Quantcast
Utah

Gay marriage: What's next for Utah?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 3, 2013 5:48 p.m.

    Never say never, but they're going to have to be patient.

  • From Ted's Head Orem, UT
    July 3, 2013 6:02 p.m.

    The process is working...a group of people want to make changes to the way our country and state govern and are going through proper channels. While my religious beliefs include the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman, I've been bothered by the overreaction by some folks who are wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth about the recent Supreme Court rulings. I'm sure they truly believe that gay marriage will result in more negative consequences than good ones and are trying to do their part to keep America strong. Personally, I hope that the more people wake up and become part of the process and engage in dialogue with those who see things differently. The risk I see (especially in Utah) is the polarization and subsequent demonization of those who view things differently than we do. I don't think it comes naturally to most of us, the ability to remain civil and calm when discussing matters of great importance, yet for those who are against gay marriage based on their religious beliefs, I would think that it's more important to behave well than to "win" this particular battle.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    July 3, 2013 6:18 p.m.

    Good on them. While nearly everyone on both sides of the aisle recognize this is no longer a matter of "if" but a matter of "when", those of us fighting for equality cannot allow ourselves to be lulled into complacency by recent victories. We need to press forward steadfastly until SSM is the law of the land. Justice delayed is justice denied.

  • The Big One Salt Lake City, UT
    July 3, 2013 6:21 p.m.

    So sweet, that is our future in the picture what a handsome couple

  • first2third Elmo, UT
    July 3, 2013 6:25 p.m.

    Reading Kenedy's reasoning in his DOMA decision and assuming the court stays the same... Then Utah will have to recognize out of state marriages BUT the state can not be forced to preform such marriages. That looks to be the legal precedent at this point but again that is assuming the current court make up stays ideologically the same.

    Now you can all argue about what is right or wrong but that's the legal precedent.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 3, 2013 6:26 p.m.

    Gay marriage *will* eventually come to all the states -- unless there is a revolution and we end up as a theocracy somehow.

    The real question is how long that progression is going to take. IMHO it will take more than 10 years to reach all the states. We shall see.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    July 3, 2013 6:33 p.m.

    I suspect we will see a ruling similar to Loving v Virginia in two to three years. Thirteen states, the District of Columbia, and five Indian Tribes already allow same-sex marriage. Public opinion has changed in favor of allowing such marriages. Its time to let bygones be bygones don't you think?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 3, 2013 6:35 p.m.

    what a pathetic commentary on our state and country as we get ready to celebrate our founding and proclaim our pride in being a free people that such a large segment of our society still believes it is alright to treat others as second class citizens. We ail never be truly free as long as we continue to codify discrimination.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 3, 2013 6:49 p.m.

    Article: "The Most Rev. John C. Wester, bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City, said the judicial system or government really can't adjudicate or legislate what marriage is. 'Marriage is something, in our belief system, that is divinely given to us by God. It's found in sacred scripture. It's found in natural law,' he said, days after the Supreme Court issued its decisions."

    Government can and does define what marriage is. That's what they do. There is an entire section of the Utah Code on family law.

    [Of course, legislatures have defined the level of the Great Salt Lake and the value of pi, too, but that doesn't mean that nature always obeys.]

    The first twelve states were relatively easy victories. I predict five more in the next three years, barring another landmark SCOTUS decision. Legalizing gay marriage in those states with constitutional amendments will a bit take longer. I say ten more states in ten years and all by 2040, barring another landmark SCOTUS decision. With any luck it will go faster.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 3, 2013 6:51 p.m.

    @From Ted's Head --

    "While my religious beliefs include the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman, I've been bothered by the overreaction by some folks who are wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth about the recent Supreme Court rulings. I'm sure they truly believe that gay marriage will result in more negative consequences than good ones and are trying to do their part to keep America strong. Personally, I hope that the more people wake up and become part of the process and engage in dialogue with those who see things differently."

    Good for you, Ted. You do credit to your religion and your community.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    July 3, 2013 6:59 p.m.

    I tire of the same arguments going back and forth over gay marriage. Yet, I feel compelled to continue to defend marriage between a man and a woman. When Christians act with charity and speak in a civil way, exercising their rights peaceably or by the vote, then the argument that Christians are trying to force their beliefs on everyone else is simply not true. We champion heterosexual marriage as a fundamental foundation to a healthy and happy society.

    First, marriage between a man and a woman has stood the test of time throughout history, the good and bad of it. It is only a recent phenomenon that liberal judges have moved ever closer to legalizing gay marriage everywhere in this democracy.

    Second, I view it as the Christian community (and other religions) being pressured as much as the other way around. It is not just Christians who believe in heterosexual marriage. Other major religions do as well. Their beliefs are at risk as well. Unfortunately, there are many churches who have given up on some major tenets of their own religion.

  • LRenayHawk La Vegrne, TN
    July 3, 2013 7:18 p.m.

    Live and let live already. Traditional marriage is NOT threatened in anyway shape or form. Traditional is never going away as long as there are heterosexual men and women that exist. Marriage is serious business for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Marriage means commitment & monogamy; there are people in this world both gay and straight that have an 'issue' or two with the maturity it takes to enter into the institution of marriage. A couple should not be expelled or forced to leave their home, family, friends, etc. just to get married and live happily. Utah is not 'holier than thou' no matter how much the state wants to be; we live in a democracy not a theocracy. We live free or at the very least try to. There is only one true judge and that is Heavenly Father and only He can say. We are mortal and imperfect and learn with accountability, responsibility, humility and humanity. Gays and lesbians are going to be allowed to marry. It's time to deal with it sensibly and sanely.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 3, 2013 7:35 p.m.

    @very concerned --

    " It is only a recent phenomenon... "

    This is not actually true.

    In fact, same-sex unions have been recognized at points throughout history. The Mesopotamians recognized same-sex unions, as did the Assyrians. The Greeks and Romans both encouraged homosexual relations. Same-sex unions occurred in the Orient, in native American cultures, basically all over the world.

    Gay marriage does NOT threaten straight marriages in any way. Straight marriages always have been, and always will be, the vast majority of marriages -- simply because straight people make up the vast majority of the population. Nothing is going to change that, so it's pointless for folks to waste all this time and energy on meaningless hysteria.

    "the Christian community (and other religions) being pressured as much as the other way around."

    Many Christians, and people of other religions, already SUPPORT gay marriage. Many denominations are already happy to perform gay marriages in their churches. And you have absolutely NO right to declare that their view of their religion is any less valid than yours.

    This is NOT a pro-religion vs. anti-religion issue, no matter how hard some people may try to paint it as such.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    July 3, 2013 7:50 p.m.

    first2third, many people construed Kennedy's ruling the way you did, but it's not necessarily so. The way I took it is when a state expands marriage rights, the Federal Government must recognize those marriages. However, state laws regarding marriage are still subject to the US Constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law. Kennedy mentioned states, but the DOMA decision was based on the 5th Amendment guarantees of equal liberty. The court's finding was that DOMA was passed due to animus towards gay and lesbian individuals. I know doubt they will draw the same conclusion when they finally rule on a case regarding a State amendment.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 3, 2013 8:45 p.m.

    RE: Contrarius, This is NOT a pro-religion vs. anti-religion issue, no matter how hard some people may try to paint it as such.

    For Bible believing Christians, morality is not determined by political considerations, majority votes, or polls. God’s word alone determines what we believe, teach and confess and practice. A Christian must always stand up for the truth of God’s Word, whether or not it is politically correct. If God has spoken on the issue the matter is settled! If God has not determined that something is wright or wrong, people can have an honest and peaceful difference of opinion. We are to pray for the country and respect and obey the law.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 3, 2013 8:45 p.m.

    "Bishop Wester said he doesn't know what recourse there is to preserve traditional marriage other than to continue to engage public conversation and debate to "make our case."

    Bishop Wester's and others who think similarly about SSM have made their case. They have expressed what they believe, their fears, and whole bunch on unconstitutional statements basing discrimination on their religious beliefs.

    They don't want conversation and debate, they want to continue with a status quo that make children of God second class citizens in our society.

    I will pray for this young couple who dares to go against the stablishment. They will be remembered in Utah as true heroes.

  • Pragmatic Salt Lake City, UT
    July 3, 2013 8:57 p.m.

    Wow! The comments are very telling. In a newspaper that is read predominately by conservative LDS persons, there seems to be a sense of inevitability with respect to gay marriage. For the first time I am starting to believe it as well! Therefore let's replace hysteria with empathy, love and understanding and see what that can do for our community. I bet it will be nice.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    July 3, 2013 9:51 p.m.

    @sharrona --

    "For Bible believing Christians, morality is not determined by political considerations...."

    And many "Bible believing Christians" SUPPORT gay marriage. They see no conflict between the Bible and equal rights for homosexuals.

    "A Christian must always stand up for the truth of God’s Word"

    Fortunately, "the truth" as those supportive Christians see it is every bit as valid as "the truth" as YOU see it.

    Here's just a coupla quick Bible quotes, to remind you again about what "God's Word" actually says:

    "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew 22:37-40

    "If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47

    "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you -- who are you to judge your neighbor?" James 4:12

  • Laura Ann Layton, UT
    July 3, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    Many times people say that Jesus didn't say anything negative about homosexuality, but he did in Matt. 15:19. (He also pointed out other sins.) As I believe in the Bible, I can never condone gay marriage. Obviously, this is a religious point of view. I don't separate one from the other in this life. To me, it is extremely arrogant to tell God what the rules are. If, on the other hand, you do not believe in the Bible or in Jesus, we can argue this in a continual circle. We will never convince the other that what they believe is right. I worry greatly about the affect this will have on children. I know people will say the children raised by gay couples can grow up and be happy, but I just can't believe it. I taught school for too many years. A child without a mother or father is like a canoe with only one paddle on one side of the boat. Turning forever in a circle. Two mothers or fathers can't make up for this, in my opinion. Possibly the canoe or boat will just turn faster.

  • Californian#1@94131 San Francisco, CA
    July 3, 2013 10:55 p.m.

    -- I think if it were up to the electorate in Utah, it would not go that way," Bishop Wester said. --

    Bishop Wester, it won't be up to the electorate. The California electorate thought it would be, but the governor and attorney general put their personal biases ahead of what the voters decided, and refused to defend Prop. 8 in court. Since American law has always guaranteed everyone the right to an attorney, private parties tried to take over the defense of this voter-approved law. In ruling that these private parties did not have legal standing to take the case, the Supreme Court said that the people of California were not entitled to a legal defense for the law they approved.

    This is about more than "gay marriage." It's about whether or not any American in any state who votes for any law is entitled to have his/her public officials uphold that law, and if they refuse to, whether someone else can provide a voice for the voter. This Supreme Court decision tells us the answer.

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    July 3, 2013 11:01 p.m.

    The fact that there is a picture of a gay couple holding hands in the Deseret News is proof enough that times are changing. The icing on the cake is the lack of the-sky-is-falling comments. Good for us all

  • snowman Provo, UT
    July 3, 2013 11:04 p.m.

    They can;t force Utah to let gay couples get maried and they don;t have to regcognise a gay marriage that took place somewhere else.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 4, 2013 12:12 a.m.

    @california #1

    Actually California did defend the law and lost in perry vs schwertzenegger, they wisely choose not to appeal but proponents picked it up and appealed it to the 9th circuit who allowed them standing but ruled against their appeal upholding the low courts decision. The state defended prop 8 lost, were does it say they must defend. every bad law all the way to the subprime court?

  • mattrick78 Cedar City, UT
    July 4, 2013 12:52 a.m.

    @Contrarius Polygamy does not threaten straight marriages either. Should it then be legalized?

  • Scott3 Quiet Neighborhood, UT
    July 4, 2013 12:57 a.m.

    I am surprised the media doesn't really talk about AIDS anymore. Doesn't that concern anyone?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2013 2:42 a.m.

    The solution is simple: If you don't support gay marriage, don't get gay married.

    Let's have freedom for all

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 4, 2013 7:33 a.m.

    "What's next for Utah?"

    This is a lesson in history. Look back at Loving v Virginia. Even after the Supreme Court decision, most of Utah still did not perform interracial marriages. The rest of the country will move towards marriage equality. Episcopalians, Unitarians, and many other Christian religions already fully support marriage equality. Utah will be last, and LDS maybe never.

    Spencer W. Kimball wrote: "When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children."

    Boyd K Packer said "We've always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, our Japanese members to marry Japanese, our Caucasians to marry Caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. The counsel has been wise."

  • Phillip M Hotchkiss Malta, Mt
    July 4, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    This topic is dividing country faster then any other disputes in history.It is sad .but I see no way out of it. We all have a right to stand up for what we believe is right.I respect all who stand up for their rights. Even if it goes against my rights. I have no respect for fence sitters who will not say anything out of fear. We do live in scarry Times. But to bury to your head in the ground until the conflict is over is wrong.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 4, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    Contrarius, All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Mt22:37-40.

    For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”(Gal 5:13-14) but the acts of the flesh are obvious: *sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    RE: If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47. v 48“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.
    But the very words of Christ would judge those who rejects Him IN THE FUTURE, “at the last day”.
    God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. (Rom 2:12-16 AV)

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    July 4, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    @Scott3 --

    "I am surprised the media doesn't really talk about AIDS anymore. Doesn't that concern anyone?"

    If you are worried about AIDS, then you should SUPPORT gay marriage. Marriage encourages stable monogamous relationships, which DECREASE disease transmission.

    @mattrick78 --

    "Polygamy does not threaten straight marriages either. Should it then be legalized?"

    Both polygamy and incest increase the risks of harm to others. Multiple courts in both this country and others have reaffirmed that the state has an interest in preventing both polygamy and incest, but NO interest in preventing homosexual relations.

    Here's an excerpt from just one relevant court decision. There are many others, but I have limited space!

    -- Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, (Mass. 2003): "...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but this) DOES NOT MEAN that this constitutional right...extend(s) to POLYGAMOUS OR INCESTUOUS relationships....the state CONTINUES TO HAVE A STRONG AND ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships...the state constitutional right to marry...DOES NOT AFFECT the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives."

  • cjf Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    @The solution is simple: If you don't support gay marriage, don't get gay married.

    Let's have freedom for all.

    ----------

    Unless, of course, you are a hotel owner, a photographer, a baker, a fertility doctor, participate in a dating website, etc. Then prepared to be sued if you don't 100% cater to the gay marriage industry even though your conscience is against it.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    July 4, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    @Laura Ann --

    "...but he did in Matt. 15:19."

    Nope.

    That quote mentions "sexual immorality/fornication/sexual sins" (depending on translation), not homosexuality.

    Jesus never said a word against homosexuality.

    "As I believe in the Bible, I can never condone gay marriage."

    Many Christians both believe in the Bible AND support gay marriage.

    @sharrona --

    Once again you quote passages that don't contradict a thing I've said. Thanks for that. :-)

    Sharrona:"but the acts of the flesh are obvious..." (Gal 5:19)

    First, this passage doesn't mention homosexuality.

    Second, you need to remember that it was spoken by Paul -- not Jesus. Paul is the guy who said it was better to remain single than to marry. Paul is also the guy who said that nobody should ever get divorced. He didn't even make exceptions for infidelity or abuse.

    Sharrona: "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day." John 12;48

    RIGHT.

    If there is any judging to be done, it will be done AT THE LAST DAY.

    It is NOT our job to do the judging now.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    July 4, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    I can believe that at some point in the past, some societies practiced homosexuality. But I don't believe that was the norm by any means. And we know that at least some of those civilizations fell flat, often from within.

    I don't have confidence that gay marriages will not threaten straight marriages. For instance, loud and intrusive protests across the street from the Salt Lake temple while newly-married couples were outside celebrating their sealings. From my experience, those who oppose true religion or religious doctrine will never be happy unless religion ceases to exist. And yes, we would talk in circles if there were no divine direction, so it is, in a very personal and public way, a battle between God's laws (religion) and man's. I'm just not convinced that there will be no impact on heterosexual marriage. We have personally observed that marriage in general is just not valued as much due to a decline in society's morals. Cohabitation, homosexuality, and other indescretions have taken a visible toll already.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    July 4, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    God DOES love all his children and He does want US to show appropriate love to each other. He wants us all to live in peace. He wants to give us all the blessings He can. You and I are His children. You are His literal spirit child. He loves you. Of this I have no doubt. That is why He reaches out to ALL, not just a particular few.

    On the other hand, and this is very important, He teaches us that certain behaviors are contrary to His laws of happiness and His plan. He sent you to earth as an act of love to give you the opportunity to return to Him in joy and happiness. He wants us all to succeed and return to Him. He’d love it if all of us who transgress turned from our sins. He wants to be merciful, but cannot deny justice. Quite a quandary. How is it reconciled? Through the atonement of Jesus Christ. He makes it possible to return to Him if we believe in Jesus Christ, turn to Him, and turn away from our sins.

  • amazondoc mid-state, TN
    July 4, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    @cjf --

    "Unless, of course, you are a hotel owner...."

    The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination by private businesses more than 50 years ago. This is nothing new.

    This is also the SAME law that protects Mormons against discrimination, btw.

    It means that a Southern Baptist business owner isn't allowed to discriminate against a Mormon, even if that Baptist's "conscience is against it".

    Doesn't sound quite so bad now, does it?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    July 4, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    Hotel owners, photographers, bakers, etc. are subject to state consumer anti-discrimination laws, not marriage laws. If you don't want to serve someone because of the marriage status, race, creed, sex, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, then target the right law or regulation (Marriage law is not it).

    Most folks don't have an innate trait to marry more than one spouse. For the majority of people, changing ones sexual orientation to fit ones religious view cannot be done. Much easier to change religious views with far better outcomes and efficacy.

  • timpClimber Provo, UT
    July 4, 2013 10:13 a.m.

    When the same sex marriage text books become required reading in public schools look for a sharp increase in charter schools and home schooling. Civil union contracts should allow all the benefits without the need for same sex marriage.

  • slow down Provo, UT
    July 4, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    "Being on the right side of history” is a poor moral argument. But I agree that Utah can improve the “legal” side of things, and I support that. Whether redefining marriage is part of those improvements depends on whether you think that a legal redefinition will obscure or diminish the importance of the mother-father-child relationship. Proponents of change often argue that it will not change anything. Some proponents of change, however, argue the exact opposite. You could argue that if more legal benefits were in place, the only reason to demand “marriage” is to dethrone the father-mother-child ideal at the cultural level. Many people, understandably, find that troubling, and are not sure that emphasizing the distinction between civil and religious marriage will solve the problem. (Look at the mainline Protestant churches.) To turn this into a question of bigotry is to prejudge the issue that is really at stake. Many people would love to find a way of being meaningfully accommodating without compromising the identity of a social and moral institution that they truly believe (call it naïve, if you will) is a vital human good.

  • Living Below the Y Spanish Fork, UT
    July 4, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    Yeah, it's looking more and more inevitable, unfortunately. The correct thing for Utah to do would be to change the name of the legal function (to 'civil unions' or whatever they decide to call it, as long as it is not 'marriage') and remove marriage from the anti-discrimination laws.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    July 4, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    Most local school districts have control over curricula. Some folks wanted home schooling when interracial marriage became legal. Can you imagine the outcome of a child reading about our nations laws in a school textbook?

    Why the need for the separate status of civil union contracts? Many companies won't recognize civil unions for health care benefits. Moreover, why deny same sex couples and their children the social status and significance of having married parents? The supreme court just determined that homosexual couples are provided equal protection in our laws, and that something separate is demeaning and a second class status.

    Besides, asking a prospective spouse "Will you civil union me?" as opposed to "Will you marry marry me?" just doesn't have the same "ring" to it.... in my view.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    July 4, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    What evidence exists that a same-sex couples marriage will "obscure or diminish the importance of the mother-father-child relationship?" I would argue that there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence of the beneficial effects of marriage on the children of same sex couples. Federal benefits, health insurance, societal benefits etc.

  • Vladhagen Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    One of my largest concerns in fully supporting SSM stems from the issues involving escheatment of funds held by religious organizations by the government. While many proponents of SDM claim that legalizing such in no way encroaches upon religion, the fact remains that the door is being opened to such an encroachment. Will there reach a time where, say, LDS temples are forced to marry same sex couples or be stipped of the right to legally marry heterosexual couples? Proponents of SSM claim now that this is an absurd thought, but whenever SSM is in the table, drastic change is also. Claims that 20 years ago were considered absurd now are being considered the norm and politically correct thing to support.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    July 4, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    @very concerned --

    "certain behaviors are contrary to His laws of happiness and His plan."

    But it is HIS job to make those judgments -- NOT yours.

    "I can believe that at some point in the past, some societies practiced homosexuality....."

    Homosexual relations will always be in the minority, simply because most human beings are heterosexual. That's a simple fact of biology -- and it has NOTHING to do with morality.

    Many civilizations HAVE recognized same-sex unions, however -- and no, they didn't fail because of homosexuality.

    Both ancient Greece and ancient Rome encouraged homosexuality. Both of those civilizations lasted for roughly 1000 years EACH. In fact, Rome fell well AFTER homosexual marriages were officially banned in around 300 AD.

    "For instance, loud and intrusive protests across the street from the Salt Lake temple..."

    Oddly enough, the First Amendment gives people the right to protest in public. Just like, for instance, those Westboro Baptist Church idiots who protest against gay rights AT SOLDIERS' FUNERALS.

    "those who oppose true religion or religious doctrine will never be happy unless religion ceases to exist."

    You don't get to decide what "true" religion is. Many Christians SUPPORT gay marriage.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    @Phillip M. Hotchkiss

    "This topic is dividing country faster then any other disputes in history"

    Actually this issue is getting less divisive over time especially with young people. I'd say slavery was most divisive. As for modern times probably abortion.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    July 4, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    "there reach a time where, say, LDS temples are forced to marry same sex couples or be stipped of the right to legally marry heterosexual couples?" LDS temples are free to deny temple marry interracial couples at any time or revelation. They have never been required to temple marry someone of a different faith. Catholic churches are not required to marry divorced couples. Are "Sky will fall arguments" and armageddon might occur, enough to currently deny equal protection to same-sex couples? Most likely not.

    "Polygamy does not threaten straight marriages either. Should it then be legalized" Is Polygamy an immutable innate characteristic?

  • small town granny small mining town, UT
    July 4, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    Strange world we are living in. The heterosexuals want rights without "a piece of paper" and the homosexuals demand "a piece of paper." Is the grass always greener on the other side of the fence?

  • bill in af American Fork, UT
    July 4, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    The problem in the issue is referring to marriage as only between a man and a woman. That is the way it is supposed to be if we want our society to continue. I don't have as big a problem with civil unions if gays want legal protections in their chosen relationship; just don't call it marriage. Same sex marriage cheapens what marriage was designed to be. We can love one another and follow the Savior's teachings without having to force wrongful actions for all to see. Look at what Paul taught about the last days and the caution about certain actions such as "without natural affection".

  • Pac_Man Pittsburgh, PA
    July 4, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    Contrariusier needs to re-read his Ancient Roman and Greek history. Much of the homosexual activity that was encouraged involved older men with young boys. To say that has nothing to do with morality is a little twisted.

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    July 4, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    The arguments against same sex marriage are universally either based in animus, scripture or fear.

    Animus...well the case against bigotry speaks for itself.

    Scripture...we are not a theocracy and our constitution guarantees US citizens the right to follow THEIR own god and beliefs, as well as to NOT have religious beliefs of others forced upon us...As Contrarious has said here and elsewhere, many denominations DO support gay marriage.

    Fear...The ridiculous arguments that gay marriage will somehow damage heterosexual marriage or the non-survival of the species boggle the mind. NO ONE has ever articulated a single shred of damage caused by gay marriage. The very best lawyers and experts the anti-gay marriage forces could muster tried their hardest and failed abysmally. (Read the transcripts of Perry v Schwarzenegger in particular, as well as the other litigation).

    Running around saying the sky is falling when it isn't does not legitimize denying equal treatment under civil law to gay US Citizens.

    And as far as voting away those citizens rights, how would you like it if YOUR civil rights were put up to a popular vote? We all need protection from the tyranny of the majority.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    July 4, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    @Pac_Man --

    "Much of the homosexual activity that was encouraged involved older men with young boys. To say that has nothing to do with morality is a little twisted."

    What I actually said was simply that the proportion of homosexuals in the population has nothing to do with morality -- and that is true.

    As for ancient Rome -- Rome actually recognized same-sex unions to one degree or other throughout its history.

    -- Polybius (Roman historian) noted that homosexuality was widely accepted there by 600 BCE -- and Rome didn't officially fall til around **500 AD**.

    -- Edward Gibbon, who literally wrote the book on the fall of Rome, noted that only *one* of the first **fifteen** Roman emperors was entirely heterosexual. Rome didn't fall until hundreds of years later.

    -- Martial and Juvenal (1st Century AD) both tell us that same-sex marriages, complete with traditional rites, were not uncommon in their time.

    -- Gay marriages weren't officially prohibited in the Roman empire until around 300 AD.

    -- Historians generally agree that Rome didn't fall until at least a couple of hundred years after that (some historians think the fall was much later).

    What is that you were saying about reading history? ;-)

  • cjf Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2013 3:14 p.m.

    @amazondoc

    "Unless, of course, you are a hotel owner...."

    The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination by private businesses more than 50 years ago. This is nothing new.

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

    In other words, there is no distinction between a wedding cake and a black person forced to sit on the back of the bus.

    Got it.

  • hermounts Pleasanton, CA
    July 4, 2013 3:36 p.m.

    What is the Deseret News, owned by the LDS Church, doing publishing a story on this issue where they start out from the point of view of a gay couple?

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    July 4, 2013 4:02 p.m.

    SSM will pave the way for Polygamy to make a comeback. Who's going to stop it?

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    July 4, 2013 4:20 p.m.

    @Tom in CA --

    "Who's going to stop it?"

    The populace, the laws, and the courts.

    1. Roughly 15 countries already have gay marriage -- and NONE of them have legalized polygamy.

    2. Canada recently reaffirmed their polygamy ban -- even though they've had gay marriage for 10 years.

    3. Multiple court decisions in the US have reaffirmed the distinction between gay rights and both polygamy and incest.

    Here's a couple of excerpts from US court decisions. In these quotes, "Lawrence" refers to the SCOTUS ruling overturning sodomy laws --

    -- Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, (Mass. 2003): "...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but this) DOES NOT MEAN that this constitutional right...extend(s) to POLYGAMOUS OR INCESTUOUS relationships....the state CONTINUES TO HAVE A STRONG AND ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships..."

    -- Utah v. Holm (10th Cir. 2006), reaffirming polygamy bans: "the holding in Lawrence is actually quite narrow.....In fact, the Court went out of its way to EXCLUDE FROM PROTECTION conduct that causes 'injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.'"

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    July 4, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    @cjf

    "In other words, there is no distinction between a wedding cake and a black person forced to sit on the back of the bus."

    That's more or less right.

    When the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act was challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court, the challengers were a hotel owner who didn't want to rent rooms to blacks, and a restaurant owner who didn't want to serve blacks inside his restaurant. The restaurant owner was perfectly happy to sell food to the blacks as takeout -- he just didn't want the blacks sitting inside his building.

    There were certainly other hotels and restaurants in town that the blacks could have gone to instead -- but, of course, that wasn't the point.

    So, yes, this is pretty much the same as with businesses not wanting gay people "inside their buildings" (contributing to their businesses) for whatever reason.

  • edgeoftheabyss OC, CA
    July 4, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    Gay marriage is simply the public face of a massive gender redefinition and homosexual-norming agenda. In California, they're going after the children in schools. For evidence, refer to a sampling of the California legislative history:

    AB394 (2007): establishes definition of harassment that includes expression of views relating to traditional marriage or traditional gender identification.

    AB14 (2007): prohibits state funding for any program that does not support transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality.

    SB777 (2008) California Education Code amendment: "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth. (gender is how you feel, dress, and act.)

    SB572 (2009) Harvey Milk Day: pressures all California public schools to hold an annual “day of significance” honoring the life and values of homosexual activist Harvey Milk. (no parent opt-out)

    SB48 (2011) FAIR Education Act: requires that school textbooks include instructional material that portrays LGBT societal contributions in a favorable light. (no parent opt-out)

    You either conform and comply to the LGBT agenda or bear the labels of homophobe and bigot. This is about so much more than just a marriage ceremony.

  • cjf Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    @Contrariusier

    So, yes, this is pretty much the same as with businesses not wanting gay people "inside their buildings" (contributing to their businesses) for whatever reason.

    ----------

    The argument is not that gay people can't enter or cater to a business. The argument is the type of service being rendered. There is a distinction and you know it (and it is very obvious), but since it weakens your position, which is to force in mind, thought, and conscience the gay lifestyle, you won't admit it.

  • ImABeliever Provo, UT
    July 4, 2013 6:37 p.m.

    It amazes me that people including some members of the L.D.S. Church for the which I belong; want to argue the things of God. God said homosexuality equals destruction. Case closed.

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    July 5, 2013 2:48 a.m.

    I think this couple should be able to get married.....in Utah. The same-sex marriage movement is getting stronger; especially since last week and I don't believe it will take 10 years.

  • Phillip M Hotchkiss Malta, Mt
    July 5, 2013 7:00 a.m.

    @alt134.
    This country is not divided, It's dividing. I have to disagree with you about abortion dividing us faster.As I see it their is less fence sitters on this topic. You are either for life or against it. This deals with living beings.most will stand up for this right I think this area is more cut and dry.
    Gay marriage is more on compassion feelings acts of love for each other.I don't understand people being Gay. But I don't place them in the same category as one's who are pro choice.I feel they have no love for life. When it is divided we will see witch divided us more slavery or Gay marriage.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    July 5, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    @cjf --

    "There is a distinction and you know it (and it is very obvious), but since it weakens your position, which is to force in mind, thought, and conscience the gay lifestyle, you won't admit it."

    I don't believe any such thing.

    Do you really think that a wedding cake baker would be legally allowed to refuse services to an interracial couple getting married?

    Seriously??

    @edgeoftheabyss --

    "For evidence, refer to a sampling of the California legislative history:..."

    I'm not going to take the time to look it up, but I strongly suspect that they would have had a similar spate of legislation around the time that the Civil Rights Act came along, back in the 60s. It takes a lot of little detail-type laws to cover all the basis when one is trying to wipe out institutionalized bigotry.

    @Imabeliever --

    "God said homosexuality equals destruction. Case closed."

    According to you. But many Christians disagree with you.

  • Doc1895 Chassell, MA
    July 5, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    The Homosexual Agenda is not about seeking equal rights, but more about gaining social acceptance and special privilege for a perverse lifestyle.
    It has been said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceit, disinformation, name-calling and bullying will be unleashed."

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    July 5, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    @Doc1895 --

    "The Homosexual Agenda is not about seeking equal rights, but more about gaining social acceptance and special privilege for a perverse lifestyle."

    Who is harmed by a committed, loving relationship between two gay people? Please be specific.

    And just who, exactly, gave you the authority to determine what qualifies as "perverse" for the rest of the world?

    "It has been said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceit, disinformation, name-calling and bullying will be unleashed.""

    Yeah, that was said by Frank Turek (he stole the first part of that quote from George Orwell). His degree is from Southern Evangelical Seminary -- which should give you a clue about where he's coming from.

    The problem is that he completely neglects the actual facts of the issue.

    So, please, Doc. Let us all know what "deceit and disinformation" has been spread by those who support equal rights. Please be specific.

    But while you're doing that, please also remember that many Christians SUPPORT gay marriage.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    July 5, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    re: "The Homosexual Agenda is not about seeking equal rights, but more about gaining social acceptance and special privilege for a perverse lifestyle.."

    What, paying the mortgage, watering the lawn, taking the kids to baseball practice, planting flowers in the backyard, are considered a "perverse lifestyle"? Or do you mean engaging in the same EXACT practices opposite sex couples engage in for a variety of reasons?
    So, to be clear, health care benefits, right to make end of life decisions/hospital visitation, social security/pension benefits for a loved one are a special privilege?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 5, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    @Phillip M Hotchkiss
    "When it is divided we will see witch divided us more slavery or Gay marriage."

    Roughly 70% of the under-30 demographic support same-sex marriage. Generationally it's going to be effectively one-sided. Regardless, considering we fought a civil war over slavery and states rights, I don't see gay marriage ever leading to anything near that level.

    @Doc1895
    "The Homosexual Agenda is not about seeking equal rights, but more about gaining social acceptance and special privilege for a perverse lifestyle."

    Special privilege? What are they getting that opposite-sex couples aren't getting?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 5, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    "Bishop Wester said he doesn't know what recourse there is to preserve traditional marriage other than to continue to engage public conversation and debate to "make our case.""

    ---

    Traditional marriage will continue to be traditional marriage. Same sex couples being able to marry doesn't change any of that.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 5, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    @Vladhagen;

    Is the LDS Church currently forced to marry non-worthy Mormons in their temples? Are they required to marry non-Mormons in them?

    No?

    Why would they then be forced to even perform a same-sex wedding?

    Do you guys ever stop to think about what it is you're afraid of? If they can't be forced to marry your unworthy MORMONS, they certainly won't be forced to marry gays and lesbians.

    @very concerned;

    Have you even tried praying about the issue yet? You seem so certain that you are correct. If god acts like modern Christians I would rather be in hell anyway.

    @Sharonna;

    Practice your beliefs if you want. Keep your beliefs out of civil laws though.

    @many of you;

    LGBT Americans sharing the word marriage isn't going to kill you, nor will it change your own marriages - only you have control over that.

    @cjf;

    No, there is no difference between the wedding of a gay couple vs a straight couple. If you are in business, why ever would you pass moral judgement on your customers? It is not only stupid, it's bad for business.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    July 5, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    If the majority of the country really knew what gay men do with each other, there would not be this great increase of support for gay rights.

    Doc 1895 is right - this is all about acceptance and approval of a perverse lifestyle.

    Why doesn't the media present the stories of the thousands and thousands of "gay" men who have changed their lives and now live in happy, heterosexual relationships and have children?

    Matthew 10:34-37:

    34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

    35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

    36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own bhousehold.

    37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

    38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    July 5, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    Article: "Marriage is something, in our belief system, that is divinely given to us by God. It's found in sacred scripture." said the Catholic Bishop.

    BUT... Catholics don't get to dictate what secular law is. Neither do Mormons.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    July 5, 2013 1:30 p.m.

    @RedWings --

    "If the majority of the country really knew what gay men do with each other, there would not be this great increase of support for gay rights."

    Many heterosexuals enjoy the very same activities that homosexuals do. That hasn't turned anyone away from heterosexual rights. ;-)

    "Why doesn't the media present the stories of the thousands and thousands of "gay" men who have changed their lives..."

    Perhaps because they don't actually exist.

    I can trump your Bible quote with better ones:

    "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew 22:37-40

    "If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12:47

    "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?" James 4:12

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 5, 2013 2:23 p.m.

    @Contrariusiest" It is NOT our job to do the judging now. Context,(Jesus) Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly."(John 7:24)And see(Mt 7:16).

    RE: this passage doesn't mention homosexuality. (Gal 5:21)and the like=(homoios G, similar)i.e.. Jude the brother of Jesus, "other flesh"; meaning not other women besides their own wives, but men; unnatural sin, which, from these people, is called sodomy; contrary to the light of nature and law of God, dishonorable to human nature, . ( Gill’s Commentary on Jude 1:7)

    (Peter).”our dear brother Paul also wrote you with “the wisdom that God gave him.” He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2Peter 3:15-16)

    Paul the( Apostolos,G) one sent forth with orders specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    July 5, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    re: "If the majority of the country really knew what gay men do with each other, there would not be this great increase of support for gay rights.
    Doc 1895 is right - this is all about acceptance and approval of a perverse lifestyle."

    This raises the issue of Animus.
    Definition of Animus: hostility; ill will; strong dislike; hate.

    Justice Kennedy explained that laws based on animus against gays and lesbians and animus against a group is never a legitimate purpose sufficient to justify discrimination.

    Animus may not work anymore, perhaps its time to come up with a new argument.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    July 5, 2013 2:52 p.m.

    Does anyone else see the irony in Doc 1895's comment "When you tell the truth about homosexuality today, you can be sure that the central tools of deceit, disinformation, name-calling and bullying will be unleashed."

    I'm referring to the Gathering Storm TV ads and similar misinformation that seem so paranoid and deceitful now.

    It seems like he's right about the use of disinformation etc, but not for the reasons he thinks.

  • jrp7sen Logan, UT
    July 5, 2013 2:59 p.m.

    As a gay youth attending BYU-I I wish them luck. These feelings are real and raw and marriage to the love of my life is happiness for me. No one else can tell me what makes me happy. I know God understands and it is not my fellow Mormons' place to get in the way of other people's business and love. I hope for one day to get married in Utah to my boyfriend. And no, this is not wrong, sick or immoral, so please stop trying to divide families.

    Where love is, so is God.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    July 5, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    @Phillip M Hotchkiss


    "This topic is dividing country faster then any other disputes in history.It is sad .but I see no way out of it. We all have a right to stand up for what we believe is right.I respect all who stand up for their rights. Even if it goes against my rights. I have no respect for fence sitters who will not say anything out of fear. We do live in scarry Times. But to bury to your head in the ground until the conflict is over is wrong."

    The last time the country was this divided, a Civil War broke out.

    Top 5 causes of the first civil war
    1.Economic and social differences between the North and the South
    2. States versus federal rights
    3.The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.
    4.Growth of the Abolition Movement
    5.The election of Abraham Lincoln.

    Can we see the parallels here? We do live in scary times.

  • Just the Facts, Mam! Meridian, ID
    July 5, 2013 4:46 p.m.

    Policy makers in Washington need to get out of defining marriage altogether. Straight 10% tax across the board! Equal justice for all!

    Marriage should be left to the churches. There shouldn't be any laws based on marital status. If a person wants to practice homosexuality and marry who he/she loves, go ahead! Find a church that supports your right of conscience and have away at all the marriage vows you want. Just don't make me watch you on TV or look at you in the news! I don't want to know! I don't give a flying crap! I expect the same from you! I want to be left alone to marry who I want and do what I want to do within the walls of my church and my own home.

    What the heck is the government doing defining a person's choices in the first place. This is America! If they can now define marriage between a man and a woman then what is stopping them from defining marriage between a man and a tree? Don't get me wrong, I love trees and all...

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 5, 2013 6:04 p.m.

    @RedWings;

    What has what goes on in the bedroom got to do with marriage equality? Answer: Nothing.

    The real "perverse" people are the ones who spend all their time thinking about what goes on in someone elses bedroom. Now thats truly "perverse".

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    July 5, 2013 6:05 p.m.

    re: "Marriage should be left to the churches. There shouldn't be any laws based on marital status."

    How would divorce, alimony, child support/visitation and division of assets be handled by the theocracy in your proposed scenario? Marriage is currently legal contract with governed by family law.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    July 6, 2013 12:35 a.m.

    I read a few dozen of the comments, and was surprised (sorry) to find half or more to be rather enlightened, even though mainly conservative people read the DN.
    Interesting: a catholic bishop is quoted (no lds representatives). Not everyone is aware that the Proposition 8 situation, which some feel hurt the mormon church badly, was created by bishop Cordileone, who had been transferred to CA from Utah.
    A few people raised the ridiculous specious argument that lds temples would be forced by the Federal Government to marry Gay couples --- Let's note that 46 yrs after Loving vs VA, churches do not have to marry interracial couples (or anyone) who are not members.

    And can we get to the heart of the fight? Some churches, such as lds and catholic, have marriage and procreation as core elements. The PROBLEM: what to do if the sons and daughters of members want to wed the same sex? Catholics have a history of ignoring what their church wants, but lds do not.
    I think lds children will be happier and serve God better in the church, but the day of twisting arms to marry heterosexually is behind us, and should be.

  • VA Saint Chester, VA
    July 6, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    @Contrarius -- interesting that you would bring in Ancient Greece and Rome. The older men would 'groom' male children in the ways of the world, so to speak, and take them on as sexual proteges. That sounds to me more like pedophilia.

  • Contrariusest Nashville, TN
    July 6, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    @sharrona --

    sharrona: "Context,(Jesus) Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly."(John 7:24)

    This passage is talking about circumcision, keeping the Sabbath, and deciding whether Jesus was truly the Messiah -- it's not talking about judging people's sins. ;-)

    sharrona: "And see(Mt 7:16)."

    I like this one. Thanks for reminding me of it.

    "By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"

    It's very easy to see which side is currently spreading hatred and thorns, and which side is spreading love. :-)

    Yes, Sharrona, people DO have the right to love each other -- whether you approve of them or not.

    "(Gal 5:21)and the like=(homoios G, similar)i.e.. Jude the brother of Jesus, "other flesh";..."

    I've asked you before to stop adding words to Bible quotes when they don't exist in the actual Bible passages. **Please** do stop doing that.

    Gal 5:21 does NOT mention homosexuality. It does mention "orgies" or "revellings" depending on translation, but never homosexuality.

    Oh, also -- please remember that the term "sodomy" actually refers to acts that are just as easily performed by heterosexuals as by homosexuals. :-)

  • 2plainbrownwrappers Nashville, TN
    July 6, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    @VA Saint --

    "interesting that you would bring in Ancient Greece and Rome. The older men would 'groom' male children in the ways of the world, so to speak, and take them on as sexual proteges. That sounds to me more like pedophilia."

    In some cases, it probably was. But for the most part, the "younger" men were teens and older. Also, it's important to remember that girls would be given in heterosexual marriages at the same ages that boys entered into these mentoring/grooming relationships. And, of course, mature adults also took part in these relationships; for instance, at times it was also encouraged in the military between soldiers, to increase cohesion in the troops.

    Since homosexuality was encouraged so widely and for long a time in both cultures, obviously there would have been a great deal of variation in customs over time and place. Both the Romans and Greeks had very different ideas about sexuality than we did, and that shouldn't surprise anyone. But the take-home message is that sexuality did NOT bring down either civilization.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    July 6, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    "I worry greatly about the affect this will have on children. I know people will say the children raised by gay couples can grow up and be happy, but I just can't believe it. I taught school for too many years...."

    @Laura, every single main stream medical, psychological, social work, and educational association (AMA, APA.. etc. etc. etc.) in the United States have policy positions supporting the outcome of children raised by gay and lesbian couples. Please do some research, as a former teacher you should have been in the know.

    What matters is a health loving and stable family be they same-sex or opposite sex couples. Now you can trout out studies like Regenerus (who has a religious agenda and didn't study gay parents, but broken homes) and try to say gay parents are bad, but being a ex-teacher you should understand the difference between junk science and research the follows the scientific method supported by our main stream medical, psychological and sociological associations.

  • OC Guy San Diego, CA
    July 6, 2013 11:41 a.m.

    Doubt it will happen in Utah any time in the near future. The SCOTUS ruling on Prop 8 simply recognized California's right to appeal---or not to appeal, in this case---lower court rulings which overturned 8. The justices could have ruled that no state can restrict marriage based on gender, or they could have ruled that California erred by taking away a right that previously had existed. They did neither, delivering instead a narrow view that affected only California.

    Similarly, fears that same-sex marriage will force the LDS Church to allow such marriages in a temple are unfounded. The Roman Catholic Church does not allow marriage of divorced, non-annulled individuals, and I know of no cases when someone successfully sued the Catholic Church to conduct such a ceremony. Likewise, in the states that allow gay marriage, no one has coerced the LDS Church by legal means to provide gay temple marriages (or "civil", non-temple weddings in their chapels). Religions will always remain free to set their own internal rules for their adherents.

  • Firefly123 Mapleton, UT
    July 6, 2013 12:54 p.m.

    In Utah I think the fear would be making it necessary to include temple marriages, or a full Catholic marriage mass and those things can simply never happen. If this couple is happy with a secular marriage, it may be possible in this state some day-and I hope all people in Utah will welcome them-but a temple sealing is a different matter.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    July 6, 2013 1:22 p.m.

    No H8 - Celebrate

    You can't speak up for throwing out traditional families and then pretend you care about them. Not buying it.

    Just the facts, Maam is right on! Get government out of marriage altogether. Let each church decide for themselves.

    I remind many of the posters here that there are multiple Christian churches, with varied beliefs. Non-believers' lectures as to what I believe or should believe, is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy, not to mention idiocy.

  • Ghost Writer GILBERT, AZ
    July 6, 2013 3:09 p.m.

    "Noble men and women" will eventually come to the "correct" conclusion on this, and change their way of thinking . . . Thought I was "noble" with my most heart-felt convictions -- guess not.

  • Contrariusest Nashville, TN
    July 6, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    @Christian 24-7 --

    "You can't speak up for throwing out traditional families and then pretend you care about them."

    It's a good thing that NOBODY here is actually talking about "throwing out traditional families", then.

    "Traditional marriage" is NOT threatened by gay marriages. Heterosexual marriages will ALWAYS be in the vast majority. Nothing is going to change that. Gay marriage will add at most 5% to the total marriages -- hardly even a drop in the bucket. And certainly not anything that merits all the hysteria we keep seeing around the issue.

    "Get government out of marriage altogether."

    That's a fine idea -- as long as you're willing to give up all the legal rights and benefits that go along with marriage.

    Funny thing, that. If you want legal rights and benefits, then the government HAS to be involved. If you give up one, you lose the other.

    Do you really want to do that?

    "there are multiple Christian churches, with varied beliefs."

    Absolutely right! That's a good thing to remind people of, especially since many Christian denominations SUPPORT gay rights.

  • prinze777 Fresno, CA
    July 6, 2013 4:44 p.m.

    @ Contrarius

    What the Savior commanded us to do is to basically hate the sin, love the sinner. I don't hate gay people, and I believe that civil unions should have equal rights to there married counterparts when it comes to taxes and spousal benefits. However, this attack on faith and religious freedoms will not be tolerated.

    Let us not forget that it was the "gay rights" organizations and the protest that they led that beat innocent people in streets during the California Prop 8 campaign. Let us not forget that those same organizations led violent attacks of vandalism against churches during those campaigns and ran false and misleading adds at the same time. Let us not forget the lawsuits that have been brought against the Boy Scouts of America and Catholic Charities. These were private organizations doing what they believed to be right, and they were attacked. All of these facts can been verified by the videos that were taken at the time and simple searches of public databases. Unfortunately, it seems to be easier for people such as yourself to ignore these attacks and simply say that religion is not under attack.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    July 6, 2013 5:46 p.m.

    Commenters like Very Concerned use both tradition and religion as rationales for defining a state or federal law. American legal ideals as expressed by the Supreme Court have explicitly denied any role in proper lawmaking to either rationale, even though it is sometimes expressed as religiosity, family values or Biblical precepts. I'm concerned about people like Very Concerned who have a deficit of civic knowledge. Such low information citizenship can and will do damage to our country.

  • Piret Clifton, NJ
    July 6, 2013 7:54 p.m.

    I think we've made some progress since the time of the "mesopotamians" - or should we still be doing everything they did? By the way, I've never heard that statement before.

  • aislander Anderson Island, WA
    July 7, 2013 1:09 a.m.

    Prinze777: "I believe that civil unions should have equal rights to there married counterparts when it comes to taxes and spousal benefits. However, this attack on faith and religious freedoms will not be tolerated."

    You want to have it both ways. You believe in equal rights unless it means equal access for gays to the CIVIL contract universally called "marriage". I'm sure you understand that nothing in these developments will even remotely require churches to recognize or perform gay marriages.

    This is entirely a matter of equal treatment under civil law. In what universe does gay marriage cause ANY infringement upon religious freedom? Quite the opposite. MANY denominations DO support gay marriage. Therefore, denying gays equal access to civil marriage contracts not only denies gays their constitutionally guaranteed equal treatment under civil law, it denies the many churches that DO support gay marriage THEIR religious freedom to marry gay couples.

    The only religious freedom YOU lose is nonexistent...the freedom to impose YOUR religious beliefs upon others; your "right" to discriminate against gays.

    I'd wager you claim to support our Constitution. It must be so very inconvenient for you to learn that it applies to gay citizens too!

  • JanSan Pocatello, ID
    July 7, 2013 1:59 a.m.

    I think that "gay marriage" will eventually come to Utah because of the large gay population in Salt Lake and because EVERYONE that has a different opinion then gays are just horrible homophobic bigots, as we are constantly being told and made out to be.

    As an active LDS, I see this as a sign of the times that we are in and as we have been counseled from our leaders the "Big and Spacious" is getting bigger all the time and many will chose to follow the path of the world.

    I stand with my Prophet!

    I will be nice and respectful of all people, legal just rights should be for all people - but to me marriage is and always will be between a man and a woman.

  • BarkforSark PROVO, UT
    July 7, 2013 5:16 a.m.

    I always enjoy when people say I'm on the wrong side of history. That's fine. I'd rather be on the right side of God than the right side of history.

  • deseret pete robertson, Wy
    July 7, 2013 6:50 a.m.

    God will never recognize same sex marriage no matter what the courts say or the populace.To claim a union of the same sex as marriage is to degrade those who have followed God's law and left father and mother and have cleaved unto their husband or wife.You can call it whatever you want other than Marriage.Marriage is between a man and a woman as degreed by God.Any law by man will not change that.Those of us who support marriage between a man and a woman have rights also.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    July 7, 2013 1:47 p.m.

    The only thing that the GLBT have in common with *other minorities* is their claim that they are biologically tied to homosexual behavior: It is an uncontrollable genetic drive, and therefore should be protected by law. That seems to be the unspoken central assumption of their argument. If this were true, then I could see homosexuality would logically require equal protection under the law.

    I am not convinced. The scientific case seems to me to be inconclusive of that. Even though there is some research suggesting there is biological same-sex attraction, that does not mean homosexual relations are uncontrollable or desirable.

    That central philosophy (uncontrollable and biological) is a far cry from the fact that there are people of obviously different skin color, or of different creeds, religions, or nationalities, who obviously need protection. In other words, homosexual behavior is not as cut and dry as the GLBT community would like us to think. They would have us think there is no recourse.

    I am not advocating violence. Nor am I advocating un-Christ-like behavior. I am trying to champion abstinence outside the bounds of traditional marriage as the basis of a happy society.

  • George Vreeland Hill Beverly Hills, CA
    July 7, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    I believe that gay marriage will be in every state.
    America is more accepting to it and more and more people are waking up to the fact that you really can't vote to deny rights to people based on beliefs, opinions or whatever.
    Also, it will be very interesting to see the divorce rates among same-sex couples a few years from now compared to heterosexual couples.
    It could shake up the thinking of marriage.

    George Vreeland Hill

  • 5th Amendment Salt Lake, UT
    July 7, 2013 3:09 p.m.

    re: "..it will be very interesting to see the divorce rates among same-sex couples a few years from now compared to heterosexual couples" - Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.. State marriage eligibility is not based on the lower divorce rate because of the stability SSM brings to marriage.

    Very Concerned said "The only thing that the GLBT have in common with *other minorities* is their claim that they are biologically tied to homosexual behavior: It is an uncontrollable genetic drive. I am trying to champion abstinence outside the bounds of traditional marriage.." - Can you explain the biological, genetic, endocrinological factors of your own sexual orientation? Do you have an uncontrollable genetic drive? If not, what makes you think you can explain someone else's? Your free to champion abstinence for any marriage scenario.. but not dictate your own brand of religion in civil law.. Episcopal, Unitarian, Quaker, Reformed Judaism, Buddhism, all honor or perform same-sex unions. Arrogance is thinking you have authority over someone else's religion or God.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 7, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    Dear DN monitors I have written three comments about two diferent subjects. I have tried not to be offensive (it is not in my nature offensive)Yet, my comments are not posted. I have to doubt your maturity and impartiality.

  • 5th Amendment Salt Lake, UT
    July 7, 2013 4:21 p.m.

    re: "..I always enjoy when people say Im on the wrong side of history. Thats fine. Id rather be on the right side of God than the right side of history." - Funny, folks said the exact same thing about 'mixing of the races' and what their God had intended at the time ani-miscegenation laws were struck down.

    I ask "Whose God or religious view should take precedence in civil law??"

    Yours, mine, someone else? Should we all vote on which religious view should be the law of the land? Perhaps their is room in our country for diversity?

  • 5th Amendment Salt Lake, UT
    July 7, 2013 4:35 p.m.

    @very concerned

    "I am not convinced. The scientific case seems to me to be inconclusive of that. Even though there is some research suggesting there is biological same-sex attraction, that does not mean homosexual relations are uncontrollable or desirable."

    What is the specific scientific basis for the genetic, biological, and endocrinological orientations of opposite sex, or ones own individual attraction? I'd very much like to know that, before I made assumptions about the specific origins of another's sexual orientation. I'd like to be able to lay out and thoroughly explain the genetic markers, biological and endocrinological factors of my own attractions before trying to explain or even judging someone else.

    Moreover, is it possible to reach the same conclusion that certain heterosexual relations are uncontrollable or desirable? If so, which behaviors should be codified into civil law? Homosexual behavior in Lawrence v. Texas was determined to be constitutionally protected.

  • Excal Layton, UT
    July 7, 2013 5:55 p.m.

    Homosexuality is the bedrock issue. It is wrong because it is self-defeating. No society of homosexuals can procreate and is therefore doomed to fail. For this reason, a heterosexual society, which tolerates homosexuality, let alone encourages it, does so at its own peril, and therefore has the duty to protect itself against the practice and promulgation of it among its members.

    Hence,society should deem marriage as a privilege, not a right. It should be carefully regulated, to ensure that no unwise class of unions is sanctioned that would be detrimental to its own future. That well-meaning, but short-sighted members are willing to shoulder the extra burden and risk placed upon heterosexuals, by the sterility of the homosexual unions of a society, may be recognized as a generous and just sentiment by some, but it is a selfish and unjust position to take in reality, from the heterosexual point of view that regards the welfare of its posterity above that of those members who choose to sacrifice their posterity on the altar of personal preference.

    The SCOTUS decision is indeed "troubling." Truly, the wisdom of the wise has perished and the understanding of the prudent is hidden.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    July 7, 2013 6:29 p.m.

    RE: Contrariuses,Bible quotes when they do exist in the actual Bible passages.

    The O. T. The Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the New Testament (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and “the like”, are still abominations before God.

    RE: it's not talking about judging people's sins".
    Wrong (John 7:24)is universal in application according to the truth and evidence of them; and do not find fault with that, which you yourselves allow of, and which Moses and his law, and your own practices, justify. Universal in application
    RE: Thanks for reminding me of it. (Mt 7:16). Can be doctrine, Christians have the right to judge bad teachings. i.e…

    THE Book of JUDGES: Compromise, a serious problem today, is one of the main themes of Judges. Influences, chiefly idolatry and immorality. “And the like”, means that this is not an exhaustive list of sins.

  • 5th Amendment Salt Lake, UT
    July 7, 2013 8:08 p.m.

    re: Excal said:
    "Homosexuality is the bedrock issue. It is wrong because it is self-defeating. No society of homosexuals can procreate and is therefore doomed to fail. For this reason, a heterosexual society, which tolerates homosexuality, let alone encourages it, does so at its own peril,.."

    A red herring argument? I think we would do well to look to the evidence here. The evidence show us that we have had a society of homosexuals for thousands of years. Procreation of the species has never ever been a problem. Moreover, modern reproductive technologies have greatly benefited no- fertile couples of all sexual orientations. The fact is simply that homosexuals can and do have families. A society that tolerates homosexuals has absolutely NO effect on the capability of opposite sex couples procreation ability. Honestly, just look around you.

  • Elles Lehi, UT
    July 7, 2013 10:15 p.m.

    One of my concerns is that we will end up like Sweden where LDS temple marriages are not legally recognized by the government since the Church will not perform marriage ceremonies for those of the same sex.

  • Erin R. Salt Lake City, UT
    July 7, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    We actually don't live in a democracy.

  • Excal Layton, UT
    July 8, 2013 3:12 a.m.

    @ 5th Amendment.

    Your argument against the self-defeating nature of the homosexual union, that it is a distraction, is specious: Regardless of the fact that the seed of a male and the egg of a female may be combined to conceive a child artificially, only one of the partners to the union can be the child's father or mother. The homosexual couple cannot share a posterity.

    Given this inescapable fact, the result is inevitable: The homosexual union is doomed over generations, even if it can sometimes be maintained in the short term. This self-defeating fate extends from the personal relationships of homosexual individuals to the homosexual society in general, as extended families become impossible to identify.

    With extended family relationships impossible, the homosexual element of society eventually becomes "a luxury" that the heterosexual society cannot afford, on so many levels. Your argument that history includes this element in every past society is something that implies the contrary, does not hold, since none of these societies persist today, except as the posterity of heterosexuals.

    The fact is, homosexual unions are self-defeating and represent a burden and risk to any society that tolerates them, let alone encourages them.

  • CHARLIEBROWN2292 ,
    July 8, 2013 6:02 a.m.

    Time only will reveal the collateral effects of allowing Gay Marriage, but collateral effects there will be! One of them will be that our kids will be taught by public institutions that there is nothing wrong in experimenting with sexual partners of both sexes. Sex will be portrayed as a fun activity rather than something sacred meant to perpetuate the species under carefully tailored conditions. Many among the rising generation will get confused enough they will lose a sense of their own gender and some - like in Sweden - will choose to end their lives as a result. Sex drive will suffer no restraint, and it will soon become impossible to keep people to One-Partner-Only relationships. Children born under such circumstances will greatly suffer - especially when they will be missing a father or mother. The whole society will be in shambles, and no Welfare Agency will ever be able to fix the mess...there are things one shouldn't tolerate under any circumstance, and Gay Marriage is one of them!

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    July 8, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    @Piret --

    "I think we've made some progress since the time of the "mesopotamians""

    Sure. I only mentioned it to correct the people who claim that same-sex marriage has never been done before. In reality, they have occurred throughout history. :-)

    @prinze777 --

    in re: protest attacks --

    I was living in Knoxville just a few years ago, when a man stormed into a Unitarian church there and SHOT NINE PEOPLE just because he hated "liberals, Democrats, blacks, and gays".

    Gay people in the US are still **EIGHT TIMES** more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than straight people.

    Another gay man was shot and killed in NYC just a couple of weeks ago -- WITH the shooter shouting gay slurs at him -- in yet another obvious hate crime.

    We see continuing violence against gays all over the world -- like those mobs in the country of Georgia that have been LED BY PRIESTS.

    In some countries, homosexuality is still PUNISHABLE BY DEATH.

    And during the Prop 8 campaign, PRO gay-rights people were attacked as well.

    It's very clear which side has suffered the vast majority of violent attacks. And it sure isn't the anti-gay forces.

  • Contrariusest Nashville, TN
    July 8, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    @sharrona --

    "Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless."

    Those Old Testament moral codes include the commands to kill all adulterers -- which include people who divorce and remarry -- as well as to kill children who don't respect their parents. Among other things.

    Are you **really** sure you want to stick with every one of those codes?

    "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." (Hebrews 8:13)

    "Wrong (John 7:24)is universal"

    Sorry, Sharrona, but yet again you're adding things to quotes which simply aren't there. *Please* try to stick with the actual quotes.

    @Excal --

    "No society of homosexuals can procreate and is therefore doomed to fail."

    Celibacy is also "doomed to fail" if everyone were to practice it. Nonetheless, many religions revere their celibate monks and priests.

    Obviously, therefore, this "doomed to fail" test is completely irrelevant when we're talking about morality.

    @Elles --

    "One of my concerns is that we will end up like Sweden"

    Sweden doesn't have separation of church and state.

    We do.

    Problem solved.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    very concerned: "I am trying to champion abstinence outside the bounds of traditional marriage as the basis of a happy society."

    And therein lies the problem. The game is rigged. Unmarried heterosexuals have a legal escape clause from abstinence and chastity-- marriage. A straight teen coming of age only has to abstain for 5-10 years or so during courtship, then he or she can do whatever after getting married. It may be a struggle now and then, but it is a manageable sacrifice. You are asking gays, on the other hand, to abstain for their entire lifetimes. They don't get the "sex within marriage is OK" option because they don't get the marriage option. The playing field is uneven. If you really want a happy society where everyone has the same shot at happiness, then you should be supporting gay marriage.

  • Fullypresent Salt Lake City, UT
    July 8, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    I am still trying to understand the argument that allowing gay individuals to marry will destroy marriage for straight couples? I would think encouraging strong and long term committed relationships especially if you are going to have children involved would benefit all of society. States that have passed laws to allow gay individuals to marry have not seen the end of straight couples marrying and going on with their lives. We have a high marriage rate in Utah. I can't imagine that would decrease if gay individuals were also allowed to marry.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    July 8, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    @ Excal "Given this inescapable fact, the result is inevitable: The homosexual union is doomed over generations, even if it can sometimes be maintained in the short term. This self-defeating fate extends from the personal relationships of homosexual individuals to the homosexual society in general, as extended families become impossible to identify."

    Are you arguing against the posterity of ALL extended families because of adoption, and reproductive technologies for single heterosexuals, non-fertile heterosexual couples or just homosexual couples, married with children before coming out, or just never married with children?

    Marriage law is not a means to stop GLBT from having children for "posterity." Perhaps sterilization or adoption law might work better?

    Separate homosexual societies? Homosexuals have always been part of any society even those like Iran who refuse to recognize or hang them.

    What threat is there now, or ever has been from homosexuals in a society to heterosexual procreation? Do you have any evidence that heterosexual procreation has diminished because of so called "homosexual societies?"

    Other than describing a parade of horribles, or sky will fall arguments, one must conclude that you are of course entitled to your own opinion, but not your own set of facts.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    July 8, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    @charilebrown
    "Time only will reveal the collateral effects of allowing Gay Marriage, but collateral effects there will be! One of them will be that our kids will be taught by public institutions that there is nothing wrong in experimenting with sexual partners of both sexes. ........"

    Other than describing a parade of horribles, sky will fall arguments, or fear based bumper sticker slogans, perhaps the solution is to codify your own religious view into civil law? We could also propose a federal law stating which religious view will be the law of the land and we can all vote on it.

    In the meantime, moral disapproval, animus, or fear are simply not valid reasons to discriminate against a minority.

  • AmericaV Huntsville, AL
    July 9, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    I sure hope we see states seceding before it comes to this. The nation is all but done anyway. Stick a fork in it already.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 9, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    Gay "marriage" is a myth. The purpose of marriage is to bind a male-female relationship that in, most instances, bear children. The husband or the wife, usually, has to stay home and raise the children. This is a social good. It is encouraged with health insurance for one partner, inheritance rights for the surviving partner if the other one dies. We give tax benefits.

    If two people of the same gender marry, why should they receive benefits? They will never bear children. If one of the other dies, the other can keep on working.

    (Yeah, there is a straw man argument that someone will probably make, what if the wife is infertile? Well, do we really want to have the government poking around like the rude aunt who asks when their is going to be some 'good news'.)

    I didn't serve in the military. I don't meet the present conditions to receive Veteran's Benefits. Geez, I wonder if I am being discriminated against. Equal protection under the law. I don't have a mortgage, how come some people get to deduct mortgage and I don't. I feel like a second class citizen already.

  • Cougar in Texas Houston, TX
    July 9, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    Contrarius,

    Why do you exclude or misrepresent information that would damage your claims? I find this in virtually every research I do on your information. Examples:

    The language you quote from Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health does not appear in that decision, but is attributed to CA Justice Ronald George, although no reference is given. Mediamatters cut and pasting?

    "Canada" did not reaffirm its polygamy ban. Did "America" pass Prop 8? It was a British Columbia reference case devised after BC failed to convict any polygamist (and continue to fail to do so). The trial focused almost exclusively on the BC branches of Warren Jeffs' FLDS and cited Jeffs' well-known excesses to justify their decision. The decision also confirmed that polygamy is legal in Canada under common law, but formal polygamous marriages are not.

    Brazil legalized gay marriage earlier this year. Brazil has also given legal status to at least one threesome.

    It is coming, and many of your pro-gay allies agree that it is.

    It took 50 years to transition from overturning anti-miscegenation laws to allowing gay marriage. The transition to polygamy and other non-standard forms of marriage will not be so long.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    July 9, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi
    "Gay "marriage" is a myth. The purpose of marriage is to bind a male-female relationship that in, most instances, bear children......."

    How will excluding same-sex couples and their children from the institution of marriage prevent this so called "binding of the male-female" relationship? How is it not a "social good" for same sex couples to raise their children, with the same marriage benefits? If you do some research you will find that same sex couples do indeed have children! They really do! The even use the exact same reproductive technologies that opposite-sex couples utilize. They even adopt and still are allowed to called themselves married! Their marriages are no more of a myth than interracial marriages were decades ago. What about the children of same-sex couples? Why do you want to demean and inflict harm on these families as Justice Kennedy found when DOMA was struck down as being unconstitutional? Your disapproval, and ill-will, fear and dislike are not valid reasons under US constitutional law. Hate isn't working anymore either.

    Wow, now we have pure awesomeness, what a great country we live in! Let freedom ring, Liberty and Justice for ALL.

  • Logical Fallacy Salt Lake, UT
    July 9, 2013 11:32 a.m.

    The arguments about protecting traditional marriage by denying another's ability to marry are interesting. The argumentation goes something like this:

    "We have no bigotry or ill will towards homosexuals, and ignore the harm done to their families, we just want to protect marriage."

    A logical fallacy? Someone who steals a car is in no way a thief, they only want to protect their right to have transportation.

    Some only see what they want to see. This is called "Denial".

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    July 9, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    @Cougar --

    "The language you quote from Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health does not appear in that decision"

    That's a valid quote -- but you're correct, I've got a misattribution there. Thanks for pointing that out!

    The quote is actually from the California Supreme Court in 2008. Still a perfectly relevant court decision, despite my miscredit. I apologize for applying the wrong citation, though.

    I'll see if I can figure out how I got confused there.

    "'Canada' did not reaffirm its polygamy ban."

    Sure it did.

    From "Jurist" legal website:

    "The recent ruling of Chief Justice Robert Bauman of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the Polygamy Reference offers the world's most comprehensive judicial treatment to date of the legal status of polygamy. Bauman concluded that Canada's criminal prohibition on polygamy is a violation of the guarantee of freedom of religion in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but accepted that this is constitutionally justified as a reasonable limitation intended to prevent harm to women, children and society. This is a welcome ruling that, if upheld, should prevent the spread of polygamy in Canada. "

    to be continued!

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 9, 2013 12:31 p.m.

    @Evidence Not Junk Science:
    "If you do some research you will find that same sex couples do indeed have children!" Well, I did not mean 'having' in the general term. I meant "bear" as in procreating. Well, if two people of the same gender are able to consummate their relationship in a biologically meaningful way such that they are bear a child, then I am all for them getting married and I dont' care about their sexual preference.

    But in the meantime, if one of the two in the relationship is the biological parent and the other is the roommate (irrespective of their sexual orientation), it is not the same as a marriage between a man and a woman and legally it should not get the same standing.

    Whether or not the children are harmed is subject to debate, but if you change your name to "Pat Robertson" and come on here and say that children being raised by gay parents are at a disadvantage, I am sure that half a dozen people will come on and explain how children raised by gay couples are just fine.

  • Logical Fallacy Salt Lake, UT
    July 9, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    @ Tekakaromatag "... if two people of the same gender are able to consummate their relationship in a biologically meaningful way...."

    That is a nice opinion, but has never been a requirement of civil marriage law. Convicted felons, child abusers, spousal abusers (not the most healthy environment for child raising btw) can legally marry, even if imprisoned for life (no consummation). Your argument implies that opposite-sex felony abusing marriages are better than same-sex marriages with healthy child outcomes is quite frankly a logical fallacy. Try again?
    --------
    @Texas Cougar. Our legal system looks at the case at hand.. Not the slippery slope to mixing of the races 100 years from when slavery was abolished (segregation, anti-misegnation laws struck down etc.). Polygamy won't pass the immutable characteristic test prong for heightend scrutiny. Religious views are a choice and have been shown to change. Therefore, laws that are intended to prevent harm to women and children mostly likely will pass the rational basis test.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    July 9, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    @Cougar --

    continued --

    "Brazil legalized gay marriage earlier this year."

    Right. But they have had gay civil unions since 2004.

    "Brazil has also given legal status to at least one threesome. "

    Right. ONE threesome, with very specific stipulations that their union did NOT apply to any other cases. That was the action of a single notary, and it is being widely contested.

    The notary herself has stated: "By registering them, I only confirmed that they recognize themselves as a family". "I don't confer rights to them. That is up to a judge to decide."

    "Ms da Silva, who is president of the Commission for the Rights of the Family within the Institute of Lawyers, says the union will not be allowed to remain in place. "

    In Brazil, "A legally married person or a married couple cohabiting with one or more sexual partner(s) is prohibited by law. Known as bigamy, it is punishable by 2 to six years jailtime, and is valid for every Brazilian citizen, including naturalized ones."

    Specifically referring to that threesome: "It has not, however, set any precedence, and higher Brazilian courts have not permitted the practice."

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 9, 2013 9:04 p.m.

    @Logical Fallacy:

    "Convicted felons, child abusers, spousal abusers (not the most healthy environment for child raising btw) can legally marry, even if imprisoned for life (no consummation)."

    Now I have to define something else. When I said, that they have to be able to consummate their union in a biologically meaningful way, I meant that they have the neccessary anatomical parts and internal organs, etc. I was not implying geographical proximity.

    "Your argument implies that opposite-sex felony abusing marriages are better than same-sex marriages with healthy child outcomes is quite frankly a logical fallacy."

    No. I was not implying that.

  • Logical Fallacy Salt Lake, UT
    July 9, 2013 10:03 p.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi "When "I" said, that they have to be able to consummate their union in a biologically meaningful way, I meant that they have the neccessary anatomical parts and internal organs, etc...."

    Again, NOT a requirement defined in civil law for civil marriage eligibility, nor is procreation. Moreover, you have left out genetic markers, DNA, endocrinological, and psychological capabilities, perhaps these are not important? Your opinion might create an issue for people born inter-sex, or dual gender. What percentage/functionality is required and defined in civil law for their marriage eligibility? Biologically meaningful is not described in civil law as a requirement for marriage eligibility either. This makes your argument moot.

    re: ""Your argument implies that opposite-sex felony abusing marriages are better than same-sex marriages with healthy child outcomes is quite frankly a logical fallacy."" No. I was not implying that.

    Then clearly children can have great better outcomes in same-sex marriages. Civil law does not ban "marriage" to opposite sex couples because of felony abuse or harm. You said "Whether or not the children are harmed (SSM) is subject to debate.." Clearly not debatable by any main stream NON-religiously based medical/sociological organization.

  • Cougar in Texas Houston, TX
    July 12, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    Contrarius

    Once again, the BC ruling does not represent Canada, else why was there the possibility of an appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court? From the HuffPost:

    "The landmark decision is seen as just a step in a legal odyssey that will likely see the Supreme Court of Canada decide whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the religious practice of multiple marriage...the province's (BC) attorney general wouldn't comment on how prosecutors might proceed, particularly if an appeal is launched."

    If you read the recent dissenting US court opinions, particularly of the Goodridge case in Massachusetts, you'll see there are plenty of competent legal minds that see the SSM justification applying to polygamy and other forms of currently-illegal forms of marriage.

    The particulars of the Brazilian threesome can be applied to other plural relationships if they meet similar requirements. The number of recognized plural marriages can only grow.

    And you can stop saying that no country with legalized SSM also has legalized polygamy. South Africa has both.

    And again, many of your pro-SSM allies believe that polygamy is not far behind. There is precedent for this kind of gradual progression regarding marriage.

  • Logical Fallacy Salt Lake, UT
    July 12, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    @Cougar.. re: "If you read the recent dissenting US court opinions, particularly of the Goodridge case in Massachusetts, you'll see there are plenty of competent legal minds that see the SSM justification applying to polygamy...."

    Nope, suggest you RE-read the Goodridge case:
    "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of TWO persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."

    Even a disenting opinion noted:
    "[p]eople are of course at liberty to raise their children in various family structures, so long as they are not literally HARMING their children by doing so. But that does not mean that the State is required to provide identical forms of encouragement, endorsement, and support to all of the infinite variety of household structures that a free society permits."

    One can claim the sky will fall all you want, but a court of law requires evidence...