Quantcast
Utah

What comes next for Utah marriage law?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 12:25 a.m.

    Thank you for an excellent overview, Eric Schulzke. You seem to leave the answer open to your question "What comes next for Utah marriage law?" But in fact you leave little doubt that SMM will have to be accepted. In countries that legalized SSM years ago, the matter became a non-issue. It actually revitalized the concept of marriage and its desirability. It improved tolerance and respect. As so many discriminatory traditions of the past, the rejection of SSM will pass and the world will be better for it. Churches, of course, keep the freedom to refuse to marry certain people, for whatever reason they deem valid from their doctrines.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 4:56 a.m.

    I think it's the judge should alienate the entity [evil]. Set the standards and we comply to that standard. I guess The grass bends with the wind.

  • DRay Roy, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 5:18 a.m.

    Given Scalia's track record, someone ought to ask him what's next?...regarding a range of issues. He seems to be right on the money with his predictions, and my respect for the Supreme Court wanes just as it has for Congress and President who gave us the ACA. Wonder where Scalia thinks all this will lead this country to, and what we can do, if anything, to return respectability to these high offices?

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    Dec. 24, 2013 5:36 a.m.

    I am trying to see both sides of this debate. I understand people are uncomfortable including gays and lesbians into their faiths and receiving the happiness to marry whom they wish. But from a legal perspective, this issue can only be resolved one way and that is to legalize same sex marriage in all 50 states. I hope the traditionalists can find a way to accept this inevitable conclusion.

  • Hugh1 Denver, CO
    Dec. 24, 2013 6:49 a.m.

    The author’s circumspect approach in presenting the same-sex marriage matter is a welcome addition to the dialogue that is unfolding – no matter what side of the issue you find yourself on. So then, “what comes next for Utah marriage law?” The Supreme Court gives every indication that it is willing to make the affirmative ruling, given time, and Justice Ginsburg heads a faction that doesn’t want to get too far ahead of popular sentiment. Remember that the south is still smarting from The War of Northern Aggression. Interestingly, and I missed this one, Utah and the Mormon Church have a far more pragmatic and uniform understanding of popular mores than the socially conservative “Duck Dynasty” states, even if both equally oppose same-sex marriage. As counterintuitive as it may appear, Utah’s uniquely consolidated social fabric provides an ideal opportunity to simply change the law. Utah is struggling to identify irreparable harm to the majority from same-sex marriage, but it comes up empty handed every time it tries. Let’s face it, this train has left the station and Justice Kennedy is onboard. It’s legacy thing and only a matter of time.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Dec. 24, 2013 7:03 a.m.

    That photo of all the people waiting to marry and I fainting remember back several years to a phrase:
    "And besides, gay people don't want to get married."

    Married Christmas to all.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Dec. 24, 2013 7:29 a.m.

    Excellent article on both history and events that bring us to today. Thank you Eric Schulzke.

    In all of this, I hope the courts, defendants and plaintiffs, and the people, come to understand the differences of animus (hostility), hate and bigotry, against mistakes in judgment and personal beliefs.

    Wisdom requires that understanding. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if not also wisdom.

  • ReadMineFirst Ft. Collins, CO
    Dec. 24, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    Mr. Schultz: Thank you for this well thought through and informative article. Historically, our Founding Fathers were careful to make sure that "Big Government" was limited in it's power. Please see below. Although I am not a Utah resident, it is crystal clear to me and I am sure to this whole nation, what the majority of Utah residents support. The Founding Father's would agree with Judge Scalia.

    Here’s what James Madison said in the Federalist Papers #45

    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite……The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 24, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    Good article.

    Readers, pay special attention to this section:

    -----

    "The question presented is whether a state can do what the federal government cannot — i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples … simply because the majority of the voters don't like homosexuality,” wrote Judge Timothy Black in the Ohio decision, citing the majority in Windsor and Scalia’s dissent. “Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no.”
    [....]
    Rosky understands the confusion surrounding the Windsor decision, given its apparent emphasis on state authority to define marriage. But every time Kennedy’s decision nodded in the direction of state control, he said, “they also said that every state law governing marriage must comply with federal constitutional guarantees.”

    -----

    State law MUST comply with the US Constitution. That isn't tyranny -- it's the way our country works.

    Gay marriage is here to stay. Get used to it.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    Finally an article that explains the constitutional issues that resulted from DOMA. All the posters who have been trying to come across as constitutional scholars who kept pointing to this ruling, or that ruling, or this amendment and that amendment, as justification for their beliefs I say this: nothing is simple when it comes to looking at interpreting the Constitution. This issue will end up before the SCOTUS. They didn't want to deal with this last summer. They won't be looking forward to dealing with it next summer.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:06 a.m.

    One more thing: if the SCOTUS is going to deal with this issue then eventually polygamy and polyandry will be deemed as essential civil rights as well. It will allow those individuals currently in spiritual marriages the freedom to come out of their closets as well.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    @EJM

    Unless fundamental Mormons or Muslims can prove that, a husband with 4 wives and one of the 4 wives, these two people are equal in such arrangement, I don't see court will go with their way.

  • From Ted's Head Orem, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    Many mainstream LDS folks see homosexual intimacy--whether married or not--as a sin and that's not likely to change. So why did the LDS Church fight against gay marriage? Because they had to fight evil (aka sin) wherever possible and apparently they believe that gay marriage will threaten traditional heterosexual marriages. I don't believe that the LDS leadership sees SSM as any more heinous than adultery or fornication or other sexual sin...all are wrong in their God's view. The rising LDS generation and those that follow will not have the crutch of past social norms (now cast as discriminatory) to channel their behavior and will have to decide on their own how they will live. This is a both a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that those that hold true to their faith will be stronger for their enduring a new social norm that labels them "bigots," and bad in that many will not be strong enough to hold to the iron rod and be lost in the mist. Ironically, the biggest challenge they will face is to be Christian towards those who are their enemies.

  • Macfarren Dallas, TX
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    Marriage is not a Constitutional issue. It is a state-regulated institution. Siblings can not marry. Nor close relatives. Nor children. Therefore it is not a matter of 'human rights' open to anyone who simply wants to become marry, it is a matter of the state setting the parameters of the institution of marriage, just as it does when ones forms a business under the laws of the state. It is not a question of limitation, for indeed, there are limitations already. It is a matter of what those limitations should be.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever"

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    What comes next? Let's look at examples. Massachusetts was the 1st state to allow gay marriage in 2004. Instead of projected 'consequences' of gay marriage, lets' take a factual look at what actually happens after gay marriage...

    *'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

    *'TEN YEARS later, 85 Percent of Massachusetts voters say NO HARM from Marriage Equality' – Alternet - 09/27/13

    'Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, same-sex families now enjoy full legal protections…'

    Now, let's look at NY. I will even use cause and effect.

    Cause…
    *’Same-sex marriage could be boon to N.Y. tourism’ – By Harriet Baskas – MSNBC – 07/07/11

    Effect…
    *’NYC reaches goal of 50 million tourists’ – By Samantha Gross – AP – Published by DSnews – 12/20/11


    The facts are clear.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    @From Ted's Head

    In the South, people used to believe "segregation is God's will" and interracial marriage is unnatural, un-Godly. Southern Baptist Convention was established because they would rather split from national congregation so they could continue to support slavery and segregation.

    Looking back, our religious communities have moved forward quite a lot in terms of racial equality, and I don't see much negative impact, I doubt there will be much negative impact on marriage equality either.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    @Macfarren

    "Marriage is not a Constitutional issue"

    I believe the US Supreme Court would disagree with you. I am more inclined to accept their opinion over yours.

    Loving vs. Virginia, 1967: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... "

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 24, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    @EJM --

    "...eventually polygamy and polyandry will be deemed as essential civil rights as well."

    Here we go again.

    Individual rights are always limited by harm.

    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.

    "...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.

    Justice Bauman of the Supreme Court of BC, reaffirming Canada's polygamy ban: "I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm,"... "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."

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    @contra: so those individuals currently in loving, committed polygamous relationships are going to be denied their civil rights all because of a few bad apples? Where is the harm when two or more people truly love each other? Explain to me that one. In every type of relationship we enter some are going to succeed, some are going to fail. Why shouldn't people in polygamous relationships have that equal opportunity to succeed, or to fail? When we have any type of civil union that fails there is always going to be harm done, in some form or fashion. Society hasn't stopped people from being married just because marriages haven't always worked out. So why deny polygamous relationships this same opportunity?

  • Larry Chandler CEDAR CITY, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    It is a legitimate concern of a church to feel it should not be required to perform a same-sex marriage. But is the solution to tell another church that chooses to perform these marriages that they cannot? Freedom of religion should apply to both.

  • Mormon Ute Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    The mistake our country made which has given the gay marriage movement traction is tying benefits to spousal relationships. Without that there would be no basis for overriding the will of the majority.

    That being said, it is time to move on and focus our efforts on preserving religious freedoms which are coming increasingly under attack. While some of the commentors on this article have expressed the view that religions should remain free to sanction whatever marriages they choose, there are those out there who are actively seeking to take away tax exempt status of religions that don't sanction gay marriage. There are also those who are seeking to remove the legal recognition of any marriage performed by a religion that doesn't sanction gay marriage forcing those married within those religions to also have a separate civil ceremony that would be legally recognized. Those encroachments on religious freedom represent intollerance and its worst and must not be allowed. We would be regressing back to times before this country became free, if we allow such things.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 24, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    @EJM --

    "so those individuals currently in loving, committed polygamous relationships are going to be denied their civil rights all because of a few bad apples?"

    First you'll need to prove that the harms of polygamy are do to only "a few bad apples". I gotta warn you there is a lot of research against you there.

    Drunk driving laws punish the drivers who are able to drive safely while drunk. Why is that? It's because the vast majority of drunk drivers DON'T drive safely.

    If you want to change either drunk driving or polygamy laws, you'll have to prove that the preponderance of risk is on your side.

    "When we have any type of civil union that fails there is always going to be harm done"

    Every type of driving has some degree of risk. But sober driving is much less risky than drunk driving -- so drunk driving is illegal, and sober driving isn't.

  • Tad TOOELE, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    @macferran: you are correct and in error at the same time. Your point that states have the right to set limits on marriage is valid, the state cannot not apply those limits in a discriminatory way. Using your business example, the state may say that a child cannot own a business or enter into a contract, just as it can say that a child cannot marry, but the state cannot prohibit a person from owning a business because of sexual preference; likewise it cannot deny marriage on that basis. Your analogy actually argues in favor of Judge Shelby's ruling.

  • Tad TOOELE, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    @Mormon Ute: "Our country" didn't make the mistake, merely perpetuated it. Under the levitical law, rights of inheritance, etc. were determined through marriage, resulting in the custom of the barren widow becoming the wife of her dead husband's brothers. (See Luke 20) This was the basis of Jesus teaching the "they neither marry nor are given in marriage," in the life to come. The legal aspect of marriage has always been about the duties of support and the rights of inheritance and common property, though not always in the forms we see today. The threat of divine wrath was a priestcraft trick to enforce the duties and obligations of marriage. In the perfect world of Heaven, these protections are unnecessary.

    Interestingly, Jesus teaches this lesson right after he teaches that we should, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." The argument for removing tax exemptions stems from the churches' meddling in Caesar's domain when they should not. But then, these same churches don't think that Matthew 7 applies to them, either.

    How did Jesus put it, ... "Let him who has ears to hear"?

  • Filthy Kuffar Spanish Fork, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    CSH 85:

    @Macfarren

    "Marriage is not a Constitutional issue"

    I believe the US Supreme Court would disagree with you. I am more inclined to accept their opinion over yours.

    Loving vs. Virginia, 1967: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... "

    I think you just proved the case against gay marriage. Gay marriage does not provide a way for man to exist, and it certainly does not provide for mans survival as they do not, or cannot procreate on their own. Therefore that basic civil right does not apply in the Constitutional sense to gay marriage.

  • sherlock holmes Eastern, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 11:01 a.m.

    The marriages/civil unions seem to be going ahead.

    How to handle divorces/uncivil unions will be next on the plate.

    LBGT, welcome to the world.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 24, 2013 11:12 a.m.

    @Filthy Kuffar --

    "...that basic civil right does not apply in the Constitutional sense to gay marriage."

    Ehhhh, no.

    The Supreme Court has upheld marriage rights for individuals regardless of procreation. For instance, convicts in prison with no visitation rights can still marry, as can sterile individuals and women past the age of conception.

    This point was even explicitly addressed during the Prop 8 hearing.

    Breyer -- "there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."

    Kagan -- "suppose a State said that, Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?"

    Scalia -- "I suppose we could have a questionnaire at the marriage desk when people come in to get the marriage -- you know, Are you fertile or are you not fertile?" "I suspect this Court would hold that to be an unconstitutional invasion of privacy..."

    Ginsburg -- "...we said somebody who is locked up in prison and who is not to get out has a right to marry, has a fundamental right to marry, no possibility of procreation."

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    ' I think you just proved the case against gay marriage. Gay marriage does not provide a way for man to exist, and it certainly does not provide for mans survival as they do not, or cannot procreate on their own. '

    7 billion humans on earth.

    That is after, MA allowed gay marriage in 2004.

    LGBT have been in every aspect of human history. From two-spirits in the ancient planes of America to Geisha's of Japan.

    To claim that after 2013 years of history and 7 billion humans on earth (up from 6 billion) that gay marriage will stop the 'survival' of the human race? This claim that has no merit.

    Ever.

    Also, procreation is somehow not a requirement for marriage for my straight friends. My example? Octo-mom. 8 children, zero husband.

    If you want to deny marriage equality due to procreation? Fine.

    We will begin with every straight couple over the age of 60, in divorce.

    You are confusing one 'should' be married to have children.

    As example by human history, one CAN have a child, without in fact, being married.

    Should vs. can.

    Standards applied to others, but never to one's self?

    Know the difference.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 24, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    To "Pagan" since you are loving the Massachussetts stats, you should also mention that they have the lowest marriage rate. When you compare marriage rate to divorce rate, they are about average, meaning that what few marriages there are end in divorce about 40% to 50% of the time.

    To "Contrariuserer" if gay marriage is good, what about a group of 4 or 5 gays that want to be married in a polyamourous relationship. Are you going to deny them equal treatment to gay couples?

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 24, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    Nicely done Eric! This is the type of analysis that has been missing from this story. You give readers, regardless of how they feel about same-sex marriage, an excellent insight into how the Windsor case clearly opened the door for Judge Shelby's ruling.

    I would only add that Kennedy has been chipping away at Baker v Nelson for more than a decade and Windsor now replaces it as the ruling precedent for these cases. Kennedy is clearly moving Sexual Orientation into the realm of a protected class.

    In any event, those who are blasting or praising Judge Shelby should really direct their letters to Justice Kennedy. I suspect we'll be hearing from him again in the appeal of Kitchen v Herbert. I'm already looking forward to Justice Scalia's opinion.

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    @contra: you still have not proven with statistical evidence the harm polygamous relationships cause. And that is because the issue of polygamous relationships dont go before the courts since legally they don't exist. The evidence is overwhelmingly anecdotal. TV shows such as The Sister Wives portray polygamous relationships the same way that shows like The Kardashians show heterosexual monogamous relationships. Full of ups and downs, pitfalls and struggles, joys and happiness. It will only be a matter of time before polygamy and polyandry have their day in the sun. The same arguments used for same sex marriages will be used to justify the legalization of polygamy and polyandry. When that day comes all will rejoice.

  • digitalcamotim Council Bluffs, IA
    Dec. 24, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    and we can ronald reagan for this result--he appointed Kennedy to SCOTUS--and he was the most homosexual friendly POTUS until obama--why he considered a conservative icon never ceases to amaze me--

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    @Filthy Kuffar

    "...it certainly does not provide for mans survival as they do not, or cannot procreate on their own."

    So the only reason for marriage is to procreate? My wife and I cannot and have not procreated on our own. I guess our marriage is null and void in your eyes - it sure is to our "faithful" neighbors.

    Does anyone know a good divorce lawyer? If I follow Filthy Kuffar's logic, I'm going to need one.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 24, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    "...what about a group of 4 or 5 gays that want to be married...."

    A few drunk drivers may be able to get home safely even while drunk. But that doesn't mean that drunk driving should be legalized.

    Similarly, a few folks may be able to conduct polygamous unions without harm. But that doesn't mean that polygamous marriages should be legalized.

    @EJM --

    "you still have not proven with statistical evidence the harm polygamous relationships cause. "

    I don't have any statistical evidence of the harm that drunk driving causes, either.

    So what?

    If you believe that polygamous marriages are not harmful, then provide YOUR evidence.

    I've got plenty of studies that say otherwise.

    "...the issue of polygamous relationships dont go before the courts... "

    "...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.

  • Reason?? Farr West, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    Sadly, the institution of marriage, regardless of it's origin, has for sometime belonged to Ceasar. Consequently, if Ceasar wishes to change it, he will. The question is: will we all render unto him that which is his???

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 12:43 p.m.

    @digitalcamotim

    "and we can ronald reagan for this result--he appointed Kennedy to SCOTUS--and he was the most homosexual friendly POTUS until obama--why he considered a conservative icon never ceases to amaze me--"

    Quite possibly the most offensive thing I have EVER read in the the reader's forum. Why is being "homosexual friendly POTUS" a bad thing? Why can't conservatives be "homosexual friendly?" Shouldn't we all be friendly with each other when it comes to civil rights regardless of our political leanings?

    And, if equal treatment under the law is the end result, then thank you "ronald reagan." - signed a heterosexual LDS male.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 24, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    To "Contrariusester" are you saying that no matter what the arrangement is, polygamy is always more harmful, regardless of the genders involved? I would really love to see your data on this one.

    To clarify, you are saying that you would deny a group of 5 gays a plural marriage because of unrelated information.

  • freewill duchesne, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 1:22 p.m.

    Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness does not come from Government, Either people empower themselves or government will empower it's self. Government grants privileges, Every time somebody asks for a privilege, government gets more powerful. The gay community didn't empower themselves, they empowered government! Will Christian catering company's be forced to cater to weddings they don't agree with now?

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    Dec. 24, 2013 1:55 p.m.

    It any action taken by a State or Federal Government the appears to "demean or stignatize" another group or party unconstitutional, then I dont see how the Supreme Court will eventually be ruling that calling Homosexual relations (whether or not inside a state sanctioned marriage)is unconstitutional and qualifies as hate speech.

    That would mean the government will say that you can believe anything you want but you will lose your tax exempt status as a religion if you demean any particular group.

  • Turtles Run Houston, TX
    Dec. 24, 2013 2:15 p.m.

    @ReadMineFirst

    Unfortunately, despite what that piece of the Federalist Papers claims, the federal government yields the supreme law of the land. States are not able to pass laws that contradict the federal laws and Constitution nor can they nullify them.

    The Necessary and Proper Clause, Supremacy Clause, 200 years of judicial rulings, and the 10th amendment have all affirmed the authority of the federal government and its explicit and implied powers.

    Utah can not pass laws that violate the civil rights of people unless it can provide a compelling need to do so. Bible verses and being icky are not good enough.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 24, 2013 3:52 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech

    Do you know any case of 4, 5 gay men polygamy? Can such arrangement ever last? many same sex couples have been together for decades. a lesbian couple in SF even waited half century before they could lawfully wed and then only death set them apart.

    Even though I don't support polygamy, at least I have to admit they have book of Mormon or book of Quran to keep such family together. have you ever seen a 4,5 gay men polygamy family together and last for decades?

    When you try to win child custody, you have to show the court that you are a good parent. when you try to argue the case for a 4,5 gay men polygamy, you have to show the judge such arrangement can last. but can you? I highly doubt about it.

  • Draft dumbie Farmington, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 5:48 p.m.

    Both the U.S. Supreme Court "Windsor" decision and Judge Shelby's decision are absurd, because they attempt to validate the misnomer of "same sex marriage" by attempting to change the intrinsic definition of the word "marriage." Throughout the history of the world, the only definition "marriage" has ever had has been the "legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife." There has never been a right of persons of the same sex to "marry"; therefore, the idea that persons of the same sex have a fundamental constitutional right to "marry" is absurd.

    If state or federal legislative bodies wanted to pass laws allowing legal unions between persons of the same sex, they certainly could do that; they could even define the parameters of a same sex legal union to include rights and privileges identical to those available to "marriage" partners. However, the judicial branch cannot legitimately interpret a same sex legal union to be a "marriage," because a "marriage" has always only involved a man and a woman, as husband and wife, as an intrinsic, definitional requirement.

    Therefore, both the "Windsor" and the "Shelby" decisions constitute inexcusably shoddy legal work.

  • Contrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 24, 2013 6:13 p.m.

    @RedShirtCalTech --

    "are you saying that no matter what the arrangement is, polygamy is always more harmful, regardless of the genders involved?"

    I never said any such thing.

    Read what I wrote again:

    A few drunk drivers may be able to get home safely even while drunk. But that doesn't mean that drunk driving should be legalized.

    Similarly, a few folks may be able to conduct polygamous unions without harm. But that doesn't mean that polygamous marriages should be legalized.

    "To clarify, you are saying that you would deny a group of 5 gays a plural marriage because of unrelated information."

    Nope.

    I am saying that we don't change a law just to accommodate a few individuals who might be able to live polygamy without harm -- just as we don't make drunk driving legal just because a few drunk drivers might be able to get home safely.

  • Everyone Gets a Gun Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 12:15 a.m.

    "3,995 same-sex marriages were later invalidate". Not true. These marriages were never invalidated.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 1:34 a.m.

    'To "Pagan" since you are loving the Massachussetts stats, you should also mention that they have the lowest marriage rate. When you compare marriage rate to divorce rate, they are about average, meaning that what few marriages there are end in divorce about 40% to 50% of the time.'

    And, since heterosexual marriages have been the defining factor in marriage until 9 years ago…

    that means a clear and evident majority of those 40-50% divorce rates, have not been gay marriages.

    Redshirt, I will freely admit MA had the lowest divorce rate in the country before gay marriage.

    And after gay marriage, continue to do so.

    This supports that gay marriage, does. No. Harm.

    However, we have seen Contrariusester & J. S. disprove your claims many times in the past.

    I look forward to doing it again.

    Utah, welcome to gay marriage.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Dec. 25, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    Ok Deseret News. Am I allowed to write. Mormons. 0. Gay community 10

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    Marry Christmas

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 26, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    Hmm?

    Permissiveness, infidelity, and abortions are becoming the norm.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 26, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    @worf --

    "Permissiveness, infidelity, and abortions are becoming the norm."

    You can blame straight marriages for those.

    Gay couples will never have an accidental pregnancy between them. All children being raised by gay couples are WANTED children. Therefore, they have very little need or desire for abortions.

    And, so far, the divorce rate for same-sex marriages is roughly 1/2 of the rate for straight marriages.

    "In the states with available data, dissolution rates for same-sex couples ...ranges from 0% to 1.8% annually, or ***1.1% on average***, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually."
    -- from "Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States", published in 2011 by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.

    Supporters of "traditional marriage" should focus on actually strengthening those marriages, instead of trying to block couples who want to commit to each other.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    Everyone has an opinion and my opinion is this: No matter what excuse you find to use in order to make this situation correct and pleasing - the fact is...it is an abomination before God.