 11:11."

    Check out 1 Corinthians 11:8-9.

    You've also reminded me that Paul said: "a husband must not divorce his wife" (1 Cor 7:11) and "A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives" (1 Cor 7:39)
    -- How many people here have violated these?

    "Do you really want a discussion on Sodom?"

    We've already had loooong discussions about Sodom here. Sodom more to do with inhospitality, pride, and arrogance than merely with homosexuality. Also, remember -- Old Testament.

    "In the context of, and in comparison to Sodom, Lot was righteous."

    LOL! Rape and incest are NEVER righteous.

  • Wwwookie Payson, UT
    June 11, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    @George and Kalinda
    it really is incredible. My view has stayed 100% consistent throughout, yet George´s argument is that it varies? It is hard to argue against founded statements and I understand your frustration. It is much easier to argue against the religious fanatics that think christianity should dominate the U.S. Govt.

    The inconsistency is there. And yes, it is obvious that these are two different issues, consistent with all my other posts (read them). The Prop 8 issue is about whether a state can grant a right and then take it away. I believe that is where poor George is getting stuck and where there is also a clear inconsistency.

    If the federal government does not have the constitutional jursidiction to rule on a matter (i.e. definition of marriage in this case, or it could be zoning laws in another...), then the federal government would not be allowed to step in and claim jurisdiction on whether that state can give or take away rights or laws or definitions if previously given. Doesn´t that contradict the fact they say they have no jurisdiction in the first place? Absolutely it does.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    June 11, 2013 12:41 p.m.

    @amazondoc, "Genesis 2:22" -- This speaks of the creation of Eve -- not condemnation of homosexuality. Wrong,
    Genesis 2:22,Then the LORD=(Jehovah=Jesus)….24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his Wife[not his Man], and they become One flesh. Family unt, Adam and Eve.

    'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife[not his man], and the two will become one flesh'(Mt 19:5)

    Jesus acknowledged that some eunuchs are "born that way" -- and that such men should not marry.
    Greek, 2135 Eunich d) one who voluntarily abstains from marriage. True like. St Paul,Catholic Nuns and Monks
    The LORD(Jehovah,Jesus) said to Moses(Lev 18:1)…You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.(Lev 18:22)

    Paul quotes the LORD Jehovah,… The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals(1Cor 6:9 NET)

  • DUPDaze Bakersfield, CA
    June 11, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    Some people's Biblical ignorance on sexual sin is shocking, but not irrepairable. Just point out the passages to them.

    Some people's dishonesty on explicit Biblical passages (clearly in both Testaments) reveal their disdain for Biblical texts and for the Biblical God who gave them for His creation's protection and happiness.

    But it is not an issue for non-Biblicals to worry over. Non-Muslims don't debate Koranic or Sharia issues. If you are not going to do your homework and accurately plead either side of an issue, you really should keep your opinions safely in a plain brown wrapper.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 11, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    @sharrona --

    "[not his Man]"

    Of course "not his man". Remember, they didn't have in vitro fertilization, or surrogacy, or even adoption back then.

    This is NOT a condemnation of homosexuality, no matter how much you might like to make it so. It is simply a statement congruent with the limited reproductive options back then.

    We also don't see anyone in the Bible getting on airplanes. That doesn't make airplanes evil.

    "The LORD(Jehovah,Jesus) said to Moses(Lev 18:1)…You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.(Lev 18:22)"

    Remember -- the OT laws of Leviticus were supplanted by the New Covenant. Remember shrimp?

    "Paul quotes the LORD Jehovah,…"

    Yes, we know that Paul didn't like homosexuals. He also supported slavery and thought that women were inferior to men. Oh, and he told people to never get divorced. How many people follow THAT one??

    Paul was NOT Jesus.

    It is still true that JESUS never said a single word against homosexuality. And please stop trying to quote the OT at us. When I say JESUS I'm obviously talking about the New Covenant, and the Son.

  • George New York, NY
    June 11, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    @wookie
    Founded statements like your claim that the federal law and constitution do not take supremacy over the states?that was your first false argument.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 11, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    @wookie
    Your statements probably are founded in something but its not truth and reason.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 11, 2013 6:47 p.m.

    The first civil war was fought over slavery. If you go back and look at what was happening that led up to the Civil War and then look what is happening today history may repeat itself.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    June 12, 2013 6:26 a.m.

    @plainbrownwrapper JESUS I'm obviously talking about the New Covenant, and the Son.

    Jesus is the God of the O.T.. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.(John 1:1) The Word became flesh..v.14.

    God said unto Moses,” I(ego) am(eimi) “(HE WHO IS (ho on): and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, HE WHO IS (ho on) hath sent me unto you. (Septuagint Exodus 3:14).

    Jesus said unto them, Verily(G. amen), verily=(G.amen), I say unto you, BEFORE Abraham was
    , I(ego) am(eimi).59 Then took they up Stones to Cast at him:... John 8:58-59, Blasphemy to the Jews . Jesus made himself equal to Jehovah.

    Apollo, Jezebel, Sexual Immorality,(Rev 2:18-29) Thyatira, the ancient city that housed Apollo, the male sun-god. whose heart and body was given to many, both male and female, in the name of love. His followers would behold him in worship and become like him in practice, embracing sexual immorality,homosexuality, in the name of liberty.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 12, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    @zoar63;

    You forget, that the prohibition against homosexuality was also part of the "law of Moses". If Jesus fulfilled the law, he fulfilled the WHOLE law, not just part of it and Paul was stuck in the past.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 12, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    @sharrona --

    "Jesus is the God of the O.T."

    "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

    Was Jesus talking to himself? ;-)

    One More Time: Jesus never said a word against homosexuality.

    One More Time: the Gospels never mention homosexuality, aside from the passage in which Jesus specifically acknowledged -- WITHOUT condemnation -- the fact that some men are "born eunuchs".

    "Apollo, Jezebel, Sexual Immorality,(Rev 2:18-29) "

    Please stop adding words to Bible verses and pretending that you're using real quotes.Homosexuality is never actually mentioned in that passage. Those verses are actually talking about adultery.

    "Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds." (Rev2:22)

    @zoar63 --

    "history may repeat itself."

    And that worked out really well for the slavers, didn't it?

    Emancipation came about despite the best efforts of the people who wanted to restrict civil liberties. The same will happen this time.

  • oldrunner Ogden, UT
    June 12, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    The government can not side with one religion over another. It, like wise, can not allow a legal contract in one state to be illegal in another state. This controversy is a prime example of why there should be a total separation between religion and government, except when religions try to impose their standards as if they were the law of the land. Our constitution was written to protect religions from government persecution and also to protect the government from religious interference. Our society has always recognized that marriage is recognized by government as a contract and recognized by religions as something more. Religions are feeling threatened by what other religions are doing and they are asking government to intervene with DOMA laws. Government should not be doing this and the Supreme Court should make this clear by striking down these laws as unconstitutional.

  • Getting it Right Sunnyvale, CA
    June 12, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    Being gay is just part of the weaknesses of men just like drug addiction, gambling, pornography and etc... Yes, you are born that way. You are born with such weakness.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    @John Pack Lambert
    "The LDS Church never had any policy that prevented inter-racial marriage on such grounds."

    To anyone, since John may have run out of comments, did the ban on holding the priesthood prevent them from marrying in the temple until the late 70s?

    @Bill in Nebraska
    "Man has no right to change the laws of God and our Heavenly Father's law currently stands and has always been between man and woman. "

    We're arguing about civil marriage. That's not God's jurisdiction.

  • Claudio Springville, Ut
    June 12, 2013 11:42 a.m.

    Re: alt134

    I don't see how it couldn't have prevented them. If you lacked the priesthood, you couldn't receive temple ordinances.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 12, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    Last time I checked God made Adam.

    He also made Steve.

    So God did make Adam and Steve.

    Your argument is illogical.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 12, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    2nd try:

    @nrajr & RBB;

    You are confusing the freedom to worship with the requirement of non-discrimination in a business. Florists, Bakers, etc. are not "religious organizations" and are therefore not free to discriminate based on religion.

    @Big Bubba;

    Your "Proclamation" applies to Mormons only. Sorry buddy, but your leaders are no better/more powerful than the leaders of any other religious denomination.

    @george of the jungle;

    How does a same-sex marriage tell you what GLBT "do behind closed doors" any more than a heterosexual marriage does? It's your imagination you're listening to.

    @JBQ;

    Sorry, the Civil Rights of others are not yours to vote upon.

    @banderson;

    Your "god" is a fiction.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 12, 2013 12:49 p.m.

    @JWB;

    "If the basic Judeo-Christian law meant one thing relating to marriage for hundreds if not thousands of years ..."

    There you go, FORCING "Judeo-Christian law" on non-members; We have a First Amendment, remember?

    @Riverton Cougar;

    Which god? You're welcome to yours, nobody else is obligated to follow him.

    @Getting it Right;

    We have to be strong enough to deal with you and people like you. IMO, that makes it a strength, not a weakness.

  • James B. Young SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 12, 2013 3:21 p.m.

    Leave private marriage to the churches and register them as civil union contracts at the court house.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    June 12, 2013 4:23 p.m.

    Where does this idea come from that marriage is somehow the domain of religion, especially Christian religion? There are billions of people in the world who don't believe in the Bible or Christianity, and their marriages are no less valid because of it. According to Buddhanet.net, "wedding ceremonies have always been regarded as secular affairs in Buddhist countries," and if the parties involved want a blessing from a Buddhist monk, they obtain it AFTER the civil formalities have been taken care of. Marriages performed by a civil authority are just as legitimate, and just as much real marriages, as those performed in a Christian church.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 12, 2013 5:08 p.m.

    @plainbrownwrapper

    "Emancipation came about despite the best efforts of the people who wanted to restrict civil liberties. The same will happen this time."

    They won it by paying the ultimate price not with rallies consensus polls or judicial rulings.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 13, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    zoar63 said: "They won it by paying the ultimate price not with rallies consensus polls or judicial rulings."

    So you think that thousands needed to die to defend the indefensible, the racists, the slave owners and businessmen with no ethics.

    Killing in the name of...

    Can anyone defend Prop 8 without bringing religion into the argument?
    Cause I've yet to see it.

    When are the pious going to outlaw pork, shellfish, adultery, or do you just choose a couple scriptures as more important to YOU?

  • john d REXBURG, ID
    June 13, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    if the courts rule in favor of gay marriage then they should make sure the religious institute should not be sue for not marrying them. we should not change god laws because of wicked judges.chrst word will always stand. Christ said be in the world not of it. Christ save lot family because they did not go along with the wicked of soldem and gamorah. lets hope the courts save religious institute if not we will be all in trouble bowing down to the wicked judges.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    June 15, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    We mustn't forget that supporting Prop. 8 violated 1Cor. 10:29/ D&C 134's denunciation of using religious beliefs to justify violating the rights of others. Gays had the right/liberty to marry in CA Ignoring scriptural prohibitions in order to prevent something bad from happening is likewise forbidden and called "steadying the ark".

    Prop. 8 violates the Romer decision. That case involved a Colorado initiative rescinding the rights of gays, just like 8 did. The Supreme Court held that it did nothing to advance a legitimate state interest. Neither does 8. The lower courts held that animus toward gays was the sole motivation for 8. The Romer decision cited the Moreno case which said that a "desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest." 8 attempts this.

    Romer then said - "We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else." 8 does this and tries to justify it by saying that marriage and "civil unions" are separate, but equal. We all know that "separate but equal" is never equal.

    LDS are to uphold scripture and the Constitution. 8 violates both.

  • George Vreeland Hill Beverly Hills, CA
    July 7, 2013 2:01 p.m.

    Same-sex marriage will be legal in every state before long.
    You can't deny rights to people based on opinions, beliefs and so on.
    Freedom and equality are what this nation is all about.
    That same freedom and equality goes for marriage as well.

    George Vreeland Hill