Quantcast
Utah

Utah defends same-sex marriage ban in federal court filing

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 5:11 p.m.

    I wish utahns were more for liberty and freedom and more against big government and wasteful spending at the state level.

  • gee-en Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    God bless the Attorney General in upholding this truth! We'll be praying for you!

  • trueconservative Northern Utah, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 5:39 p.m.

    Why isn't a civil union "good enough"? Marriage has been between men and women for thousands of years. No one ever said it was discriminatory until about ten years ago. If those who perpetuate a belief in alternative lifestyles as a separate way to express ones sexuality, why not have an alternative to marriage to go with it? I am not afraid of what my neighbor does behind closed doors, that is their business...but forcing others to accept gay marriage is wrong. We all know where this path will go. What happens when the Catholic Clergy,LDS Clergy, Jewish Clergy etc. refuse to marry a gay couple on their own fundamental beliefs? Or what will happen when a religious organization refuse to allow a gay couple to be married on their property? They will be sued for discrimination, as it has always been done. If you don't think this will happen, look at the lawsuits in other states where gay marriage is the law.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 15, 2013 5:57 p.m.

    It's strange that some people want to redefine marriage to suit their lifestyle. They don't seem to care that same-sex marriage is not a "right" defined in the Constitution; therefore, it is a "duty" left to the States or to the people. The people of Utah defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman. That is part of our State constitution.

    Sen. Jim Dabakis should know something about the Utah Constitution, if not, why is he serving in the Utah State Senate? Why would he, of all people, defend something that is unconstitutional in Utah? Why does he want to change marriage? Who gave him that right when 66% of the people of Utah said otherwise? Would he approve of bank robbery as an alternate way to finance the necessities of life just because a very small percentage of the population believed that they were bank-robbers and that they had a right to the necessities of life?

    Some things were established by people with much great insight and authority than a Senator. Our Creator knew what would bring happiness to his children. Same-sex marriage was not on His list.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 6:26 p.m.

    Don't like it? Move to a state that does. Simple.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    Aug. 15, 2013 6:35 p.m.

    Between a man and a woman,

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 6:43 p.m.

    @trueconservative "Why isn't a civil union "good enough"?"

    Utah's Amendment 3 doesn't permit same-sex marriages, and it also forbids anything else (i.e. civil union) that confers any of the rights of marriage to gays and lesbians. The amendment is obviously motivated by animus, and is obviously unconstitutional.

    Even if Utah permitted gay civil unions, they would qualify as "separate, but equal." Separate, but equal laws have been unconstitutional since 1964.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 7:10 p.m.

    We are all children of our Heavenly Father. He loves us. He wants us to be happy. There is only one path that happiness can be found on. Call it what you want, win the political battles all you want, tear down and destroy all the social standards that have existed before you, and fully reject believing in God, or a God that you don't dictate morality to at very least..

    Do whatever you want with your agency.

    But you can't choose whether God exists.
    You can't choose His doctrines.
    You can't choose His actions.

    We all must return to God to be judged for our choices. No one can escape this.

    While we are prone to flaw, His ways are just and fair, despite our understanding of His laws.

    The truth has been told and you either accept it or not. But those of us who have lived sinful lives (in one form or another) and returned know both sides. We know the gospel is true.

    You can't define truth. You can only choose to accept it or not. Happiness is only obtained through obedience to God's commandments. I know.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 7:11 p.m.

    @truecon
    good question why don't those that appose same sex marriage just start having civil unions, then they can call it what ever they want within their religion?

    @mikke

    same sex marriage was not own your religions list/ its funny how some many claim to know what god is thinking and how seldom god disagrees with them no matter what the subject or their position on it.

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 7:13 p.m.

    @Mike Richards "...some people want to redefine marriage to suit their lifestyle. They don't seem to care that same-sex marriage is not a "right" defined in the Constitution."

    Marriage has been defined by the Supreme Court to be a fundamental right; in fact, they've stated as much in almost 20 decisions.

    In their response to the lawsuit, Utah's attorneys concede that marriage is a Constitutional right, but then claim that marriage between same-sex partners is NOT a right. They'll need to prove that there's a compelling state interest to bar GLBTs from the fundamental right to marry the person they love (rather than an opposite-sex partner). I think they won't be successful in proving such a thing.

  • Joggle Somewhere In, HI
    Aug. 15, 2013 7:20 p.m.

    Denying gay couples to wed is a violation of religious freedom...considering the fact that religious and civil marriages are different institutions. The biggest reason why gay couples are being denied to get married is because major religions regard homosexuality as a sin. Contrary to this, the First Amendment of the Constitution states that...an individual’s religious views or lack thereof must be protected. If gay couples decide to forego church weddings and instead, have a civil union, the government needs to adhere to their request. State marriages are a secular activity. Just because religion depicts otherwise, does not mean the government should make such laws. Most experts and religious leaders agree religions will not be forced to perform gay wedding ceremonies. Many willing will though.

    The main foundation of the United States is the concept that the majority should rule, however, the rights of minorities should also be protected. This is the reason why the Bill of Rights was established along with equal protection and anti-slavery amendments.

    Marriage is the union between a couple who love one another. Utah will be forced to separate its church from its state to allow gay civil gay marriage.

  • FDRfan Sugar City, ID
    Aug. 15, 2013 7:29 p.m.

    Mystery solved. Now I know why Utah is so heavily one party. Do you really feel empowered or just a bystander? We need a system where the majority decide the kind of government we want
    on all issues. Why should we be forced to have such limited option? The overwhelming majority of Utahns support the ban and they should be simultaneously allowed to support non Republican policies in other matters. Abandon the Party system or just be pawns to be acted upon.

  • Californian#1@94131 San Francisco, CA
    Aug. 15, 2013 7:45 p.m.

    I live in a state where elected public officials chose to refuse to do their sworn duty to uphold, protect, and defend the state's laws and constitutions. State and federal courts all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court supported these officials in their malfeasance and dereliction of duty, and in essence ruled that the voters are not entitled to legal representation.

    Not all states have governors or attorneys general who flout the law and ignore their duties. Some officials do take their responsibilities seriously, do believe they have a duty to defend the laws of their state, and do not abuse their public offices to undermine the will of the people. Thank you, Utah.

    As for the issues involved being so personal to some folks, consider how personal the traditional definition of marriage is to so many people. And consider the "seeming detachment" and even cavalier dismissal of those personal issues by those who support the radical redefinition of one of human civilization's basic institutions.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 7:58 p.m.

    @california

    I think it must be a case of the grass is always greener because I was just thinking I wish my state attorney would not waist my tax dollies defending an amendment that is doomed to fall.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 15, 2013 8:01 p.m.

    @ Californian: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal laws, state constitutions, and state laws cannot violate the US Constitution - no matter how big the majority is that supports the violation.

  • E.S Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 8:22 p.m.

    Can we just love one another without pointing fingers and condemning others?

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 8:27 p.m.

    Are we protecting the traditional definition of marriage where one man marries one woman? Then they divorce and a couple years later he marries another woman. And then they also divorce and eventually he marries wife number three. And they also divorce. So finally he gives up on marriage altogether and just shacks up here and there. We wouldn't want gay marriage to endanger all those traditional hetero marriages.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 15, 2013 8:33 p.m.

    re:E.S.
    "Can we just love one another without pointing fingers and condemning others?"

    Yup

    I don't know why people are gay or what makes people gay, but I trust that God will sort it out. In the meantime He commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and my gay neighbors are wonderful people! So, that is what I'm striving to do.

  • tim_the_tool_man_taylor Dallas, TX
    Aug. 15, 2013 8:39 p.m.

    @Joggle

    Since when did homosexuality become a religion?

    It is not a religion, and to say that it is a far stretch.

    You talk about minorities having rights, and then you say that Utah will be "forced to separate its church from its state to allow gay civil gay marriage." Your logic seems fuzzy to me . . .

    Marriage is between one man and one woman.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 8:41 p.m.

    Truthseeker

    "I don't know why people are gay or what makes people gay, but I trust that God will sort it out. In the meantime He commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and my gay neighbors are wonderful people! So, that is what I'm striving to do."

    And that is the reason to support their equality before the law.

    Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his prejudices to give his friend equality.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Aug. 15, 2013 9:11 p.m.

    It seems the more the issue of Gay Marriage is discussed, the more people support it. There is a clear majority in favor of it already and its only a matter of time before it becomes an overwhelming majority. The State of Utah can't just tell LGBT people move someplace else. Its time to let go of old prejudices.

  • WabbitSeason Newcastle, WA
    Aug. 15, 2013 9:35 p.m.

    @Kalindra: The Constitution is the law of the land and the 10th Amendment of it states that anything not covered in the Constitution is left to the states to decide. This is not a violation of any amendment or any article of the Constitution. This is perfectly legal and how it should have been dealt with in the first place and not left to the federal government to decide. It should and always should have been a state-by-state decision...

  • trueconservative Northern Utah, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 9:36 p.m.

    @QuercusQate
    "Even if Utah permitted gay civil unions, they would qualify as "separate, but equal." Separate, but equal laws have been unconstitutional since 1964."

    Yes, but these laws referred to race issues not sexuality. Race is something that one can not change. There is no great research that has been done on sexuality that isn't skewed by the left or the right. No one can seem to answer my question...Have we really been discriminatory for thousands of years....I don't think so! No one can tell me that for thousands of years we have been wrong on this issue. Families with both a man and a woman have been the norm for eons of time, I think it has worked rather well for society. I really don't believe that it is time to experiment.

  • trueconservative Northern Utah, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 9:42 p.m.

    @Sorry Charlie-
    Why should a man and a woman be forced into a civil union. Marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for thousands of years now. Why rock to boat on something that has worked so well for society for so many years?

  • Ute parents - me Cougar Rathdrum, ID
    Aug. 15, 2013 10:03 p.m.

    Well they how about equal rights for those who choose to practice polygamy?

  • Wingnut1 USA, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 10:05 p.m.

    "We don't mean to step on anyone's toes..."
    Well they're definitely stepping on my toes, and many other Utahn's toes. We obviously don't want it. They get mad at us for imposing our beliefs on them, but that is exactly what they're doing to us. If gay marriage becomes a constitutionally protected right, it will destroy freedom of religion, which is exactly what our country was founded upon.

  • Wingnut1 USA, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 10:13 p.m.

    A Scientist

    That's not what the scripture says, don't even twist the words.

    Homosexuals do have equality before the law. They have every single right that I do, I think we are perfectly equal. They have the right to bear arms, so do I. They have the right of freedom of speech, so do I. They have the right to get married to someone of the opposite sex, and so do I. It is very "equal". However, if they gain what they want, which isn't equality, but for homosexuality to be a constitutionally protected right, then freedom of religion is destroyed. Now I would not consider that equality at all.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 10:18 p.m.

    @true

    Two reasons one it has been little more then a 100 years in our country and never has been a unversal truth that marriage is defined the way you claim and secondly and more importantly it is you that claims that a civ union affords all the same rights so why not?

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 10:22 p.m.

    To those of you like true conservative who claim that "marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for thousands of years" I suggest you crack a book once in a while and abandon your ignorance. Until the Middle Ages, same sex marriage existed in many cultures. For example, a same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 10:28 p.m.

    "They get mad at us for imposing our beliefs on them, but that is exactly what they're doing to us. If gay marriage becomes a constitutionally protected right, it will destroy freedom of religion, which is exactly what our country was founded upon."

    Please be detailed and specific on how this will actually happen. How does allowing gay marriage destroy your freedom of religion? Does this all of the sudden keep you from practicing your religion of choice? If so, how? Personally, I think that granting gays the right to marry will strengthen freedom of religion across our nation. All religions will have the right to choose whether or not they will perform such marriages, just like they choose right now whether or not they will marry couples where one or both are not of their faith. I believe it will strengthen freedom of religion, because it will push people of faith to live closer to one of their basic principles of free agency, free will, or whatever term other faiths use. Why is it so much of a challenge for us to allow others to choose their path in life?

  • Californian#1@94131 San Francisco, CA
    Aug. 15, 2013 10:33 p.m.

    -- "The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal laws, state constitutions, and state laws cannot violate the US Constitution" --

    The "right to marriage" is not constitutionally protected. If it were, why didn't the SCOTUS simply say so in their ruling about Prop. 8? Why did they take the chicken's way out and limit their decision to the narrow issue of "standing"? What better time for the highest court in the land to declare unequivocally that being able to marry any consenting adult, or combination of consenting adults, of any gender or combination of genders, is a constitutional issue? Because it ISN'T, and even they recognized it isn't.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 15, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    "But Utah's attorneys argue that same-sex marriage is not a constitutionally protected fundamental right or liberty."

    The Supreme Court begs to differ.

    From Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967): "

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888)."

    @trueconservative --

    "Marriage has been between men and women for thousands of years. "

    Actually, gay relationships -- including gay marriages -- have been accepted in many different societies at points throughout history.

    "look at the lawsuits in other states where gay marriage is the law."

    Anybody doing business must uphold the laws of the jurisdiction in which they do business. That has always been the law. Nothing about gay marriage will change that.

    @I know it --

    "There is only one path that happiness can be found on."

    Which path would that be? The Buddhist path? The Unitarian Universalist path? The Anglican path?

    Many religious denominations are already happy to perform same-sex marriages. How do you know their path is wrong?

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 10:57 p.m.

    @trueconservative "[Separate but equal] laws referred to race issues not sexuality."

    ""There's two kinds of marriage, there's full marriage and then there's sort of skim milk marriage"-- Ruth Bader Ginsberg, SCOTUS judge during the DOMA arguments.

    You can't give straights access to marriage, with all its rights, and then tell gays they have to be content with a civil union. The same principle of illegality of separate (even if) equal applies.

    If you think gays have the same rights as heteros because they can marry someone of the opposite sex, how would you feel if you were told you could only marry a same sex person?
    And how do you feel about a gay person marrying your straight son or daughter?

  • missionaryeire Tallahassee, FL
    Aug. 15, 2013 11:08 p.m.

    The writer failed to read the opinions by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the 9th circuit opinion for lack of standing. The DOMA was overturned because it violated the 10th amendment stating that marriage was a States Rights issue. Good luck getting a federal judge to rule on the issue where the US supreme court made it a strictly states sovereignty issue. If the District judge read the opinion he/she would have to dismiss for lack of standing.

  • Trys Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 11:18 p.m.

    @trueconservative:

    Why not call everyone who wants to join together in a legal-binding coupleship receive a "civil union" moniker- then, reserve the "marriage" for those who then take their "civil union" to a religion, repeat the ceremony and now call it a "marriage"? Make certain to give all state and federal rights to "civil unions" as well as "marriages". This should be a terrific resolution- after all, religion really is defined by religions and not the state.

  • trueconservative Northern Utah, UT
    Aug. 15, 2013 11:25 p.m.

    @QuercusQate

    The problem that Same Sex marriage creates is the fact that by doing so it creates a problem with those who are religious. Do you force a priest to perform a marriage that he feels is morally wrong? This would take away religious freedom which is what our U.S. Constitution guarantees. The gay community calls their relationships alternative lifestyles, why not have an alternative marriage that goes with it? One that guarantees the same rights, but does not force or coerce those who do not believe in it to perform or patronize these types of ceremonies. This makes everyone happy. Until the religious are guaranteed their freedoms on this issue, you will not see the religious right move on this, especially in Utah.

  • paintandestroy Richmond/Cache, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 12:18 a.m.

    If you want to get married- nothing is stopping you but the parameters you've defined yourself within. For those who feel discriminated against- you're driving in the opposite lane and blaming the other drivers

  • Joggle Somewhere In, HI
    Aug. 16, 2013 1:44 a.m.

    @tim-thetoolmanTaylor

    Nothing fuzzy about it, but I'll clarify. In regards to the law, it supposedly guarantees absolute freedom to one's own religious beliefs and practices. So if one believes their God accepts them for who they are, to place restrictions on certain practices (marriage) within their religious beliefs would be a direct violation of their religious freedom. But...no matter...churches will always be able to refuse to marry heterosexuals, homosexuals, or whoever they want!

    It is well known that the Utah State government is greatly influenced by the Church thus preventing secular and civil freedoms from becoming law as they rightfully should. When religious influence clouds the minds of law makers...civil and secular freedoms suffer.

    The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution cites no gender-based exclusion when extending “equal protection of the laws” to all citizens. A marriage certificate is a civil document issued by an agency of government on the basis of a decision about the civil rights of two people only. Decisions about who is married and who is not married are the prerogative of the government, not a house of worship, a spiritual leader, or a religious tradition.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 1:56 a.m.

    Puzzling: the more advanced and democratic countries in the world were the first to legalize same-sex marriage and similar countries follow one by one. While countries that trample human rights (Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Uganda...) are the most vocal to condemn homosexuality and persecute gays and lesbians.

    Moreover, it should give pause to Mormons that those advanced and democratic countries are the ones that allow Mormon missionaries, while the other countries throw them out. What kind of regime do Utahns favor?

  • rondonaghe Mesilla/USA, NM
    Aug. 16, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    Mike Richards said, "...They don't seem to care that same-sex marriage is not a "right" defined in the Constitution..."

    First, heterosexual marriage is not "defined" as a right in the Constitution, either. In fact, most of the the "rights" that we have are not defined in the Constitution, and they were not meant to be enumerated there as the sole source of our rights. Instead, the US Constitution only protect the inalienable rights that we ALL have. It does not grant rights. Second, those who want to prevent same sex couples from marrying define marriage as between a man and a woman. Further, they define the purpose of marriage as for procreation, but many heterosexual couples get married with no intention of having children or are incapable of having children. What same sex couples want is equality before the law. If marriage were solely a religious institution, then each religion could define marriage any way it wanted; but since all marriages are only legal in civil court (you get your license to wed in a court, not a church), then ALL people should be able to marry, whether they are heterosexual or LGBT.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 16, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    Well, if a civil union is inferior to a marriage consider this scenario. If we have SSM, then on Day 1 of SSM, two men want to get married. Who is the husband? Who is the wife? Well neither. Their marriage certificate says, "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2", which is the same as a civil union. A man and a woman want to get married. The man is the husband, the wife is the wife. Their marriage certificate says, "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2". The effect of SSM has not been to grant homosexuals the right to marry, it has actually banned traditional marriage and given everyone the inferior civil unions.

    So, if you don't like traditional marriages, don't get one.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 7:53 a.m.

    I have a hard time seeing marriage as a State issue. Whether or not it should be can be argued, but it has never been treated as one.

    I married my wife several years ago. If we move from Utah, to let's Colorado, I do not have to remarry her to be recognized as married Colorado. That marriage seems to cross state lines (something that has always been the purview of the Federal Government)

    But what we are now saying is that a same sex couple married in California, is no longer married when they move to Utah. You may say "Well then don't move to Utah", it is not that easy. What if one got a job here, or heck a military transfer to Hill AFB? Is that serviceman to be denied his rights?

    Marriage is such a cultural item in this country, it touches nearly every aspect of our lives. It may not have started out as a fundamental right, but as the Ninth Amendment states, just because it isn't listed in the Bill of Rights, doesn't mean it isn't a right.

  • PhotoSponge nampa, ID
    Aug. 16, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    I can see this is still a heated argument, but in the end, God wins. His laws supercede ANY that man comes up with.
    If a church is NOT owned by the state, then it is a priviate institution and cannot be forced to participate in anything that goes against its tenets, doctrines, and teachings.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 16, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    @trueconservative --

    "The problem that Same Sex marriage creates is the fact that by doing so it creates a problem with those who are religious."

    Many religious denominations are already happy to perform same-sex marriages. In fact, *their* religious freedom is being infringed, because Utah declares that religious ceremonies they wish to perform are not valid in the eyes of the law.

    @Tekaka --

    "The man is the husband, the wife is the wife. Their marriage certificate says, "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2". The effect of SSM has not been to grant homosexuals the right to marry, it has actually banned traditional marriage and given everyone the inferior civil unions."

    Ummmm, nope.

    You are already a spouse, no matter what words are included on the license -- same-sex marriage doesn't change that. But, unlike civil unions, you have all the state and federal rights that marriage conveys.

    And when same-sex marriage becomes legal in Utah, so will everybody else.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 16, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    @ Wabbit: From the US Constitution:

    Article IV, Section 1: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."

    Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Fourteenth Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    States have the right to define marriage - as long as they do not define marriage in such a way that it violates the Federal Constitution.

    @ Californian: SCOTUS ruled on the standing issue because they were following procedural rules and standing was the first thing to be considered. If there is no standing, there is no authority to look at the case any further. If someone with standing had brought the case, then SCOTUS could have ruled on the merits. If Utah continues to defend, this case will have standing.

  • Christmas Carole LAS CRUCES, NM
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    In my limited knowledge of legal/governmental matters I will not comment...HOWEVER, I am a citizen of the United States of America! I "shake in my boots" when I realize that my GREAT COUNTRY OF FREEDOM has taken on an attitude of DICTATORSHIP when the higher courts of law OVERRIDE the "voice of the people" and make it a law that is against what the majority of "we the people" wanted in the first place. What happened in California is VERY disheartening. If we are ever in the position of the majority of people wanting that which is against God I fear greatly for our country...

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    @trueconservative:
    "Race is something that one can not change."

    Sexuality is? Well, so is religion - you were not born religious. When you take your religious "protections" out of the Constitution, then go tell gay people they, too, cannot be in the Constitution. You are arguing for a "lose-lose" situation.

    "Have we really been discriminatory for thousands of years....I don't think so! No one can tell me that for thousands of years we have been wrong on this issue."

    For "thousands of years" marriage was about all sorts of relations between two people and more than two people. It was church sanction and not church sanction; government (state) sanctioned and not state sanctioned, tribe honored and tribe ignored.

    Discriminating against someone (else) who wants to marry is not the same thing as having been "wrong on this issue."

    You married the person you wanted to marry and the church and/or state recognized your choice. You asked. Someone agreed with your choice - that was the person you married.

    You did not, however, ask neighbors, strangers, voters, or anyone else about "if" you could marry another person. And, not even your parents have to be asked about your choice.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    I see a lot of people saying "the majority of the people" or "66% voted this way"

    Those aren't the questions, or points that should be brought up. The question is "is the law legal?" "does the law follow the Constitution?" If every single American decided to vote that it should be illegal to be Muslim, I would certainly expect the court to strike that down on the basis of it violating the 1st amendment. Majority and voting margins are not what's important, but whether the law is legal. The many cannot vote on the rights of the few; otherwise the Constitution would mean nothing.

    The debate should be centered on "Are these marriage laws violating the XIV amendment?" "Is freedom of religion being violated?"

    I would contend that equal protection is not being provided to all as guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Religions are still free to practice and worship as they wish (I was still able to sacrament meeting last weekend that was free of any gay weddings).

    Besides...do you want your marriage to be decided on by a vote?

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    @ Tekakaromatagi, Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    "Who is the husband? Who is the wife?"
    "The man is the husband, the wife is the wife."

    Sorry,Charlie. We allow women drive in this country. And same-sex couples get married here, in some states, too.

    Thanks. Keeping sending the oil. Women work, buy their own gasoline. Imagine that?!

  • Moabmom Moab, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    I don't think government has any business in marriage. Marriage is not a right as defined by either the gays or the heterosexuals. When you have to seek permission from the gov't in the form of a license, that is not a 'right'. Neither side sees this. Marriage is a three way covenant between a man, a woman, and God. Period. All the legislation in the world can't alter that fact. With out God, any 'marriage' is just a civil union. If equality is the goal, get gov't out of the marriage business, drop the marriage penalty in the tax code and the license fees and unravel the divorce laws and payouts. Those who wish to sanctify their union before God are then free to have that done within the boundaries of their chosen faith. Churches who hold a secular view over a Biblical view are free to marry gays now, but churches who hold to a Biblical world view should not be forced under the guise of equality, to marry gays as that is a violation of their religious freedoms clearly defined in the US Constitution.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    Re: "I 'shake in my boots' when I realize that my GREAT COUNTRY OF FREEDOM has taken on an attitude of DICTATORSHIP when the higher courts of law OVERRIDE the 'voice of the people' and make it a law that is against what the majority of 'we the people' wanted in the first place."

    What if "the voice of the people" and the majority of "we the people" voted overwhelmingly that every person with naturally green hair must pay taxes at double the rate of everybody else in their bracket, and at least $10,000 a year, no matter what their income? You could dye your hair another color, but that would not change the fact that your natural hair color was green, so you would still be subject to the law.

    Would it then be an "attitude of dictatorship" if the higher courts overrode the "voice of the people" and declared this blatantly discriminatory law unconstitutional, even though the decision went "against what the majority of 'we the people' wanted"?

  • Christmas Carole LAS CRUCES, NM
    Aug. 16, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    @Lightbearer:Hon,I answered that:"If we are ever in the position of the majority of the people wanting that which is against God I fear greatly for our country.."Side note here honey,I LOVE ALL people for the most part,although I do have trouble with hurtful & violent people. My heart goes out to anyone with a situation that has been difficult or difficult to deal with as I've been there in a couple of areas. WE ALL HAVE, that's why we're here, to learn.That said, I will NOT tolerate my freedom's being taken in ANY manner. That freedom ends when ANYONE is forced to comply with something against one's beliefs.

  • Christmas Carole LAS CRUCES, NM
    Aug. 16, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    @Lightbearer:
    We know from PAST EXPERIENCE that laws that are attempting to supposedly "grant freedom" to homosexuals(lesbians)will ultimately lead to others being forced to comply with something against one's belief's. One cannot be granted a freedom if that freedom ultimately leads to another's lack of freedom. I "assume" most of the people in the world have experienced others that refuse service or are not kind.I go ELSEWHERE.We can't control other's personal likes/dislikes. That's not part of the plan..

  • QuercusQate Wasatch Co., UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    Churches and ministers will still be free to discriminate against women, gays, and non-members, just like they do now. The First Amendment guarantees that freedom, and if someone attempts to sue a church for not performing a same-sex marriage, the suit would either be thrown out or would lose. Period.

    If such were not the case, the Mormons or Catholics would long ago have been sued by women for the priesthood.

  • Beatle Juice South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    In all the furious conversation about whether SSM should be sanctioned, we almost always forget one important and underrepresented population--children. Even many in the gay community agree that the best situation for a child is with a mom and a dad. While this isn't always possible because of death or divorce, those instances are accidental. When we put a child in a situation where they have no father or mother by design, that is unfair. Who is standing up to defend their equal treatment?

    Anticipating the comments about how there are already thousands of children with no mom or dad because their parents or caregivers are in a same-sex relationship; that is not a reason to encourage the practice. Many will argue there are some children in foster care or who would like to be adopted that would be in better circumstances even with no mom or dad. That may be true, but the law (and society) should favor the situation that is best for children. So, when at all possible, we should try to give children both a mom and a dad.

    When we use the word "fair", let's not forget them.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Aug. 16, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    Re:ChristmasCarole
    "That freedom ends when ANYONE is forced to comply with something against one's beliefs."

    We live in a pluralistic society. Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex so how is your freedom being taken away? How is your marriage impacted?
    When I was in high school and worked in a grocery store, i sold beer and cigarettes to people every day even though I am a Mormon. Later, i worked in a hospital in Utah, and put wine on pts. trays as well as worked some Sundays. Quakers pay even though they oppose war. Joseph Smith was murdered, in part, because he practiced polygamy-- a very unorthodox practice. It is quite ironic isn't it?

  • morganh Orem, Utah
    Aug. 16, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    @Kalindra

    You are right, The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. It does have a clause in it that talks about the separation of powers. That clause states that certain powers are relegated to the States and certain powers are relegated to the Federal Gov't. Who gives out marriage licenses? Not the Federal Gov't. You get them from your County who is part of your respective state. So, marriage is a state's responsibility so Prop 3 is constitutional.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    Re: "I 'assume' most of the people in the world have experienced others that refuse service or are not kind.I go ELSEWHERE.We can't control other's personal likes/dislikes. That's not part of the plan."

    What "plan"?

    As I have said before, I don't understand why a Christian businessperson would refuse homosexual couples service. Jesus said, "Judge not." If a business owner refuses service because he thinks the couple is sinful, isn't he judging them?

    Jesus said, "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you." I repeat, "in everything." How does a business owner want to be treated when he goes to another business as a customer? Does he want to be refused service because the proprietor doesn't like his looks or his morals?

    Jesus was criticized for being "a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners." Would a Christian business owner refuse Jesus service because he disapproved of his "lifestyle"? No? Well, didn't Jesus also say that "as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me"?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    This all reminds me of George Wallace standing the schoolhouse door.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 16, 2013 1:00 p.m.

    @ morganh: States can define marriage as long as that definition does not violate the federal Constitution.

    In 1967 the US Supreme Court ruled that state laws prohibiting interracial marriages violate the federal Constitution and are invalid. Do you disagree with that ruling? You know, every argument used against same-sex marriage was also used against interracial marriage - including it being against the Bible and against the best interest of children.

    (Oh - and by the way - over the last five years, there have been several stories of churches not performing interracial marriages or not accepting interracial couples in their congregations - and there have been no lawsuits claiming those churches have to change their doctrine.)

    Any state constitution or law is valid only so long as it does not violate the federal Constitution. You can keep repeating that states have the right to define marriage - that won't change the fact that the state definition of marriage cannot violate the federal Constitution.

    "This Constitution, ... shall be the supreme law of the land; ... anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 16, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    There are forty nine other states.

    Those for gay marriage are free to go.

    There are places in this country I don't want to live at,-and I don't. Why go to these places, and complain?

    It's a simple solution.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    @CHS 85

    it reminds me of babe Ruth "it deja vu all over again."

  • SportsFann Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 2:35 p.m.

    Let's be open minded...oh, unless your opinion is different from mine. I never worry about it that much as far as the temple goes because those are sealings anyway.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    @worf

    What about active duty servicemen who may be transferred to a State like Utah where their same sex marriage may not be recognized. They simply cannot just move to another State.

  • Christmas Carole LAS CRUCES, NM
    Aug. 16, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    @Lightbearer,
    Honey, I only feel that a cleric has the absolute right to refuse to wed a homosexual (lesbian) couple. I do NOT feel that ANY person should be discriminated against for general housing,services etc. I do feel however, that if I have an apt in MY home and someone with a same sex partner wants to rent it I have the RIGHT to not rent it, just as I would not if someone drank. My PERSONAL feelings are mine. A government doesn't have the right to dictate my personal beliefs. My point was that if one refuses to wed someone then there are other options.
    Hon, I admire your user name! That said do you really want to know "what plan"? That plan,hon, was put forth in Heaven before we were born upon this earth. Satan wanted to take our freedom of choice away. Our Savior and the rest of us "battled" to maintain that freedom of choice. Thus controlling another's likes/dislikes does not "go with the plan". EVERYONE upon this earth wanted that plan. I would battle AGAIN for YOU and anyone else to have that most precious "freedom of choice".

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 16, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    @worf --

    "Those for gay marriage are free to go."

    And those against gay marriage are free to move to Russia. So what?

    Also, it is NOT always true that gay people who want to marry are free to move. One obvious example is people in the military. Another example is people who find jobs in a crowded job market -- or their partners.

    "Why go to these places, and complain?"

    Who says that everyone who wants gay marriage in Utah moved there? You know, there ARE gay people who were actually born in Utah. They have just as much right to equal treatment as you do.

  • 1hemlock Tooele, Utah
    Aug. 16, 2013 5:01 p.m.

    One of the petitioners said, “We don't want to step on anyone's toes, but we also really desire to have equality and to achieve the exact same things everybody else in this state wants,”.
    And so what is it that they cannot "achieve" in this state that an aberrant marriage would give them? They live together. They get rights of a civil union.
    Marriage is between a man and a woman. Just because something has four legs and a tail and ears doesn't make it a dog

  • 1hemlock Tooele, Utah
    Aug. 16, 2013 5:20 p.m.

    The lifestyle has a 70% depression rate. Highest STD rate, over 50% smoke and drink, 40% use illicit drugs and over 100 sexual partners, domestic abuse in these homes is listed at over 50%. Allowing "marriage" gives them full equality in the courts to adopt children. Do we really want children to go into these homes as the children that are raised in homes that have the above listed "problems" tend to have a higher incidence of these "problems". These are the unintended consequences that will occur.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 5:57 p.m.

    @Hemlock
    Please stop with the false propaganda it does nothing to support your cause. Not false you say? Fine site your source.

  • LRB NY, NY
    Aug. 16, 2013 6:36 p.m.

    As a gay man living in a state that sanctions same sex marriage I respect the fact that people can in good conscience disagree about this issue. But if it is a sincere concern about faith and tradition that motivates you rather then animus for people like me, I would like you to consider the following points:
    1) a civil marriage does not impact the religious tenants of Mormons, Jews or Catholics. It doesnt even ask you to approve of my marriage. Consider me married or don't. I couldn't care less. what I do care about is being denied the civil rights and benefits other Americans. Being different doesn't make me second class.
    2) traditionalists may want to consider that denying women full citizenship was a proud and millennium old practice until just the last century. So too was segregation. I don't miss them at all. Glad to be rid of both.
    3) IMHO a religion that was once demonized and marginalized for being different should be more accepting of people who are not like the majority.

    Think about it.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 16, 2013 7:35 p.m.

    Contrarius---What about the rights of those who don't want to be around it? They aren't comfortable with it because it's viewed as evil, and unnatural? They are the majority, and have that right.

  • LRB NY, NY
    Aug. 16, 2013 7:51 p.m.

    @worf: your remark is offensive in so many ways. My civil rights are not contingent on your approval. The constitution applies to all of us, not the people you like. The constitution protects all minorities. We are protected from people like you.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 8:32 p.m.

    Bigotry is indefensible.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:02 p.m.

    @trueconservative;

    "Race is something that one can not change."

    -- Have you tried to change your sexual orientation? I'll bet you can't.

    "Have we really been discriminatory for thousands of years....I don't think so!"

    -- We haven't; MANY ancient cultures also allowed same-gender couples to marry. You don't know history.

    @Wingnut1;

    You don't want it? You don't have to do it; but you have no right to prevent others from marrying the person they love. Also, "what scripture says" doesn't matter - we aren't a theocracy.

    @trueconservative;

    Many GLBT people are religious; you don't have a patent on belief in god.

    @PhotoSponge;

    Your church can do whatever it wants in its walls; but it isn't the government and should have NO say in whether two people who aren't member of it can marry or not.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 16, 2013 9:04 p.m.

    @Christmas Carole;

    I too, am an American Citizen. Does the US Constitution not apply to me because I'm gay and "the majority" doesn't like it?

    You also said: "That freedom ends when ANYONE is forced to comply with something against one's beliefs."

    And yet, you want to FORCE me to comply with your beliefs, which are against mine (that is hypocrisy). I'm not forcing you to marry anyone of the same sex.

    And, since when are a person's morals up for question when they enter a business for service? Do you get asked personal questions by business owners when you do business with them?

    @worf;

    I live HERE. I'm not moving. I didn't realize you were such a wilting violet and couldn't bear to be around people who aren't like you.

  • LRB NY, NY
    Aug. 16, 2013 10:09 p.m.

    Those telling gays to leave Utah, or that majority disapproval should settle matters,or cheering your AG to keep gays legally marginalized might want to consider your own history. Utah was founded by people fleeing the prejudice and animus of majority populations that despised you for your religious, social and yes, marital practices.

    Do you really want to be like the people who made your ancestors suffer?

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 16, 2013 10:17 p.m.

    @ worf: That is called "animus" and it is not a valid reason for limiting the rights of others. Which is exactly why part of DOMA was unconstitutional.

    @ Christmas Carole: The law is very clear - if you are renting your basement, or a room in your house, or some other small property that you would be sharing with the renter, you have more discretion to be discriminatory. If you are a large property owner, you don't get to discriminate.

    @ 1hemlock: As has been pointed out before, no - in the state of Utah, same-sex couples do not have the benefits of a civil union. Utah State Constitution, Article I, Section 29. "[Marriage.]
    (1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
    (2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

    When the Amendment 3 debate was going on in Utah, it was argued that the second clause goes too far. It may be the second clause and its prohibition of any alternative that condemns Amendment 3 - where there is no allowance for an alternative, Utah may have to allow marriage.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Aug. 17, 2013 7:46 a.m.

    @1hemlock --

    "The lifestyle has a 70% depression rate. Highest STD rate, over 50% smoke and drink, 40% use illicit drugs and over 100 sexual partners, domestic abuse in these homes is listed at over 50%."

    It sounds like you've been listening to too much Faux News. Please cite some sources for your supposed "statistics".

    As the CDC info sheet on gay drug use states: "Alcohol and drug use among some men who have sex with men (MSM) can be a reaction to homophobia, discrimination, or violence they experienced due to their sexual orientation and can contribute to other mental health problems."

    Don't blame gay people for the widespread homophobia and violence that society inflicts on them every day.

    And no, domestic abuse in gay households is NOT over 50%. Homosexual relationships actually have about the same rates of intra-relationship violence as straight ones do. (I can quote studies on request -- not enough words left in this comment to do so right now.)

    "Do we really want children to go into these homes"

    Every reputable group of child-development experts in this country SUPPORT gay marriage -- because they realize that children grow up just fine in gay-led homes.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 17, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    The purpose for promoting and strengthening traditional marriage, as opposed to redefining it, is to fight poverty. It is society's way to say that the best environment for raising children is by their biological parents. We've been fighting a war on poverty in the last 40 years which has been an expensive failure because, at the same time, society's attitudes about extramarital sex have been moving in the opposite direction from where we should go in the war on poverty.

    In one sense this overlaps with the religious views that many have for this subject. Their concern is if traditional marriage is a moral good then there are reasons why it is a social good. Much like, caring for the poor is a moral good, but it is also a social good.

    It would be ironic, if in its efforts to fight poverty, that the supposedly conservative state of Utah, is compelled to accept gay marriage by so-called liberal forces which will weakens its ability to fight poverty.

    The war on poverty has failed. Let Utah come up with its own solutions.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 17, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    @RanchHand,

    So where do we draw the line?

    Many people are upset with Anthony Weiner, and I'm sure he could make the same case as gays.

    Those who received Anthony's pictures were offended. Those who are not guy are equally offended with it.

    Where do you draw the line?

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Aug. 17, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    @worf --

    "They aren't comfortable with it because it's viewed as evil, and unnatural? They are the majority, and have that right."

    Actually, they don't have that right -- and they aren't the majority.

    Segregationists felt the very same way that you do, back in the 60s. They survived the progression of civil rights, and so will you.

    And if you *really* don't want to be "around it", you are free to move -- as you yourself noted earlier.

    And no, folks like you aren't the majority. Multiple nationwide polls have shown that the majority of US citizens now SUPPORT gay marriage.

    @Tekaka --

    "the best environment for raising children is by their biological parents."

    Every reputable group of child-development experts in this country SUPPORTS gay marriage -- because they recognize that kids grow up just fine in gay-led homes.

    By all means, work to encourage traditional marriage. Gay marriage will do NOTHING to harm it.

    If you want to encourage commitment and stable families, you should be supporting people who are fighting to **create** those stable families. You are shooting yourself in the foot by fighting against them.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 17, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi;

    So it isn't worth strenghthening gay families and keeping them out of poverty? We exist too, you know (the word you're looking for is bigotry).

    @worf;

    Oh come on! There are currently LGBT couples around you and you already see them regularly. WHAT difference will it make to you if they're married instead of just being together? You're still going to see them. And to your point, should we remove all church buildings as they offend many of us as well. The word you seek is "tolerance".

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Aug. 17, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    @Contrarius:

    "Every reputable group of child-development experts in this country SUPPORTS gay marriage -- because they recognize that kids grow up just fine in gay-led homes."

    It is possible that they support it because they don't want to end up like OSC?

    But we are digressing. Government support of traditional marriage gives it a special status which promotes the view that men should be responsible for their procreative actions. It sends a message to the culture. If we define everything as a marriage and every arrangement as a family, then the kind of marriage and familes that we are trying to promote loses its special status.

    Consider this issue. We give special benefits to veterans that non-veterans did not receive. Non-veterans did not want to become veterans so they do not get the benefits that veterans receive. By this new definition of discrimination, non-veterans are second class citizens who are being discriminated against.

  • RWSmith6 Providence, UT
    Aug. 17, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    What a shame that Utah, a state I've lived in and loved for 48 years, continues in so many ways to interfere in the lives and lifestyles of those not in the majority. Economic development, huge in the state's efforts to anticipate doubling and, probably, quintupling of in-state population, will surely be hurt in the long run. How could it be otherwise where acceptance, equal human rights and benefits, the Golden Rule, and what in the middle ages was called "lovingkindness" are all clearly marginalized?

    The psychologist Gordon W. Allport, in his 1954 classic The Nature of Prejudice, said "Nothing is easier than to twist one's conception of the teachings of religion to fit one's prejudice." Ouch.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Aug. 17, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi --

    "It is possible that they support it because they don't want to end up like OSC?"

    Ummm. No.

    They support it because they work with and/or study children every day, they have vast expertise in child development, and they know that kids grow up just fine in gay-led homes.

    Most of them probably don't even know who OSC is.

    "If we define everything as a marriage and every arrangement as a family, then the kind of marriage and familes that we are trying to promote loses its special status."

    No.

    Broadening the definition for committed relationships only allows more people to experience the benefits (and responsibilities) of those relationships.

    Increasing the number of stable, committed relationships is never going to be a bad thing.

    Gay people WANT to commit. If you are serious about encouraging commitment, then you should SUPPORT them.

    "We give special benefits to veterans that non-veterans did not receive."

    False analogy.

    Gay people in committed relationships are doing just as much to deserve marriage benefits as any other infertile couple is.

    It's coming. Get used to the idea.

  • Wingnut1 USA, UT
    Aug. 17, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    @Really?
    It would destroy my religion because of being homosexual became a constitutionally protected right, then priests would be forced to marry homosexuals because it is a constitutionally protected right. LDS would have to let gays into their temples. If this were to happen, every temple in the USA would be shut down. It's just like how a priest cannot deny someone from being married just because they are black, because being black is a constitutionally protected right. If being homosexual was a constitutionally protected right, then priests would have to marry homosexuals, and there are many more religious issues than just temples and priests marrying people. If the temples were shut down because being homosexual was a constitutionally protected right, then that destroys freedom of religion.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Aug. 17, 2013 4:02 p.m.

    Not all, but much of the problem, are people coming from other states, and wanting to whine and change things.

    We have the same problem in Texas. Many come from economic ruined states of California, Michigan, and New York.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Aug. 17, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    @ Wingnut1: Do a google search on "interracial couple not allowed to marry." Google "black couple not allowed to marry."

    There are numerous stories about churches refusing to marry black or interracial couples. There are zero stories about those churches being sued and forced to change that.

    Your comment is not accurate.

    Churches in Massachusetts are not forced to marry gay couples.

    There is no reason to think this will ever change and history supports the idea that it won't.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2013 4:42 p.m.

    Re: "LDS would have to let gays into their temples."

    How many black people did the government force the LDS to let into their temples before 1978?

    How many black people has the government forced the LDS to let into their temples since 1978?

    How many white people has the government forced the LDS to let into their temples?

    How many non-LDS has the government forced the LDS to let into their temples?

    How many LDS without recommends has the government forced the LDS to let into their temples?

    How many members of the LDS church has the government forced the LDS to give recommends to?

    How many heterosexual marriages has the government forced the LDS to perform in their temples?

    How many homosexual marriages has the government forced the LDS to perform in their temples in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Washington state? (Gay marriage is legal in those states.)

    To all the above I'm guessing the answer is "none."

    Why would that suddenly change if gays were allowed to marry nationwide?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Aug. 17, 2013 5:04 p.m.

    I think some people need to read up on logical fallacies. There are numerous websites to help us all understand the problems with our unfounded arguments. I especially like the following fallacies: appeal to tradition, appeal to adverse consequences, slippery slope, and bandwagon fallacy.

    On another note, somebody mentioned they were going to follow the higher law--isn't that higher law called love?

  • craig_crawford salt lake city, UT
    Aug. 19, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    Can the Mormons in Utah really say that marriage has ALWAYS been between one man and one woman? They should restudy the history. Polygamy (one man multiple woman) was not abandoned until September 25, 1890 by the church.

    Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young practiced polygamy. I look forward to watching the church hang itself on this issue - Proposition 8 was a PR nightmare for the church.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 20, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    @trueconservative
    "Why isn't a civil union "good enough"? "

    Because it's a derogatory label used to insinuate that what they have is somehow lesser than what other couples have.

    "What happens when the Catholic Clergy,LDS Clergy, Jewish Clergy etc. refuse to marry a gay couple on their own fundamental beliefs?"

    Presumably what has happened in Massachusetts... nothing, because churches have that right. Now a state official issuing marriage licenses, that's a different issue, but private churches can marry who they want.

    @Mike Richards
    "Why would he, of all people, defend something that is unconstitutional in Utah?"

    It's unconstitutional to invade privacy rights but that doesn't stop pro-lifers from pushing through all manner of things that have been struck down in the courts.

    @FDRfan
    "We need a system where the majority decide the kind of government we want
    on all issues."

    Majorities should not be allowed to use that majority to trample the rights of others.

    @WabbitSeason
    "This is not a violation of any amendment or any article of the Constitution. "

    It violates the equal protections clause of the 14th Amendment.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Aug. 20, 2013 4:31 p.m.

    Can we move on from this issue now, and maybe talk about feeding the hungry, taking care of the sick and needy and just being more charitable in how we treat others?

  • 2nd lantern Payson, UT
    Sept. 8, 2013 6:35 p.m.

    One problem we need to ponder is Humanism - a 1963 sanctioned religion. One part defines God and religion as whatever a person thinks is so. If she thinks she is a he then it is so.

    The LGBTI agenda promotes this philosophy/religion and calls upon lawmakers to codify it. In one school in Massachusettes a boy who decided he is a girl wanted to take girl's PE with locker room privileges and sued the school district, and won. When "she" is old enough to marry and "she" finds "her" prince charming - a male - "she" will be covered by Utah Law that reads "marriage is between a man and a woman." Sorry, folks but we are going to have to stand strong against transgender equality.