Finally liberty and justice for all.
Lets just move to civil unions and get the government out of condoning one ideal
Seems team-obama is getting more and more judges to legislate from the bench.How can a judge redefine marraige?Woe, woe, woe is us.
Hey DesNews - you guys are so worried about an occasional off-color comment
seeping out that you make it impossible to comment on breaking news.What the heck is up with that?
My thoughts turn to my gay students and friends in Utah. I know the pain they
endured in the past and what the Court's decision means for their future. I
know there will be many concerns about this ruling by the citizens of the State.
I also know the people of Utah are a kind and generous people when touched by
the better Angels of their Nature. I saw the same thing happen during the Civil
Rights Era. The State will be stronger for this.
This means all states will fall. And the more brazen attacks against religion
I actually wonder if Utah is still part of the United States. Why? Because now
that the judges are legalizing polygamy and SSM, Utah's enabling state
document, the one that made us a state, conditioned our statehood on Polygamy
forever being banned. Now that it's been legalized, one would
think that Utah is no longer a state, because we don't qualify under our
@fredIt is not legislating it called doing their job of insuring
that Laws based do not violate the federal constitution or law. "The court
agrees with Utah that regulation of marriage has traditionally been the province
of the states, and remains so today. But any regulation adopted by a state,
whether related to marriage or any other interest, must comply with the
Constitution of the United States."
What do you expect from an Obama appointee and someone who clerked for Judge
Greene? This issue was in the bag the moment this judge took the case. Why they
wasted their time on a trial is a mystery because everyone knew what the verdict
would be when he was appointed --- notice no one voted for him.
To clarify what happened last week:It did not become legal to marry more
than ONE other person. (It was stating that if polygamists wanted to live
together without being married and if they are keeping the law, they have that
right) And this law is also for TWO people (but gender doesn't matter)It will not ever become legal to marry a close family member (it's
illegal to marry first cousins because of the genetic problems that can occur in
not sure what to say other then wow. I am sure this is far from over but wow.
@Brave Sir RobinLast week it became legal to marry a second wife.This week it became legal to marry your same gender.=================As long as everyone is a consenting adult, and I
am allowed to personally believe what I choose, why should I care who does what
with whom? Is it really any of my business? Your business?I
thought we wanted less government, not more.
Here is a reasonable solution:The states have found that the legal
unionization of two parties implies rights and obligations that must be
addressed in times of separation, death, etc. LEGAL matters are those of the
state or other municipalities. So when two parties want to unite themselves -
male and female, male and male, female and female - they must go to their
state/local government and receive a Civil Union certificate that legally unites
them in all things temporal... shared property, health benefits, social
security, death benefits, in short, any benefit administered BY THE
STATE/FEDS.In addition, if that party wishes to enter into a
marriage covenant within the religion of their choice, then they can take their
Civil Union certificate to their religious group and participate in a religious
marriage ceremony. Religions would perform those ceremonies for members meeting
that religious group's requirements.In this way, the states are
allowed to legally unite/divorce two parties and all of their assets without
discriminating, and religious institutions can perform their ceremonies without
the threat of governments or couples with different belief systems forcing them
to provide ceremonies that violate their religious beliefs.
It is time for Governor Herbert to say something like "I will follow the
example of President Obama, and ignore the Courts on this one. If Obama can
flout the Constitution, then clearly I can too. If it means nothing to the
liberals anyway, then 10th Amendment time"
No problem! There are many other states where gay couples may live.
Classic! People are already predicting Armageddon. The God I
believe in, you know the one who loves all of his children and the one who tells
us to love one another the one who tells us not to throw stones and to judge ye
not lest ye be judged, I think that God would be smiling over this ruling.Congratulations to all of the Gay's and Lesbian's of this
Many of you are misinterpreting the polygamy ruling. What the judge said is that
if you only have one legal wife, but live with other women and call them your
wife it's not illegal. This was due to the fact that it isn't illegal
to cheat on your wife, or be in an open relationship, or have children with
multiple people. So why would it be different if some of these extra women
called themselves wives when the legally weren't lives.
Kimber, in about 25 states, it is legal to marry your first cousin.It is one thing to be friendly to all, gay or otherwise. It is another to
redefine marriage, and that will contribute to the downfall of our nation. Maybe
not directly, or quickly, but it will just the same.
This was inevitable given the supreme court's rulings, most recently on
DOMA. Equal protection means equal protection. The government simply cannot deny
rights to groups of people based on their innate physical characteristics,
including sexual orientation.The LDS church actually accelerated the
process of equalization through its work on Prop 8. That campaign focused
national attention on the issue and led to a long period of introspection in
which people around the country decided that they no longer wanted to
discriminate against non-heterosexuals. Watch: there will be no nationwide
reaction against the courts.That the church used its political
clout, pressuring Mormons to put money into the anti-gay effort in such a
blatant way, and violated campaign finance laws by under-reporting its own
direct involvement, raised the separate issue of whether the country is
comfortable with a tax-exempt organization intervening in matters of public
policy. Preaching against a practice, or even a group of people, is one thing;
manipulating the political process is another.Because of the
church's involvement, the United States will get marriage equality a decade
earlier than would otherwise have been the case. God works in mysterious ways.
cougarsare1No, the states aren't falling. And nobody is
attacking religion. It is always the religious trying to push their religious
view into politics, and push their values onto those who don't think the
same. Hence the reason Utah doesn't allow the lottery - the states top
religion has alot to do with that. I'm surprised they sell liquor here.
Time for a revision:"The Constitution is an inspired document as far
as it is interpreted correctly!"
@Fred T: You do know that conservative Chief Justice Roberts voted for same sex
marriage, right? So what does Obama have to do with this?
Thought Utahns stated that "Hell would freeze over" when this
happened.Not sure where people around here have mentioned "Hell"
is located.Record cold in St. George the past few weeks, tho.
Folks, before any of you presume this is the end, remember, this whole thing is
going to end up in the Supreme Court for a final verdict on whether states can
make laws regulating marriage. I can't believe I just had to
say that. Regulating marriage! Talk about the federal government getting
involved with what should be a states right issue. Marriage of all things.
What next. Regulating the size of sodas one can buy at the 711. Let's just hope that somehow the courts stay out of the churchs religious
business. However, with liberal judges, it won't be long, so gird up your
loins religious folks, the battle is beginning. And we of all people have been
told for a long time that this time is coming. For those of us who belong to
the Mormon Church, just remember, it isn't called the Latter Days for
nothing. Wheat from the tares.
The whole issue revolves around, will church's be forced to marry same sex
couples much like the baker and florist who are forced to make a wedding cake
and provide flowers to a gay wedding? At what point will the LDS church say, ok
we will marry you civilly, but not sealed in the temple? As I understand, civil
marriages are for time only whether straight or gay, so it really wouldn't
matter in the eternal perspective.
The very same thing occurred in the 60's when the courts ruled that states
in the south should desegregate their schools, restaurants, and public places.
It was not what the people of Alabama wanted, or would have voted for. But the
constitution trumps the electorate every time.
Re: "The State will be stronger for this."Only when less
corrupt, less activist, less doctrinaire judges consider the matter on appeal
and overturn this clearly specious, unsupported, unsupportable ruling.This judge's laughably obtuse reasoning issue constitutes clear and
convincing evidence that liberals must be disqualified, both from appointing
people to, and service on, the bench.
Let's just get it over with. When the dust settles, you won't even
know the difference. Same sex couples are already together, and I would bet you
weren't affected at all.Again, opponents were warned to
separate the governmental function from the religious function, and they ignored
Since Satan has now defined the word marriage, then those who follow divine
commandments must create a new word or phrase to mean the binding union of a man
and a woman. Perhaps we can call it a "holy union", as in "My wife
and I have been holy united for 40 years."Since
"marriage" between two "its" now carries all the legal rights
and duties formerly reserved for a life-time heterosexual union, then
heterosexual "holy united" couples should have the First Amendment
rights to call themselves what they please.
So for all of you predicting the end of the world, or the destruction of
society. I am wondering did the world end after Loving v Virginia?(legalized
interracial marriage) Because if you read the reaction to that it's not
that different than what ya'll are saying about gay people. Also, if the
government was going to force churches to not discriminate why hasn't a
single church been forced to ordain women as leaders(priest, bishop, rabbi or
whatever the leadership of your church is called) Women are protected from anti
discrimination laws, but the government recognizes religions right to
discriminate. Why would gay marriage be different? Gays can want what they want,
but judges still have to follow the constitution. The same document that will
allow gay marriage will also protect churches from being forced to perform gay
"How many legs has a dog, if you call a tail a leg? Five? No. Four. Calling
a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham LincolnIf
the government classifies an SUV as farm equipment for tax and emissions
regulation purposes, does that make it farm equipment? No. That's
absurd.If the government classifies a homosexual relationship as a
marriage, does it make it a marriage? No. It's still not a marriage.
It's still a sham.
About time. Now same sex people can have all the problems that married people
have. Being married really doesn’t bring that many benefits beside when
the other spouse dies and you can take over their assets. But most people get
divorced before that so that really doesn't matter. Living together and not
being married has a lot more benefits.
"All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has
come." Victor Hugo.The time for marriage equality in the United
States is here. Utah should be relieved to be among the progressive states to
embrace equality (it's the 18th). It saves Utah the ignominy of being
spoken of in the same breath as Mississippi which I have every confidence will
be dragged across the line as the 50th.
That just goes to show us the "birds and the bees" are smarter than
Who voted for Judge Shelby? The US Senate did, as per the Constitution. Who
supported Judge Shelby? Both Utah Senators. Mike Lee gave Judge Shelby his
"unqualified" support and predicted he would be an "outstanding"
judge. (Lee still voted against him because he votes no on all things Obama, but
that had nothing to do with Judge Shelby, as Lee made perfectly clear.) Judge
Shelby is a duly constituted federal magistrate and he is doing his duty under
the law. More power to him.
Well here we go.1) Utah will soon join the ranks of unrighteous
states that allow it.But then again our country is heading that way and when all
50 states allow same-sex marriage, well it will be interesting to see what
happens. I can handle a gay or lesbian person but to actually commit the acts of
being gay or lesbian....hmmm. Why ruin Utah? Just move to another state like New
Mexico or New York.2) Since every law we vote for to try and save
our way of life is overthrown by some liberal judge, because of a law suit
started by a liberal whining individual(s) claiming to be picked on, why in the
world do we vote. Just kidding but seriously most of you are wondering the same
thing.A few more years the country I grew up loving and its
Constitution will be unrecognizable.
Judge did not redefine marriage - just said that you can't discriminate -
something that I thought we had gotten over in this country more than a few
This is best limited government court verdict in years. True conservatives
should be jubilant with this ruling.
If you don't like the decision, the Judge is a Black Robed dictator. I you
like it, you just don't understand the consitution. Is there no rest for
the weary? Allowing gays to marry will mean the downfall of our nation? Give
me a break! A far greater danger to democracy is the unfettered application of
nearly unlimited monies to the political discourse.
@Holladay, UT"The God I believe in, you know the one who loves
all of his children and the one who tells us to love one another the one who
tells us not to throw stones and to judge ye not lest ye be judged, I think that
God would be smiling over this ruling."The God I believe is not
governed by man's laws but rather eternal laws. I hope you enjoy the ride
and all that you think you gained. Please don't come crying for help to
those of us who are willing to stand up for right when your world or rainbows
and unicorns coming crashing down. Good luck!
Fantastic!The painfully puritanical will have to adjust to life in the
real world. This bubble here in Utah is FAR from reality.
Here in Washington State over 17% of marriages were by gay couples last year and
not one…..let me repeat that….not one straight marriage was
affected. And thank you for sending your gay couples here to be
married……..money in the bank.
procuradorfiscal: "This judge's laughably obtuse reasoning issue
constitutes clear and convincing evidence that liberals must be disqualified,
both from appointing people to, and service on, the bench."I
thought he was very reasonable - especially since he was more or less begging
the state to come up with a better defense, but all they had was procreation,
and since we have never kept any couple from getting married because they could
not procreate, it was a poor argument. The state had nothing else.What would YOU have argued before the bench to have them keep Prop 3 in place?
What would your legal strategy be? What legal arguments would have changed any
judges mind in this matter?
"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of
God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such,
each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of
individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose... ...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals,
communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern
prophets.We call upon responsible citizens and officers of
government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and
strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
The Family: A Proclamation to the WorldHow unfortunate that a
federal judge can step into a sovereign state and strike down it's
Now all we need is to have a federal judge say that Utah has to have a state
lottery. Then I will be happy.
@CandideThis issue is about a lot more than individual rights, it is about
the most fundamental unit of our society being transformed. We have become so
obsessed with individual rights that we cannot seem to see anything else.
Rights have to be balanced with broader social virtues like providing children
with optimal conditions for growth and development. And in reality, the issue
for many arguing for SSM is not just "equal treatment", it is forcing
institutions like churches or individual businesses like bakers and
photographers to accept and validate their lifestyle choices. There is no end
to this until every institution or person who disagrees with the LGBT agenda is
silenced or coerced. So much for liberty and justice.
How do gay couples make babies?
Can a baker decide, not to provide a wedding cake for a gay marriage? Where is his rights, and freedom?
Bring on the brazen and savage attacks on religion.
USAloverSalt Lake City, UTHow do gay couples make
babies?---------------The same way that an infertile
heterosexual couple makes a baby: IVF, sperm doners, surogate mothers or they
This country gets more and more screwed up every day with no end in sight.
I assume this will be appealed, and quite possibly stayed during that appeal but
still, this is a fantastic result for the state.
Interesting; 66% of the people voted in favour of an Amendment that just one
district attorney was able to struck down. Do you call this democracy??
According to the dictionary, democracy means "power to the people" from
greek "démos", people, and "cràtos", power. I'd
really like to know how it is possible that 66% has less influence of one single
person. Probably because the word "democracy" means nothing to him and a
lot of other people who are trying to overturn the country like a frying pan. I
love the evolution of modern society who pretends to give more freedom with
words and then take that freedom away with actions.
-- “We cannot capture in words the gratitude and joy plaintiffs feel that
Judge Shelby had the courage...." --Courage? Huhhh??? What is
courageous about taking the path of least resistance, going along with the
crowd, riding the tide of political correctness, and simply validating
today's popular social and cultural trend? That's just good politics,
and we all know how much courage exists in American politics today.Courage is being able to stand up for what you know to be right even when
you're positive you will be called a hater and a bigot, have your business
picketed, your family harassed, your religion pelted with the mud, and your
standing as a respected community member questioned. Courage is the two county
clerks in New Mexico who resigned rather than issue marriage licenses that mock
their morals and principles.
"The state of Utah has provided no evidence that opposite-sex marriage will
be affected in any way by same-sex marriage."May 2014 will be
the 10th anniversary of same-sex marriage in MA. Life goes on...
SchneeSalt Lake City, UTI assume this will be appealed,
and quite possibly stayed during that appeal but still, this is a fantastic
result for the state.-------------Gays are marrying
right now in Salt Lake City. They bought their license and had their ceremony.
They are married.
I having a hard time figuring out why someone who is getting married whether
straight or gay affects anybody but the people getting married?The
sun will still rise tomorrow and life will go on.
When the ban on interracial marriage was deemed unconstitutional, some
well-meaning Christians claimed that leftist judges were allowing immoral
behavior. Then it all calmed down and it became a non-issue. The same is
happening with same-sex marriage now. Those who object will find out it will
become a non-issue over time. Time will come when our grand-children will wonder
why some in our generation predicted the Apocaplyps over something so trivial as
a small minority of gays and lesbians who simply wanted to enjoy the same rights
Sad day for Utah...hopefully this will get overturned....immorality should not
become the new morality..in my opinion
Re: "What would YOU have argued before the bench to have them keep Prop 3 in
place?"Simply that the US District Court for the District of
Utah is not free to overrule the US Supreme Court. And that the limited
authority of judges is not subject to enlargement because of their passion to
corruptly court the favor of one or another radical political constituency.The first rule of statutory/constitutional construction is that the
court's job is to give effect to the intent of those enacting the provision
they're construing. There is not the SLIGHTEST evidence that the 14th
Amendment was ever intended to permit gay marriage. Thus, any judge using that
constitutional provision to do so is in violation of both the law, and their
oath.I have not the slightest problem with LGBT activists attempting
to change laws or constitutional provisions they disagree with through the
constitutionally-established legislative process.But misusing laws
or constitutional provisions in ways never conceived of by their enactors is
simply cheating. Corruption of the constitutional legal process.All
lawyers and judges know that. Unfortunately, some don't care.
Welcome to the decay of western civilization
in Utah, its finally OK to be gay.
Wow, there is a lot of smug people here proudly proclaiming that the world
won't end because of this announcement. Tomorrow when the world is still
here, they will be beating their chests with vindication. Guess what people,
God's justice turns ever so slowly, but it will come.
I've been in a heterosexual marriage for 20 years. When I wake up
tomorrow, I'll still be in my hetero marriage. Allowing gay marriages in
Utah is not going to affect my marriage in any way. My 3 young
adult kids are all straight. Allowing gay marriages will not cause any of my 3
kids to consider a gay marriage. They just are not wired that way.The only affect this ruling will have on my straight marriage and my 3
straight kids will be to reaffirm to all 5 of us that equal protection under the
COTUS is actually equal protection under the COTUS. That is a very good thing.
Ute Zag"The God I believe is not governed by man's laws but
rather eternal laws. I hope you enjoy the ride and all that you think you
gained. Please don't come crying for help to those of us who are willing to
stand up for right when your world or rainbows and unicorns coming crashing
down. Good luck!"Yes because when us heathens come running for
help your version of God will turn us away? I WWJD in that situation? I am a non-active Mormon of 44 years and have spent a great majority of
my personal life studying several Christen Religions. What eternal laws do you
speak of regarding Homosexuals having the same rights you and I share? I'd
be curious to know where God forbids their Marriage here on Earth? Seems your
eternal laws are man made as well. What I have found in my
continuing studies is this, in all main stream Christian religions God's
love for every one of his children trumps all. Happy holidays to
all and may there be Peace on Earth and Goodwill to Man, including the Gay and
Kudos to Utah! Let the feds get into this too. This needs to be at the federal
"As of right now, if somebody gets in line and applies, there is no
prohibition against it as a matter of law right now."Reminds me
of--"This office will not tolerate redundancy in this office."
I find it funny that some find gay marriage immoral. Personally, I find it
immoral to deny people basic human rights.I also find it funny that some
D-news readers actually believe allowing gays to marry is an attack on their
religion. How they came to this conclusion will always baffle me.Marriage:
The union of two consenting adults who want to spend the rest of their days
The issue lost in the melee is that the state does not have the right to define
what we consider defined by god, and just because this strikes the one man one
women rule, that does not mean that marriage is NOT one man NOR one woman.The debate would be less emotional if the parties to the fuss would
realize that what we recognize is a civil union and a church marriage. The
State cannot tell the church who they may marry and the Church cannot limit the
civil rights of others, nor do they try to.It is long time that all
parties take a breath, grow up and get on with their lives. I for one do not
care to see bed room activity on the streets, regardless of the composition of
the participants, straight, queer, multi-cultural, multi-species. Private is
Private and Private is not Public.
Anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex today. It's called marriage.
Ad no one is discriminated against. Let's fix the inequality in tax and
benefit law without degrading the definition of marriage.
Did you notice something about the picture that accompanied this article? I
certainly did. What I saw was all older individuals perhaps a little calcified
in their opinions, perhaps simply ignorant of what it means to live in the 21st
century. Who knows but they are a sign that such demeaning attitudes towards
fellow citizens and their rights to live their own lives as decent human beings
will diminish with the passing of such people as depicted in the photo.
My home state of Vermont has had civil unions and same-sex marriage for years.
We haven't imploded. I was there last month, and it's looking good!And on days like this, when so much hate is out there, I'm reminded
of 1 Corinthians 13.Love is louder than hate.
Anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex today. That is what marriage is,
and no one is discriminated against. Let's fix the tax and benefit
problems and address the equal protection issues, without degrading the
institution of marriage.
@Observation Deck -Your reasonable solution sounds reasonable
indeed, but I am not sure what problem it is trying to solve. Nobody has ever
contemplated having the government compel any religious institution to perform
gay marriages. That is a red herring issue. So what protections to religious
institutions and people need in this area?
I know the LDS church has been very supportive of gay rights recently. At least
that is what I've been hearing about here in Seattle. Was the Church
behind this latest move to legalize gay marriage?
It humors me how such an insignificant act seems to cause people such fear.
Religions define marriage. Governments define marriage. One religions definition
and beliefs of marriage are not the law for all people. Separation of church and
state was created to ensure this (however Utah seems to blur the lines). Immoral
by your religion, sure let's call it that. All in all who cares? Live your
lives. The world is not going to blow up. Same sex couples will not be married
in your churches. You can teach the same bigotry or defiance to your children,
or you can grow up and accept a change that will eventually happen. Whether a
conservative is in office or a liberal--it will be common law eventually.
Women's rights and the Civil Right's movement were contested by the
same principal. The sad part about all this is that most of the "anti
people" will not admit their stance on this topic in public. Likely because
their views are as dated and popular as fax machines.
What is the point of voting for ANYTHING if a judge can overrule the will of the
people. Will judges feel like they can now appoint all Government officals by
overturning all elections. ANY Judge that overules an election should be
@Lane Myer"Gays are marrying right now in Salt Lake City. They bought
their license and had their ceremony. They are married."Oh of
course. I'm sorry for being unclear. I mean that a stay issued a few weeks
from now by the appeals court (if that happens) would just stop them from
issuing more then. It wouldn't stop the ones issued now.
The government can regulate all it wants, people decide whether they will accept
changes in social behavior. Just because the government cant, doesn't mean
it should or that it even makes it right. These marriages will not last...it is
a perversion of the marriage ordained by God between a man and a woman. Does God
love all his children, absolutely, does he condone sinful behavior, absolutely
"How unfortunate that a federal judge can step into a sovereign state and
strike down it's sovereign constitution."Neither Utah, nor any
other of the 49 states is a "sovereign state" every single state is
bound by the supremacy clause, meaning that all state laws must also be in line
with the US Constitution, so that is the reason why a judge can rule on the
issue, and it's constitutionality. As to the ruling itself, can anyone give
a reason that isn't religious why gay people shouldn't be allowed to
get married? Because they only argument I hear is a religious one, which
isn't the basis for the laws in the USA. If you want laws based on religion
move to the middle east. I'm sure you'll love Sharia Law......
Being legally approved does not make something right, proper, decent, or
beneficial.This recalls that a Charles Dickens character, Mr.
Brumble, observed "The law is a [donkey]" In this case the donkey judge
has fulfilled Dickens' prophecy.
The thing that I find disheartening is that our present lives and beliefs are
being changed against what we believe is right because there are immoral men and
women who are pushing their agenda of living and marrying the same sex. Marriage
is between one man and one woman and nothing else. I will never understand this
perversion that it is okay to denigrate the sanctity of marriage between a man
and woman because they think it's should be okay to cohabitate with a
person of the same sex. It is an abomination in the sight of God...
Several marriages have already taken place! What a wonderful Christmas present.
Even the Supreme Court was not so bold as to strike down a voter referendum. Gay
couples may feel like they won now, but they are losing like rest of us. We are
all losing freedom with a ruling like this. States rights and the voice of the
people have been important from the founding of this nation, even including the
Articles of Confederation. What this judge is saying is that the people do not
count and the government knows better. Fortunately this will be appealed and
hopefully to judges who are not so eager to take away the right of the people to
have a voice in the government.
A great day for Utah and a great day for freedom loving Americans across this
great country. 2013 is proving that bigotry is losing its grip and the
Constitution is helping America fulfill her promise of "Freedom and Justice
Marriage predates Christianity - so the argument of religious marriage goes
contrary to the religious notions of the ceremony and contract.Hooray for equality!
@D Call-"Wow, there is a lot of smug people here proudly proclaiming
that the world won't end because of this announcement. Tomorrow when the
world is still here, they will be beating their chests with vindication. Guess
what people, God's justice turns ever so slowly, but it will come.".And you know this how? Maybe that should have been Utah's argument
to the judge: Gay marriage will cause God to smite the people of Utah. I am
sure he would have gone for that one.
WOW! Just in time for Christmas.
This ridiculous ruling will be overturned and the behavior of homosexuality will
not be considered marriage. Sorry folks, but this guy usurped his
power and just created law from the bench. This is why elections matter because
people like Obama put people on the bench who do not understand the COTUS. He
does follow in his masters footsteps.
@ProcedurofiscalHow was the Circuit Court over ruling the SCOTUS? Was this
state constitutional amendment taken to the SCOTUS before?(i wasn't old
enough to vote or pay attention when it was originally passed) As to your
paragraph about the intent of the law, couldn't you make the argument that
outside some of the very new amendments that none of it was created with the
intent to apply to the world today? I mean the 1st amendment talks about free
speech, yet the founders hadn't considered the internet, does that mean the
federal government is allowed to suppress speech online? The second amendment
was made in an era where the most powerful gun was a musket, yet a bolt action
.22 rifle(in todays terms a basic, low power gun) is much more sophisticated
than an guns in the late 1770's. I could go through the whole bill of
rights(except the 3rd) and find why those shouldn't apply under you logic.
Nice going, Judge Shelby. Congratulations also to the authors of an
Oct. 13 Op-Ed titled "Marriage equality will arrive in Utah soon" that
appeared in the Tribune. At the time, I thought the article by attorneys Brett
Tolman, Paul Burke and John MacKay was superb. Now, it also has proven to be
prophetic.As I wrote earlier in a letter to the editor: "Rather
than continuing to fight against something that will soon be legal throughout
the land, opponents of gay marriage would be better advised to focus on making
traditional marriage work. It needs the help."I think it's
great that Utah will now have the distinction of being the 18th state where gay
marriage is legal. Better 18th than 50th.
While some have commented that they fear this is an attack on religious liberty,
I see it as quite the opposite, a powerful blow FOR religious liberty. For,
several years ago, in our corporate worship, it was divinely revealed to our
meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, that our commitment to Peace and to
Equality and to that of God in every person, surely must direct us to treat
every member of our meeting as equal, in spirit and in congregational rights.
So, it is religious truth to us that a loving couple, willing to put
themselves in the care of our meeting, to sit with their convened clearness
committee, and to commit each to God and to each other, should have the full
right to be witnessed in marriage by our gathered meeting. Let us
all find God and His love in our own ways and in our own churches, temples and
meetings, and leave the State's business to the State.
Conspiring judges and legislatures who desire to subvert the morals of our
nation always give the Christians a succor punch right before the Christmas
holiday because they know that we will all be celebrating the birth of Christ
with our families and will not be able to organize any protest to their evil
designs until later in the New Year.Take the Federal Reserve Act for
instance. it was 100 years ago on the 23rd of December 1913 that Wilson signed
the act that was passed in Congress while opposition was mostly absent.We have had nothing but debt creating wars and welfare programs ever since.
It is not the religious people of Utah or the "Mormons" that put their
boots into politics,it is just plain christian understanding; as some do
think the world was that way forever.Granted ?The all loving
God does love each one his children. The confusion here is due to the 2 most
important commandments.The First is calling on his children to love
God, their Father first, meaning since He is a Man and we do have a Mother in
Heaven, you cannot love him but follow in his footsteps, a man needs to be a man
etc.The Second is calling everyone to love their neighbors, as they
love God first also.Again your love for others will include the knowledge,
that they are men and women created as such by God.So to explain,
LDS people have no political agenda to follow, but they know or should know that
loving God includes all of his Design, there is no destiny or heaven for LDS
people to go to, unless there is a husband and a wife, and hopefully some
children.Loving each other is no christian love if the First
Commandment is left out !
So I went and watched the first legal gay marriage in Utah and watched Mayor
Beaker marry Senator Dabakis and his now legally wed husband. I know there is
still a long fight ahead but what a great day for civil rights!
I have to add imagine my surprise walking out of the county building and seeing
the sky had not fallen and the world was still spinning after witnessing the
first legal Utah gay marriage, oh well, maybe there is still hope for a zombie
for the apocalypse for the world is ending crowd.
As a conservative, active LDS member, I believe this decision is right.
Personally, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. However, since the
government is involved, with rights and benefits being extended to those that
are married, it is unfair and unequal to deny those rights to those that are
homosexual. We cry out for equal protection under the law, but do we really
believe that? If we do, then we will understand why this has to be. We
can't deny other people rights because of our own moral beliefs. For those
that are saying things such as "What's next, marrying your dog?"
That is an ignorant and cruel comparison. These are human beings that should be
treated with dignity. Gay marriage will not be the downfall of our nation.
Look at your own homes. It seems to me that the pernicious evil of pornography,
along with what you may allow in your homes on the TV, internet, video games,
etc... are going to contribute more to the downfall of your own homes and the
nation, than the fact that the gay couple down the street is legally married.
Sad for Utah and for everywhere. I personally have nothing against Gay Couples
getting all rights and privileges of a civil union, but I do not believe it is
marriage. When the judges override the will of the people, it's no longer
America. There are a long list of gay marriage states but the vast majority are
that way because judges overruled constitutional amendments or some obscure law
in the interest of not being tagged as a hater. I do NOT hate Gays or anyone in
the LGBT community. But when the majority of people choose to define marriage
between man and a woman and then a judge overrides it, it's wrong.
Unfortunately, the issue has gotten way out of control. It will sweep the
nation, no doubt, as the issue now has judicial legs where the people no longer
have a voice. Obama is definitely laughing all the way to Hawaii while we pay
for his "Winter" vacation.
Vanceone, is getting married hedonistic, immoral behavior? Think marriage is a
conservative value and it should be embraced. We live in a culture (LDS and
otherwise) were serial marriage is the norm. Gays are here and not going
anywhere. Best if they are encouraged to be part of mainstream and get married
(and divorced) like the rest of us.
The battles taking place now that will quite probably reach the Supreme Court as
I'm sure the AG will appeal the ruling. Regardless in the end it
won't matter. Yes, it may seem inevitable that same-sex marriage will
become a standard. However, you can't change the definition of marriage.
Satan has already lost. He knows it and he is deceiving everyone today of this.
The Lord Jesus Christ has already warned the world through his Prophets of what
will happen if this takes place. The war in heaven is in and in the end Satan
and his millions will be destroyed. Though you feel you have won, you've
actually lost. That lost will be felt when Jesus Christ returns when all those
who have helped to destroy what our Heavenly Father has instituted among man are
destroyed. In the End Jesus Christ shall reign on earth and same-sex marriage
shall be abolished.
This judge was appointed by President Bush. Isn't he supposed to be
required to follow the GOP Party Platform? That is what many people on this
forum seem to expect.
@Funzi --"According to the dictionary, democracy means
'power to the people' from greek ..."You are
forgetting that this is a Constitutional democracy. A major function
of the US Constitution is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the
majority.Notice that judges all over the nation -- including Supreme
Court justices -- are striking down these unconstitutional bans left and right.
These are not isolated "activist" judges. They know the law, and they
know the Constitution. @procurador --"There is not
the slightest evidence that the 14th Amendment was ever intended to permit gay
marriage"You'll have to take that up with the Supreme
Court. They even used the 14th in their DOMA decision, remember?I'm thrilled by this news today. Who woulda thunk it -- Utah wasn't
the last after all. I can't wait to see how this all plays out. It's a
great early Christmas present.But one thing is for sure -- it
won't be the end of the world.
The biggest down-side to same-sex marriage in Utah is that children of
traditional marriag will have same-sex couples and their families as neighbors,
and their children as friends, playmates, schoolmates, and even pew-mates, and
they're gonna see with their own eyes that they're just folks.When same-sex marriage is finally legal and Constitutionally upheld, at
least 97-98% of all marriage will still be traditional. They will be honored and
celebrated by gay family members & friends and society at large. Basically,
s-s marriage does not in anyway threaten traditional marriage.To the
degree that marriage and family is the foundation of society, same-sex marriages
and their families will contribute to and strengthen that foundation.After decades of experience with same-sex parenting, if there was a danger to
the children, we'd know it by now. Regnarus was such a terribly poor study
it's totally irrelevant. The later study of just a couple of months ago
– author? – was nearly as bad.Once this is behind us we
can focus more attention on the very *REAL* and HUGE problems of society and
family.And people will remain free to practice their religion.
People spout the constitution saying it is the legal right of same sex partners
to get married. The constitution says nothing at all about marriage. When the
founding fathers crafted this great document they made it possible for the voice
of the people to be heard. In 2004 the voice of the people spoke in Utah when
amendment 3 was adopted. In 2008 the voice of the people in California spoke
when prop. 8 was passed. When we live in a government when the voice of the
people is no longer heard or has any power we are headed for a state of anarchy.
I fear living in a state where the saying we the people has no more meaning or
value.Our judges continue to get it wrong and this judge got it wrong. A judge
should never inject their own personal beliefs or opinions in their judicial
decisions like this judge did. They are supposed to rule strictly by the
standards of law and be personally unbiased in their decisions.
Mothers and fathers in traditional marriage are both vitally, critically
necessary and important.Just as much so as either member of a
same-sex parenting couple.For people who hold homosexuality and
same-sex marriage as sin, then they shouldn't engage in it.
No unhallowed hand shall stop the work from progressing. Persecutions may rage,
mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the purpose of
this great nation will not be erased nor the end result of the measure of this
global creation not be realized. What people fail to realize in very alarming
proportions is that whether they believe in a God or not, whether they believe
in life beyond this clay tabernacle or not, they can't change the reality
of 2000 years from now... Nor can they undo their actions while here. They are
free to choose their route through life, but not the consequences of those
choices... Is the today of 100 years worth risking a period of time we mere
mortals can't comprehend with the limitations of our minds? Weeping,
wailing, gnashing teeth... There is going to be a lot of it... The
'joy' of this ruling fleeting... Science has and will continue to
fail to prove otherwise.
The anti-equality crowd has had years to come up with an argument against gay
marriage stronger than "procreation" and "because God says so"
and has failed. Miserably. This is a good day for Utah. A lot of
the people posting here may not realize that, but I'm guessing their
children will look back at all of this and wonder what the big deal was.Oh, and Merry Christmas, everybody.
News Bulletin: This just in. No state or country has fallen because of same-sex
marriage. In other news, the courts have found that one person's religion
does not require people of other faiths to live by another's religious
@ Darrel"As long as everyone is a consenting adult, and I am
allowed to personally believe what I choose, why should I care who does what
with whom? Is it really any of my business? Your business?"So
your all in favor of a father marrying his daughter, or a mother marrying her
son as long as their consenting adults, right? That's messed up
man! I'm sorry that your supportive of such behavior.This
ruling is going to lead to the downfall of our society.
Replace "same-sex" in the article with "inter-racial". Oh but
wait, claims the right, that (inter-racial marriage issue) was different. No.
Both were seen as moral issues. History repeats.
We have two new, and many would say strange, rulings from federal district court
judges in Utah. These two rulings are the natural evolution of the legal
precedence which has been emerging from our long-term degenerating culture. It
is now legally permissible to cohabitate with several women simultaneously but
illegal to live with those same women as married "wives." It is now
legally permissible for two people of the same gender to "marry," making
the words "husband" and "wife" obsolete. We live in an age
where the role of law has drastically changed from serving as a restraining
influence in society to serving as a facilitator of unrestraint. We may come to
a point where the only restraining influences will be the laws of God and the
Holy Ghost, and the only ones restrained will be those who voluntarily restrain
themselves under those influences. Freedom of religion as guaranteed by our
federal and state constitutions is being incrementally destroyed by one court
decision after another. We are on an unavoidable historical collision course
where people of faith will be forced to choose between living their religion or
obeying corrupt laws.
@the matrixCedar City, UTThe Constitution doesn't say
anything about marriage at all, one way or another. But it's explicit
concerning the equal protection of the law and due process.For a
good many years now, judges insulated from the people have been active when
"the will of the people" has over-reached its Constitutional bounds.And because of the misguided and unconstitutional "will of the
people," the Constitution itself, not just the judges, will properly
continue to be "activist."
@the matrix --"People spout the constitution saying it is the
legal right of same sex partners to get married. The constitution says nothing
at all about marriage."You can argue with the Supreme Court
about that one.They have affirmed many times that marriage is a
basic civil right. Here's just a few examples:-- Loving v.
Virginia -- "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of
man'..."-- Zablocki v. Redhail -- "the right to marry is of
fundamental importance for all individuals"-- Skinner v. Oklahoma -- a
person, being cut off from "marriage and procreation," would be
"forever deprived of a basic liberty."-- Turner v. Safley --
invalidated a prohibition on marriages by prison inmates under privacy rights-- Meyer v. Nebraska -- the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment
"without doubt…denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but
also the right of the individual to ... marry, establish a home and bring up
children..."These and several other relevant decisions have
spanned over 100 years, and have involved many different panels of justices.Marriage is indeed a basic civil right, protected by the US
Merry Christmas to the gay community! This ruling: -
Does nothing to harm those in, or wanting to enter, a traditional marriage!
Win! - Promotes freedom and equality! Win! - Does not infringe on
religious Celestial Marriages and Holy Matrimony! Win! - Strengthens the
gay community by promoting committed relationships! Win! - Is in harmony
with the US Constitution and the founding ideals of this country! Win! This ruling is a big win for the gay community, the State of Utah, the United
States of America and all of its citizens. Well done, Judge Shelby, well done!
@Bleed CrimsonSo your all in favor of a father marrying his
daughter, or a mother marrying her son as long as their consenting adults,
right? =================In a case as that...as long as
they couldn't procreate (that would not be fair to the kid) who am I to
tell two consenting adults no, as long as they are not violating or infringing
on anyone else's rights.
Whether or not gay marriage is a constitutional right or a state-regulated
institution will be decided when the Supreme Court finally rules on the issue.
Until then, it is debatable. However, legislating from the bench IS
unconstitutional. It disrupts the checks and balances of government. When judges
overreach they take unilateral power into their hands. They become the
legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. An appeal will
certainly remand this case to the lower court. It won't decide one way or
the other on the issue, but it will point out that this judge did not follow the
proper rule of law in making his ruling.
Equal protection under the law, it's in the Constitution.
@a voice Sorry to be the one to break it to you but part of the
checks and balances is the judicial branch resolving conflicts between laws
passed by the legislative branch or popular vote and the constitution which is
exactly what this judge did if you read the ruling or even the article above
that quotes that part of his ruling.
Gay marriage--end of western civilization or will the sun come up tomorrow?
In other words: ANYTHING GOES. We can marry anybody and anything: men, women,
cats, dogs, cars, trees, bees, and in any number we want.
@ KTC JohnIt does effect us, it effects your mind, it does effect
education.100 and more will be effected in the line of work, clerks,
bakers... all kinds of people.They gonna lose jobs, if they cannot comply.
Industry and Commercial interest will be effected.Faith must be
allowed to talk.There was a Motherhood in heaven, we were there, but as on
earth there are no mothers at the battle front. There was calm before the storm,
people need protection.We are at the spiritual battle front between good
and evil on earth.LDS people will spiritually stand their ground, you can
bet on it.Each one of us, having the right to opinion and faith,
should be heard and allowed to speak out.
Wow, wow, wow!!!! Congratulations Utah!!!Congratulations
to all of those who so valiantly fought for this civil right. I really
appreciate the Deseret News and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints
for printing and helping to keep this issue alive and maintain the flow of
contradicting ideas. As a gay man I want to say THANK YOU!!! to all
those faithful members of the church who supported this cause despite being
officially unpopular. I applaud the church for providing this forum (thought
sometimes the screen was a little bit too narrow).I am grateful for
the Constitution of this country and for the three branches of government. I am
glad the Judicial Power exercised its prerogative to outlaw unfairness and the
dictatorship of the majority over a minority.Utah the 18th state of
the union allowing SSM. I certainly didn't expected today.I
hope we all can reconcile our differences and see that your fears were
unfounded.May God bless the State of Utah, The U.S.A. and the whole
world in our continuous search for freedom and justice for all.Wow,
I am so happy! Again, Congratulations Utah!!
@ MaxKnock yourself out!!!
To the anti-gay-marriage people: What exactly about "equal protection of the
law" do you not understand?
... It's called separation of church and state. Plain and simple. No
churches or religions are being forced to participate in marriage equality. Gay
couples, many who've lived together for many years, will now have the same
legal rights as their str8 counterparts.
@Max What part of unrelated, unencumbered, mutually consenting adults
don't you understand? What part of the number two seems to confuse you?Speaking as someone who has witnessed a religious marriage of a
long-committed same-sex couple in our Quaker meeting, I can tell you it resulted
in just as many smiles and happy tears in the full assembled body as any
"traditional" marriage. And then we ate cake.In fact, in
every other way, it was remarkably traditional. Your fears spring from
unfamiliarity, superstition, and contempt, none of which are worthy of a good
Good tidings in Utah!Many have claimed this state of affairs would
destroy traditional marriage. But I went home to my wife, and she is still here,
and she still loves me! In fact, we feel even more united because now the bonds
of legal and lawful matrimony are being shared by more Utahns than before!Hallelujah!
Let's be practical about this marriage helps straight people to replace
promiscuous lifestyles with committed relationships. Does it not do the same
thing for gays? When gay people adopt, they remove children from orphanages and
foster care. That is a good thing, right? Can you show any evidence at all
that any child has been harmed by being raised by gay parents?Now,
there are about one million abortions in the US each year, and about one tenth
as many adoptions. There are also about 640 thousand gay households and an
estimated 9 million gay people in the US. One thing you can say about those gay
people is that they will never contribute to this problem.Now, in
addition to being a civil rights issue, is gay marriage also part of a solution
to a terrible problem?
@Max --"In other words: ANYTHING GOES....."No,
this isn't instantly going to usher in polygamy or bestiality or incest or
any of those other interesting combinations.There are at least two
criteria for the legal recognition of any individual right.1. There
are actually a substantial number of citizens who want to do it;and2. Legally allowing them to do it won't significantly
increase the risk of harm to other citizens.Look up the harm
principle.Gay marriage does not significantly increase risk to
anyone, compared to other forms of marriage.Polygamy, incest, and so
on do significantly increase risk.Therefore gay marriage is becoming
legal -- and those other forms are not."...the constitutional
right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay
couples (but) does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be
understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships....the state
continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially
sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially
detrimental effect on a sound family environment. ..."In re
Marriage Cases, slip op. at n. 52, 79-80.And no, folks, polygamy is
not now legal in Utah.
This afternoon my wife turned to me abruptly and said, "Honey, I feel as if
our heterosexual marriage, which has been a healthy and strong relationship up
to this point, is now unexpectedly starting to crumble."Well, I
turned on the TV, and sure enough, the newscasters were saying that some Federal
judge had just ruled Utah's ban on same sex marriage was
unconstitutional.Coincidence? I think not.
Fred T PHOENIX, AZ - Seems team-obama is getting more and more judges to
legislate from the bench. How can a judge redefine marraige? Woe, woe, woe
is us.Yep Obama packed the court with people that Orrin and Mike Lee
approve of. As for how a judge can redefine marriage, ask the Warren court in
Loving vs. Virginia. Who else should define marriage, the peoples whim. I
don't think so. Let's leave it to the Constitution to define the laws
of the land and the Church to define the laws of the Church. Be they Mormon,
Catholic, Baptist or even Mahometan.
I've been saving this Robbie George quote for five years just so I could
post it today:"Just as the nation could not endure half slave
and half free but eventually had to go all one way or all the other, we will not
be able to get by with a situation in which some couples are married in one
state, not married when they move to or travel through the next, and married
again when they reach a third.If same‐sex marriage is legally
recognized in a small number of states, it will spread throughout the nation,
either through judicial action under the Constitution's Full Faith and
Credit Clause or by the working of informal cultural pressures. Some states -
Utah would be one - may try to hold out, but sooner or later they will be
whipped into line."-- Robert P. George, (former) Chairman,
National Organization for Marriage, speaking at Brigham Young University,
October 28, 2008
RE: Vanceone "Black robed dictators. How many states have had homosexual
marriage shoved down their throats by judges and leftists hell bent on forcing
hedonistic, immoral behavior on everyone? " And how many states have had
the 1964 Civil Rights shoved down their throats against their will. The very
Darrell,It wasn't the government that made the decision about
the definition of marriage. It was the State's people. The federal
government came in and overrode the vote. So yes we do want less government and
more power to the people. The government on all fronts are trying to ram rod
their agenda down our throats. The federal government usurped the State's
power by what just occurred. Which is very troubling.
As a proud and out Gay Mormon, I could not be happier that Utah is leading the
way in what, no doubt, will be a wave of similar rulings in other states that
have banned gay marriage. I have experienced shame for much of my life due to
well-meaning heterosexual Mormon leaders who tell me that I CHOSE to be gay. Gay
readers will understand the inherent falsehood of this kind of counseling.
It's equivalent to telling someone that they chose to have blue eyes and
that they should change their eye color. History is replete with examples of
persecution of people who are deemed immoral or threatening. Mormons, perhaps
more than any group, should know this based on their own history. It's time
to accept gay people as the beautiful creatures that God has created and to quit
persecuting them by denying basic rights and calling them immoral. GOD BLESS
"It will not ever become legal to marry a close family member (it's
illegal to marry first cousins because of the genetic problems that can occur in
children)"The reason it is illegal is because we have a visceral
distaste for it. There is nothing to stop first cousins from having children
and most kids with genetic problems come from parents who are not related.
Title: ‘Gay couples wed after federal judge overturns Utah's
same-sex marriage ban’. It must be very hard, to be on the
wrong side of history. Unless you gave x4 head of cattle for a
wife… you have already changed the 'tradition' of
marriage. Happiness and life-long monogamy has never been
historically a problem.
Defend traditional marriage!Defend same-sex marriage!I
do!In fact, gays defend and celebrate and honor traditional marriage
among family and friends and society in general, just like everybody else
does.Where do people get the idea that allowing same-sex marriage is
the same thing as outlawing traditional marriage? Or in any way diminished
@ Herbyyou wrote:" So yes we do want less government and more
power to the people." like in Nauvoo?
@Captain Green"... judges such as this who have no authority to
override the will of the people and the State."210 years later,
Capt Green wants to re-litigate Marbury v. Madison. It is absolutely the
authority of the courts to determine the constitutionality of laws enacted in
individual states (look up "supremacy clause"). Whether a law was
enacted by the people or their elected representatives is not relevant, the
courts have the authority to strike it down if it violates the US Constitution.
I am thrilled. And surprised. I didn't expect this to happen so soon. I
support this 100% and now I feel comfortable stating that I was born and raised
in Salt Lake City. Now I can be proud to say I am from the state of Utah. The
haters are going to hate. But that's such a miserable place to be at. I
choose to rejoice and be happy for my dear friends in the gay community.
@mattrick78 --"The reason it is illegal is because we have a
visceral distaste for it."Not true.In fact, first
degree relatives (parents/child and sibling/sibling) have a roughly 30-40%
chance of producing a child with genetic defects. In other words, genetic
defects occur in roughly 1 out of every 3 incestuous births.(I'm not counting first cousins here. First cousin marriages are legal in
about half of all US states, and they are legal in most other countries outside
the US.)Here's two excerpts from a 2013 appeals court
decision:-- "'In any given non-consanguineous relationship,
the rate of severe abnormalities in offspring is estimated at two to three
percent...children of siblings or a parent-child coupling have a risk between
thirty-one and forty-four percent.'...This increased risk is surely
sufficient to provide a legitimate basis for criminalizing incest..."-- "Lawrence held that the Texas statute (against sodomy) was
unconstitutional...because the (anti-sodomy) statute 'furthers no
legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and
private life of the individual.'...(in contrast)...there is rational basis
for criminalizing incest, specifically between consenting adults...who are
related by consanguinity..."
The coverage in the media is great. One network reporting a 'marriage
frenzy'. The cat, it seems, has escaped. Of course there will be some sort
of stay or appeal or something, but in the mean time I hope as many people who
want to can get married. What an unexpected gift at this time of year.
What happened to being a democratic government? It seems that the government is
trying to satisfy the MINORITY rather than leading by the MAJORITY. I am sick
and tired of the minority throwing down their agenda's, being told they are
wrong, then keep throwing it down my throat and laws being changed. If people
voted on laws, then it should be constitutional depending on the way the people
voted. How can it be unconstitutional?
Kalinra: "But any regulation adopted by a state, whether related to marriage
or any other interest, must comply with the Constitution of the United
States."OK, then how can some states (like Washington and Colorado)
legalize something, such as marijuana, which is illegal under federal law?
This is unfortunate. Marriage is the mechanism by which the state provides
incentives to couples to procreate and then to remain together to provide for
and raise their children so as to produce the next generation of citizens and
ensure they are prepared to live as responsible citizens and continue the
process, thus perpetuating the state. That mechanism has now been at best
diluted, and at worst eliminated. This has nothing to do with "rights".
It has to do with what is in the best interest of children and of the state.There's nothing wrong with providing a mechanism for same-sex
couples to have appropriate legal privileges. But that mechanism should not have
been marriage. Marriage is now, by definition, broken from the perspective of
the state and cannot serve the purpose for which it was created.You
would think a judge would get something this simple. What do they teach in law
Man can make it legal, but he can't make it moral, not with all the
purchased judges in the world.
I don't hate gays, but I would like to know what has happened to the rights
of voters?? It seems unconstitutional for one judge to overrule what voters
accepted in this state. I thought this was the USA where people vote on
something and majority wins? And this is Utah and we as a state voted and
majority said marriage for man and a woman. So again I ask what has happened to
It was a bad decision, regardless of where you stand on the same sex marriage
issue. Not necessarily because of the issue, but because it is not an issue that
a judge should decide. Judges overstepping their bounds is not a good thing for
Near the end of the fifth year of the reign of the judges over the people of the
United States, here is more evidence that the US is no longer a democracy.
Just the latest example of the moral decay in our society and the steady
disintegration of the fundamental unit of society. When the family's gone,
society will completely collapse.
When I lived in Utah, I often heard the phrase--"If you don't like it
here, you can always move." Now that the shoe is firmly placed on the other
foot and the laces seemed to be tied quite tightly, I'll chose to not say
the same to those who are wringing hands over this long overdue and correct
decision. Instead, I'll say--"If you don't like it, why don't
you stay and learn tolerance? You will be seeing it practiced all around
Vince here: "Marriage predates Christianity"It does not. Adam and
Eve were married and were Christians.
About time.Declaration: We hold these truths self-evident, that all
men are created equal.Constitution: Amendment 1: Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereofConstitution Amendment 14: nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Clearly the
highest laws of this nation forbid government defining what marriage is, or
establishing laws that give legal benefits to one set of people based on their
sex.It is idiotic these marriage laws have lasted this long.
To everyone who wrote that polygamy has been made legal, please take a steep
back and review. It probably eventually will be, but it wasn't last week.
Only unlawful cohabitation was thrown out. As for the gay marriage
ruling: Anyone who didn't see this coming hasn't been watching. As
soon as it become objectionable to legislate morality the onslaught started and
it will not rest until morality has nothing to do with law.My
questions is: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has never
approved of intimate relations between persons of the same gender (Chastity
outside of marriage and fidelity within.) If it becomes "Legal and
Lawful" will this change? I'm not saying that your average Bishop will
be compelled to perform these marriages, but I am wondering: If two gay members
in his ward decided to go and get a legal marriage, would the Church allow them
to hold positions? To be listed in their membership records as a married
couple? To do joint tithing settlement?It is a quandary, and I look
forward with interest to the response of the church.
'What happened to the will of the people?' Amendment 3,
the amendment that changed Utah's state constitution from 'two
people' (Gender neutral) too 'one man/one woman' was passed x9
years ago. Would you feel confident trying to pass it, today? *'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' -
By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011'For the first time
since Gallup started studying the issue in 1996, the polling organization found
a majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.Fifty-three
percent of Americans answered yes to the question…' And
yes. That majority in support for gay marriage, was reported by the
First the good news. If this stands hetrosexual marriages will not be
impacted.The bad news .. gay couples might now be allowed to
adopt children who otherwise could have had a mother and a father.It
matters how arguments are framed. The use of this bad arguments causes many
people to not take you seriously and worse causes you to come across as a bigot
who has no legitimate reason for your position. Other people are non thinking
sheep who will believe what ever those in moral authority over them say.Your adherence to your authoritan structure has dumbed you down. When
you speak the matter for the most part is 'settled' and critical
thinking flys out the window.
When 'legal marriage' has failed to make people happy in their sin,
they will go to judges and demand more endorsements from society, at the expense
of others' ability to live as they believe is right, in hopes they will
then feel right with themselves. Whatever concessions society makes for them,
they will be miserable still.Your misery is not created by society.
Wickedness never was happiness, and never will be. No matter how much you
oppress and discriminate against those practicing religious freedom, you will
still be miserable. It is your own actions that make this so. You own it.I, for one, will not let you drag me down with you. Legalized sin is
still sin, and I will continue to oppose sin with truth.
25 Therefore,choose you by the voice of this people,judges,that ye May be judged
according to the laws which haven been given you by our fathers,which are
correct,and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.26 Now it
is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that
which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire
that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your
law-to do your business by the voice of the people.27 And if the
time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time
that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea then is the time he will visit
you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.This is scripture .We need to voice our opinions .our voices are not being
alowed to be heard.Stand for something or sit through it all.
Time to educate the public because I can hardly take it anymore.Why
marriage is a federal issue. There's something in our Constitution called
the Full Faith and Credit Clause. What that is in civil matters states have to
recognize the civil decisions and matters of other states. This is why you
don't have to get remarried when you move from one state to another. The
new state in which you live recognizes your marriage, your divorce (and all the
decrees of the court that entails) and when you go on vacation something simple
like your driver's license.So if one state like New Mexico says
gay marriage is legal, what is the legal status of that couple when they move to
Utah where its codified law says marriage is between one man and one woman?
Does Utah trump the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Yes, marriage is something
left up to the state but then again you have this Full Faith and Credit Clause.
So bottom line, the Supreme Court will ultimately have to decide
this. Well, that is unless an amendment, as actually proposed by Mitt Romney,
is added to the Constitution defining marriage.
And the judges wonder why so many people view the American legal system with
hatred and contempt! Homosexuals have the same right to marry as the rest of us
(i.e. a single competent consenting person of the opposite sex and appropriate
age, who is not too closely related)Advocates of gay "marriage" however
don't just want to play the game they want to change the rules (in this
case basic foundational moral standards that go back thousands of years)to fit
their own whims! This isn't about equal rights this is about
an unelected judge overriding the will of the people and undercutting the very
foundations of Western Civilization!
Why do heterosexuals feel threatened by gay marriage?
My opinion. The people I know would have no problem calling a same sex union a
civil partnership, with every right afforded by marriage. But this is not
acceptable to the lesbian and gay community. They want the term marriage, as it
implies acceptance by society. This is not correct, as many will not accept it,
and will continue to express their feelings about it. If the true
purpose was to have a relationship acknowledged by law, a civil partnership
would work. Trampling on Religion and peoples beliefs will
accomplish nothing, ask A&E.
People whine that the gay community is not very accepting of the views of those
that oppose them so let's take a look at the history. Within the last 100
years religion has been used as an excuse to justify forced castration, forced
lobotomies, shock therapy, incarceration, institutionalization, and being
rounded up and killing them In Gas chambers by western countries, I can't
imagine why they would be a little angry about that can you?
Homosexuality is abnormal and is contrary to natural law and society should not
condone it by making gay marriage legal. These gay couples can participate in
sexual activities all they want and will never ever produce offspring. Hopefully
one day there will be a cure found.
@daodejing1. The Federal DOMA was unconstitutional because the
constitution granted the states the right to regulate marriage and requires all
states to honor the marriages of other states and contracts. The Federal DOMA
sought did violate that. Utah's amendment defining marriage as a union
between one man and one woman treated all people the same so there is not equal
protection issue.2. It has not been proven that sexual orientation
is an innate physical characteristic.3. Nobody was pressured to
support Prop. 8, the proper word is "encouraged". Further there were no
laws broken.4. Labor Unions are tax exempt organizations and their
soul purpose (almost) is to manipulate public policy, many times in direct
opposition to the beliefs of a sizable percentage of their members.5. "Because of the church's involvement, the United States will get
marriage equality a decade earlier than would otherwise have been the case. God
works in mysterious ways." Don't blame this on God.6. The
attorney general of California violated his oath of office by refusing to defend
Prop 8 in court. He should be in jail.
It's up to a judge to interpret constitutional law. This is not redefining
marriage, it is allowing two people who love each other the chance to share he
same rights as anyone else.o not allow this is nothing more than prejudicial.
I'm surprised it took this long to give Gays equal protection under the
law, a right granted by the same Constitution that grants freedom of speech and
the right to bear arms. One cannot use the Constitution to protect their right
to own firearms and condemn it to protect the rights of all citizens to marry
whom they choose. To do so is simply hypocritical.
@ logic guy: That is a very interesting question. We will have to see what
legal arguments are presented. But this conversation is same-sex marriage.
Let's try to stay on topic, shall we?@ Pops: Gay couples have
children and those children deserve the same protections as children of
heterosexual parents. @ those who want to know why voters can't
vote rights away: If the Constitution does not prevent rights of unpopular
groups from being voted away by the majority, what is protecting your rights?
There are many who claim the LDS Church is a cult and the First Amendment does
not apply to cults. Should this be put to a vote? There are those who claim the
Constitution only applies to Christians and the definition of Christian, as well
as not including Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., but also does not
include Catholics or Mormons. Does this mean voters can enact laws limiting the
rights of members of those groups to vote or own businesses?The
Constitution protects minorities from having their rights stripped away by the
vote of the majority. Basic US Government 101.
The Judge in question is a highly opinionated and outspoken gay activist who
obviously is pushing an overbearing conflict of interest since he himself is a
member of the gay community...This action is an obvious abuse and misuse of his
position and cannot be sanctified...nor can it be cloaked in any way shape or
form as being unbiased. To allow this decision to stand can only be construed
without doubt that our judicial system has further eroded in gross ineffective
self servitude that benefits Special Interests Groups at the expense of
beneficially serving the multitude of society in general...which it is supposed
to... as well as obligated to do.
@Howard --"So if one state like New Mexico says gay marriage is
legal, what is the legal status of that couple when they move to Utah where its
codified law says marriage is between one man and one woman? Yup --
and just this week we have seen an example of the sort of trouble states can get
into when they ignore Full Faith and Credit.In North Dakota, there
is a man who wants to marry a woman. But -- this man has previously married
another MAN, in a state where gay marriage is legal.Since North
Dakota refuses to recognize his marriage to this man, it won't allow him
to divorce the guy -- since, in ND, he is not legally married.So,
now this guy wants to marry a woman in ND. And the Attorney General has just
decided that it is legal for him to marry this woman -- because, according to ND
law, the man is legally single.So he's going to end up being
legally married in ND, but he'll be a bigamist in every state that
recognizes same-sex marriage.See what trouble states can get
themselves into when they ignore the US Constitution?
Obama10SYRACUSE, UT"The whole issue revolves around, will
church's be forced to marry same sex couples much like the baker and
florist who are forced to make a wedding cake and provide flowers to a gay
wedding? At what point will the LDS church say, ok we will marry you civilly,
but not sealed in the temple?"A-- No one is forcing anyone to perform
services. If a business violates public accomodation laws, it pays the
penalty.B-- The lds church is free to listen to how God wants the issue
handled. As Christians, you want to treat your Gay sons and daughters with equal
rights and love.USAloverSalt Lake City, UT"How do
gay couples make babies?"-- Are you saying that only those who make
babies can marry? Seems unconstitutional to me.ReflectereUtah,
UT"How unfortunate that a federal judge can step into a sovereign
state and strike down its sovereign constitution."A-- You quote
religious text to back up State law?B-- No judge stepped into anything.
Citizens of Utah sued, forcing him to rule. As shown in other States, the only
objections had religious reasons, not legal reasons, so he had no choice.
Re:TheRock"Nobody was pressured to support Prop. 8, the proper word is
"encouraged"Did you live in CA during the Prop 8
campaign?And if you did, how do you know "nobody" was pressured?
Did you survey all CA residents?Does this constitute
"pressure" or " encouragement?" The Stake President
scolds ward members in Sacrament meeting for not doing enough (time and/or
donations) to pass Prop 8.Lessons during the meeting block on the "Six
Consequences if Prop 8 Fails."Sign-up lists Lessons in seminary
on Prop 8 (youth not eligible to vote).
The matrixCedar City, UTPeople spout the constitution saying it is
the legal right of same sex partners to get married. The constitution says
nothing at all about marriage. When the founding fathers crafted this great
document they made it possible for the voice of the people to be heard....Actually, there is no provision for popular vote on Federal laws, none!I fear living in a state where the saying we the people has no more
meaning or value....Actually, the people have a voice, but cannot
pass unconstitutional laws.Our judges continue to get it wrong and
this judge got it wrong. A judge should never inject their own personal beliefs
or opinions in their judicial decisions like this judge did. They are supposed
to rule strictly by the standards of law and be personally unbiased in their
decisions... Actually, he followed the law, and made the only
possible legal decision. Those who have an impression he did not are welcome to
read his 53 page decision.The Prop 8 appeals should have been dropped
after the first ruling.Anyone who believes that their religious
belief trumps the Constitution is wrong.
If history is a guide, the Prophet will have a revelation that all people can
marry who they want as the political pressure mounts. The ban of African
American holding the Priesthood ended by a revelation as the morals of the
County shifted. Mormons are pragmatic and loving by nature. When their leaders
shift the doctrine (which will happen) the flock will follow. Congratulations
to the LGBT community. Gay marriages in Utah, the world in coming to Zion.
First, man cannot marry and animal, marriage is a legal contract, animals, pets,
cannot execute their part of the contract. Can brother and sister marry?
Perhaps, but why? Second, the judge didn't redefine anything, just said
it's unconstitutional to discriminate (equal protections). Third, the
argument that government has a legitimate purpose to restrict marriage between a
man and a woman is absolutely absurd on various levels. For example, couples
live w/each other like they were married anyway, gov. can't stop that. Any
ill effects are absolutely unproven aside from a few biased studies. Compared
to heterosexual couples, there are so few gays anyway, so why should the
government be concerned? If marriage is sacred, then why is the government
involved at all? Is the government the enforcer of religion? I think not! Not
in the US, in Saudi Arabia (et al) perhaps, but not here. If you hold your
marriage as sacred because you got married in your church, then why does this
ruling bother you? It doesn't affect you one bit.
"US is no longer a democracy" "What happened to being a democratic
government... government is trying to satisfy the MINORITY rather than leading
by the MAJORITY" "what has happened to voters rights?"These posts reveal that some people seriously missed Govt 101 in high school.
The US never has been a Democracy. It is a Republic. And our Constitution was
expressly designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It
is not anything goes just because the majority votes for something. Any law
that denies equal protection of the law to a group of people without a
demonstrable compelling reason is unconstitutional. As has been proven
repeatedly in court, there is absolutely no compelling reason to deny
law-abiding tax-paying gay US Citizens equal access to civil marriage law.
NONE. Therefore, it is the courts' duty to strike down such laws.
That's the way our Constitution works.What are you afraid of?
Exactly WHAT damage is done to traditional marriages by allowing gay couples to
commit legally for life? If the gay couple down the street gets married and it
harms your marriage, then you didn't have much of a marriage to begin with
Tolerated yes, but never, never accepted.
In my opinion those of us who appose "Homosexual" marriages are the ones
that are giving legitimacy to the act. We keep referring to a government that
does not exist anymore. And, under the present CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED
STATES, the judge is on point because he did not make his ruling under the
Constitution for the United States. There is a vast difference in the use of
the two words "of" and "for."The problem is that we
are fighting against a "Master" while at the same time serving the same,
for instance; no member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can
be sealed in the Temple without the consent of the state, a license from the
state is required and no date will be set for the sealing until one is secured
by the couple. So, if we are giving the state the right to determine who can be
married, I don't see why we are complaining when they exercise that
authority.As long as we agree to live in Babylon, we will have to
abide by its rules.
: "Marriage predates Christianity"It does not. Adam and Eve were
married and were Christians."You mean the Adam and Eve that the
Bible says lived 6,000 years ago? Sounds like somebody needs to grab a science
book from the library and get reading.
I've been living in a vacuum or on another planet, but will someone please
explain to me what rights the LGB group have been denied or what rights they
will benefit from by being married (on paper) to their partners? They have been
able to live together and enjoy all the benefits of cohabitation for as long as
they wanted, but now it is "legal?"Maybe I'm just
ignorant of these things, but please tell me what's the difference?
The will of the people continues to be struck down by judicial legislation. One
judge can turn over the will of millions. Our Constitutional rights are
dwindling. Oh, and where in the Constitution does it say anything about the
government being involved in marriage? That's right, it doesn't. If
the government stayed out of the marriage issue the will of the people would
stand. If the people of certain certain states want same-gender marriages, let
them have them. If they don't, they shouldn't be forced to have it,
especially by activist judges. The 10th Amendment is slowly being eroded away by
federal overreach of power.
Anything accomplished by this ruling in this world will be lost in the next.
Making something legal, doesn't make it right.
The arguments against this ruling, as presented in the article are far stronger
than those presented for. With an objective judge, the will of 2/3 the people
will be upheld.
What a coincedense that they were waiting for the veridict as if they knew what
it was going to be.But of course with an Obama appointed judge what else
can be expected.This will be short lived as the SCOTUS in their last
ruling on gay marriage deferred the right to decide gay marriage to the states
which means Utah has already decided that marriage is between a man and a
woman.I think a big can of worms was just openned and the LGBT can hold on
as they have just unleashed godzila.... With the Phil Robertson and the
overturning of Utah's overwhelmingly supported constitutional ban of gay
marriage they crossed the line they should have never crossed.
This is a good thing. Whether you believe your religion is against gay marriage
or not, it is proper for citizens to have equal rights under the law. If gay
marriage is a sin, then God will punish the sinners. If gay marriage is not a
sin, then this is long overdue. Either way, having gay marriage legalized does
not impact my ability to live according to my beliefs. Should the feared next
step be taken by the judiciary, forcing religious groups to grant marriages to
all people, religions can simply get out of the marriage business and do
something different. This might include, as happens in many other countries, a
civil marriage followed by a religious ceremony "sealing" the two
individuals to a relationship enduring beyond this life.
@Herby 9:16 p.m. Dec. 20, 2013So you're saying that you think a
vote of the people should be able to override and negate the US
Constitution's protections for us all? Sorry -- it doesn't work that
way. The US constitution is supreme. This decision was absolutely correct,
being based on both the 9th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. Good job,
matt9898 'But the constitution trumps the electorate every time.'.I don't know whenever I've heard bigger nonsense. The
electorate made the constitution. The electorate had to vote on Amendment 14,
which has nothing to do with gay marriage. An amendment to the constitution is
required for this change too. The true colors of those advocating for gay
marriage are shown when they celebrate judicial activism.
Guess what? The gay guys next door are not going to destroy your marriage. They
will have a nice yard, a cute dog and maybe even adopt some kids that were a
product of straight marriage. Other than that the world will continue to
function and you might have a great couple next door that might be , dare I say
it? Gay! Live your life and move on, lets create jobs and get the country to
number 1 where it used to be, this ruling isn't destroying America or Utah,
The Boston Tea Party was of similar bent. No legislation without representation.
Utah where civil rights used to depend on the outcome of an election…
@ Fred"Seems team-obama is getting more and more judges to legislate
from the bench." This judge was endorsed by our own Republican
senators and had the full support of the Utah GOP. I realize that a lot of
people would prefer that judges rubber stamp whatever laws make it through state
legislatures, but that's not how our legal system works, thank God. If it
were otherwise, we'd still have racial segregation, racial intermarriage
would be illegal, voting would be restricted to white male property owners, etc,
etc. One of the duties of the courts is to rule on the constitutionality of
laws and regulations, which is exactly what this judge did. "Activist judge" is another way of saying that the court ruled in
favor of the other party.
The issue has always been taxation and I understand that in my practicc. It
should have been addressed on that basis. The children have never
been considered and what it does to them. My friend chose to dump his marriage
and children. All of children hate him and it has had a lasting impact on their
lives. None want to be like him. They all feel cheated because they never had
a dad and it has impacted their lives. Two men or two women cannot raise a
child and this has been shown with a single mom or dad doing the same as hard as
they try. The child is never equiped to compete in this world. Let's not forget the children as this selfish judge has done.
If marriage is just a set of legal rights, then non-sexual marriages -
particularly between straight women - is the next step. Why trust a man when
you'd rather trust a best friend?Then comes the argument for
sibling marriages. Why trust a stranger instead of someone in your own
family?What's to prevent marriages like these? Are government
officials going to step into people's bedrooms for proof?Deep
down, people who support SSA don't believe in mothers or fathers. They just
believe in "adults." There is no way this is good for kids. They need to
feel value for their gender and respect for the opposite gender. This new
definition of marriage is a huge stumbling block. Actions speak louder than
To say this whole saga is irony, would be an understatement... As it turns out,
Judge Shelby was recommended to Obama for appointment to the bench, by none
other than Sen. Orrin Hatch. The decision to uphold the rule of law, and strike
down an unconstitutional law, has extraordinary social, legal and religious
implications. In fact, this could put the LDS Church Tax Exempt status in the
cross-hairs. A 501C3 Corporation cannot discriminate based on sexual
orientation (or gender for that matter). The "worm has turned" in Utah,
and we all have front row seats. Grab your popcorn, and get ready for a wild
This is such an exciting thing to see happen! I have no doubt the Lord is
pleased! To the LDS here. Same sex marriage will not destroy the fabric of
society. It will not impact the Church, it will not impact you. What will
destroy the fabric of society, tear apart families and wards apart, and will
divide our community is the contestant hatred and preaching of anti-LGBT rights
by our community and church leaders.I would submit that the real struggle
with same gender attraction is for the heterosexual members of the Church who
have failed to reach out in love and acceptance of their LGBT Church, family,
and community members.To you, I ask: Jesus reaches out in love to all of
His children. He healed the sick while he was on earth. What are you doing to
follow his example? What are you doing to reach out in love to our LGBT Church
and community members? what are you doing to heal their spiritual, emotional,
and too often physical wounds which have been caused by decades of homophobic
policies and doctrines?
Civil rights, and equality are excuses to promote anything you want.It dulls critical thinking.
Amazing how many posts blame an "Obama activist judge". The judge was
appointed by George W. Bush so I guess he's a Bush activist judge. This is the right ruling and a great day for Utah's lesbian/gay
The judge acted in contempt of a law that has been approved by the majority of
voters in Utah; set up to protect society. And seriously; the argument equating
interracial marriage and homosexual unions? Not hardly. The interracial marriage
law was a cultural bias; although children of interracial marriages that I know
have issues with the fact that they don't identify with either race and
fell marginalized by both. Laws, especially in Utah, are in place
for our protection and were inspired by the Laws of Moses and Israel. Their
purpose is to protect the existence of a society in line with God's stated
purposes. There is no hate there at all. If you love God (and His laws) you will
love your fellow man (within the bounds He has set.) I don't hate
homosexuals, but I will trust in God's view of the situation and uphold His
will. Unfortunately, the laws are being twisted again for the benefit of a few
selfish individuals like the argument for abortion being a matter of privacy not
a right to life.
I recognize we have two very important issues here. The rights of individuals
and the rights of states. As also been previously stated, there is an easier
fix; allow the government to define a union, with its tax and death benefits,
and let religion define a marriage. All are required to submit to a union prior
to a religious marriage. It fills the needs of both. If you want to only commit
to the state, you can leave it there. If you wish to commit to your God, then
there is the additional commitment made. Religions can then, by their own
doctrines, limit the types of marriages they will perform without discriminating
against individuals who just want to get a union for legal reason. States
should also have the right to determine what types of unions it allows. Much
like jobs, states can then "sell" union opportunities to draw like
minded people to their states to increase their respective tax base. None is
denied a union, you just may have to move. If I want a job in mining, I am not
discriminated against if I live in Hawaii, I just don't have that
opportunity must move.
Why do we vote if this happens? The U.S. is looking more like Iran
with its Council of Guardians that vetoes any legislation that violates Sharia -
the difference is here Sharia is some sort of liberal agenda.
@USAloverSalt Lake City, UTHow do gay couples make babies?3:47 p.m. Dec. 20, 2013==========GAY people have
children all the time.Every happily together GAY family I know brought
them from their failed hetro-sexual marriages.BTW -- My wife and I
have been together for 31 years.We got married out of L-O-V-E, not
for S-E-X.We can't make babies anymore -- Should we now
get a divorce?We still love each other...
Conscience is an amazing thing, eventually informing everyone what is right and
wrong. Gay marriage is one of those things. Pride does amazing things too. It
keeps the conscience from doing its job. Immoral laws can't subvert
conscience, no matter how much pride stands in the way.
Judicial activism,reckless, partisan and ideological driven Judge Shelby
ignores Utah's voters in ruling. This highly partisan unelected Obama
appointedJudge in my opinion over reached for purelyIdeology reasons
. To not allow a stay on his ruling shows bias. Hopefully an appeal will
Well, it's hardly surprising, but the process is not over. If the judicial
system is determined to force a genderless conception of marriage and family on
everybody, then it is important not to simply give in. Make them force it. It
makes a difference in how we culturally negotiate the aftermath.
I heard and read that It is all about getting equal treatment. In a legal sense
that is being achieved. However let's be honest. Two guys or two gals
married are not the same thing as a guy and gal married. That's three
different types of marriages, it seems. And the results from each are going to
be different. Children raised in each combination are generally
going to be different. Spousal relationships will be quite different.Different ingredients always make for different results.Equality
in a legal sense. Differences in a real sense. That's all we can hope
I hope we can also get a Federal Judge to strike down the inequality which
exists in the widely varying sizes of our bank accounts across this country.
It's not fair that we have to live hand to mouth and others, just because
they have higher paying jobs, can have substantially more padding in their bank
accounts.I still think people are confusing equality with demanding
laws that allow everyone to do the same things, or have the same things, or be
the same things.
CrzyDoc is correct in what he is saying because eventually the church will have
to defend their tax exempt status over the issue and as with all big
international corporations money triumphs.
Strange how within a period of a few decades, we can deem the previous thousands
of years of moral thinking to be invalid. What's next? Thievery?
Beastiality? Murder? I understand if you think I'm being extreme in
equating homosexuality with murder- I am doing so to be a ridiculous, but to say
that we can't just assume that because some people want to do something
makes it right.
It's never been clear to me why government remains involved at all in
licensing private domestic partnerships of any kind, and then conferring tax and
other benefits on them. And the history of the legal institution of
"marriage" isn't pretty: In its early days it was a mechanism to
ensure men's ownership and control of women and their property (look up
"tenancy by the entirety" and its application in domestic relations
law). And the argument that these laws are for the protection of children
doesn't fly either - the legal obligation to support one's child
exists independently of marital status. Time to repeal all of the laws relating
to marriage, and leave sanctifying domestic partnerships to the churches.
@ Sid 6.7 Civilization doesn't collapse right away, it always
happens gradually till someone turns around and says what happened? While I
disagree with discrimination by denying people the governmental benefits of
marriage. I find that the true meaning of the religious sense of marriage is
slowly being hammered away.
The Judge was just following the law! The Virginia case 1n 1966 says it all!
Virginia passed a law banning interracial marriage. The supreme court stuck it
down saying it was unconstitutional! Thank goodness the judge followed the law
and paved the way for LGBT marriage in Utah! Anti-Miscegenation laws in
Virginia and in other places were designed to and did deprive targeted minority
of the full measure of human dignity and liberty by denying them the freedom to
marry the partner of their choice! In essence Amendment 3 did the same thing to
achieve the same results and that my folks is why we have laws and order in this
Country including Utah!
I would like to ask all of you who are upset about this ruling to prayerfully
ponder why you are really upset. After reading the comments, I don't think
most of you are upset because "an activist judge abused his authority."
I suspect that for most of you it's because you really don't like gay
people, and you can't stand the thought of us being treated with the
dignity that we all deserve.Let me share a personal experience of
why I believe this:A few years ago I was quietly sitting in my seat
waiting for my LDS Stake Conference to begin. It was an extremely rainy June
day. The Utah Pride Celebration was on the same day, but I chose to do what I
thought was right. While in my seat, I overheard some "faithful" women
from my ward talking about the weather. One of the women--somebody I actually
home taught--then said that the rain was obviously "God's
judgment." They both laughed and then said some derogatory gay slurs that
even this newspaper refuses to print.
CONT:I couldn't believe what I was hearing. These two women
would never say these things to anyone they thought could be gay, yet there they
were getting ready to worship letting such hurtful words out of their mouth.Little did they know that somebody heard those words and was wounded a
little bit in his heart. What do you think happens when young men and women hear
those same hurtful things said in their places of worship? Those pains last a
long time when they come from a people and a place that you love.So,
I ask you all to search your hearts and pray about what your true motive is
behind your posts on here, on Facebook, and everywhere else. I think you might
be surprised what you will learn about your God and yourself.
Before blaming Obama for same-sex marriage in Utah, may I remind everyone that
it was Senator Orrin Hatch who had recommended the judge to the bench.
So, regardless of the issue, I think today's decision brings up a
fundamental question about our form of government. Why do we still have votes?
Why still have State or Federal legislative bodies? Why still have an Executive
Branch? No matter which laws are passed or the outcome of a vote, the Judicial
can do as it pleases with no hope of appeal and very seldom a reversal. Do we
now live in a Judicial Oligarchy? Do five unelected justices have more power
than the voice of the people, the elected president / governor, and our elected
state and federal representatives?
Well I guess laws and voting don't matter anymore. If A federal Judge
doesn't like it, they have the self-imposed power to change it. Gays attempting to marry in the temple is not a question of IF, but a question
The impatient and selfish then to get their rewards in this life, others in the
next.There's a perfect judge later, and His judgement will be
pure.Until then, be nice to each other regardless on which side of this
issue you fall. No worries.
As Jefferson warned in 1820, "To consider the judges as the ultimate
arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed,
and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are
as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions
for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni
judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and
their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not
responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The
constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands
confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become
despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign
Just think if we vote to close down the NSA spy center, A federal judge who
doesn't like the vote, can just over turn it.
At Christmas time no less. The bored people on the planet won't stop
until it is in all 50 states, then they will move on to the islands of the
Pacific, then to all planets and solar systems. If it wasn't real life,
it would be comical. This will help the truth grow, this is a sword cutting
across civilization: you either believe the prophets Peter and Paul, or you do
not. They spoke on morality.
Some believe that Same Sex Marriage is wrong but still support it on the back of
free agency. That is faulty logic. Free agency doesn't have a correlation
with legality. Individuals still have the right to choose their actions, but it
doesn't mean actions don't have consequences. Under the same pretense
and justification of gay marriage, that being, "it has no effect on
traditional marriage couples" then one could immediately justify incest and
beastiality. On what legal grounds could you stop either of those now? Certainly
not incest, if the couples don't reproduce offspring, as advocated by the
Notebook's Director, Nick Cassavetes. Jesus said, "Those without sin
cast the first stone."
The bible, however, doesn't begin and end at John 8:7. He immediately said
"Go and sin no more". He was made a judgement then and there. That is
right, none here sit on the judgement seat after this life, except Christ. There
are thousands of other scriptures, before and after, which require earthly
judgement by his followers. Christ was aggressively and sometimes violently
stood up for correct principles. He flipped over the money changers tables at
the temple, for example. He certainly didn't say, well, "Everyone has
their own free agency, and therefore, I'm not going to make a stand."
That is because we don't live in silos. Everyones actions, affect other
people. The acts (lower case a) of the Apostles are littered with scripture of
them righteously judging others. 2nd Timothy 4, for example. Or Titus 1:13. Or
how about Paul in Acts 17:17, when he found that the whole city was found in
idolatry, disputed with those in the city.
Certainly His Apostles, knew the lessen of "cast the first stone", and
still contended for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Back to my original premise,
there are many individual offenses, that supposedly hurt no one else, (e.g.
Heroine) that we don't allow simple because it affects the moral fabric of
society. One still has the free agency to do hard drugs, but it doesn't
mean we allow it.
Beyond the moral discussion of this issue I believe there is a broader concern.
For me that concern is over a Federal Judge abrogating the voice of the people.
Our Founding Fathers gave their blood so that the people could decide their own
laws and not an over bearing central government that imposes their will on the
people. First it was Obamacare being forced on all of us, then the Obama
Administration refusing to defend DOMA, Reid altering the filibuster procedures
in the Senate and so on. Nikita Kruschev once told Sec of Agriculture Ezra T.
Benson that communism would take over this country without firing a shot. Since
2008 we have seen Federal power grow and less freedoms for the people. I wonder
what Patrick Henry would be saying?
@Lolly --"The children have never been considered and what it
does to them. "Actually, the children have ALWAYS been
considered.In fact, every professional group of child development
experts in this country SUPPORTS gay marriage -- because they know that kids
grow up just fine in stable gay-led homes.No study has EVER shown
that kids are harmed by growing up with gay parents in a stable home."Two men or two women cannot raise a child"Of course they
can. Many thousands of gay couples already have, and continue to do so."and this has been shown with a single mom or dad doing the same as hard
as they try. "Many studies have shown that kids do better in
stable, two-parent homes than in single-parent homes. But no study has EVER
shown that the genders of the parents makes any difference.
They are striking at the heart of the original US Constitution by denying the
states fundamental rights of self-governance. For the sake of a small, very
small minority the state has lost its guaranteed rights and so have the majority
of the populace. The noose is tightening around the necks of every conservative
and traditional family advocate. Our religion is being strangled; it
couldn't be more clear. And there will be more to come.
@ LOLLY "The children have never been considered and what it does to
them." Every major court decision has sided with all the major
psychological, sociological and medical organizations regarding the excellent
outcomes of children raised by same-sex parents. While you are entitled to your
own opinion, you are not entitled to your own set of facts.
Re:Lolly"I was raised by a gay couple, and Im doing pretty well
i score in the 99th percentile on the ACT. Im an Eagle Scout. I own and operate
my own small business. If I was your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I'd make
you very proud. Im not so different from any of your children. My family really
isnt so different from yours. .. The sense of family comes the commitment we
make to each other to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones.
It comes from the love that binds us. Thats what makes a family.You
are voting to codify discrimination into our constitution.. So will this vote
affect my family? Would it affect yours? In the next two hours, Im sure
we're going to hear a lot of testimony about how damaging having gay
parents is on kids. But not once have I ever been confronted by an individual
who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple. And you know why?
Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero impact on the content
of my character."(Zach Wahls)
A very disappointing and improper ruling, which is a coal in everyone's
stocking here, even if it appears to be pretty and wrapped in bows for some
people.If this ruling gets sustained, I'd vote for either one
of two things: The state of Utah getting out of marriage and/or civil unions
completely (which is the best answer) or something along the lines of
@Observation Deck's proposal if it feels that there is still a need for a
scary government hand in marriage.
Growth by lawsuit. Christianity is 2 billion strong (with the Book of Mormon
taking over from here) , over 2,000 years, and the Restored Gospel which is the
Kingdom of God on earth is at 15 million followers over 200 years: things take
time. Those opposing the morality in the Bible are trying to conquer and force
their views in 10 years time. They will find that patience is a virtue. God
has patience. Those who don't have patience will stumble, panic, fear,
and then become even more impatient. Faith brings peace. Lack of unity brings
turmoil. God will forgive sin, yet rejecting the thing of the heart (and new
scripture is mostly about the heart) will bring sadness and death.
When one solitary Judge feels he has the power to over-ride the desires of the
majority he/she has overstepped the powers of democracy. This is a blatant
disregard for we the people. It is paramount to a poor sport losing in sports
and taking his ball as he goes home. This judge needs to be impeached.
In regards to comments by "equal protection", I am basing this on the
national studies not on my opinion. Check it out
@CP says;"...what has happened to the rights of voters??--- you
NEVER had the right to deny others the legal rights and benefits you possess
yourself"." I thought this was the USA where people vote on
something and majority wins?" --- I thought this was the USA, where EVERY
citizen was equally protected by the laws, not the whims of the
"majority".Billy Bob says:"It was a bad
decision,"--- Nope.@logicguy;Adam and
Eve were "Christians"? LOL@RichardB;Separate is
NOT equal; and legislating YOUR religion into law tramples on the religious
rights of the rest of us.AZDZRTFOX says:"Our
Constitutional rights are dwindling."--- No, OUR
Constititutional rights are finally being recognized!@Jim;Just as making something illegal doesn't make it wrong.@Lolly;Yes, lets not forget the children OF GAY COUPLES, as you
selfishly just did.@Tyler McArthur;Please go take a
Civics 101 course.@skeptic;If the church is using money
for politics, then it should be taxed.Paul Revere says:"I wonder what Patrick Henry would be saying?"He'd
say: Take a Civics 101 course.
"What eternal laws do you speak of regarding homosexuals having the same
rights you and i share?"Homosexuals do not have the sacred and
eternal law of procreation. How do homosexuals bring souls, the Lord's
spirit children, into the world without a man and a woman? You can talk about
"rights" all day long, it does not change the fundamental, universal and
eternal fact that the law of procreation is unique to male and female in all
species. I think it's only fair to ask, how does the homosexual act and
SSM fit in to the eternal persecutive? What is it's purpose?
I am appalled by all the comments that assume that same sex couples have to get
permission and approval from voters for their equality before the law.There was no popular vote, no referendum, no "democratic" approval
required for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And it is these documents
that guarantee ALL citizens of this country equal standing before the law. The
Judge's decision is grounded directly on those foundational, supreme
law-of-the-land documents and amendments - none of which was ever passed by a
popular vote.This country was never founded on the idea of majority
rule for our most fundamental laws and rights. Anyone who ever took a basic
civics class should know that.So what kind of twisted thinking is it
that presumes that marriage equality before the law could have or should have
ever been put to a popular vote?
This ruling parallels only one other time in history.According to
authors Dr. Fred Rosner and Rabbi David Bleich, in their book, Jewish Bioethics,
previous to the current changes being made to marriage laws in Europe and the
USA, there was only one other time throughout history when the union of one man
to another man, or one woman to another woman, was accompanied by a formal
marriage contract. Homosexuality was practiced in ancient Greece, ancient Rome,
ancient Babylon, and in Sodom and Gomorrah, but only during the time of Noah was
the practice sanctioned by contract (see Leviticus Rabbah 18:13 in Jewish
Bioethics, Ktav Publishing House, Israel, December 1999, page 219, see also
“as in the days of Noah”, Matthew 24: 37-39.
@ContrariusierYou're wrong. There have been studies that show
children are best raised with a father and a mother in a stable marriage. The
question isn't whether two men or two women CAN raise children, the
question is SHOULD they? From what I've read, the answer is NO.
Conservative get a little testy when the Constitution gets in the way.I love crab and lobster even though the bible says that it is an abomination.
With that in mind I will never begrudge a persons sexual orientation, it is the
way that they were made.
Clearly, in the best interests of everyone, blood tests need to be re-instituted
as a pre-requisite to obtaining a marriage license. Wow, imagine a Judge giving
approval to men and women living together without marriage. Is this legal
precedent? Another Judge of the same stripe obviously would think so.
..we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals,
communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern
prophets.Proclamation on the Family
Gays and lesbians have been among us from before this nation was founded. I just
have to wonder, what took us so long? It is an embarassment that the civil
rights act didn't come about until the 1960's, and marriage equality
not until recently. We should be ashamed.
yayyy, now I can marry my dog!!!
I know how I believe...I believe in the FAMILY PROCLAMATION...that marriage is
only ..and I state only...between a man and a woman....however...in our
constitution...it doesnt specifically speak about marriage in such a way....it
does say however, ...that each citizen has the right to the persuit of happiness
and liberty in doing so. I suppose that would mean in a round about way gay
marriage...as long as it doent harm anyone else. the only problem with this
liberty for gays is...what else does it ask for...raising kids in this
invironment...not knowing that gender is important and it identifies a
person.what is important is how it affects everyone else and children. It is a
sin in the eyes of God but at the same time..can we stop everyone from sinning.
StandAlone:There have been studies that show children are best raised with
a father and a mother in a stable marriage. The question isn't whether two
men or two women CAN raise children, the question is SHOULD they? From what
I've read, the answer is NO.KJKI imagine studies would show
that kids raised by their married biological parents do better than kids raised
with a step parent married to a biological parent. Should the latter likewise
be outlawed because it is less than ideal compared to married biological
parents? Voltaire said that the enemy of "the good" is not "the
bad", but rather it's "the ideal".If we really
wanted to do what is best for kids, we would allow same-sex marriage since doing
so strengthens that family. If one partner had no legal rights or obligations
regarding the kids, the kids would be orphaned upon the death of their legal
parent. The same-sex partner, who may have raised them from birth, would have
no legal standing. Why should we take such an anti-family and anti-child
position as you suggest?
@StandAlone --"You're wrong."Nope."There have been studies that show children are best raised with a father
and a mother in a stable marriage. "Nope.There have
been many studies showing that children grow up best in a two-parent stable
home. There have NEVER been studies showing that the genders of the parents
matter.If you believe otherwise, please present your evidence. Be
specific.And please, PLEASE don't try to inflict Mark Regnerus
or Doug Allen on us. Both of those studies only compared UNSTABLE gay homes to
STABLE straight homes -- apples to oranges.btw -- Utah law already
allows single gay parents to adopt kids -- even without marriage. Ironically,
Utah does NOT allow gay parents in stable relationships to adopt. Seems that the
state of Utah doesn't care about forcing kids to grow up in single-parent
And so begins the chaos, the confusion for our children and the rapid downfall
of society. Our pioneer ancestors who sacrificed so much for freedom to worship
and live in peace in Utah would be appalled.
Who would have thought Utah is in the fore front of this issue. Did that
California proposition back fire or what? Ten years ago it was totally opposite.
The Eagle Forum supported the Attorney General who was too busy being
investigated to work on this, totally ironic.
Curious why they chose to lead with a photo from 2004, of people rallying for
Amendment 3?Why isn't the lead photo what's new? That is,
what is "news"? A photo of either side in this court case, or the
judge?I understand it's an LDS paper, but this is the news
section, right? Not the Op/Ed or Faith section?Please Photo Editor,
Managing Editor, whomever, give it to me straight, and let me decide. This is an issue of quality journalism, not right or left.
I see several angry, hand-wringing comments here, lamenting that the citizens of
the great state of Utah cannot simply pass any laws they want, regardless of how
they might affect some unloved minority of their fellow citizens.Let
me tell you a story. You can look it up to verify it ("Boston
Martyrs"). Back in 17th Century America, the Massachusetts Colony had a
Puritan majority, and a theocratic government. It was illegal to be Quaker in
Massachusetts under the duly enacted laws of that Colonial government. Avowed
Quakers who would not recant had their property taken from them, were thrown in
jail, were tortured, were exiled from the Colony, being publicly horse-whipped
in each town along the way, and finally, hung at the gallows in Boston when they
stubbornly returned. Those abuses, and others like them in the Colonies, led
our Founding Fathers to write us all a guarantee of religious liberty, so that
no denomination would ever again have the governmental power to torture or
murder those who disobeyed religious dictat. Mormons are welcome in
every state, as are Quakers today. The reason is those judges who enforce the
Let the gays and the lesbians have their day in court. The time will come when
we will all stand before God and be judged of our actions, whether good or evil.
Lets let all the gays get married, heck while were at it why don't we give
everyone free money and healthcare.!...oh wait....
In 20 years from now everyone will look back and wonder what all the fuss is
about...but God wont change. In 20 years he will still be looking down sobbing
wondering what in the world we are doing with the freedom he gave us and how we
could turn against him so easily and corrupt something as sacred as marriage.
Lets get one thing straight. Lhe LDS church was not the only money behind Prop
8. Theirs was a small offering compared to what was made avaliable to fight the
Prop 8 battle. Most of the gay and lesbian people will never know what part the
LDS church plays in many of their causes because they just don't care.
They, for the most part, don't care for the church just because the LDS
church does't see things their way. Most don't understand that the
church will always believe that Marrige is between a man and a woman and that
piece of doctrine will never change. However, it does not mean that the Church
doesn'tlove all people will welcome all to embrace the Savior.God loves all his children and will judge them according to their earthly
deeds. My only issue with the Gay and Lesbian folks is that it only seems
like theirs is the only opinion that counts. If someone doen't agree with
thier stance then all hell breaks loose.I guess that Freedom of speech is
only avaliable to those who want radically further thier causes. That's a
@Rebe:Thank you for your comment. I totally agree with you on this one.
How can a church whose current doctrine includes polygamy turn around and say
that they believe marriage should be between A man and A woman?The
practice has been discontinued, but the doctrine has never been changed.
You know what does horrible damage to straight marriage? (By the way, this
decision isn't it.) When you label sexual orientation "a
choice" and convince gays and lesbians that they're really not that
way, only making bad choices, and if they would only try a little harder, they
could develop a straight romantic relationship and live happily ever after.Except, they can't. And try as they might, all they achieve is
making another person, and possibly their children as well, utterly
miserable.If we would just allow gay people to live as they are,
with personal integrity, and form romantic bonds with their own kind, and not
lead them to the delusion that they could be straight, think of the broken
families that could be avoided, the violence and alcoholism and divorces that
would never happen.The real harm is not in letting gay people marry
the same sex -- it's in convincing them to marry a member of the opposite
Dr. G, Bountiful, UT, I hate to tell you this, but the Bible, if taken as a
historical record, is a fairly myopic view that doesn't account for the
whole world. There are many other instances of same-gendered marriages in other
cultures that the bible doesn't cover.And for those who keep
quoting the Family Proclamation, that isn't the law of the land. The
If the right love and commit to a "mutually consenting adult" and have
that choice recognized and sanctioned EQUALLY by the government, is not a
fundamental right, WHAT IS?Citizens who are troubled that majority
vote fails to trump fundamental rights need to evolve. The history of our
country is a history of fundamental right evolution. The intepretation of what
Iare fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution reflects that evolution.
The Founding Fathers' notions on fundamental rights were flawed and it
would be pure idiocy to pine for the good old days. (Thomas Jefferson never
freed his slaves) In retrospect we should all be grateful for our ability to
evolve. The majority is rarely on the cutting edge of what rights
are fundamental. "Activist judges" usually drag the majority kicking and
screaming to treat all citizens EQUALLY before the law. Some religions have
promoted civil rights but most are bastions of the "star-bellied
sneetch" world view which makes them feel special, chosen and most of all
justified in restricting the rights of those unlike themselves.Evolving and letting go of prejudice is painful. Extending fundamental rights
to the previously disenfranchized has never caused the sky to fall.
now there will be Gay Polygamy "
Can't be more disappointed in Judge Staley.
The real debate here is over the definition of marriage. The view of those in
favor of Admendment 3 is marriage is primarily an institution arranged in a way
to make it most likely that children will be raised by their biological parents.
This requires marriage be in a FORM that allows for procreation. Not that all
marriages have procreative potential, but that their basic form is such.On the other hand are those who believe that marriage is primarily about
adult sexual relations. This is a dispute of public policy, and should be
decided in the legislatures and referendums. It would help if those who have the
adult sexual relations view would openly admit that why their opponants disagree
with them is because of a different view of what marriage is.
When the rocks start rolling from the tops of the Wasatch Mountains and rolling
all theway to Reno, Nevada, who will care what that mortal stupid judge
had to say?
Justice Roberts has never given a ruling in favor of same sex marriage. He has
given rulings very much opposed to the right of individuals to actually
realistically have any chance of using initiatives in a state where the polical
process has been destroyed by too few legislators, non-competitive political
party structures, Gerrymandering and other problems, but he did not directly
rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
deeply disappointing- a vote means nothing anymore
There are so many more things to be concerned about than what a judge ruling in
Utah says about marriage. Maybe if the more religiously minded people in
Christianity and the LDS Church weren't so close-minded to people with
same-sex attractions, then it wouldn't be a problem. Maybe if so-called
Christians didn't treat people with homosexual tendencies and same-sex
attractions as subhumans and the filth of the Earth (as if anyone who lives a
sheltered Christian life could even begin to understand what it's like to
have to live with that), then things wouldn't be so intolerable. Maybe if
the federal government allowed the same tax incentives to homosexual couples
that is afforded heterosexual couples, then this wouldn't be an issue
rather you called it "marriage," "civil union," or whatever.
In my eyes God loves all of us unconditionally. No one should be surprised by
this ruling. Nor should anyone be surprised at the backlash it will cause--the
building hatred towards people like myself and my wife who both struggle with
same sex attractions--by people in the Christian world who are close-minded,
judgmental, and lacking in genuine Christ-like love. By the way, I am also a
very devout, caring, and compassionate member of the LDS Church--this according
to the members of my ward.
This is one of the saddest things I have heard in a long time. God established
the traditional family as the pattern for obtaining the greatest degree of
happiness in this life and the fullness of his blessings both now and in the
life to come. It is also the healthiest, most stable way to raise children.
The growing effort to loudly proclaim "alternative" lifestyles as
equivalent either morally or functionally only deceives people and cheats them
and their children of these blessings. Some people may rejoice over receiving
the sanction of law for engaging in a union that robs them of their eternal
happiness, but what God has decreed Judge Shelby cannot alter. Judge Shelby
hasn't done anyone any favors.
After businesses have been destroyed in Oregon, a florist is being prosecuted by
the state in Washington, a photographer was told she had to violate her religion
to do business in New Mexico, another case is coming up against a baker in
Colorado, and there is a case against a Bed and Breakfast in Hawaii, how can
anyone seriously claim that this only affects same-gender couples.
@ThomasJefferson --"To the person who said a human can't
marry a pet because marriage is a legal contract is wrong."Nope,
they're actually right."There are people who WILL (a legal
contract) their Estates to a pet, and it's been upheld in court. Think
about it."A will is not a contract. It's a directive. It
does not require any agreement or even foreknowledge by the beneficiary.In contrast: "a contract is an agreement having a lawful object
entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create
one or more legal obligations between them. The elements of a contract are
"offer" and "acceptance" by "competent persons" having
legal capacity who exchange "consideration" to create "mutuality of
Hey Fred T. in Phoenix: Conservative (Mormon) Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah
Utah nominated the judge (Shelby) that made this ruling back in 2011. Stop
blaming the President for everything without having a few facts to go along with
your accusations! The problem is that too few Americans are willing to stand up
to the gay community who are shoving this thing down our throats. When the
courts sense that the populace wants to maintain the definition of marriage
between a man and a woman then maybe we won't see this legislating from the
bench - against the will of the majority of the people by some unelected judge.
But if we stand by and watch our right get trampled on, then we allow this to
happen. Shame on us!
To all you folks that don't think this affects you in any adverse way, or
why it is any of your business, what are you going to think when the public
schools present lessons to your children that there are many acceptable forms of
marriage including gay marriage. When you religious folks here in Zion have to
try to explain that to your kids I wish us luck! When the text books teach this
in school, it may not be so easy as you think to convince them that that
"black text book" they learn from in Sunday School is the correct one.
Time for us to give this some serious thought (and I'm not saying to
become hateful towards the gay community), but they (the gay community)no loner
seem to respect our right to a different point of view. Tolerance should work
both ways but something is out of line here. Wake up and demand tolerance of
straight views before its too late people!
The answer to the question of whether banning gay marriage is in violation of
the US constitution all comes down to really one question: Is there an
intelligent reason that justifies denying gays the ability to marry? All of the
reasons proffered by those who oppose do not rise to the level of intelligent
reasons. Instead, it boils down to "my religion does not permit it."
You want a REAL activist judge? That would be the judge who says "yeah,
because the majority's religious beliefs don't allow it, that's a
good intelligent reason."
A controversial statement by the Attorney General in North Dakota has brought to
light an obscure, yet easily foreseen unintended consequence of same-sex
marriage in this country and of failure to realize a federal marriage
definition. Specifically, we may soon see the first bisexual marriage. No joke.
Here is how the scenario plays out. A man marries a man in a state that allows
same-sex marriage, and then he moves to one that neither solemnizes nor
recognizes it. Since the man’s gay marriage is undefined in his new home,
he is not technically married there and therefore does not violate bigamy laws
by marrying a woman, provided the man stays in a state that does not recognize
both. This could be a real headache, pitting states with different marriage laws
against each other.
Judge Shelby:"Here, it is not the Constitution that has changed,
but the knowledge of what it means to be gay or lesbian. The court cannot ignore
the fact that the Plaintiffs are able to develop a committed, intimate
relationship with a person of the same sex but not with a person of the opposite
sex. The court, and the State, must adapt to this changed understanding."
Shame on that activist judge for going against the commandments of God. This is
a shameful thing that he has done to the families of Utah. I am so sorry for
as our Savior taught, our Heavenly Father has said...'sin is sin'.
phil roberston said the same thing and was banned . the scriptures state clearly
about gay lifestyle. i am far from being perfect but i know sin from righteous
and gay marriage is a farce. satan is spreading his dark thick lies and
convincing many weak minds.
Marriage is between a man and a woman until he gets tired of that woman. Gay
marriage does not hurt anyone. Just get over it!
@Alex 1 --"A controversial statement by the Attorney General in
North Dakota has brought to light an obscure, yet easily foreseen unintended
consequence of same-sex marriage in this country"That isn't
a consequence of same-sex marriage. It's a consequence of states ignoring
the Full Faith and Credit clause of our US Constitution. It wouldn't have
happened if ND had followed the Constitution and recognized the man's first
marriage as they should have.But don't worry -- we'll have
that little problem cleared up before too much longer.
Hastening the work...big time!
Hmmm...This seems like the appropriate time to evoke the old Utah
motto:If you don't like, leave.[btw - this ruling
doesn't effect my marriage in the least.]
Contrariusier:Only one problem. The part of the Defense of Marriage
Act that dealt with a state not being forced to recognize a same-sex marriage in
another state was was recently upheld by the US Supreme Court. The SCOTUS ruled
in favor of states rights for marriage itself but in favor of the Federal
Government for considerations of Federal Marriage benefits. For it to be any
different or change, the Supreme Court must rule on a new case that would
nullify the rest of the DOMA. I don't see that happening in the near
future. How do you see that playing out?
@Alex 1 --"The part of the Defense of Marriage Act that dealt
with a state not being forced to recognize a same-sex marriage in another state
was was recently upheld by the US Supreme Court."No it
wasn't. That portion of DOMA wasn't even challenged in the recent
court case. The challenge was specific to section 3 only.When it
does get challenged -- and I bet that will happen before too long -- I am
confident that it will be invalidated as well.
This article has provoked some of the all time classic homophobic posts.
As I have been hearing for the past 20 years, "If you don't like it,
I'm sure that the LDS religion will be able to withstand gay marriage, as
it survived polygamy. O ye of little faith! If you are really so worried about
"the strength of the family" then why allow single parent families? Why
allow divorce? Why allow abusive parents? By your logic, all of these should
be constitutionally banned. Gays and Lesbians getting married doesn't hurt
you at all. Get over yourselves.
People who favor homosexual unions are avoiding a biological fact: The purpose
for sex is reproduction of the species. Through thousands of years of human
evolution, human beings have developed into a heterosexual pair-bonding species.
Human societies have a vital interest in encouraging strong heterosexual
pair-bonds or marriages because the young of the species are trained and taught
and nurtured in the home provided by the bonded pair. The young of the human
species who are raised in a home in which there is a strong heterosexual
pair-bond, tend to thrive and are likely to be productive adult members of their
society and form strong pair-bonds themselves. Children who are raised in a
home or situation in which the heterosexual pair-bond is weak or damaged or
missing often don’t thrive. They are far more likely to exhibit
antisocial behavior, to be a burden on their society, to form weak pair-bonds
themselves, and to raise children who have the same problems. It becomes a
vicious, ugly and tragic cycle in which innocent children are the greatest
In some states, there is no requirement that a voter's initiative, or an
amendment to that state's Constitution be qualified in advanced as
"being constitutionally sound", before it is submitted to the voters.Therefore it is quite possible & plausible that ANY set of words
could be approved by a majority of a state's voters, REGARDLESS of whether
it actually changes anything within that state. But then the Judges &
Courts come into action, and beat that initiative or amendment to a pulp!If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry a gay
person!But you should not have the right to block your neighbor from
marrying the one adult that they are in love with!
Two quick comments:1. Everyone who says that kids need to be raised
by their father and mother are making an argument against gay parenting, not
against gay marriage. If that claim really was your concern, you would be trying
to pass laws to prevent gay people (single or couple) from adopting. Gay people
already are parents in our society; opposing gay marriage won't change that
fact.2. Think about this: any child being raised by gay parents is
better off than any *practical* alternative they have. If the child was adopted,
they must have a horrible natural-parents experience, and the gay parents are an
improvement. If the child was conceived via surrogacy, then their only other
alternative is not to have been conceived at all. Do you really want to tell a
person conceived via surrogacy that they'd be better off having never been
This article has provoked some of the all time classic Christian-phobic
posts.This article has provoked some of the all time classic
Mormon-phobic posts.This article has provoked some of the all time
classic religious-phobic posts.This article has provoked some of the
all time classic hetero-phobic posts.[This is an exact quote from
another post (which was permitted to be posted above), except for the group(s)
at which it is directed. It should not be censored. Censorship would not support
equal rights, it would grant special rights.]
@JSB --"The purpose for sex is reproduction of the
species."Sex actually has several different purposes, including
social bonding and stress relief.Many many species of nonhuman
animals engage in homosexual behaviors. For instance, more than half of all
sexual activity in bonobo chimps (our closest relatives) occurs between
females.Homosexual behavior is therefore perfectly natural."Human societies have a vital interest in encouraging strong heterosexual
pair-bonds or marriages because the young of the species are trained and taught
and nurtured in the home provided by the bonded pair. "Every
single court to which this issue has been brought -- including several of the
Supreme Court justices -- have explicitly stated that procreation or the lack
thereof is not relevant to gay marriage.Gay couples have just as
much right to marry as any other infertile couples do." Children
who are raised in a home or situation in which the heterosexual pair-bond is
weak or damaged or missing often don’t thrive. "Gay
couples pair-bond just fine, thanks.Many studies have shown that
kids do best in stable, two-parent homes. Nobody has EVER shown that the genders
of those parents makes a difference.
Right here in this person's post, the problem is illustrated, all too
well:Copy CatMurray, UT"This article has provoked some of
the all time classic Christian-phobic posts.This article has provoked some
of the all time classic Mormon-phobic posts.This article has provoked some
of the all time classic religious-phobic posts.This article has provoked
some of the all time classic hetero-phobic posts.....(followed by a
statement that seems to say that all of the above should not be censored because
calling many comments "homophobic" was allowed)....Actually,
pretty much ALL the hateful posts were homophobic, and your 4 are untrue.But it seems not to get through to many of today's "Christians"
that fighting dirty, using ugly names and terms, comparing folks to terrorists
and dog-copulators, etc is not OK.It is NOT against Christians,
mormons, religion, or heterosexual people for Gay people who are taxpayers and
citizens the same as you, to demand equal rights and no insults.No
matter how closed some minds are, this is America, and freedom means that
sometimes the guy you do not like sits next to you
Of course there will be court ordered same sex marriages in every church and
tempel. Businesses like churches cannot refuse their public services to any
person for sexual orientation. That is discrimination. Look at the bakor and the
florist cases. The church cases will follow. Look at the Hawaii law. It requires
churches that host weddings to allow same sex couples have weddings there too.
Hutchinson Kansas is trying to pass a similar ordinance. Full equality for
homosexuals is jist around the corner. The next step after church
weddings is for the government to provide same sex couples to be biological
parents together. Research grants need to roll forth. It is society's job
to make homosexual people fulley equal.
@Liberal Today --"Look at the Hawaii law. It requires churches
that host weddings to allow same sex couples have weddings there too."No it doesn't.
Ultimately, there is going to be one definition for marriage in the US.For a generation, politicians at all levels and in both parties (including in
Utah) have been saying this is a state issue.That has always been a
cop out - a lie worse than Obama's.They simply did not want to
take a stand and say: Homosexuality is wrong.
The marriage definition of One man-One woman discriminates against no one.
Anyone and everyone can marry under that definition - they just have to get
someone of the opposite sex to agree to put up with them.Homosexuals
have the same right as anyone else to get married - under that definition.That they choose to not take on that male-female relationship is their
own problem. God did not make that decision for them. The Mormon Church did
not make that decision for them. The Catholic Church did not make that decision
for them. The African-American churches that helped lead the fight to pass
Measure 8 in California did not make it for them. The voters of Utah that
passed Measure 3 did not make it for them.They made it
themselves.For the judge to disagree, does not make his decision
If this were just about marriage, it would be bad enough.But it has
never really been about marriage.It has never really been about civil
unions.It has never really been about discrimination in housing or
employment or "public accommodations" (like Boy Scouts and cake
decorators).It has never been about the anti-sodomy laws in the states
that the Supreme Court threw out - throughout the States - starting us on this
slippery slope.I has always been about social approval.The gay rights movement will not be satisfied until no one can utter
disapproval of their chosen behavior. That is almost in place in
the public schools in many states.Ultimately, it is about shutting
up Jesus - because once he had the bad judgment to say, "Go and sin no
more."Ultimately, the gay rights movement is about changing the
definition of sin. They want Jesus to stop at saying, "Neither do I condemn
This is very bad for Utah and for the entire country. We shouldn't allow
federal judges to be making such rulings. And Governor Herbert should tell him
to take a hike and leave us alone. We must not comply with this ruling from the
bench which is wrong. Such tyrannical action will precipitate civil disobedience
and a breakdown of the rule of law. No office within the State should violate
our laws by issuing licenses to homosexual couples. It doesn't matter what
the judge said, it's not up to him to determine that issue. It's up to
In my eyes, allowing tax incentives simply by being married (man and woman) is
unconstitutional. That doesn't just discriminate against gay people in
states that ban gay marriage, but that's really not fair to all the single
people out there who want to get married but can't because no one of their
desired gender whether gay or straight is interested in them for reasons that
may be out of their control. The entire tax system is completely bogus and
blatantly discriminatory.My wife made a very good point about the
Holy Bible that even we Mormons should be made more aware. The Bible is correct
as far as it has been translated. It is a documented fact that the Bible has
many plain and precious parts (several books) that were removed well before they
were canonized by Constantine for King James. Christ never addressed the issue
of homosexuality. If He had, maybe it would be a clear-cut case. But He
didn't, so there are questions that go unanswered except by "the
others" of the Bible.
"Ultimately, it is about shutting up Jesus - because once he had the bad
judgment to say, "Go and sin no more."Ultimately, the gay
rights movement is about changing the definition of sin. They want Jesus to stop
at saying, "Neither do I condemn thee...""Actually a lot
of people don't care one way or another what "Christ" said or
didn't say. And I'll tell you, I sure don't care what your
definition of sin is. It doesn't enter my mind for one second, as I live my
life, to wonder what jimhale's take on sin is.
@BYU_Convert: I agree with your comments, but thought I would mention that Jesus
did make a comment in Matthew 19:5 commending straight marriage. He repeated the
words in Genesis 2:24 that "a man should leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." In both
instances, it was clearly applied to a man and a woman.
@ Captain GreenYour argument is identical to what people in
Mississippi said when segregation was outlawed. You are standing on the wrong
side of history. This is a good thing for Utah and out entire country because
our rights were protected, freedoms were expanded, and this does not negatively
impact anybody.Freedom triumphs again.
Homosexual activity of any and all kinds is wrong. It is evil. It is immoral.
It is sinful. Period.A majority of Utah citizens
believe this, too, and legally voted to make a law, to be enforced solely within
boundaries of the state of Utah, that limited marriage to be solely between a
man and a woman. The law was proposed and legally passed.And one
single judge overturned the wishes of millions of American citizens.This is California and Prop 8 all over again.Where does the
Federal government grab of power end?"When tyranny becomes law,
resistance become duty."
@Dan Maloy --"Homosexual activity of any and all kinds is wrong.
It is evil. It is immoral. It is sinful. "Fortunately for
everyone, this country does not run on your personal view of morality.And you might also want to keep in mind that many "immoral" things are
legal -- like alcohol, for instance.The essential question for laws
is not morality, but harm. And nobody has been able to show any way in which gay
marriage harms anyone."And one single judge overturned the
wishes of millions of American citizens."Gay marriage has won in
every court case it has been addressed in, in courts across the nation. That
should be a clue to you that it isn't a matter of "one single
judge" -- but rather of an entire judicial system which recognizes the
importance of the US Constitution.
"Homosexual activity of any and all kinds is wrong. It is evil. It is
immoral. It is sinful. Period."Meh. . . At least
that's your opinion. Also, you can't vote away
someone's rights. At least not in this country, and not under our
constitution. But, yeah, I know, so many conservatives neither understand our
constitution, nor believe in it.
Jimhale,Clearly you did not read the judge's decision. In the
decision he clearly explains that the definition of marriage as "one man to
one woman" does not attend to the constitutional right to marriage because -
it is defining marriage as marrying to whom they are not attracted.He cites history - when people defined marriage as "you cannot marry
someone outside your race." Same concept.I don't know
where you're going with your argument about sin. Does government define
what is sin?
There are quite a few LDS people here who seem to have forgotten that they have
members living in parts of the country where they are hated just as much as
homosexuals. It’s the constitution and federal judges that keep the
majority in those states from passing laws against Mormons.
@gmlewisThe Old Testament was written by Moses (such as Genesis as
you say), and if we are still living under the old law, I sure hope no
Christians are eating shrimp, squid, lobster, etc. And if we are still under
the old law, I sure hope no Christians are eating pork. You see, in the Law
written by Moses, these acts were considered sin as well. Sin is sin as Dan
Maloy says. So no more sausage and bacon, okay?
There has never been a danger of a Christian theocracy in this country. The real
threat today is from a theocracy of political correctness. One of its basic
tenets is that homosexuality is every bit as normal and healthy as
heterosexuality and must be celebrated. It's not enough to show compassion
and tolerance and fair treatment for gay people. Society must APPROVE of
homosexuality. The religion of PC shows very little tolerance for
Judeo-Christian beliefs -- ironically the ones that are the roots of the Bill
of Rights and the 13th and 14th Amendments. PC has no qualms about quelling
dissent. Just ask the photographers, bakers etc who have no problem serving gay
clients, but choose not to celebrate SSM and are facing incarceration for this
heresy. Judge Shelby is a faithful adherent who has no qualms about nullifying
the voice of the people and disregarding the clear intent behind the 14th
SoCal Chris,Judeo-Christian beliefs are not without their problems.
There would have been no need for 13th and 14th Amendments, if, in the first
place, the Christian nations had not instituted slavery in the first place.Judeo-Christian nations were abolishing an institution which they
themselves had created.
Governor Herbert is posturing to get a stay or reversal on the ruling that
allows gays to marry. Herbert has to do this in order to get reelected. He is
representing his Mormon Republican voting base. He has nothing to lose by doing
this, even if it fails he can run on the "I tried" claim.Another thing that Gov. Herbert has done is to tell County Clerks to seek
advice of their attorneys, council and committees. To me that sounds like
Herbert is passing the buck on yet another issue. He doesn't want to have
to handle a hot potato.
LDS/Mormon individuals commenting on this forum seem to think that their Ward
Houses and Stake Centers will be inundated now by Gay folks every Sunday.Those of the major religion in the state of Utah seem so very fearful of Gay
couples clamoring to be married in their temples.Get a grip Utah.Why
would gay people chose to associate with people who say such cruel things about
them, and treat them as second class citizens?There are other faiths that
have opened their hearts, their arms, and their places of worship to ALL
individuals and families.These other faiths and religions are not
concerned with what individual their parishioners love and cherish. These
Churches provide their visitors with the positive messages they are hoping to
hear, messages that are quite the same as LDS people are hoping to hear each
Except for the gay rights movements insatiable appetite for approval, most would
not care about same-sex marriage.But that appetite will lead some to sue
the LDS Church for access to temple marriage.But even worse than
that highly predictable eventuality, the same appetite will not be satisfied
until it is impossible for anyone to say - in the public square or the work
place or the school or over a pulpit or to one's children in one's
home - that homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuals are out and proud
and will not rest until those who disapprove of their decisions have been forced
into a judicially imposed closet.
"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse
spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day
stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the
family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities
foretold by ancient and modern prophets.We call upon responsible
citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures
designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of
society." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)
@Danite --"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of
government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and
strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."And
yet some Mormons turn around and try to deny the rights and benefits of family
to people who actually WANT to make those commitments. Gay marriage
strengthens families just like any other marriage does. If you believe family is
important, you should be SUPPORTING gay marriage.
How does same sex marriage lead to the down fall of our nation? Religious people
are forcing their morals on other people and sticking their nose in other
people's business. Nobody is attacking religion. If you want to marry go
ahead but how can you deny another person the same access.What is
the difference between same sex marriage and interracial marriage? Both were
banned by religious institutions of their time.
'Except for the gay rights movements insatiable appetite for approval, most
would not care about same-sex marriage.' This claim has been
disproven by religiously movtiated legislation such as.. Prop 8 The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA And 'Don't Ask,
Don't Tell'. You cannot say conservative mindsets 'do
not care' about same-sex marriage…. when they pass
legislation, after legislation targeting LGBT Americans. Even in
Utah, people are trying to repeal the only 18 cities that have a
non-discrimination ordinance due to orientation. You cannot target
LGBT and then claim 'you do not care', what they do. The
premise here is that LDS persons are free to practice their faith,
accordingly. What makes them different that they need to factually
legislate and dictate, the lives of persons who do not even belong to their
faith…? That is not Freedom. That, is tyranny.
iPWNBlAXI am interracially married. An interracial hetero marriage
can still produce children, can still produce taxpayers.A gay
marriage will never be able to do so.These people that are gaining
ground right now in the United States do not realize that while gay marriage
might even result in short term budgetary gains for the state, will result in
long term pension disaster...from a government point of view in that the USA and
most developed nations have a pensions system. All of them now are reproducing
below normal rates necessary to maintain the population of said country.Too many people are thinking about the here and the now, when we should
be looking medium and long term. There are too many politicians and judges that
desire the short term adulations of the world while throwing the country down
the hole socially, financially, or politically.
@Mexican Ute --"A gay marriage will never be able to do
so."Gay marriages produce children in exactly the same ways as
any other infertile couples do."These people that are gaining
ground right now in the United States do not realize that while gay marriage
might even result in short term budgetary gains for the state, will result in
long term pension disaster..."You must be joking.First -- many gay couples are already raising children.Second --
LGBT people are only about 5% of the population. Even if every single one of
them got married AND refused to have kids, there would never be enough of them
to have a serious impact on pensions.
I think the reason there is so much disagreement on this issue is not that one
side believes that people should be denied rights and the other side believes no
side should be denied rights, rather one side sees this as a civil rights issue
and the other as a moral issue. As long as we disagree on this I don't
believe we will get anywhere. Instead, I believe we could have much more
productive dialogue if we could talk about what values each side is promoting.
All of the name calling that goes on in these posts only takes away from each
side's argument and desire to do what they believe is best for society.
It doesn't matter what a judge sais, it doesn't really change what is
right and wrong. The fact is that the majority of people in that state voted
their opinion. it is wrong of a judge to override that. Mormons formed the state
of Utah. They made the state what it is. People should know that. Why do they
insist on staying where they are not wanted. So many people persecute Mormons
for pushing their beliefs onto others. In their own state they shouldn't
have to. This country was suppose to be majority rules. why do people have a
problem with that.
lauramarie703Alvin/Brazoria, TX"...it doesn't really change
what is right and wrong...the majority of people in that state voted their
opinion. it is wrong of a judge to override that. Mormons formed the state of
Utah. They made the state what it is. People should know that. Why do they
insist on staying where they are not wanted. So many people persecute Mormons
for pushing their beliefs onto others. In their own state they shouldn't
have to. This country was suppose to be majority rules. why do people have a
problem with that."A-- No understanding of the ConstitutionB-- No showing of a heart, to understand that people born in Utah who are Gay
have the same rights as the prophet of the church, and should not be told to
leave Utah.All these tactics of speaking of Gay folks as if they
were an invading force, not your sisters, brothers, cousins, children, friends,
co-workers etc, are immoral and unfair."If you don't want
to be like us, get out" belongs in the sandbox.Gay people who
chose to stay in Utah like it and feel part of the society.
Why all the hysteria? Live your OWN lives the way you see fit; and let others
live theirs the way THEY see fit. Let the Lord sort it all out when we meet Him
in the next life. Meanwhile, quit judging others- it is not your place.
This pre-trial ruling will have its day in court. It is fundamentally wrong for
a federal judge to impose on a State anything that is left to the State, or its
people. This is not so much about SSM as it is people versus judicial power.
Next, there would be free-speech problems with this - as evident in
Massachusetts, California, etc., and in my opinion, is being used for just that.
Bob K.Where do you see "majority rules" anywhere in the
For those against gay marriage, please DON'T use the term majority rules
when making a legal argument. It will not fly. A tyranny of the majority is
worse than a strongman tyranny.There are other arguments that the
anti gay marriage folks (such as myself) that would hold MUCH more water when
applied against the Constitution, plus some things that would be common
sense.Like, Yes, the Supreme Court CAN be wrong on certain topics
(it took a Plessy v. Ferguson to come to the decision of Brown vs Board of
Education). Just like they have been wrong on calling marriage a basic human
right (it is more a privilege than a right--as a right cannot be taken away, but
privileges can--that is why there is divorce and that is why there is an option
on the vast majority of marriages performed today in the West).Argue
that. Don't argue, majority rules. This is a Republic, not a Democracy.