Quantcast
Utah

Attention now turns to Utah's Amendment 3

Comments

Return To Article
  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    June 27, 2013 7:37 p.m.

    The usual group of left wing liberals is yet again trying to impose its brand of thought on the rest of society. Indeed, it well stop at nothing until it has destroyed traditional notions of morality.

    The left wing has failed at changing the law through regular democratic channels, so it now seeks to do so through coercion and intimidation, just as in California.

    This is an issue for the voters, not judicial activists. We cannot allow the left to impose its brand of morally bankrupt anarchy.

  • Opine slc, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:09 p.m.

    Although Utah must often walk through pools of mud, I am grateful we have progression in other states to guide us through the mirky pools with amendments to end the prejudicial views. Just as many could never accept marriage between races, so will many never see a world where one can choose to freely become a citizen of any country on earth.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    June 27, 2013 8:10 p.m.

    This is a very biased article that is full of the language of only one side and totally ignores the other side of the issue.

    Man/women marriage keeps the purpose of marriage focused on creating an institution that will make it most likely to have children raised by their biological parents. The key is a form of child rearing, not a reality in practice. The definition of marriage is about large forms that achieve this.

    The pressing of this issue by a business executive also shows that this is an elietist attempt to destroy the traditional definition of marriage rooted in commitment and community.

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:36 p.m.

    In utah, marriage is a state issue........and the state has spoken! No judicial activists will ever change that here......

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    June 27, 2013 8:43 p.m.

    Legal does not mean the same as right, or beneficial.

    The left is progressively tearing down every bit of the moral, cultural and economic bases that made this country great. They win, but the country and our children lose.

    Congratulations on your legal victory, but your joy at actions that destroy my country offend me.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 27, 2013 9:11 p.m.

    @John Charity Spring:
    "The usual group of left wing liberals is yet again trying to impose its brand of thought on the rest of society. Indeed, it well stop at nothing until it has destroyed traditional notions of morality."

    I don't see anything left wing or liberal about this at all. Strengthening marriage rather than redefining it sends a message that discourages out of wedlock births and that men should be responsible for their reproductive actions. Traditional marriage is a powerful tool to fight poverty.

    The liberals and progressives are those trying to strengthen marriage not dilute it. Now, some of those on the side of traditional marriage will characterize themselves as 'conservative', but this is a liberal issue also.

    We have to stop thinking of politics as a bipolar entity, right and left, red and blue.

  • 22ksb Holladay, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:41 p.m.

    So who is responsible for protecting minorities?
    As Thomas Jefferson once said, "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    June 27, 2013 9:47 p.m.

    I don't believe Mr. Bryne has ever believed in marriage for himself and he is welcome to return to New Hampshire; nobody forces him to live here. Thank-you Al Gore and John Kerry, the last of the Democrats to have never endorsed same gender marriage. There is still a few sane people in the media. Memo to those who live by the law suit, life has never been even-steven since the beginning of time.

  • calcu_lus tucson, az
    June 27, 2013 11:02 p.m.

    It's interesting that liberals lock into "equality for equalities sake" but have a hard time thinking that "different things should be treated differently." Being a male or female is outdated to liberals. To stop the confusion, every liberal should be named Pat.

    Gay marriage is not the enlargement of an institution, it is the destruction of an honored one.

  • BroJoseph Ogden, UT
    June 27, 2013 11:05 p.m.

    Five of the nine US Supreme Court Justices were oppointed by Conservative Christians (Republicans)Presidents. Roberts ,Scalia,Kennedy,Thomas Alito. Appointed by GH Bush,Ronald Reagan and GW Bush Jr. We have no one to blame but ourselves. We point the finger at "liberals"; when we voted in the leaders who nominated the Justices to determine our laws, and they have found favor towards "same sex marriage". When will we ever learn that political parties will rarely favor, God given law.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    June 27, 2013 11:19 p.m.

    Anxious to hear from you!
    As soon as those who appear so terribly frightened of change, have found something tangible to present to America, incidents they can document and publish that have "destroyed" their family... Please do not delay in immediately calling a press conference for all media outlets.
    Until then, beware of those maddening headaches caused from those make believe terrors taking over inside your head.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 28, 2013 12:00 a.m.

    Let's hope the LDS Church will quickly realize how much good it would do for its own long-term future to support this change in the law. See how the "1978" decision came two decades too late and is now haunting the church. Not fighting against this marital change because it is a purely civil matter, and which does not affect religious freedom nor traditional marriage, would be a wise step for the Church.

  • UtefromAZ Phoenix, AZ
    June 28, 2013 1:30 a.m.

    If you don't like the laws in Utah, then don't go to Utah. Simple as that!

    And also, you just can't get married and get benefits in Utah.

    However, no one is stopping you from expressing your love for your partner. So quit trying to make this sound so horrible.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 28, 2013 2:25 a.m.

    One more thought. Around the world Utah is known as the "Mormon State". The international media report on what the Mormon Church does and tie it to Utah politics and events. A major positive effect for the church's image came from "Mormon building bridges", when Mormons marched for equality. Another positive effect came from the Church supporting the BSA decision to allow gay scouts. But in most cases negative reporting on Mormonism prevails and is detrimental to the church's worldwide image and to missionary work. The church's racial policies of the past are still haunting media reports on Mormonism today. We know now the church was on the wrong side of history. As scores of countries around the world have accepted same-gender marriage (and all civilized nations will soon), the Church will find itself again on the wrong side of history. And totally unnecessary because same-gender marriage is a civil matter that does not affect the church's internal policies nor traditional marriage.

  • CP Tooele, UT
    June 28, 2013 3:59 a.m.

    After reading this and other articles it just seems to me that the gay and lesbien group will never be satisfied. They want to change the Boy Scouts, and marriage. Face it they will never be satisfied until they take over the United States..actually now it seems to be more the Disunited States. The state of Utah came to be when LDS Pioneers came to establish a place where they can worship God and obey His laws..I pray that the government of this state will not forget that!

  • MConners12 Topsham, ME
    June 28, 2013 5:33 a.m.

    Look through the eyes of the children. We blundered big time with no-fault divorce. Artificial reproductive technology is being abused. And those two social experiments do not hold a candle to the social experiment of radically redefining the institution of man woman marriage. Children lose. Children always lose. There is no way around the fact that those states that have legalized same-sex marriage also by law decide that children do not need, do not have a right to their natural parents so far as it is humanly possible and in the best interest of the child. No right to both a mother and a father. We either move towards the ideal for children or away from it.

  • Paul H West Valley, UT
    June 28, 2013 5:48 a.m.

    "Inherent discrimination."

    Apparently Utah must recognize anything that is legal in other states. We can gamble in West Wendover, NV, but when we cross a state line we can't. Does this principle work both ways? How about with gun laws. Should the whole country be forced to recognize Utah's gun permits?
    Are these also examples of inherent discrimination?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 5:57 a.m.

    It's really as simple as this - states may not pass laws, including amendments to their state constitutions, that violate the constitution of the United States.

    It was Justice Scalia himself who, in his ranting dissent, observed that if DOMA is found to be unconstitutional that state equivalents to DOMA would similarly be found to be unconstitutional. Which they are.

    Utah's Amendment 3 will be challenged in court and it will be found to be unconstitutional.

    The majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority.

  • Jared Average, SE
    June 28, 2013 6:25 a.m.

    Tekakaromatagi: "The liberals and progressives are those trying to strengthen marriage not dilute it."

    Nothing could be farther from the truth. So if liberals are all about strengthening marriage, are they going to fight to end no fault divorces? Are they going to stop trying to redefine marriage as something other than between man and woman? Redefining marriage is not strengthening it, it is changing it. If you allow same-sex couples to marry, you allow them to divorce. This means divorce rates can only increase. Are they going to fight for policies that encourage complete fidelity to spouse? Are they going to push for more church participation (those who regularly go to church have lower divorce rates)? I could go on and on but much of what liberals and progressives do is not meant to strengthen marriage. In fact, many want to do away with the institution completely.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 28, 2013 6:32 a.m.

    @Christoph --

    "Thank-you Al Gore and John Kerry, the last of the Democrats to have never endorsed same gender marriage."

    Guess again.

    Al Gore 2008: "'I think that gay men and women ought to have the same rights as heterosexual men and women, to make contracts, to have hospital visiting rights, to join together in marriage,' Gore said. 'And I don't understand why it is considered by some people to be a threat to heterosexual marriage to allow it by gays and lesbians. Shouldn't we be promoting that kind of faithfulness and loyalty to one's partner regardless of sexual orientation?'"

    John Kerry 2011: "Many of us who once believed civil unions were sufficient to protect legal rights because we thought of marriage as a religious sacrament between a man and a woman, have seen that no church has been forced to do anything that contradicts its teachings. But when two committed people apply for a Massachusetts marriage license, they are equal whether they are gay or straight. It’s not about a word - it’s about equality under the law."

  • Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) Absecon, NJ
    June 28, 2013 6:37 a.m.

    The gay marriage issue is now history, as the homosexual lobby, given the proverbial inch has taken the proverbial mile and gay marriage recognized in all 50 States is virtually fait accompli. There is no restraining the rushing waters of social family change, and can no longer be held back from going over the falls. The genie is out of the bottle, Humpty Dumpty USA has fallen off the wall and is broken, and all the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put Humpty back together again.

  • snowwhite&7dwarfs Cedar City, UT
    June 28, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    So first the federal government FORCES the settlers of Utah to END polygamy because they don't like it in order for Utah to become a state. NOW Utah will be FORCED to accept gay marriage by the federal government because they DO like it. Meanwhile, complacent LDS people worry about what flowers to put on the RS podium for their Sunday lesson.

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    June 28, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    Tick, tock, tick tock....

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 28, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    So many of you claim to be moral and righteous and refuse to obey your Jesus. His own words were: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". He didn't put any qualifiers on that commandment.

    Bigotry is immoral. Discrimination is immoral. Nobody is going to force you into a same sex marriage. Nobody is going to force your churches to perform same sex marriages.

    It's time to grow up kids. It's time to realize that you have been wrong all this time and actually start LIVING your religion yourselves.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    June 28, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    In the end, if you believe in the Constitution, the full faith and credit provision has to be recognized or the nation will come unraveled. This means that a legal marriage in one state will be honored in another. Eventually, this has to happen.

  • goodnight-goodluck S.L.C., UT
    June 28, 2013 7:42 a.m.

    Equal Protection un the law. The kestone of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Yes it's a beautiful thing this constitution. Especially when it's applied to EVERYONE !!

  • Mom Johnson West Jordan, UT
    June 28, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    The LGBT agenda is upon us. I can see it now...........more and more LGBT couples will move to Utah so that their voting voices will be heard. They will move because of that soul reason. Citizens of Utah need to prepare themselves for a battle from here on out. Not only will they sway the vote in their direction over legalizing marriage, but they will sway the vote in all the elections to go their way. They are a united group with lots and lots of money behind them.

    This is not a scare tactic, and it is not out of disrespect, it is very real. This is what is happening all over the country. Don't be blind to what is inevitable. We have lived somewhat complacently here in Utah for decades. It's time that we wake up and get involved and know what is happening around us.

  • snowwhite&7dwarfs Cedar City, UT
    June 28, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    @Wilf 55
    You really must read the statement put out to each ward about the BSA decision. It is not a acceptance of gay boys. It is an affirmation that virtue and morals are still the foundation of scouting and the LDS church continues to hold those standards: Celibacy before marriage (to one of the opposite gender) and complete fidelity after. I pose this question: Once the left gets its way and Utah accepts same gender marriage how long do you think it will take for a gay couple to sue the church because they can't be "married" in one of our temples? I'm betting about a New York minute. This is not about gay marriage, this is about forcing churches to do what the left wants. It was said quite well just a few months ago by an LGBT activist. Masha Gessen 2012 "the institution of marriage should not exist". Search "lesbian activists surprisingly candid speech gay marriage fight is a lie to destroy marriage" for the video of her speech. Acceptance of the premise is just another step into the Nile during crocodile meal time. The agenda is the destruction of marriage in every form, not strengthening marriage.

  • elarue NEW YORK, NY
    June 28, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    Reading these comments has only made me more convinced of why using the legislative arena to defend traditional marriage has wound up backfiring and only angered those who see differently than we do. If we could stick to sharing our values in a civil, compassionate way, through the normal proselyting channels of the church, it's much more likely that people would be willing to take a look at them with open hearts (or at least open minds) and then choose to accept it or not on its face. Instead, we had to engage it in a hostile manner, and now neither side wins. Oh, it's resulted in members of the church voting more Republican and electing politicians who support anti-family economics, which destroys families of all types - even the faithful members of the church.

  • MAYHEM MIKE Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    @WILF 55: Thanks for your amusing comment implying that the Church is slow to follow the "wise" evolution of history, and that, with time, it will see the error of its ways. Why don't you get familiar with the Church's "The Family: A Proclamation To The World," and discover that that statement is a statement of fundamental Church doctrine, amendable only by direct revelation from God, Himself. Also, unbeliever that you may be, please note that our Church leaders, as well as its devout followers, consider the Proclamation a warning to those who violate God's laws, including countries and, even, readers of the Deseret News.

  • sjc layton, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:20 a.m.

    Traditional marriage ?

    Does "traditional" marriage mean polygamy, as was traditional among many societies prior to and after Judeo/Christian theology? In african cultures many wives were the norm.

    In other cultures, the sale of a 13 yr old daughter preceded a "traditional" marriage.

    Anyone who uses the term "defending traditional marriage" is ignorant of history. How many wives did those described in the bible have ?

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    So, what this argument means is that there is no difference between man-man, woman-woman, and man-woman relationships. I don't buy it. I think there are big differences between these relationships and should be treated uniquely.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    Jared says: If you allow same-sex couples to marry, you allow them to divorce. This means divorce rates can only increase.

    So you believe States should enact laws to make it more difficult for people to get married so there will be fewer divorces? What are you considering?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 28, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    @sjc:

    Funny. You understood perfectly from those talking about traditional marriage that they meant one man and one woman. What should we call it instead? Some awkward term? How about a "Real Marriage".

    Lots of cultures had the view that generally speaking a man would pair off with a woman for the length of their lives for the rearing of children and grandchildren and that there should most of the time or all of the time sexual exclusivity. That the man and the woman had different but equal roles. I have a 400 year old poem composed (not written) by a woman living in a stone-age society who mounrs that her husband left her for another woman. I have a story about a man in about 1650, who in a time of crisis, traded his lands to get his wife brought to him so they could flee into exile together rather than being separated.

    That is the kind of marriage that I mean by traditional marriage.

    Husband and wife, rather than Spouse 1 and Spouse 2.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 28, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    @Jared:

    "Redefining marriage is not strengthening it, it is changing it."
    Exactly right. We agree. Read my post again.

  • snowwhite&7dwarfs Cedar City, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    Will they then try to amend the Utah Constitution: Article I section 29? See the feds forced Utahns to put that in when they disagreed with polygamy. Guess the LGBT lobby was less active back then huh?

  • Walt Nicholes Orem, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    If these Liberals believe that all forms of marriage should be recognized, would they endorse plural marriage as one of those forms?

  • FT1/SS Virginia Beach, VA
    June 28, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    The Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8 tells me it's a state issue. But, more likely there stalling for more time. For a conservative state law banning same sex marriage to come into the Supreme Court, for them to overrule. I wonder if the Utah homosexual couples are capable of being civil at the capitol, unlike what I've seen on video's at other rally's across the country.

  • midvale guy MIDVALE, UT
    June 28, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    @Ranchand- It is NOT bigotry. I do not dislike the person I dislike the behavior. We are all God's children. The real problem is Nobody can express disagreement or dislike of someone's behavior without someone else there to immediately claim 'Intolerance". Just because I don't like the behavior doesn't me I don't care about the person. Thank God, Jesus loves the sinner because I know who I am too.

  • sjc layton, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    @
    Tekakaromatagi

    That was exactly my point. You have a traditional view of marriage. Others do not share the same view. The word "traditional" is sufficiently vague as to cause the problem

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    Please explain how the state of Utah will defend against this: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State."

    Oh, btw, that is part of our US Constitution.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 28, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    @Walt --

    "If these Liberals believe that all forms of marriage should be recognized..."

    Straw man. Nobody has made this claim.

    1. polygamy -- polygamy creates concrete dangers to citizens. Public safety has always been a valid legal argument for limiting personal freedoms.
    -- For details, look up the 2011 case in Canada, which easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban -- even though they've had gay marriage for years now.

    2. adult incest (adult siblings, adult parent/children) -- illegal in every state because of public safety concerns. Not only is there the question of undue influence/coercion amongst close relatives, but also the risk of genetic defects in offspring is very high (roughly 30-40%).
    -- For details, look up any of SEVERAL recent court cases, in both state and Federal courts, which have very clearly and uniformly declared that homosexuality rulings DON'T apply to incest.

    3. child incest/pedophilia/bestiality -- children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore, they can't sign marriage contracts. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of all our contract laws. It can't be removed.

    4. In contrast, gay marriages **don't** convey any special risk to public safety.

  • sandyj Brigham City, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    If Supreme Court is saying same sex partners have to be treated equally with the Federal Government, they will be able to file "married filing joint" on their income tax returns. What's that going to do to the states that do not recognize them as married when filing their state returns? In Utah, the state return is tied to the federal return. I see lots of problems for the states along these lines.

  • trueblue87 Provo, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    They are just trying to impose laws from other states on the state of Utah. This is in essence similar to someone trying to come from Nevada and arguing that Utah should allow gambling because he likes to gamble and he wants to live in Utah. If you don't like the laws here in Utah, live somewhere else. That is the beauty of living in the United States, if you don't like certain aspects of one state, you can move to another.

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    June 28, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    When any nation, past or present, elevates law over prophecy, they may have the day - but eventualy confusion and disaster follows.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    You want to do a funny exercise? Go look up anti interracial marriage arguments from the 50's and 50's. Then every time you see the word interracial, replace it with homosexual. Then come back and tell me whats different about the argument. Also, why are we having a theological argument about secular law? If you have religious values you are allowed to practice them. But when did your religion become the law of the land? It's not up to the Mormon, Catholic, Southern Baptist or any other church to make the laws. In fact, I'd like someone to explain how making laws based on Christianity are any different than Sharia Law in the middle east, you know, beside the fact that it's YOUR religion, not a "scary" Muslim? And, if you need more proof pull out your Bible and read John 18:36, that's coming straight from the source. What more do you need?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    Want to reinforce marriage values? Outlaw divorce.

    I imagine quite a few of those in favor of Amendment 3 just squirmed in their seats at the idea of no divorce.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    Trueblue - read the full faith and credit clause of our constitution. There is a hue difference between laws and public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. How would you like to go to CA on a vacation and become single while there?

    If Utah can invalidate their marriages, so can CA invalidate those that took place in Utah. Don't forget to take their drivers test to get a CA license too!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    @CP
    "The state of Utah came to be when LDS Pioneers came to establish a place where they can worship God and obey His laws..I pray that the government of this state will not forget that!"

    Depends... do you think being able to do that involves imposing your view of His laws on everyone else? If that's the case then you will lose your theocracy. If you think being able to do that involves the church deciding which couples they want to marry, don't worry about that. We have protections against discrimination based on gender and religion but you still are allowed to have an all-male priesthood and only marry LDS couples in the temple.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    @Mom Johnson
    "I can see it now...........more and more LGBT couples will move to Utah so that their voting voices will be heard. They will move because of that soul reason"

    No... nobody moves to a location because of that reason. Besides, everyone knows the Supreme Court will declare same-sex marriage a nationwide right long before Utah ever gets around to voting for it much like the south had to be dragged kicking and screaming to have interracial marriage.

  • Mr.Glass Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    Traditional morality is nothing to celebrate if it means that people of the same sex are not allowed to marry each other. The most comprehensive study regarding families of same sex families concludes that children are just as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted. In fact, they are happier and get along better with others? Can anyone guess why that would be the case? Why would children of heterosexual couples not get along as well as children as same sex couples? Does it have anything to do with parents teaching their children to become bigots based on religious dogma. Seems plausible to me. The claim that children lose with respect to same sex marriage is not supported by evidence.

    We need to base our judgements on sound reason, not religious dogma.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 28, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    Is marriage an institution defined by each State or is it a National institution?

    Ironically Utah made it into a National institution by their nineteenth century practice of polygamy.

    Gay marriage will be coming to Utah - and soon.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 28, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    Where are the fathers? Fortunately, people will now be compelled to think about something before all of this came to the fore, states' rights. This is a states' rights issue, just as the any other issue, including the causes of the Civil War! We didn't need to have 600,000 people die in the Civil War to get rid of the evils of slavery. Slavery existed because of the negligence of fathers to teach principles of right and wrong. Same with Gay marriage. Where are the fathers?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 28, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    re:Henry Drummond

    ...and Henry if gay marriages comes to Utah and the rest of the nation why not polygamy too? We need to not discriminate right? Love is all that matters correct? Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought this very point up during the oral arguments for gay marriage a few months ago. She made the conclusion that if homosexual marriage is ok constitutionally then by the SAME EXACT reasoning so is Polygamy and one cannot legalize one without the other.

    so Henry ... are you ready for polygamy? 30 wives? What about a woman with 30 husbands too? It's all about fairness and love ...right Henry?? I suspect the gay crowd won't bee too keen on opening up to polygamy and neither will all the Hollywood flakes. I suspect the nation will have to swallow pretty darn hard when then have to think about living next to a polygamy household.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 28, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    @patriot

    As long as everyone in the relationship is a consenting adult, and inheritance issues can be worked out, I really don't care who or how many.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 28, 2013 11:54 a.m.

    To "Tekakaromatagi" I am still trying to figure out how you strengthen marriage by redefining it? Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Now, it is being redefined as 2 of whatever you want. So, by redefining it this way, what is to stop the eventual acceptance of plural marriage in whatever form it may take?

    To "Wilf 55" the LDS church will never change its stance on gay marriage and homosexuality. If you think they will, you obviously don't understand LDS doctrine.

    To "RanchHand" you don't understand Jesus at all. Just look at the idea behind the Children of Israel. Using your rational, that is bigotry to choose one family out of the earth to make special deals with. Even look at the time Jesus was on the earth, he had little tolerance for those who sinned without remorse. Why should his followers embrace sinful behavior?

    To "amazondoc" actually polygamy is a help to women. If you read closely what you referred to, it is the culture of the FLDS church that is damaging, not polygamy.

  • amazondoc USA, TN
    June 28, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    @Red --

    "actually polygamy is a help to women. If you read closely what you referred to, it is the culture of the FLDS church that is damaging, not polygamy."

    You need to "read closely" yourself.

    From Judge Bauman's decision: "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."

    Keep trying, Red.

    I don't know whether my previous message is going to post or not, so I'll also repeat something I said earlier:

    You: "She made the conclusion"

    Judge Sotomayor did not make ANY conclusions. She ONLY asked a question -- and acting as Devil's Advocate is her JOB during oral arguments. I'll repeat, NO conclusions were made.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    Polygamy will take a form never seen before, if it becomes legal. Women will be able to marry as many men as they want to too.

    A woman could be a wife, step-mother, sister-in-law and aunt to the same man with both sexes as equals. It would be interesting...

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    June 28, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    Gays destroy traditional marriage just like Rosa Parks destroyed bus-riding.

  • phillyfanatic LONG BEACH, CA
    June 28, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    As a senior, step parent, married for 32 years, grandad, and pastor , college teacher who is a Christian, I am tired of minorities telling Americans that because they feel their lives are UNFAIR, that all laws, creeds, definitions must be changed because : we are angry and will wail unless you do. Our American heritage, Consti, history and values are built on 9000 years of history, tradition and yes, even Biblical views. 10% of the public should not b e able to call those of us who hold the above views, evil, rotters, biased because we do not want the definition changed. Either should Utah or any of the 38 states who still believe in traditional values. I say, fight this chaos. Stop caving into the secular, the perverse, the popular just because pressure is put on politicians. Keep up the fight Utah. And I live in the soviet republic of Ca. so I am helpless here but pray for your fight.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 28, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    To "amazondoc" that is in the FLDS culture. Again, outside of the FLDS culture, you don't have the child bride issue or the hyper male dominance problems so the abuse, violence, and neglect problems don't exist.

    Justice Bauman doesn't know much about polygamy or people that have lived in it. His comments, like yours, show that you only know the FLDS and similar sects use of polygamy.

    Read Psychology Today's article "The paradox of polygamy II: Why most women benefit from polygamy and most men benefit from monogamy" There are also many other first person histories written about women in polygamy, and they report non of the problems that the judge claims.

    The biggest question is this. With nearly 50% of gay relationships experiencing violence and abuse, why were those legalized when the violence rate is less in plural marriages?

  • carabaoU Moab, UT
    June 28, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    Majority Citizens of Utah have said marriage is between man and woman. If you want same benefits as married couples, get those benefits by passing laws to update the current laws to include your group into them. But marriage is between man and woman in this state.

    If you somehow magically changed our laws to allow you to "marry", then you will see an exodus from this state to another state that still has marriage only between man and woman. Then you will know He is coming. If you aren't religious, sorry, I can't save you.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 28, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    @midvale guy;

    It is absolutely bigotry when you use your personal "dislike" to discriminate against others. You are welcome to "dislike the behavior" (personally, I loathe religious behavior); nobody is going to make you participate in same-sex behavior if you dislike it so much.
    That said, you do NOT have the right to deny the benefits to same sex couples that you, yourself enjoy, simply because you "dislike" their behavior.
    That is why the courts are going to rule against Amendment 3. Equal protection applies to ALL Americans, not just those you approve of.

    The majority of these comments are just dripping with hate. So much for the religious being "good".

    @Redshirt;

    I've always believed that "god" was a fool for choosing one of his children over the others. Especially when he ordered that "child" to kill all the others and steal their land from them.

    @phillyfanatic;

    Waaaah.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 28, 2013 1:07 p.m.

    @carabaoU;

    Fortunately, Utah is a part of the United States of America and subject to the Constitution of the United States of America.

    I am a citizen of the United States of America (as are you, I presume). We are residents of Utah.

    You don't get to write your laws such that they violate the rights of citizens of the United States of America, even if they happen to be residents of Utah.

  • carabaoU Moab, UT
    June 28, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    @RanchHand

    Did you not read the court case? They left it up to the States to determine their own definition of marriage. They also said the federal benefits should be applied to all. That's why I said to update Utah laws so these benefits can be added for these people. But Utah law says marriage is between man and woman.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    June 28, 2013 1:45 p.m.

    Moderate: I loved your comment. The record of fidelity to 'wedding' vows would make any other form of 'marriage' an undeniable improvement. In all this talk, I have heard very little about the voices of children. Gay marriage is just an extension of the abortion debate. Selfishness is a never ending cesspool. Where were the fathers when these 'choices' were being considered? A study of that element would be worth a good solid look, exceptions noted.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 28, 2013 1:48 p.m.

    @RedShirt --

    "outside of the FLDS culture..."

    Sorry, Red, but your personal beliefs are not what matter in Constitutional issues. Facts, expertise, and law are the things that matter.

    Supreme Court justices -- whether American or Canadian -- do a heckuva lot of legal and factual research on these issues before they make their court decisions. If you disagree with them, take it up in court.

    "With nearly 50% of gay relationships experiencing violence and abuse"

    This simply isn't true, Red. Please stop misrepresenting the facts.

    From a National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center paper, "Violence in Lesbian and Gay Relationships":
    -- "In a study asking about whether a same-sex relationships had suffered from physical abuse, 7% of 706 lesbian couples and 11% of 560 gay men couples indicated physical abuse had occurred."
    -- "Sexual abuse by a woman partner was reported by 1% of lesbians, but 20% of lesbians indicated having been sexually abused by a male partner. "
    -- "Design flaws in many studies also may exaggerate prevalence rates, e.g., when asking lesbians about abuse in previous relationships, some fail to distinguish between same- sex violence and previous violence by a male partner."

    Keep trying, Red.

  • carabaoU Moab, UT
    June 28, 2013 1:51 p.m.

    @RanchHand,

    "You don't get to write your laws such that they violate the rights of citizens of the United States of America, even if they happen to be residents of Utah."

    How come I can carry a loaded gun in my car here in Utah, but California won't let me? Isn't that a violation of the rights of citizens of the USA?

    Anything not regulated by Fed Gov't is left to the States to regulate. Defining marriage is not regulated by Fed Gov't, so it is regulated by the States.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 28, 2013 2:11 p.m.

    @carabaoU;

    Please go read the Constitution. It says that you can't deny rights to some people that you give to others. Utah's Amendment 3 does just that and is therefore unconstitutional.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    June 28, 2013 2:22 p.m.

    @carabao

    Utah can only have its own marriage law (or any other laws) only when those laws do not abridge the fundamental rights of others. If states could legislate willy-nilly we'd still have anti-miscegenation laws in the South.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    June 28, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    @phillyfanatic

    This struggle for marriage equality is uniquely American. The more we embrace our neighbors as our equals, the more we bocome better Americans.

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    June 28, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    Ummm, yeah, homosexual sex does pose certain health risks. You are just being purposefully obtuse on the subject. I will refer you to the CDC if you want proof. I will also refer you to the UT study on adaptability of children raised in same sex households. Traditional morality doesn't require cosmic support. It stands on its own merits.

  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    June 28, 2013 3:18 p.m.

    When they cross state lines and become single again, does that change how they behave?

  • carabaoU Moab, UT
    June 28, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    @RanchHand and @QuercusQate

    Here is the amendment 3:

    The amendment reads:

    Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
    No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

    I don't see any rights given to one and denied to another. All men can marry. All women can marry. Like I've said before, you want the same legal benefits afforded to those who marry, such as hospital visits, tax filing status, etc. Those are separate laws, of which you should get changed.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    June 28, 2013 3:57 p.m.

    @Coach Biff --

    "Ummm, yeah, homosexual sex does pose certain health risks. "

    Ummm, yeah, what you call "homosexual" sex is just as easily enjoyed by heterosexual couples as by homosexual couples.

    "I will also refer you to the UT study on adaptability of children raised in same sex households."

    Oh heavens, not Regnerus again!

    Regnerus' "study" (and I use the term VERY loosely) has been very widely and very thoroughly debunked, many times.

    Regnerus compared UNSTABLE homosexual homes to STABLE heterosexual homes. Naturally, he found that the kids in the stable homes did better than those in the unstable homes.

    His findings had everything to do with **stability**, and absolutely NOTHING to do with homosexuality.

    @carabaoU --

    "All men can marry. All women can marry. "

    This very same argument was used back in the day when people were trying to block interracial marriages.

    They said:

    "Everyone has the same rights. Everyone has the right to marry someone of their own race."

    That argument didn't work then, and it won't work now. The Supreme Court saw right through it in Loving v. Virginia, and they'll see right through it again when the "gay" version comes before them in the future.

  • midvale guy MIDVALE, UT
    June 28, 2013 4:20 p.m.

    @ RanchHand CC: CarabaoU- And there it is. the things that the LGBT community think are RIGHTS covered under the Constitution are really PRIVILEGES that are granted on a state by state basis. This is also why the Supreme Court's decision is still a non-decision an Utah's amendment 3 is not unconstitutional. Until the federal government is very clear in their decisions and implementations or by directly amending the Constitution this issue will go around and around and cause havoc. You ask for everyone to look at the Constitution, please be more precise because at best all you have provided is a generalization. As for your disdain for anything Godly or religious (by the way God is spelled with a Capital G). Please be aware that all law in the United States and most of the world is based on Mosaic law, The 10 Commandments. Please extend the same respect to others that you expect.

  • midvale guy MIDVALE, UT
    June 28, 2013 4:42 p.m.

    @ RanchHand - as I tried to say an earlier post but did not state as well as I could Have. There are no bad people only bad behaviors. If you would like to turn this statement back on itself, it could also be there are no good people only good behaviors. This also takes into account that all goodness comes from God and all evil comes from Satan. This includes each and every one of us (Including Charles Manson). If all of this legislation does get passed effectively and properly in an enforceable decision, it will be God's will as far as I'm concerned. He will give us everything we ask for. All of the resulting implications and events whether positive or negative will be ours to bear together in this world and individually in eternity.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    June 28, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    Amazondoc,

    There is a problem with your argument. Polygamy is illegal in the United States yet the government for the most part does not enforce it except in the most extreme circumstances. So if polygamy is illegal why do they not arrest all those who are practicing it? For all intents and purposes they might as well legalize it. Who is going to be hurt? The husband already has one legal wife why can’t the others be legal?
    So you are saying that judges in Canada reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban yet they allow polygamy to continue even with the abuses that you have mentioned. How can something be ruled constitutional but violations not be punished. What kind of system of government is that. why hasn’t the government stepped in to put an end to it. It sort of reminds me of the immigration problem. The government does not strictly enforce the laws they make.

    If same sex marriage as you predict will one day become the law of the land then you cannot withhold those rights from polygamists. Or will the victim now become the oppressor?

  • Mom Johnson West Jordan, UT
    June 28, 2013 6:55 p.m.

    The LGBT agenda is upon us. I can see it now...........more and more LGBT couples will move to Utah so that their voting voices will be heard. They will move because of that soul reason. Citizens of Utah need to prepare themselves for a battle from here on out. Not only will they sway the vote in their direction over legalizing marriage, but they will sway the vote in all the elections to go their way. They are a united group with lots and lots of money behind them.

    This is not a scare tactic, and it is not out of disrespect, it is very real. This is what is happening all over the country. Don't be blind to what is inevitable. We have lived somewhat complacently here in Utah for decades. It's time that we wake up and get involved and know what is happening around us.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    June 28, 2013 9:50 p.m.

    We are bombarded with words such as 'fair' 'discrimination' and 'equality', And yet, not matter how much society tries to achieve these goals through legislation, the truth is, freedoms are trampled on and those who feel strongly about traditional values find themselves labeled as haters and discriminators. Many social upheavals have been waged in this country and each has only brought additional confusion and disillusionment. I still remember the new morality push of the sixties which did little to make life better for the masses, but instead promoted the ideals of anarchy and irresponsibility.

    I am now waiting for the soon to come day when my children, who cherish the ideals of growing up in a traditional family unit of a mother and a father, legally married and devoted to each other - and who seek no malice against anyone, will be labeled by their peers as ignorant, hate filled products of a more traditional and reserved life style.

  • hermounts Pleasanton, CA
    June 28, 2013 9:51 p.m.

    the two women "partners" mentioned at the beginning of this article do not "become single again" when they cross the state line. They were always single. Marriage involves a man and a woman, period, and calling any homosexual relationship a marriage doesn't make it so.

  • jimhale Eugene, OR
    June 29, 2013 2:43 a.m.

    We are headed toward gay marriage nationwide.
    The only way to head it off would be an amendment to the US Constitution.
    Many of us have been saying that for thirty years - a generation.
    But the "mainstream" pols serving in Congress and the Bush White House and in many other elected offices - along with many religious leaders of many faiths have been poo-pooing that idea, saying not to worry, it was a state matter. A federal amendment they said would be unnecessary overkill. They didn't want to get their hands dirty on an issue based on sex.
    In taking that stance they were all gutless Charlatans -- most knew better. All should have known better.
    The dishonesty of that stance has been very clear since the election of Obama put him in charge of Supreme Court appointments at a critical time.
    Such an amendment could have passed 20 years ago - maybe even ten years ago. It has no chance today - unless the GOP gains a Congressional super majority after the 2014 elections. That is unlikely.
    This Supreme Court will order same-sex marriage nationwide before 2016.
    Justice Kennedy is the real Chief Despot. Just read his opinion and weep.

  • Mugabe ACWORTH, GA
    June 29, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    The People of Utah is going to have two problems in trying to prevent this action: 1) is in their own State Constitution. It states:
    Article I, Section 3.[Utah inseparable from the Union.]
    The State of Utah is an inseparable part of the Federal Union and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

    2) Is found in one of the paragraphs of the Official Declaration. It states:
    As much as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws,and to use my influence whith the members of the Church over which I preside
    to have them do likewise. (Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church)

    There is an old saying: "When you start dancing with the Devil, you have to keep dancing with him until you change the tune.

  • plainbrownwrapper Nashville, TN
    June 29, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    @zoar63 --

    "So if polygamy is illegal why do they not arrest all those who are practicing it?"

    You might as well ask why all tax evaders are not arrested. That's just life.

    Additionally, I would *guess* that it would be difficult to "prove" polygamy in many cases.

    "Who is going to be hurt?"

    We've already covered this. Women and children.

    "why can't the others be legal?"

    For one thing, legalizing the relationship would stabilize it just like any marriage does. Which means that the women would be more "stuck" in their relationship -- it would be harder for the wives to get out if they needed to.

    Just as it's harder for an abused wife to escape a relationship than an abused girlfriend, legalizing polygamy would create more legal and financial entanglements that would be more difficult for plural wives to get away from.

    "How can something be ruled constitutional but violations not be punished."

    Refer back to tax evasion. No system is 100% efficient.

    "you cannot withhold those rights from polygamists."

    Canada's example has already proven that you CAN do exactly that. And several other countries also have gay marriage without polygamy, as well.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 29, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    If a person is legaly married in one state, that person should be considered legally married in ALL states regardless whether the marriage could legally be entered into a given state. The Full Faith and Credit clause in the US Constituion should apply to same-se marriage, just as it applies to "traditional" marriage.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    July 2, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    For all of you who are so certain that the laws will never change remember this - if you wish to keep an institution - you need to honor, respect and cherish that institution not write laws about it. I do not believe that the honor, cherish and respect have stood much of a chance during the last 100 years. The laws will not replace what you have given up.

  • Sego Lilly Salt Lake City, UT
    July 2, 2013 3:05 p.m.

    @ snowwhite&7dwarfs:Once the left gets its way and Utah accepts same gender marriage how long do you think it will take for a gay couple to sue the church because they can't be "married" in one of our temples

    They will have to be members of the church and like everyone else that enters the temple have a current temple recommand. It won't be a case of "I have rights and I want to get married in your church building" They will have to follow the same rules/guideline for attending the temple just like everyone else who enters the temple