Quantcast
Utah

Appeals court declines to issue stay that would halt gay marriages in Utah

Comments

Return To Article
  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 5:45 p.m.

    The 10th Circuit court says there will not be a stay. Keep calm and marry on.

  • SpaCasinoGirl SLC, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 6:07 p.m.

    Hey, guess what? 10th Circuit denied the emergency almost an hour ago. And they've directed an expedited review of the appeal which means another big fat NO.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 6:07 p.m.

    Honestly? There is no confusion whatsoever. This is nothing but disobedience of the law. Call it for what it is.

  • ricwhite Layton, Utah
    Dec. 24, 2013 6:30 p.m.

    After reading the stay request document, I have to admit that the state's arguments were not very compelling. And if the stay request was rejected by a conservative 10th Circuit, the chances of getting a stay from a liberal Sonia Sotomayor (who is the one assigned to the 10th Circuit) is extremely remote.

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 6:48 p.m.

    It would be nice if courts processed other cases just as fast...

  • Ariz Madison, AL
    Dec. 24, 2013 7:16 p.m.

    Richard Shelby is a US Senator for the state of Alabama.

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 24, 2013 7:30 p.m.

    I hope the recalcitrant county clerks get cited for contempt. And I'm thrilled that at least one couple has already filed suit against a clerk who refused to give them a license.

    Gay marriage is now Utah law, people. Get used to the idea.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 7:47 p.m.

    Opponents of marriage equality in particular, and civil rights generally, WILL be overcome!

    Congratulations to our fellow citizens for whom equality has been long sought.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 24, 2013 7:59 p.m.

    @ricwhite

    They keep making the same argument and are disappointed when they get the same result.

    The other problem is they failed to file for a stay before the order came out. By the time they filed the paperwork, Gay marriages had already taken place. Its pointless to ask for a stay when the status quo has already changed. This raises serious questions about the defense team the AG's Office assembled. While I am delighted with the Judge's ruling, I think its only fair to suggest Utah needs far better representation in Court than this.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:01 p.m.

    I think many of these people are caught up in the moment. They jumped the gun and got married just because a judge overruled the voice of the majority in Utah. Divorce lawyers are going to be busy next year.

  • ThinksIThink SEATTLE, WA
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:08 p.m.

    I've heard some people want to move to Salt Lake City because gay marriage is now the law. This is definitely a culture shift that a portion of the State's population will have to digest slowly.

  • open minded Lehi, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:08 p.m.

    Apparently our Constitution is working. Due process has been followed. Utah is losing this legal battle. Perhaps they should not have tried to be proactive and outlaw Gay marriage with an additional amendment. If Utah hadn't passed this amendment they wouldn't even have this as an issue. They knew it would be fought in court and yet passed it anyway. I'm glad Utah couldn't leave it alone and now all citizens of Utah have the right to marry.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 24, 2013 8:46 p.m.

    Section 1.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The game is on, what goes around Washington comes around.
    The meaning of the law is not up to the peope anymore, it has been stopped.
    Next election the last chance to beam out.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 24, 2013 9:17 p.m.

    @Big Bubba
    A lot of these couples have been together half a dozen to dozens of years unable to marry because of the laws here and thinking they shouldn't have to go to another state to get a marriage license.

  • bc5 Missoula, MT
    Dec. 24, 2013 11:05 p.m.

    Traditional civil rights laws and court rulings made sense because it covered discrimination based on race and sex which are immutable traits. The courts have now expanded equal protection and due process to cover a lifestyle choice (homosexuality) that does not affect others. Well we might as well continue down the slippery slope and declare polygamy between consenting adults a right. After all, the state can no longer legislate based on moral disapproval.

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Dec. 24, 2013 11:40 p.m.

    Hey Utah 3rd times a charm.

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 24, 2013 11:57 p.m.

    @BigBubba --

    "Divorce lawyers are going to be busy next year."

    So far, the divorce rate for gay couples appears to be roughly half of the divorce rate for straight couples.

    Perhaps straight couples could learn something here.

    "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.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 25, 2013 12:09 a.m.

    @open minded: "Apparently our Constitution is working."

    Which Constitution, State or Federal? The Federal Constitution says nothing about marriage... And the repeal of DOMA simply means marriage is to be determined/defined not by federal by by state governments. And the State of Utah did define marriage... as between one man and one woman.

    All the US Constitution (14th Amendment) says about the issue is: 'No state... shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

    And what does the State of Utah's laws say about marriage? That it is to be between one man and one woman. As for equal protection... all, ALL citizens are protected in selecting someone to marry... that they select someone of the opposite sex. It does not say that gays can marry someone of their sex. It does not say polygamists can marry. It does not say that children can marry. It clearly says that all citizens of the state can marry by choosing someone of the opposite sex.

    If it turns out that Utah's prohibition of gay marriage is incorrect, the state is obliged to also allow all other types of marriages that can be conjured.

  • Mr. Bean Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 25, 2013 12:14 a.m.

    @iron&clay:
    "If you are under 18 and you are sexually assaulted by an adult..."

    If the adult and 'child' are legally married (and they should be if gays can marry) it is not sexual assault. Further, the government has no business being involved in the conduct in peoples' bedrooms.

    @Bob K:
    "With BYU and a VERY conservative population it provides a buffer from Salt Lake Valley which is going to deteriorate significantly with this ruling."

    Salt Lake is prophesied to be one of the wickedest cities in the world. The Judge's ruling is a giant step.

    @sid 6.7:
    "He did what he was supposed to do and ruled in favor of ALL man"

    He did not rule in favor of polygamists, group marriages, pedophile marriages, sibling marriages, father/daughter marriages, mother/son marriages, etc. He has more work to do.

    @Contrariuser:
    "States won't be allowed to continue ignoring the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution for very much longer."

    If you're licensed to operate a motor vehicle in California do you have to re-license when you move to Utah. Yes. What happened to the 'full faith and credit clause?

  • Al Thepal Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 12:43 a.m.

    I would be okay with it if the courts would remember that religions and their members are protected under the first amendment to the Constitution "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". But it is appearing, based on a few recent examples, that the liberal judges are largely ignoring the 1st phrase in the 1st amendment to the constitution. For example, if a business owner doesn't want to make a wedding cake because his religion says he should not take part in such weddings, his religious rights should be protected. The ironic thing about the case I am referencing is that both sides admitted that the business owner would happily serve them for any other occasion. But he did not want to violated his religion. The courts unconstitutionally violated his religious rights. Shame on the judges who make such decisions. So if the approach being taken was a balanced approach, I would not have a problem with the LGBT rights movement. Something is wrong when someone's rights get eliminated in order to create rights for someone else. There is a better way.

  • LadyMoon Crestucky, FL
    Dec. 25, 2013 12:47 a.m.

    It appears to me same gendered's have won. Why though, does it seem a higher majority of these same gendered's find it necessary to act like the opposite sex? It seems like a counterfeit act while trying to legitimize the normalcy of same gendered marriages.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 25, 2013 12:53 a.m.

    I guess the next step for Utah is the US Supreme Court.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 1:08 a.m.

    'The meaning of the law is not up to the peope anymore, it has been stopped.'

    False:

    *'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.'

    Amendment 3 passed in 2004.

    Today, is 2013.

    When citing the 'will of the people'? Try something a bit more current than almost a decade ago.

    'I think many of these people are caught up in the moment. They jumped the gun and got married just because a judge overruled…'

    False:

    *'Gay Americans pay more taxes for fewer rights' - By Suze Orman – CNN – 02/25/13

    'We all have 83-year-old Edith Windsor to thank for in pushing the issue of same-sex marriage equality on to the national front. Edie and her partner Thea were together for 40 years.'

    This is really why persons against gay marriage are loosing.

    Willfully ignoring LGBT couples together for 40 years.

    And the fact that Kim Kardashian was married…for only 7 weeks.

    Pick a standard.

    Gay marriage has finally come to Utah.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 1:17 a.m.

    From the article…

    'The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the state's request for an emergency stay on a federal judge's ruling…'

    Sound familiar?

    *’Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News – 02/07/12

    Just 4 days ago people were claiming a 'lone, liberal judge' was destroying the will of the people.

    Ignoring federal judges that struck down Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.

    Today, the 10th circuit court refused the stay (again) to deny gay marriage.

    When will some realize, this is not the work of a few 'activist' judges.

    This is the work of the Constitution of the United states of America.

    You cannot deny the 1,100+ legal rights and protections given to some Americans..

    because of what is between their legs.

    LGBT pay their taxes, go to work, raise their kids…

    and bleed and die on the fields of war.

    They should be able, to have life-long monogamy to one person.

    And that should be their choice.

    Not yours.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 1:36 a.m.

    I thought the conservatives were big fans of the Constitution. Why are they complaining when the Constitution doesn't give them what they want?

    Sen. Mike Lee has spoken openly about his desires to repeal the 14th and 17th amendments. So much for loving the Constitution.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 2:08 a.m.

    The recent developments in allowing gay marriage seem historic. How will the Mormon church continue to react? In the latest issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, the first article analyzes possible paths for both the Catholic and Mormon churches in light of their respective doctrinal principles. The present legal developments make the matter more acute than ever.

  • marlenakio us, WA
    Dec. 25, 2013 5:55 a.m.

    A lot of these couples have been together half a dozen to dozens of years unable to marry because of the laws here and thinking they shouldn't have to go to another state to get a marriage license. this is a great .....

  • ChuckGG Gaithersburg, MD
    Dec. 25, 2013 5:55 a.m.

    I continue to wait to hear one, just one, valid argument against Marriage Equality that would hold up in a Court of law. I have asked the naysayers for this repeatedly. All I hear are crickets.

    We are talking about secular, civil marriage, not necessarily religious marriage (unless your religion supports it), so why does the religious crowd believe they have a dog in this fight? It makes no sense.

    The national groups such as NOM speak of "activist judges" and all that. That's not what I'm seeing. They are following the strict constructionist view. I guess they are only "activist judges" if you disagree with them. The anti-SSM crowd keeps going to court with the same lame arguments and they continue to lose, which is of little surprise. Either come up with a valid argument (good luck on that!) or take your ball and go home.

    SSM will be the law of the land and guess what? The world will continue to spin. It is a "no big deal" unless you are in a SSM.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Dec. 25, 2013 6:14 a.m.

    Christmas has come and we once again celebrate the birth of the Savior of all mankind.

    The sun has risen.

    Perhaps it is time to move on to other things such as taking care of the poor, the sick and afflicted.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 6:34 a.m.

    There is no new legal ground to be explored through an appeal. You don't get to appeal just because you're not happy with the decision, you have to show that an important legal principal has been misapplied or overlooked.

    The claims Utah is making as it appeals to the Supreme Court have already been examined and dismissed.

    There is simply no legal, constitutional reason for the court to reverse Judge Shelby, and a mountain of reasons, both constitutional and practical, to deny Utah's request for an appeal.

  • Machado South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    No less an authority than the current POTUS has established the precedent that the executive branch of government has the right of selective enforcement in the area of same-sex marriage. Selective enforcement has been completely ignored by the courts. With that precedent established by the lefties, I think Utah County is on solid legal grounds. However, the lefties won't see it that way. They only want selective enforcement of laws they don't like. They are an odd bunch to say the least.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Dec. 25, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    Why does the State need to regulate marriage, anyway? For the same reason it regulates other contracts: Prevent conflicts between parties; resolve them when they happen. It's certainly not necessary for protection of children. What privileges do the children of married parents enjoy, that the children of unmarried parents are denied?

    Regulation of marriage is a service to the public, not a service to certain religious groups. Historically, the need for regulation of same-sex marriages was not obvious, until the Supreme Court decriminalized what is done by consenting adults in such relationships.

    Laws are a service provided to citizens. Only in certain Islamic societies are laws seen as a codification of religious beliefs. Some people are acting as if there is only a limited number of marriage licenses available. They want to ration them, because the State might run out. What's next? Ration birth certificates, only to babies from good homes? Ration death certificates, only to those who led sinless lives?

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 25, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    @wrz --

    "The Federal Constitution says nothing about marriage... "

    Many panels of SCOTUS justices have affirmed and reaffirmed marriage as a basic civil right.

    " As for equal protection... all, ALL citizens are protected in selecting someone to marry... "

    Yet again -- that argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work now either.

    "the state is obliged to also allow all other types of marriages that can be conjured."

    Nope. Yet again, individual rights are always limited by harm.

    "He did not rule in favor of polygamists, group marriages, pedophile marriages, sibling marriages, father/daughter marriages, mother/son marriages, etc. "

    Of course not. Individual rights are always limited by harm.

    "If you're licensed to operate a motor vehicle in California do you have to re-license when you move to Utah. Yes. What happened to the 'full faith and credit clause?"

    Different kind of license.

    If someone marries their first cousin in Tennessee and then moves to Utah, he is still married.

    If someone marries a 16-year-old in Tennessee and then moves to Utah, he is still married.

    It is very well established that Full Faith and Credit applies to marriage licenses.

  • Stacy Callister Orem, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    Being a long-standing member of the church and a mother of nine, my heart (and my husband's) have changed when we found out that one of our sons came out to us as gay two years ago. We raised him just like we did with the rest of our children, but we noticed that his personality and tendencies were different starting from age 5. To suggest that my son made a conscious choice to become gay at such a young age is purely ignorant, and the church has now (finally!) acknowledged that being gay isn't a choice (http://www.mormonsandgays.org/). To those against this, please set aside your biases and prejudice, and listen to your gay brothers and sisters.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    I have read and been taught that the Constitution will be "hanging by a threat," but it appears to be on very solid legal ground in protecting the rights of everyone. Theology is losing to the will of the people. All people!

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 25, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    @bc5: The "slippery slope" argument is an imaginary one from your fevered imagination. Marriage is still restricted to two and only two, mutually consenting, adult human beings who are unrelated.

    As for the essential-essence vs. "lifestyle" argument... Everyone has a lifestyle. Whether it's the quiver-full, the traditional 2.3 children white-picket-fence, DINKs (dual-income, no kids), or Bohemian, S&M/DS, or Swinger, these are all heterosexual lifestyles, and we let them all get married. Pair-bonding, whether in people or in nature is not a lifestyle. However that pair chooses to live their lives might be described as a lifestyle, but the bonding itself is what we created marriage for, to give it a legal status, to make the two people into one household unit for tax, accounting, inheritance and social service purposes. There's no such thing as a "gay lifestyle". There's probably a dozen of them, just as there are with "straight lifestyles." Pair-bonding is pair-bonding is pair-bonding. If you don't like who someone is marrying, don't go to the wedding. End of story.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    @MrBean:
    "
    If you're licensed to operate a motor vehicle in California do you have to re-license when you move to Utah. Yes. What happened to the 'full faith and credit clause?"

    It means that California residents are free to drive in other states with that California drivers license. If they move to another state, they're no longer California residents, and are now subject to the laws of their new home state. Since California does not have the right to issue drivers licenses to non-residents, you have to get a new license where you now live.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    As a fellow Brooklyn native, I would add to "A Quaker" who commented about "gay lifestyle": From what I've seen, with a gay cousin and some gay friends, that "gay lifestyle" seems to pretty much go as follows: Get up in the morning, make the bed and take a shower. Fix breakfast. Get the kids (if you have kids) up, fed and off to school. Go to work. Come home and clean house. Fix dinner and then run to the store for groceries. Make sure the kids do their homework. Read a book or watch TV for a while. Get the kids in bed and chat with your partner for a while before you're sleepy and need to go to bed. Bring the dog in so he won't bark all night. Go to bed. Come to think of it, that sounds an awful lot like the lifestyle my wife and I follow, as well as that of my straight neighbors. Not very exciting, is it...

  • donahoe NSL, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    We should be kind to each other on Christmas, don't you think? Our constitutional process is working just fine, and we should celebrate that success. We should all congratulate Judge Shelby, a USU alumnus, for writing an iron-clad decision based on precedent. Such was his promise and is his duty.

    To Bubba, Utah historically has a higher than the national average divorce rate (see the US Census data). I was born in the Midwest where the divorce rate well below average. So you raise an issue upon which we might focus to better our community. Focus on our blessings and positive action this Christmas day.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    This is great news, a Christmas gift in itself. It's too bad the state feels the need to waste time and resources to appeal an unconstitutional law, but for today good news is good news. Merry Christmas to all.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Dec. 25, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    This is what the original tea party was all about. "Taxation without representation" is totally unacceptable. Rule by judges as czars of a dictator just like George III is also totally unacceptable.

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    Some claim that religion has no business being in the secular marriage arena. Religion has been in the marriage business since Adam and Eve, whether religious or secular. Of course religions can have opinions, policies, and procedures regarding marriage, as it is one of the main stays of our society.

  • paulheckbert Pittsburgh, PA
    Dec. 25, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    Yeah, the slippery slope.

    In the beginning, only white men had the vote. But then women were given the vote, and our inevitable slide down the slippery slope began. Next it was blacks. And after that we were compelled to give oxen and iguanas and even cockroaches the vote! Once you start down the slippery slope, you just can't stop!

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    @Contrariusest: Enjoy your moment in the sun. Your comment suggests you are taking joy out of shoving this anti-religious ruling down the throats of religious folks. Killing babies in America is legal too, but that does not make it right or moral. If you can find joy in sodomy and sin, then it says something about your moral character. You want straights to be tolerant of you point of view, but you have no interest in the point of view of religious folks. That approach will not stand the test of time.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    since the term, "marriage" no longer applies to a union between a man and a woman we need a new term for that.

  • kofender Rockaway, NJ
    Dec. 25, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    The news out of the 10th Circuit is certainly encouraging, and it indicates the state will probably not prevail on appeal. This is great news for the hundreds of couple able to marry since last Friday. And therein lies my point.

    The people of Utah should be proud of the swift manner in which these marriages happened. Barely a nanosecond after Judge Shelby issued his ruling, couples were obtaining marriage licenses—without delay (in most counties though not all). In other states where marriage equality has occurred, the delays have ranged from 21 days (here in NJ) to months (we're still waiting, Illinois). In Utah, it was ZERO delay. You might not see it or realize it, but that was a remarkable achievement and you should be proud of it.

    I hope everyone has a great holiday and a wonderful 2014. I hope everyone sees these weddings as an affirmation of marriage and not a threat to marriage. Congratulations to all the happy couples (and really, seeing all those faces filled with love and joy, only the hardest of hearts could not be thrilled for them).

  • Grandma 20 Allen, TX
    Dec. 25, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    Where the Church stands:

    The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 25, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    @Meckofahess --

    "Your comment suggests you are taking joy out of shoving this anti-religious ruling down the throats of religious folks. "

    Again -- this is NOT a question of religion vs. The Gay.

    Many Christian denominations are already happy to perform gay marriages. Heck, just look at all the pastors who showed up to the SL County courthouse.

    And many gay people are devout Christians.

    It's a lie to claim that the gay marriage issue is anti-religious.

    And yes, I take great joy from seeing justice being done. Merry Christmas!

    "If you can find joy in sodomy and sin, then it says something about your moral character. "

    Sodomy has been legal for years. And, btw, many straight couples also enjoy those acts.

    And "sin" is a very relative term. This is not a theocracy, so your personal definitions of sin don't get to determine our secular laws. If you want to live under religious law, try moving to somewhere like Iran.

    "You want straights to be tolerant of you point of view... "

    Nobody is forcing you to have a gay marriage -- just as nobody is forcing you to drink liquor. THAT would be intolerance.

  • John Locke Ivins, , UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    It is a sad commentary when a judge rules quickly on a summary judgment striking down a provision of the Utah Constitution voted in by 67% of the population, without even allowing a trial, and then not allowing the State to even address its position prior to its implementation? That is what totalitarian regimes do. That kind of "justice" is a slap in the face to the majority who live here, and the Constitution, which recognizes majority rule.

    That which is immoral, remains immoral, you cannot change that with a change in the law, or striking down the law. If the activity in question is immoral, it remains immoral. God says the activity in question is immoral. Since he said it...I side with Him, not Judge Shelby, who definitely is not God....despite what his mirror might tell him.
    .

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    The AG's office has been without a rudder and even a sail for 13 years, it appears. They will have no basis for doing anything with a cause and by law and order.

    The Governor has already sold out the $13M to Colorado interests and there is no way the AG's office can do anything, one way or another with the Colorado based Court of Appeals.

    John Swallow did more for the State of Utah than he knew would happen.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 25, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    By the comments I'm reading it seems that the dust is settling down.

    It is obvious that for many in Utah it will take a while to come to terms with SSM being legal in your state. Please forgive me, but I think this is the time for all of you who opposed SSM reflect and prepare for your appeal to the SCOTUS.

    I would strongly suggest that you keep notes on how " your" marriage has been negatively affected since Friday with the advent of Same Sex Marriage.

    I sincerely hope that no harm comes to your relationship. But if this change brings you harm please raise the issue. However, please I beg you, as the LGBT community doesn't want to harm you. Please don't inflict harm on your neighbors just because you can.

    Merry Christmas to all.

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    I think it's interesting how word games are played with "gay marriage" vs. "same sex marriage." We end up showing our bias in the words we frame the discussion.

    It's also interesting to me how we love the constitution so much yet fall back to the arguement that that people voted with an overwhelming majority to justiffy taking away the rights of a minority. I thought the constitution was written to protect the rights of the minority. That's why we have freedom of speech or freedom of religion so the rights of the minority can be protected from the majority. How would we in Utah feel if an amendment was passed outlawing our version of Christianity called Mormonism because it wasn't Christian enough.

  • bc5 Missoula, MT
    Dec. 25, 2013 11:13 a.m.

    The court seems to be sympathetic about the effects on children when a parent that is involved in a gay relationship and can’t get married. However, things are really going to get tough on children in Christian families. Children will be taught moral values by their parents. When they study the Bible in Sunday school they will learn about the sin of homosexual sex. They will become confused when the go to a public school and are taught that is OK to be gay. When they have to read Heather Has Two Mommies or Daddies New Husband. If the Christian child tells a child in a homosexual family that their two moms or two dads live in sin they will be guilty of hate speech. If the Christian child continues to stand up for his faith he will probably be expelled.

    On another note, Judge Shelby should have had the decency to wait until after Christmas to issue his opinion. I think he wanted to stick Christians in the eye.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 25, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    @John Locke --

    "Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."

    Does that passage sound familiar?

    It should. The real John Locke said it.

    Man may not "take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."

    It doesn't make any difference if you think it's a sin or not. You may not take it away "unless it be to do justice on an offender".

    And if you can't prove any harm, then there is no offender.

    You should listen to your namesake.

    And with that, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas! I'm outta here til late tonight!

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Dec. 25, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    @Instereo: The Constitution was written to create a republican democracy, with safeguards for the states who formed it. That's why Senator Hatch, who endorsed Judge Shelby's confirmation, could have blocked him even though Senators representing a majority of the country's population supported him. As the system works, Senators representing about a third of Americans can tell the other third what to do.

    But it was the Bill of Rights that was enacted to protect the rights of the minorities. The majority supports freedom of speech when it involves criticism of racism. It's when the minority of Klan members want to march through the streets of Salt Lake City, that freedom of speech protects the minority.

    In my lifetime, the majority of voters in many Southern states supported laws against interracial marriage. Where were the SSM opponents back then? Well, we know how their church felt about black people back then.

  • ingleschmingle Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    Changes that were long overdue and a victory for equality.

  • ingleschmingle Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    @Here There is no proof that Adam and Eve existed. A mere childrens tale like Hansel and Gretel. It's time for religion to stay out of all business.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    ' If the Christian child tells a child in a homosexual family that their two moms or two dads live in sin they will be guilty of hate speech. If the Christian child continues to stand up for his faith he will probably be expelled.'

    My reply…

    *'Boy, 15, reprimanded for backing traditional family in school paper' - By Joshua Bolding, Deseret News - 01/27/12

    'He (Wegner) also quoted scriptures like Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be PUT TO DEATH...' – article

    When 'standing up for your faith'? Please do not say that someone you disagree with should die.

    Good will, and peace on earth to everyone.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    @JohnLocke 10:14 a.m. Dec. 25, 2013

    This case was decided on summary judgment because BOTH sides wanted it decided on summary judgment. Had there been any question as to material fact, it would have been very easy to raise that issue, derail the summary judgment process and send the matter to trial. The State addressed its position in the pleadings/briefs it submitted for summary judgment, long prior to the judgment and its implementation. I have no doubt that both sides of the issue were fully briefed and argued prior to Judge Shelby's judgment being issued. Judge Shelby's decision fully analyzed and addressed the arguments from both sides of the issue, and reached a sound decision based firmly on the Constitution and case law reaching back to the 1800s (I've read and analyzed the entire decision -- have you?). There is nothing totalitarian about what happened in this matter.

    The role of the courts is not to decide whether a given action can perceived to be moral or immoral. The role of the courts is to decide whether an issue is constitutional or unconstitutional, something for which morality has no bearing. Judge Shelby did his job well. Kudos to him.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    @AL re: "..if a business owner doesn't want to make a wedding cake because his religion says he should not take part in such weddings, his religious rights should be protected."

    Your issue is really with public accommodation law. If you're in business religious freedom does not mean you can discriminate against someone of a different faith or race, and even sexual orientation. What you may want to do is as your state legislator to modify Utah's public accommodation laws.

  • The Deuce Livermore, CA
    Dec. 25, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    To:
    ingleschmingle
    Salt Lake City, UT

    You made the following comment: "@Here There is no proof that Adam and Eve existed. A mere childrens tale like Hansel and Gretel. It's time for religion to stay out of all business." I want to ask you a question in all seriousness. Do you really want to take that bet? I have long watched individuals making similar claims that something did not exist only to have to eat their words at a later time when they were proven wrong. New knowledge is being discovered each year. You benefit by the modern medicine that was discovered in your life time that only a hundred years ago was not even comprehensible to the scientific community. So I ask you again, do you really want to take that bet?

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    In re Al Thepal
    Salt Lake City, UT
    If Al would take the word and concept of religion out of his argument then this decision would have never been handed down. Al confuses the first amendment right to practice one's own religion with a right for all religions to pass legislation that is to their likes and religious canons. It is religion that has gotten us in this mess. It was religion that financed Prop 8 in Ca. There should be no laws which are designed to give or deny religion a place in the institution of marriage. Marriage is a civil function. Churches that perform marriages today do not handle divorces. Nor should they. Our state law should be changed to prevent priest,rabbis,minister etc from being able to administer the official act of marriage. This does not prevent any religion from performing their marriage service with their members. It just rakes their service out of the domain of being official and keeps it in the domain of being religious.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    @equal protection
    Cedar, UT

    “Your issue is really with public accommodation law.”

    Accommodation law is the lesser of the laws in question. The voters of the state of Utah thought they had made their will known with an amendment to Utah's constitution, which would trump other laws, including accommodation law.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 2:18 p.m.

    I seems a deep seated need for all citizens to be able to address themselves as: "We the People"! Today ALL the citizens of Utah can call themselves that inclusive title (naysayers not withstanding). Game. Set. Match and Merry Christmas!

  • Red Smith American Fork, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    County clerks that are in contempt of court should be jailed like anyone else who is in contempt of court orders.

    Whether you agree or disagree with the issue, laws must be obeyed even if you don't agree with them. Opening disobeying court orders is not something that should be promoted by County officials. Lawlessness is good for the public safety, or economy.

  • toshi1066 OGDEN, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 4:29 p.m.

    Thank you Court of Appeals. Civil Rights and equality under the law has finally arrived in Utah.

    Congratulations to all of you married this past week, gays and straights.

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    Dec. 25, 2013 4:32 p.m.

    AG spokesman Bruckman said "the office was not giving legal guidance to clerks' offices."

    Uh... isn't that the JOB of the attorney general's office?

  • Archie1954 Vancouver, BC
    Dec. 25, 2013 4:49 p.m.

    It is time ladies and gentlemen of Utah to move into the 21st century!

  • The Judge Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 25, 2013 7:48 p.m.

    Read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and you'll know how the Supremes will vote, if they ever take this up.

    "By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this court’s declaration that there is 'no legitimate purpose' served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure the 'personhood and dignity' of same-sex couples. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society's debate over marriage — a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy 'help' only to a member of this institution."

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 25, 2013 8:07 p.m.

    @ricwhite:
    "... the chances of getting a stay from a liberal Sonia Sotomayor..."

    The SCOTUS vote on DOMA was five/four. All DOMA was about was whether the federal government could make laws re marriage. The DOMA decision said the feds can't. But states can. Regarding 'equal protection,' which is about state law, SCOTUS will very likely decide that Utah's law defining marriage (man/woman) will be upheld. Why? Because it applies equally to everyone... regardless of sexual orientation. If SCOTUS decides Utah (man/woman) law fails the 'equal protection' test it will also have to decide that any combination of marriage, such as polygamy, incest, etc., is legal.

    @Schnee:
    "A lot of these couples have been together half a dozen to dozens of years unable to marry..."

    Big mistake to marry. When they decide they don't wanna be together anymore, marriage becomes an entanglement of asset distribution and lawyers fees. Better to stay single and live together, then, when you wanna break up you just... break up and go your separate ways. Gay people are more prone to wanting to sleep around... which, of course, is theirs and everyone's prerogative... called freedom of association.

  • SamSmith Bronx, NY
    Dec. 25, 2013 9:44 p.m.

    @Henry Drummond, it's hard to assemble a good defense team when the AG's Office has been effectively leaderless for months and months. Well, the conservative's loss and marriage equality's gain.

  • mauister Wailuku, HI
    Dec. 25, 2013 11:51 p.m.

    I think I had one of the first legal gay marriages in Salt Lake City in 1986. I married my best friend, a lesbian. I am a gay man. My boyfriend was my best man, and her girl friend was her maid of honor. We are now divorced and she married her current girlfriend in California a few months ago. I think her current marriage is more natural than what we did on a whim as kids in our twenties. We divorced about ten years ago and had a wonderful divorce. Our pagan wedding ribbons are now tied on a tree in Big Cottonwood Canyon. Rock on, Utah!

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 1:18 a.m.

    Marriage equality.

    It's a wonderful thing.

    And welcome to Utah!

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 2:42 a.m.

    @rw 123re: "Accommodation law is the lesser of the laws in question. The voters of the state of Utah thought they had made their will known with an amendment to Utah's constitution, which would trump other laws, including accommodation law."

    But this pesky little thing called the Untied States Constitution, which trumps Utah's constitution. Due Process and Equal protection. 5thg and 14th Amendments. Too bad Utah votes have never heard of it...

  • toshi1066 OGDEN, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 8:55 a.m.

    Day three of "gay marriage" in Utah: got up this morning, checked my email, walked the dogs, husband made breakfast. Check on our son, he was asleep as normal for a 17 yearold boy on holiday. Cat glared at me as I disturbed the bed by sitting down.

    So when does the apocalypse happen that's supposed to tear our marriage apart? I'd like to have the laundry done by then...

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 26, 2013 9:31 a.m.

    toshi1066 --

    Congrats! I hope you get to take time out for a wonderful honeymoon!

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    toshi: You don't get it at all, do you?

    In 1962, SCOTUS eliminated prayer in schools. Social data shows a statistical negative trend in unwed motherhood, divorce, drug abuse, etc since that event. Interestingly, those statistics had been virtually static before 1962.

    1n 1973, SCOTUS legalized abortion on demand. Disregard for human life has contributed to mass shootings, pornography, and other sub-human activities.

    In 50 years span, we changed from honoring honesty, virtue, generosity, etc to one driven by greed and lust. We changed from Bedford Falls to Pottersville so gradually that you didn't even notice. You even ridicule the concept of cause and effect.

    You probably cannot even imagine a real Bedford Falls existence. You think it's quaint and Rockwell-esque but so far removed from reality that you have a hard time believing people were ever honorable.

    Like the two previous examples, our society will pay a price for this decision. But you will follow blindly down the primrose path without even noticing that the scenery is more bleak and the air more foul.

  • toshi1066 OGDEN, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    No I get it joe5, we have just granted a significant portion of our population a civil right long denied them. This is a good thing.

    The rest of your post is unverified anecdotes, there isn't a piece of evidence in there. Show me the stats that back up your claims, please.

    And Bedford Falls, where a woman *gasp* was a librarian, an honest, self supporting adult instead of a leeching, spend her husband's money wife is to be honored. No thanks, sir, I will continue to pay my way through life.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    You know dang well that Sotomayor won't issue a stay.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 26, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    @joe5 --

    Bedford Falls -- where there were no women or minorities in positions of authority. Where black college kids couldn't eat at the Walgreens lunch counter. Where gay employees could be fired just for saying "I'm going to the movies with my boyfriend".

    No thanks.

    Violent crime rates in the US have been falling for the last 20 years.

    Teen pregnancy rates in the US today is half of what it was 20 years ago. In 1991, the U.S. teen birth rate was 61.8 births for every 1,000 adolescent females, compared with 29.4 births for every 1,000 adolescent females in 2012.

    So far, divorce rates among gay couples are roughly half of divorce rates among straight couples.

    Gay couples will never have an "oops" pregnancy. All children raised by gay couples are WANTED children. Therefore they have little need or desire for abortions.

    Welcome to the 21st century.

  • toshi1066 OGDEN, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    I apologize, I garbled my last sentence about Bedford Falls. I meant a place where wives who live off the work of their husbands as opposed to a self sufficient, honest working woman in a job that helps others, is the ideal, I will pass on such a world. I'm glad to have contributed as much work and money to our life as my husband.

    The people devaluing human life are the ons shutting off benefits to the needy, the ones willing to let children go hungry so they can save the measly $5 a year they contribute to food stamps.

    We have given our gay and lesbian siblings one of the greatest gifts ever: the right to make decisions in the event of an emergency. I have been there and I never want anyone to feel the humiliation of having a doctor look you in the face and say "You aren't married to him/her, you are nothing really to him/her." That is one of the most humiliating and defeating things you can say to a person in a crisis, it denies them their connection to the person injured. We need not subject people to it anymore.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    @Contrariusest:

    Sorry my friend, I don't find your assertions to be persuasive. First, you miss the whole point. Sin is not defined by courts or man, sin was and is defined by God. God's word is the Holy Bible which condemns homosexual behavior - including sodomy! You think because a few Christian Pastors have caved to the social pressure of the gay community that they can change the Holy scriptures and God's word. Rationalization of truth does not alter it's real meaning. All of us rationalize when our behavior falls short of what our conscious tells us is right - that is why God gave us repentance, to learn from our mistakes and change our behavior to be aligned with His will - not our own will. I have a few gay friends and I respect them because they are good people. I would not want those friends to condone any behavior on my part that is contrary to the revealed word of God. I think "legal unions" would be a better solution that better respects the point of view of straight folks.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    Contrarius: You must have watched a much different movie than I did. Somehow you are able to drudge up evil intent where none was offered. If you look for opportunities to be offended, you will always be able to find them. In fact, there are people today who (driven by greed) make a livelihood out of stirring trouble based on faux offenses.

    As far as your statistics, they go all the way back to 1993. Not very impressive. That is a virtual snapshot in time. not substantive period to measure social trends. Further, no significant event is tied your analysis. Why the change?

    The panorama of 50 years, along with a definable trigger, provides much more context to the data.

    For example, your divorce rate data. There certainly hasn't bee a significant enough period of time to really determine what divorce rate will be for SSM. If you only took the first five years of traditional marriage, the rate would be much lower. Also, many divorces are due to "repeat offenders." Divorce rate in first-time marriages is much lower.

    In short, your data is little more than legerdemain intended to distract rather than inform.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 26, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    @Meckofahess --

    "First, you miss the whole point. "

    Nope. I think you missed the fact that this country is not a theocracy. Your personal interpretation of God's word is not particularly relevant to our legal system.

    Many Christian denominations are already happy to perform gay wedding ceremonies -- and many gay people are devout Christians. Many people disagree with your views regarding what God actually wants.

    @joe5 --

    "Somehow you are able to drudge up evil intent "

    I never said a single word about evil intent.

    Speaking of faux offenses...

    "As far as your statistics, they go all the way back to 1993. Not very impressive."

    Certainly more impressive than vague claims about "the good old days".

    "There certainly hasn't bee a significant enough period of time to really determine what divorce rate will be for SSM. "

    Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for 10 years; in Canada for 8 years; and, in several Scandinavian countries, they've had gay marriage and/or registered partnerships for around 20 years. That's plenty of time.

  • genetics Canada, 00
    Dec. 26, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    It is becoming increasingly obvious that the legal profession is not required to understand biology at even a fundamental, novice level. There is no suitable argument which explains the biological contradictions associated with homosexual behavior. How does one explain the biological basis of the anatomical interactions, the lack of corresponding female and male gametes, genetics, population genetics, etc. Every individual on this planet is the result of an egg and sperm. No amount of legal maneuvering or secular sophistry can alter these realities. Marriage is between a male and female. This fact is already established, pick your own term for same sex relationships-marriage is already taken and well justified.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 26, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    @genetics --

    I"There is no suitable argument which explains the biological contradictions..."

    Many species of nonhuman animals engage in homosexual behaviors. For instance, more than half of all sexual activity in bonobo chimps (our closest relatives) occurs between females.

    We don't need to know "the purpose" of natural things to know that they do have some purpose. Do you know the purpose of your appendix? So what? Do you know the purpose of the little divot between your nose and your lip? So what?

    In the case of homosexuality, there are many theories about its purpose or purposes out in nature. Some studies have shown that relatives of homosexuals may be more attractive to prospective partners; some postulate that homosexual pairs may be able to defend "adopted" offspring more aggressively than "straight" pairs; some show that homosexual behaviors increase social bonding and cohesion. In fact, those bonobos -- the ones that show so very much same-sex behavior -- are widely known for the peaceful ways they deal with intragroup conflicts. They are literally lovers, not fighters.

    There are many possible "purposes" for homosexuality. But we don't need to prove any of them to justify equal protection under the law.

  • genetics Canada, 00
    Dec. 26, 2013 3:06 p.m.

    @Contrariusier

    There are many possible "purposes" for homosexuality. But we don't need to prove any of them to justify equal protection under the law.

    The two types of behavior are not biologically equal and therefore do not require equal protection under the law.

    Homosexual behavior has little to no fitness value because there is no participation in the gene pool structure of the next generation and the following....

    Simply because it is seen in nature does not indicate that it has some advantage. There are many heritable conditions that are unfortunate. For example, there is no advantage to cystic fibrosis.

    Moreover, understanding the biological basis of this behavior may help alleviate the suffering of those who may have these inclinations, but do not wish to emabrace them.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    @genetics --

    "The two types of behavior are not biologically equal.... "

    How do gay couples behave any differently than any other infertile couples?

    And remember -- many straight couples enjoy the same acts that gay couples do.

    "Homosexual behavior has little to no fitness value because there is no participation in the gene pool structure of the next generation and the following.... "

    Your interpretation of "fitness" here is very limited. Refer back to my earlier post, which mentions several possible fitness benefits for homosexuality.

    "Simply because it is seen in nature does not indicate that it has some advantage. "

    It does when more than half of all sexual activity in a species is same-sex (bonobos). It also does when one quarter of all pairs in a species are same-sex (black swans). And there are many other examples. We are not talking about isolated incidents of disease here.

    One researcher wrote in 2007: "No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all..."