To Utah's Governor Gary Herbert,Sir, be wise with your place in
history. Former Alabama Governor George Wallace is widely known for taking a
stand that was immoral, bigoted and in the wrong side of history.
I hope this governor will spend more time on economy and creating jobs, instead
of trying to take away same sex couples' right to marry. and frankly, no
matter how he fights, no matter what kind of legal battles, even setbacks ahead,
marriage equality will eventually win out and stay in Utah!
Dear Gov Herbert:One understands that you are compelled to attempt a
quashing of the recent ruling, both by those who voted for you and your
church.I respectfully suggest that the "chaotic situation"
comes purely from you and other officials not preparing for the inevitable
arrival of marriage equality. The judge really had no "wiggle
room" NOT to rule for equality, due to several precedents, and because,
especially with the Federal Government granting equality of benefits, etc, to
same sex married, there is no legal or moral justification to continue to put a
group of tax paying citizens out in the cold to please churches.The
ruling was due no later than next month. Was everyone playing ostrich about the
very real possibility that the judge would do his duty?On another DN
thread, someone asked how the judge could possibly not follow the lds Doctrine
of the Family, since it is so simple. Maybe you feel the same, but I believe
Federal judges are sworn to follow the US Constitution, not my religion or
This is the real world...not the little bubble of fantasy that much of Utah
thanks out of staters for having such an interest in utah. let's see,
California, Oregon, Virginia and Texas. wow!
Dear Governor Herbert,I am a faithful member of the LDS Church and a
voter in the great State of Utah. I support gay marriage. If gay marriage is
contrary to God's will, I am confident that He will deal with it in His own
way in the hereafter. I don't feel that it is our responsibility to
deprive our brothers and sisters of that most basic desire to see their love
recognized through the formality of marriage.
I can see it now...the name of "Herbert" right alongside
"Wallace" on that memorial wall of infamy...
Probably wouldn't be so "chaotic" if not for the fact that same-sex
couples know they very well have to get their marriage certificates in a matter
of days before a stay is likely to be issued thanks to the appeal.
Amen Ricardo. You make way too much sense for the state of Utah. Letting God
do God's work is way too radical a concept.The Gov. need to get
the Attorney General right on this. . . . oh wait Utah doesn't have one and
the last two will be busy keeping their butts out of jail. Oh well political
leaders in Utah will still play to the cheap seats, same as always.
Fix the situation. The court ruling isn't the problem.
Ricardo: P.S. LDS leaders, those whom you say you support, refer to those
things you support as quite the opposite of "Love." The Proclamation on
the Family is quite clear. God will not recognize their relationship as
"Love." In every case and reading of mine over many years, it is
referred to as just the opposite. Repentance is the part of the here, as well as
the hereafter. One has to recognize the mistake first,however. After a lifetime
of living a certain way, I doubt those who have been living that way will even
recognize what it is they need to do to change. Perhaps we will all end up in
exactly the place we choose. In that sense, progress is stopped, which is also
a good reason to stand up for what you know is right to give people a chance to
make a choice.
It is a sad day for Utah and for our nation. Forget that the issue is same sex
marriage. One federal judge should not be permitted to decide what the marriage
law should be in Utah. If the amendment is to be overturned, it should be done
through the political process.
How can people claim to be faithful members of the LDS church while publicly
disagreeing with what his servants said? I sustain the prophet but. What makes
them smarter than people the Lord called to preside over them? Smarter than God
himself.And why were people able to run to the county offices right
away before another court rules. Hopefully the licsences will be revoked any
case the laws of God won't say they are married and Religious people have
as much a right to defend there rights as irreligious people. A higher court
will overturn this law!
Utah has spoken and they support traditionalMarriage 66% vs 34.%, One
activist judge should not over rule this.
I applaud Gov. Herbert's attempts to allow the will of the people of this
state rightly determine our laws, rather than one judge.
In response to Baccus0902's comment that Governor Gary Herbert could be
known as "immoral, bigoted and in (sic) the wrong side of history," I
think the quote "When 40 million people believe in a dumb idea, it’s
still a dumb idea" best describes what Governor Herbert is up against. If 40
million people--or more--view him as immoral and bigoted, so be it. At least he
will be standing on a matter of principle. Let the chips fall where they may,
Governor Herbert, if he makes a stand against judges legislating from the bench,
will be on the right side of history for trying to uphold the Constitution.I might add that even Barack Obama has indicated on numerous occasions
that "gay marriage" is an issue that should be decided on the state
level--of course the chameleon might be evolving on that one too.
@Ricardo Carvalho"I am a faithful member of the LDS Church ...If
gay marriage is contrary to God's will, I am confident that He will deal
with it in His own way in the hereafter."If you are a faithful
member of the LDS Church, then you know full well that gay marriage is against
God's will. Either you believe in revelation or you don't. The
Proclamation on the Family isn't just some nice looking parchment you buy
at Deseret Book to hang on the living room wall. 'Faithful' members
of the LDS church had better settle this issue in their minds. We don't
hate or hurt gay people. But we also don't help usher in something we know
is against God's will. Either the President of the Church is the Prophet,
or he isn't.
Why so many liberals commenting on the Deseret news? You can go yead the
tribune if you don't like what is written here. There they will tell you
all you want to hear about how blind the rest of us are.
It seems like everyone in favor of "gay marriage" keep calling it a
"right." Unfortunately, the word "right" is the most abused and
misused word in politics. Why? Because if advocates for a cause can change
society's vocabulary regarding a certain issue, they can change how people
think about that issue. If people think it is a right to have free
contraceptives, then shame one those who would deprive them of such an
inalienable right. Many think abortion is about a woman's right to choose.
It's not. A woman makes a choice when she chooses to have sex--something
that can lead to pregnancy. Pro-lifers support a woman's right to choose,
but with choices there are consequences. Many pro-lifers are even in favor of
allowing a woman to choose an abortion if she was raped. Why? She didn't
have a choice in the first place.As for "gay marriage" being
a right? Abraham Lincoln said you could call a dog's tail a leg, but that
wouldn't change the fact that the dog still only has four legs. In short,
call it what you want, but that doesn't make it so.
@Contrariuserer:"Now, look at the 'equal protection of the
laws' part. This means, of course, that all citizens are equally protected.
It doesn't mean that one group is allowed to do harm while another group
isn't."There's where you're going wrong. Yes,
the equal protection clause says all citizens are to be equally protected (have
equal rights). It says nothing about harm, which is a subjective issue and not
part of the cause. Therefore, under the Constitution, it's about equal
rights only. Thus, all marriages are to be protected... including gays,
polygamists, heterosexuals, etc."Gay marriage does no
harm."How can you be sure? Gay marriage hasn't been around
long enough in any kind of numbers to make such determinations. Furthermore,
there is 'harm' in some heterosexual marriages. Then should that form
of marriage be banned?"Polygamy and incest do."If there's harm in polygamist marriage (and I doubt there is) it is not
from the marriage but probably from religious or other teachings.As
for incest, there are no incest marriages to make a study or judgement. And if
it's about offspring, the government has no business being involved there.
@Ricardo Carvalho: "If gay marriage is contrary to God's will, I am
confident that He will deal with it in His own way in the hereafter."He's already dealt with it... in His Holy Bible: 'You shall
not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.'
Leviticus 18:22@Bob K:"... there is no legal or moral
justification to continue to put a group of tax paying citizens out in the cold
to please churches."I think you're onto something... What
you seem to be saying is, there's no justification to deny any types of
marriage arrangements including polygamy, incestuous types, pedophilia types,
etc... You name it.
@ New to UtahBack in the 60's the majority of people in
Mississippi supported segregation. Should that have stood too?The
Constitution trumps the electorate every time.
Why does everybody care so much if gay marriage is legal? If you don't
believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married. It's that simple.
Stop worrying about things that have no affect on you whatsoever.
Let us not forget those who have raised their voices for the Constitution. Those
who proclaimed the standard of the Constitution, but failed to comprehend the
day that the Constitution would one day become their own demise. All the talk of
retaining the Constitution that would hang by a thread. The reality is that the
Constitution has been and continues to be interpreted by the prevailing judicial
process without regard to Christian value. Those who have promoted
Constitutional value as inspired, did not understand that it applied to its
conception and not what we have today. The Constitution of today legalizes
abortions, denies prayer in school, allows citizens to arm themselves and
enmasse munitions because of fear of their fellowman and now recognizing
marriage as outside the law as the Creator subscribed. We have heard from
pulpits and rallies "the Constitution"the Constitution", without the
vision and forsight that laws regulated by undiciplined men who Amend the
Constitution would become their nemesis. In the past it was "Communism"
and Socialism as America, s enemy's, when the real enemy is its own
political, religious and secular leaders and the lack of vision by its people.
Long live Traditional Marriage! So tragic to see our society become
desensitized at an alarming pace over the past couple decades regarding gay
marriage. Our worlds become very good at justifying sin by claiming gay
marriage to be a fundamental right. What will it be next? The strength of our
society is collapsing before our eyes.
@wrz --"There's where you're going wrong."Nope. The concept of harm is inherent throughout the
Constitution and our legal system. I'm sorry that you refuse to see it, but
it's there nonetheless.And every judge of every court in this
land understands it, despite your failure to do so."How can you
be sure? "Every lawyer who has brought gay marriage cases before
US courts has tried desperately to prove harm. They have all failed -- and
that's why their cases have failed in court."there is
'harm' in some heterosexual marriages. ..."Again --
it's about increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage --
just as the legality of drunk driving is based on the fact that it's *more*
dangerous than sober driving."harm....is not from the marriage
but probably from religious or other teachings."From Justice
Bauman, reaffirming Canada's polygamy ban: ""Polygamy's harm
to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms
are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They
can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."And notice, there's that word "harm" again.
So sad that the governor is racing to take away the rights of a few hundred
Utahns seeking to marry rather than deal with the millions in Utah facing the
worst air quality in the nation and its health affects on tens of thousands of
Utahns, including children and the unborn. Where are his priorities?
Most of us would not be here if we didn't care about members of the LDS
Church.We would have left! We stay because of the people we love, despite the
fact that so many people oppose us! Every day I work with Mormons and they know
who I am! They helped me through some of the hardest times in my life and
without words, I felt their support. It was so strong that I actually went
around and thanked them. How do we make people see that we are only doing what
we feel is right for us? We haven't demanded that anyone change their
beliefs! Nobody can do that! I don't even try. We have to stand up for
ourselves! I can't help it if someone believes that I am abomination! I
will stand up and say "NO". I will not accept that definition of me!
Some of take it upon yourselves to judge not only us, but other members for
supporting us! A lot of pain is caused by doing that! I try not to do it. I do
love the Church. People asume so much!
Chaos usually follows when peoples bigotry has been turned on it's head.
See Alabama in the 1960's for an example.Same sex marriage will be allowed
in the entire country. It is only a matter of time. In the interim, those who
value freedom and equality for all must remain vigilant. The reason is that the
domestic enemies of this great nation are not dead yet, they are like a wounded
animal. Stay vigilant until the last breath of bigotry has been exhaled.
The only real chaos is that opponents don't want the judge's decision
to be implemented. Until a higher court overrules the decision, it is the law.
You do believe in upholding the law, don't you, Governor?
Utah is not a theocracy! There is a clear line of separation in the
Constitution of Church and State. A marriage license, has always been, since its
inception in the early 1900's, a legal contract (mostly having to do with
property ownership and transfer)between a couple and the State of issuance.
Nowhere in the United States is it mandatory to have a religious ceremony in
order to legitimize or legalize a marriage. Likewise, there is no legal
standing for anyone to sue a Church over their decision to not marry anyone in
particular, be they same sex or different religions or races. The Constitution
protects both the secular and non-secular. This has nothing to do with the LDS
Church or any other Church. It is a state issue and the sooner our government
remembers they are not a ruling Theocracy the better. Not only will denying Utah
same-sex couples the right to marry cruel and unjust, in the bigger picture, all
the "rainy day money" Utah has saved to go to social service programs
and education will be eaten up in lengthy, protracted lawsuits that they will
lose, just like California did.
"The reality is that the Constitution has been and continues to be
interpreted by the prevailing judicial process without regard to Christian
value."The reality is that the Constitution continues to be
interpreted without regard for what it SAYS or what was INTENDED.Sadly Utahns never realized their vote on Amendment 3 was pointless.
Apparently the (fill in the blank?)-given right to marry someone of your own
gender has been enshrined in the 14th Amendment all along! Many of us were just
too unsophisticated to see it. We shouldn't feel bad though. Even the
drafters and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment never saw it!Seriously,
the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause have been around for close to
150 years, and it is only NOW that we are finding out that SSM is required by
them?? It takes an amazing amount of hubris to view one's own judgment as
so much more enlightened and superior to the majority of a state's
population, not to mention those who gave us the Constitution and all prior
generations of recorded history.
Arizona1I am surprised to read your arguments against calling
marriage a 'right'.Intuitively, don't you feel you
have the "right' to marry the person of your choice? If not, why
not?The best legal minds in the country have repeatedly agreed that
marriage IS a 'right'.Indeed, from the founding of the
country it has been a principle of the Constitution that 'rights' in
here in each individual, and cannot be granted by the Constitution or the
Government - rights can only be protected by law. As such, each individual has
an inherent set of "un-enumerated rights", including the right to marry
the consenting person of their choice, and the Bill of RIGHTS clearly states:"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not
be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."In other words, just because marriage is not 'enumerated' in the
Constitution or its amendments does not mean individuals do not have it as a
'right'. By contrast, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention
specific "(licensed) privileges", much less marriage as one of them.So, you are just plain wrong.
66% approved Amendment 3…. 9 years ago. You want
to push amendment 3 today? I dare you. '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.' A clear and evident majority
support gay marriage today. You cannot cite the 'will of the people'
as majority of Americans support slavery. Today, we know better. Also, the constitution protects ALL it's citizens. Not ignore the
ones people make a concentrated effort to keep as 2nd class, citizens. We talk of 'one person' over-ruling the will of the people (which,
is actually supports gay marriage)… What is Herbert, if he
puts a stay? One person, overturning the will of a majority of
Americans, supporting gay marriage. That, is Tyranny. And Deseret news board, please publish findings from your own paper. '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.'
The arguments against same-sex marriage seem to be the poster doesn't like
it, the poster's religion doesn't like it, it will legalize the abuse
of animals and children, it will solve all the legal issues surrounding polygamy
thereby making polygamy legal , and/or it will cause the apopalyptic end of the
world. Not legally valid reasons for a law. When the
State of Utah argued against same-sex marriage before Judge Shelby, the
arguments were that the gold standard for families is married heterosexual
parents and the primary purpose of marriage is stability for children conceived
accidentally or on purpose. They also stated they allow infertile couples to
marry because those coulpes may raise children who are not able to be raised by
their biological parents. The State of Utah did not present one
single reason why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry. They did not
disagree with the facts presented by the same-sex couples. The only
way Judge Shelby could have legally found for the State would have been to make
up evidence not presented - which would have been activism and overstepping
bounds. Why should the Judge do the lawyers job?
Since judge Shelby considers himself more powerful than the population of Utah,
but he failed to rule that all the county offices had to stay open on the
weekend and cater to this small minority. I do have a serious question: If
marriage is so important to these folks why haven't they planned a holiday
to Vermont or Hawaii and done the deed there? All of a sudden its such a
catastrophy? Sorry I don't understand other than it being some symbolic
"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."Judge ShelbyMartin Luther King Jr. once said, “Let us realize the arc of the moral
universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
Such hate comments directed at a successful governor (for a state with a
thriving economy and an unemployment rate that has dropped to 4.3%), for his
desire to make sure the First Amendment rights of his state's citizens are
not being unduly overturned by one activist judge in preference for a small
radical group. And to top it off, these comments are coming from
those who complain about the lack of tolerance in our society. Maybe they feel
tolerance is lacking because they don't feel it in themselves.
Dear Governor Herbert: Thank you for fighting for what's right
and the will of the people. If the will of the people has no meaning, American
has ceased to exist. Please continue and know that "We The People"
support you and your efforts.
Now you know how we Californians feel. When the Government no longer respects
the laws of the land, then it's integrity is compromised. Therefore the
citizens may feel their respect of the of the government and the decisions it
issues are null. Next step is anarchy.
They say, it does not effect anyone.Now you see, it did.
I believe what the governor is trying to say is that the State's lack of
preparation has caused a chaotic situation. Surely losing the case was a
contingency that could've been prepared for. And since the State did not
put up cogent arguments in the case, losing the case was likely. Blaming your
own incompetence upon a judge is not becoming.
I think the real issue here is two fold. The first issue is the fact that those
who are religious such as myself see this path to be a very dark one. Where do
the rights end? Will those who believe in traditional marriage, such as myself,
be FORCED to perform these marriages? Will people be labeled hateful and
bigoted for believing in "old fashioned" marriage? Those who are for
gay marriage, will tell you "no". However in my lifetime of 40 years, I
would have never thought gay marriage would be an issue, ever. I can see a long
path ahead of force and coercion. The second issue here is a matter of a federal
judge ignoring the will of the majority of Utah voters. The leaders of our
country have let the states decide the fate of gay marriage. This is unjust and
unfair to throw the will of the people out! Why not have a happy medium and
give those who live an alternative lifestyle an alternative form to marriage
that would give the same rights without compromising those who have religious
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't God supposed to love everyone? If
God doesn't love everyone equally, I'm pretty sure God is not someone
I care to associate with.
If I understand correctly the 5th and 14th Amendments (Due Process and Equal
Protection) were all ratified by the states and voters. The US constitution
takes precedence over state laws and constitutional amendments. Now, can
someone explain to me how Judge Shelby's understanding of Equal Protection
is wrong? Please someone, explain it to me as a simple layperson.
I applaud Governor Herbert for supporting Utah values. "Traditional
Marriage Today! Traditional Marriage Tomorrow! Just like another great
Governor, George Wallace while supporting similar traditional values said
"Segregation Today! Segregation Tomorrow! The only thing Governor Herbert
still needs to do is call in the national guard to help defend traditional
@Mom of Six"Will those who believe in traditional marriage, such as
myself, be FORCED to perform these marriages?"No. Think of it
this way. The LDS church is free to restrict temple marriages to those who
aren't part of the church (for mixed-faith marriages) even though we have
protections against religious discrimination. They'll keep the option to
not marry same-sex couples (something asserted in the court ruling though it
would be the case even if it weren't) because of the 1st Amendment. "Will people be labeled hateful and bigoted for believing in
"old fashioned" marriage?"Same-sex marriage doesn't
have to be law for that to happen."Why not have a happy medium
and give those who live an alternative lifestyle an alternative form to marriage
that would give the same rights without compromising those who have religious
values."Separate but equal is inherently unequal. Plus, for
someone worried about your church being restricted in who they
can/can't/have to marry, you sure have no problems indirectly going after
other churches who do want to marry same-sex couples. They have religious values
too you know.
@Mom of SixWow six kids? I am just finishing paying for my third
college education; I can't imagine having three more to go!As
to your first issue, same-sex marriage has been widely discussed and debated for
decades and in fact has been in existence for many, many years (a decade in
Massachusetts for instance) so to not have anticipated it or be blindsided in
any way means that you have not been paying attention to reality. You can simply
look to Massachusetts, Iowa, or many other places where same-sex marriage has
been legal for many years to answer your questions. Regarding your
second question, I assume you are serious so I'll answer it. Many laws
passed by majorities of peoples, or by their elected representatives, are not
just. Slavery, is the most simple example. It was the will of the people in the
southern states. The majority does not always rule (particularly when the
rights of the minority are being trampled).
@ utah chickYour comment is well to be noticed.The Equality in
loving all men is a love that includes knowledge god has about each one of us.
That knowldege is not derived from a far away time.There was a time when
we used to live with him, as daughters and sons of god in heaven.Loving his daughters is forward hope for their final state of being, this
includes all of their gifts and talents inherite to being a female. There you
see, god can never love manand women despite their gender but because of
their gender. Women have more rights than man(plural) due to her special kind
gifts of being a girl and mother. The same goes for man in other terms.I do understand that gay and lesb. do have love for each other, but this love
is a brotherly and sisterly love, it is misplaced at some time and cannot fit
into a bond called marriage. That is why the church wants to help, not judge." Man was also in the beginning with god, intelligence, or the light
of truth, was not reated or made, neither indeed can be." DC 93
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal".It's a shame that some people don't believe in
Why is something an unalienable right? God declared it to be so. But if we
want to suppress the views of people anyone who isn't an atheist, then we
can decide inalienable rights based on a majority vote. How did the people in
Utah on the inalienable right that two people of the same gender can marry?
They voted against it. 66%. So it isn't a right based on a majority
vote.Herbert is on the right side of history. Fascist movements
always fade away.
Many who are attracted to the same sex call for gay marriage on the basis that
they should just be allowed to do what they want since it doesn't concern
the rest of us. Recently, I heard a faithful Mormon say he didn't mind if
gays could marry because they should have their free agency. On that basis we
should repeal the murder, theft, rape, and many other laws since these all
interfere with people's free agency. If homosexual behavior is a sin, which
the Bible says it is in 18 different passages and the Church Handbook of
Instructions says it is, our responsibility as Church members and citizens is to
seek to enact laws that prohibit sin and to preserve laws that enable
I'm politically incorrect to say that our whole nation is trending downward
in almost every way.
Separation of church and state. All arguments based on faith of any kind are
totally invalid. The proclamation to the family is NOT an argument and cannot be
considered. The constitution of the United States was created to protect
the natural, inalienable (in-a-lien-able) right of each individual against
tyranny. This means that no matter how great a majority want something, they
cannot impose it if it violates the rights of any individual. The US is
NOT a democracy. We are a constitutional democratic REPUBLIC. We elect
representatives who we entrust to vote and legislate on our behalf. Utah elected
Senators Hatch and Lee, and they recommended judge Shelby. The purpose of the
Judicial branch is to provide a 'check and balance' to ensure
legislation is within the bounds of the US constitution. The state of Utah, via
our elected representatives, CHOSE Judge Shelby. Judge Shelby ruled correctly.
Defining marriage, based upon religious belief, is a form of religious
tyranny. The same tyranny that this country was founded to avoid.Mormons, are so quick to forget that a short time ago YOU were the oppressed
minority? How can you now do the same to others?
Once the politicians step aside and let the clerks do their job, the chaos will
end. Once the politicians step aside and cease feeding people's
fears, reconciliation will begin.Once the politicians step aside,
the good people of Utah will treat their Gay neighbors generously just as they
did with the Black Community after the difficult Civil Rights struggle.Once the politicians step aside, people will realize granting equal rights to
others isn't an attack on their own rights - marital or otherwise.Delay is pointless and petty. Whether its a year from now or tomorrow morning
at 8:00 AM, Gays will enjoy the same rights as everyone else and the State of
Utah will be better for it.This is a time for leaders to appeal to
the Better Angels of Our Nature. If you can't do that - then please step
I do not believe that it was an accident that this ruling was released on a
@ desertSorry this has to be .....that knowledge is derived from a
far away time !and....." Man was also in the beginning with god,
intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can
be." DC 93
Stop gay marriage before this place is going to be burnt like Sodom of old.
This situation must be quite scary for those who have led a sheltered life.I am sixty-five year old individual. As a young child, I recall our wonderful
neighbors, who consisted of moms, dads and kids; mom and kids: lady couples
living together, gentlemen couples living together. Our neighborhood was
a safe place full of people who could be counted on for support and life long
friendships.This wonderful place, however, was not in Utah.Could
this account for the fear many feel?
New to Utah posted:=Utah has spoken and they support traditional=Marriage 66% vs 34.%, One activist judge should =not over rule this.The problem with this is that the states of the United States chose
unanimously, 100% to 0%, to ratify the US Constitution, and it looks to me like
that Constitution gave that one "activist judge" the power to have the
last word on what is legal and what is not. Well, not quite the last word; as
the article said, the case is being appealed to a higher court. But if you want
to keep activist judges from overturning cases voted in by a majority of the
population, then that's going to involve revising the US Constitution.
That's certainly possible, but I'm not sure you have the patience for
@desertThey say, it does not effect anyone.Now you see,
it did.---The question is not whether "effect", but whether
"harm" or "injure" anyone.the appeal by Prop. 8 supporters
was rejected by SCOTUS. why? because they could not articulate "a concrete,
particularized injury" caused by gay marriage, that is why they lost in the
courtroom.Amendment 3 lost in court, why? because the state
attorneys could not explain how banning gay marriage would promote traditional
marriage and how gay marriage would harm traditional marriage. If you can make
better arguments, they can really use your help.
Let's not confuse constitutional rights with one's interpretation of
constitutional rights. Also, let's not compare the Civil rights movement
with the Gay rights movement. That is just disgusting to say that both groups
faced the same discrimination. I would be embarrassed to use this rationale.
Couldn't this be resolved if those who support gay marriage live in a place
that the majority of people vote for legal gay marriage? Last time I checked
multiple states have already done so. Let those who want gay marriage live in
those states. Let those who don't support gay marriage live in other states
without gay marriage. Then everyone can be happy. However, Some of the problem
seems to be that those who are gay are concerned with how others who don't
endorse their lifestyle view them. I guess if the "interpretation" of
the constitution mandates that all states within the United States to legalize
gay marriage, then perhaps some states should secede and form a country that
allows them to interpret the constitution how they want to.
I also am a member of the LDS Church, having been so for almost a quarter of
century, and I support equal treatment of all people and am happy for all those
have benefited from this ruling. I also believe that it is
inappropriate to judge those Church members who supported the LGBT community in
the quest for equality -To the posters whose oppose this ruling,
presuming to know the will of the Lord with regard to those of us who have
supported the quest for LGBT equality is simply wrong. When we all
stand before the judgment bar - and we all will - it will be interesting to see
whether - how we treated our brothers and sisters rates, verses how well we are
able to cite Church doctrine.
This is becoming a one world society, so it does not really matter what Utahns
think.Does it really ? It does, because if you can stand up for
civil rights and civil privacy,why should Utah not take a stand at what is
right ?People are not afraid of neighbors and new life styles,they are afraid of who is going to be in charge to educate their children.If the mainstream is going to do that job, it gonna cost their children.It will hurt along the line of time and trust a lot.There used to
be a religious party among the Jews, that did dominate all Israel at that time,
they were the cause of much later trouble : Jerusalem was wiped away, history
did change a lot. The Jews had to go elsewhere. Who are the Hypocrites today ?
@Tom Johnson"On that basis we should repeal the murder, theft, rape,
and many other laws since these all interfere with people's free
agency."There's a difference between keeping coffee legal
(despite being against the WoW) and making murder legal. Same-sex marriage
doesn't harm anybody so it's more like coffee.@BlackDiamond"Stop gay marriage before this place is going to be
burnt like Sodom of old."Oh great, now when we get another
"warmest year on record" it's going to be attributed to gay people
rather than climate change...@desert"I do understand that
gay and lesb. do have love for each other, but this love is a brotherly and
sisterly love"Brotherly/sisterly love doesn't involve
Tom JohnsonSpanish Fork, UT'Many who are attracted to the same
sex call for gay marriage on the basis that they should just be allowed to do
what they want since it doesn't concern the rest of us. Recently, I heard a
faithful Mormon say he didn't mind if gays could marry because they should
have their free agency. On that basis we should repeal the murder, theft, rape,
and many other laws since these all interfere with people's free
agency."... Nonsense! Such acts damage other parties."If homosexual behavior is a sin, which the Bible says it is in 18
different passages and the Church Handbook of Instructions says it is, our
responsibility as Church members and citizens is to seek to enact laws that
prohibit sin and to preserve laws that enable righteousness."...It may be correct that those rules exist for mormons, but the USA is a free
country, you cannot expect to enact them for all Americans....Most
Americans now understand that Gay people are born that way and have a right to
live as they please....US citizens who pay taxes but are Gay should
not have the same rights as others??
@TexasCoug --"let's not compare the Civil rights movement
with the Gay rights movement. "Martin Luther King III supports a
boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi because of their anti-gay
'propaganda' law. He has said, referring to his father, that "I
think that as he worked to advocate for civil and human rights, he was talking
for everyone, not just for people of color."One of the chief
architects of MLK Jr's March on Washington was an openly gay man, Bayard
Rustin.Rev. Bernice King. MLK's daughter, said in 2012 that
civil rights included those who are "heterosexual or homosexual, or gay,
lesbian, bisexual, transgender."Coretta Scott King said in 1998:
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of
lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice,"
she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said,
'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I
appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make
room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people".
TA1"I also believe that it is inappropriate to judge those Church
members who supported the LGBT community in the quest for equality"Sorry to say, but the LGBT community will find themselves mostly alone. They
will likely be shunned/ostracized by the straight community... especially when
the straight community conjures procedures for LGBT marriage consummations."To the posters whose oppose this ruling, presuming to know the will
of the Lord with regard to those of us who have supported the quest for LGBT
equality is simply wrong."I think the predominant Utah Church
(LDS) has already printed the will of the Lord (Proclamation to the Family).
"let's not compare the Civil rights movement with the Gay rights
movement.""Couldn't this be resolved if those who support gay
marriage live in a place that the majority of people vote for legal gay
marriage?"Oh, the irony.Ezekiel 16:49"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of
bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did
she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."
I am surprised that with the repeated mention of George Wallace in these
comments that no one has brought up Anita Bryant. For those too young to
remember she was a beauty queen and minor celebrity back in 1977. When Miami
passed a non discrimination ordinance to protect gay people, she started a
successful "christian" campaign to repeal that got national attention.
She became the spokesperson for Florida Orange Juice until gays mounted a
counter campaign that brought a boycott of Florida juice and got her fired. Today she like Governor Wallace is largely forgotten and resides deeply
in the dustbin of history as she lives out her life in obscurity watching as the
Berlin Wall that blocks gay marriage quickly coming down. Governor Herbert has
to know the game is up. He is simply keeping his ratings up with those that
haven't figured it out yet.
Herbies stay just denied, didn't meet the requirements, the AG surely
should have known better. Are the clowns running state government again?
The concept of marriage is now meaningless. There is no longer a rationale to
prevent any person or any group of people from entering into whatever they want
to call "marriage."
If the Utah law is unconstitutional then re-write the law. But if you like our
constitution, and there is no way to write a law banning same-sex marriage, then
maybe you should rethink what you're trying to do. Is changing the US
Constitution worth a state's ban on same-sex marriage?
@TexasCoug" Couldn't this be resolved if those who support gay
marriage live in a place that the majority of people vote for legal gay
marriage?"That's like trying to resolve the slavery issue
in 1850 by telling those who hate slavery or being slaves to just move to New
York."I guess if the "interpretation" of the
constitution mandates that all states within the United States to legalize gay
marriage, then perhaps some states should secede and form a country that allows
them to interpret the constitution how they want to."Oh please,
nobody's going to secede over gay marriage.
It is amazing that so many "forward thinking" gay people WANT to get
married, while other "forward thinking" heterosexual people cohabit and
don't even bother to marry.
re: "The concept of marriage is now meaningless. There is no longer a
rationale to prevent any person or any group of people from entering into
whatever they want to call "marriage."When did these
symptoms start to appear? 20 years ago when the first same-sex marriage was
performed? Or, in 2004 in Mass? What about California? Are the worse at a
certain time of the month or in the mornings, afternoons or evenings? If
someone else's marriage makes you feel this way, clearly your not in
control of your own relationship. Time to schedule an appoint with a counselor?
RE: Contrariuserer "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King
Jr.'s dream.The Christian Post that in studying King’s
speeches, he could not conceive the civil rights leader heading a gay rights
movement.“King was a man sent by God to do His will and there
is no way that you can have that type of relationship with God and accept wrong
as right," Peterson told CP. "In the scriptures it says that
homosexuality is an abomination against God.”
Those that claim to be members of the LDS church but don't think he cares
about same gender marriage if you look at there sites and GC you know the church
leaders don't support same gender marriage and do you believe they are
called of God or not?
I am totally against same-sex marriage, although I well know the pull of same
gender attraction. You "just say no!" and resist it, because any other
course would be unthinkable. Yes, life's difficult. There aren't
shortcuts to any place worth going.
FYI: Currently 17 States have legalized gay marriage and with those we are
nearing half the population of the Country live in places that allow gays to
marry. At some point, a tipping point will be reached where it is no longer
viable to have different laws in different States regarding marriage. Several
examples: people legally marry in a State that allows it and then moves to a
State that doesn't allow it. Is it still valid? What are the tax
implications? Are people allowed to file as married in one State and not in
another. The tipping point will probably not be reached when 26
States legalize it, but sooner or later that time will come and a Federal Court
will order it and the matter will be concluded. Within a few years of that date
children will study it in history class and wonder what the big deal was, since
by then the oldsters who don't favor it will be dead and life (and opposite
sex marriage) will go on without missing a beat.
Speaking of chaos (and I'm against same-sex marriage), did you see the
news? North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem filed a legal
opinion last week confirming that the state does not recognize out-of-state
same-sex marriages, allowing a man married to another man to come to North
Dakota and marry a woman without divorcing his husband. Combine
that with the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause... "Full
faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and
judicial proceedings of every other state," and the Comity
Clause... "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges
and Immunities of Citizens in the several States," And what
have we got? It serves us right.
I know I'm an outsider looking in but here's my two cents. It has been
many years since The Family proclamation was given. That was prophetic counsel
foreseeing this kind of event. It is time to pull it out, dust it off, read and
follow it ! The risk by not following it is to repeat history and perish.
Baby steps, baby steps but Utah is starting to grow up. You never know, we
someday may even have a lottery.
As someone recently said, the most important word in the constitution is Secure.
The government has to secure the rights of the people. Gov Herbert is trying
to secure the rights of the majority.
It is no coincidence that Judge Shelby's narcissistic, publicity-seeking
ruling was released the Friday before Christmas, when many had already left on
holiday. Surely, as an attorney and judge, he knows the process and
knows what would be the best way for this issue to go through the courts for All
of the people of Utah. To refuse to hear Oral Arguments to grant a Stay, Judge
Shelby allowed the rights of the majority of Utahns to be trampled upon. And
yes, there are other Utahns who have rights. If one man can change the law, tell
me, why do I even vote? I don't even recognize our legal system; This judge
should be impeached and removed.The silent majority needs to stop
The court ruling hasn't created chaos, the state (and necessarily religion)
have created chaos.It would be interesting and appropriate if Utah,
paving and paying the way to SCOTUS, was responsible for eliminating all state
bans on same-sex marriage in the U.S.Whether or not there's
ever a stay, Herbert and the local religious and church opponents *MUST KNOW*
what the ultimate outcome will be. And sooner rather than later.If
this offends God, personally I'm more than happy to leave it and the
consequence up to Him or Her.Meanwhile, society has *HUGE* problems.
It will be nice to finally get this absolute nothing behind us so we can
rationally attend to them.The fact is, same-sex marriage has *NO*
negative impact on traditional marriage and family or their benefits, and *NO*
negative impact on the state's ability to support and encourage them. The
state can support and protect both traditional marriage and gay & same-sex
marriage rights at the same time. As they'll shortly be doing.Traditional marriage and family have problems and could use some help but
they certainly don't need defending or protecting from same-sex marriage.
To those lds members questioning other lds members idea of prophecy and the
inspired words of the proclamation, you need to step back and look long and hard
at what you're saying. I am a faithful lds member and believe the words of
our prophet and leaders to be true and right. Therefore I believe in the
proclaimation, but here's the problem. We can't create laws to govern
others based on OUR beliefs and moral principles. We don't want our
government creating laws that dictate what our moral values are and how we
should follow them, therefore why should we be asking our government to do such
to those who seek same sex marriage? NOWHERE in our constitution does it suggest
that the government should be the moral police and create laws based on moral
principles. Allowing a government to do so will quickly allow for a totalitarian
dictatorship like the middle age monarchies which were "annointed by
God" according to the moral principles of the people at that time. Think
about whether you want a government creating laws that tell lds members what is
moral and immoral about their practices and beliefs.
As a member of the LDS Church, I sustain the General Authorities of the Church
whenever they speak, ask God for direction, and follow it.This has
led me to believe that in this case the GAs are right.My Reading of
the Scriptures, specifically, 2 Nephi 2, Malachi 4, and D&C 2 confirm this
for me.And I have seen how the Atonement can cause many people to
change. Even gays.
@donn --“King was a man sent by God to do His will and there
is no way that you can have that type of relationship with God and accept wrong
as right," Why do you expect anyone to care what the Christian
Post writes? King's own family members are likely to have known
MLK much better than any reporter, donn. And, of course, King himself worked
closely with at least one openly gay man in his civil rights campaign, Bayard
Rustin. @ThomasJefferson --" to say that gay
marriage is different than plural marriage which is supported by many nations
is.....bizarre to me!"What you do or do not find bizarre makes
little difference in the grand scheme of things.Polygamy conveys a
significantly increased risk of harm.Gay marriage does not.It's a very simple distinction.
Can someone cite me what's traditional about marriage - religious or
@cougsdawgs All laws are based on morality. Dallin H Oak's said that many
times in his sermons and writings. So people without legislation can legislate
there lack of morality?
@wrz/etc. --"Cite an example of harm re polygamy/incest in the
Constitution."Not sure what you mean here. It's very easy
to cite examples of harm from polygamy and incest. But polygamy and incest
themselves are not specifically mentioned in the constitution, just as murder is
not."Maybe because there haven't been any gay marriages in
the US until recently. Too few for an informed judgement."Massachusetts has had gay marriage for 10 years. Canada has had it for 8.
Several Scandinavian countries have had gay marriage and/or registered
partnerships for roughly 20 years. There's been plenty of time."Sorry, but Canada has but a few if any polygamy marriages. Too few for an
informed judgement."There are millions of polygamous marriages
around the world. It's very easy to see their effects."Can
you stop posting misinformation? "I've never started
posting any misinformation, so it's impossible for me to stop something
I've never even started.
Chaos is not what I see in the pictures from last Friday. What I see is joy,
happiness and love. And to those on here who speak of the "will
of the people", it is hubris and conceit to think that civil liberties can
be denied/forfeited by the "will of the people". Read a history book and
you'll see how flawed your thinking is.
Doesn't a state's constitution have to be approved by Congress before
a state can be admitted to the Union? If that is the case, then it seems that if
any part of a state's constitution is to be disapproved by the federal
government, then it would have to be disapproved by an act of Congress, not by
one judge acting alone.
I'm not advocating plural marriage, but actually I would like to see
polygamists bring their case before Judge Shelby, and do it soon, and see how
far they get. If he denies their petition but sides with the gays with their
petition it would make his arguments about equal protection under the law sound
hollow. And, I would like to see what the reaction of the gays would be to such
a petition, or would they be insisting on "marriage equality" for us but
not for them.
@ Bernard GUiSomebody else's marriage has nothing to do with
@TwoForFlinching:"The Constitution trumps the electorate every
time."The Constitution says 'No state shall... deny to any
person within its (state) jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.'Sounds like the document is talking about state law, not
the Constitution. And the electorate of the states create state law... The
electorate in Utah (and other states) tried to define marriage as between
male/female. The judge's decision should be thrown out as
unconstitutional.@Contrariuserer:"The concept of harm is
inherent throughout the Constitution..."Cite an example of harm
re polygamy/incest in the Constitution."Every lawyer who has
brought gay marriage cases before US courts has tried desperately to prove harm.
They have all failed"Maybe because there haven't been any
gay marriages in the US until recently. Too few for an informed judgement."...reaffirming Canada's polygamy ban..."Sorry,
but Canada has few if any polygamy marriages. Too few for an informed
judgement.@im lds2:"Intuitively, don't you feel you
have the 'right' to marry the person of your choice?"Are you saying my 85yo grandfather can marry his 9yo granddaughter?
NoondaySalt Lake, UT"I am totally against same-sex marriage,
although I well know the pull of same gender attraction. You "just say
no!" and resist it, because any other course would be unthinkable. Yes,
life's difficult. There aren't shortcuts to any place worth
going."... sorry, but that is a terrible example of not thinking
things through. What you postulate has caused thousands of mormon men and women
who married a Gay partner who was "fighting it" to live in a phony
marriage and miss the passion that a marriage should have.Putting
"what a church wants you to do" above what God put in your heart, due to
family and community pressure, is living death.Children raised by
two men or two women who loved each other enough to marry, despite society, are
in a happy, loving home.Children in a mormon family that exists only
because "resisting the attraction" is paramount, are in an environment
that is innately a lie, and they can tell it.
@logicguyTUCSON, AZSee: "rational basis"If
Canada is right, and if huge opinion in the US is right, there exists
"rational basis" for laws against polygamy rooted in protecting people,
especially children, girls and women, from an inherent high risk for abuse.If Utah cannot establish such a "rational basis," then there is
no reason not to decriminalize polygamy and Shelby should so decide.I tend to think that risk is real and significant. If it were possible to
regulate out and protect against that risk, then polygamy should legalized.
@wrz"Are you saying my 85yo grandfather can marry his 9yo
granddaughter?"Can his 9yo granddaughter give consent? Is she a
legal adult? Is this the most irrational question ever?
Good heavens. Why do so many people in Idaho, Arizona, etc. have such a stake
in the outcome of a UTAH issue? It isn't a Mormon issue, it is a state
RE: Contrariuserer, “Why do you expect anyone to care what the Christian
Post writes? “ So you agree Christianity considers homosexuality a
sin? .e.g... Mother Teresa loved those who had same-sex attractions,
but she still called them to purity. In fact, it is precisely because she loved
them that she called them to practice chastity. It is a false form of
compassion to lead others to think that they can find fulfillment by living
outside the will of God.
When a people want something that is opposed to the divinely revealed and
scientifically illustrated integrity of the family unit and demand it be put to
vote, then lose the vote, and force their idea and understanding onto everyone
around them, to what degree can their idea of "law" be honored or
maintained? This is by far not only a problem in Utah and California.If everything were reversed; if the sanctity of marriage were enforced without
regard to law or process despite the majority clammoring otherwise, would they
not see a problem with it then?
@wrz/Miss Piggie/Mr. Bean/Alfred/Neanderthal --"Cite an example
of harm re polygamy/incest in the Constitution."Not sure what
you mean here. It's very easy to cite examples of harm from polygamy and
incest. But polygamy and incest themselves are not specifically mentioned in the
constitution, just as murder is not."there haven't been any
gay marriages in the US until recently. ..."Massachusetts has
had gay marriage for 10 years. Canada has had it for 8. Several Scandinavian
countries have had gay marriage and/or registered partnerships for roughly 20
years. There's been plenty of time."Sorry, but Canada has
but a few if any polygamy marriages. Too few for an informed judgement."There are millions of polygamous marriages around the world. It's
very easy to see their effects.@logicguy --"If he
denies their petition but sides with the gays with their petition it would make
his arguments about equal protection under the law sound hollow. "No it wouldn't.Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey a
significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.Gay marriage does not.It's a very simple
distinction.Look up the harm principle.
@sharrona --"So you agree Christianity considers homosexuality a
sin?"Of course not.Some Christians consider
homosexuality to be a sin.Many Christians do not.Many
Christian denominations are already happy to perform gay wedding ceremonies.Leave religion to the churches. Let the courts practice law instead.
@ wrz"Are you saying my 85yo grandfather can marry his 9yo
granddaughter?"No. Do you not understand the concept of being a
consenting adult? Just like our laws say you have to be a certain age to
consume alcohol, or to drive, or enlist in the military, you also have to be of
a certain age to enter into a marriage.It's irrelevant what the
electorate in Utah want if the law or amendment they vote to pass is
unconstitutional. If the ruling by this judge is unconstitutional than it was
also unconstitutional to end slavery, segregation, and inter-racial marriage
higv:"All laws are based on morality. Dallin H Oak's said that
many times in his sermons and writings. So people without legislation can
legislate there lack of morality?"I'm well aware of these
teachings, and he is right that laws are based on morality. What you are missing
and he has also explained is that constitutional law is based in the protection
of our rights as citizens. When one person puts their rights before another and
does harm to the rights of another that is, and will always be illegal. Of
course these actions are also considered immoral...murder, stealing, extortion,
etc are all immoral, AND illegal because the lack of morality in such cases
infringes on the civil and human rights of other citizens. So the obvious
question that follows is: how does gay marriage harm or infringe on your rights
as a citizen?A church or religious doctrine should NEVER be allowed
to dictate state and federal laws on their idea of Gods will. Why? Because we,
as citizens worship different gods with different principles. Do you really want
our government to decide "Gods will" and then create laws accordingly?
All men are created equal. With certain inaliable rights, among them, Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not your place govenor, or your
churches place to deny citizens of these united states their Rights. Hate and
bigotry, have prevailed long enough! Your opinions are yours, but keep them in
your church. If you dont want to marry a gay person,, then dont. This country
was founded on the constitution, NOT the Bible,The book of mormon, or your
interpretation of them. You may worship whom or what you may. But Please dont
try to regulate other peoples beliefs for them. If you want to do that move to
IRAN. You could live your life like a bigot, based upon the teachings of an old
book that doesnt mean anything anymore. Wake up. Times, they are a changing.
Either change with them, or get the heck out of the way! Religion is a farce!
Thats why their are so many of them. Yours is No different.
"It is a false form of compassion to lead others to think that they can find
fulfillment by living outside the will of God."Hate to break it
to you, Sharonna, but it is not up to you lead me to think anyway about
anything. I don't care at all about what you think about where I should,
and how I should, find fulfillment. And I sure don't need your compassion.
I've written this over and over but it never publishes. Webster Dictionary
puts new words in all the time. Why not "Pairage". Two people lawfully
uniting. That way we don't change the definition of something that has
existed for how many years and yet with "Pairage" a pair of people
uniting, nobody is being denied any rights. Let's use some common sense
I don't get why I even vote or why they waste money putting issues on the
ballot when the majority speaks and then one person says your opinion
doesn't matter. Why vote?
Judge Shelby made a huge mistake with his political activism, negating valid
State law, and making new law from the bench, without State or voter approval.
He should be taken to task for it. And hopefully this whole mess that he created
will be resolved as 68% of the population in Utah want. Traditional marriage is
and always will be the accepted norm throughout all the world. It is best for
society and for individuals and it is what we want. We already determined that