Quantcast
Utah

Utah's request delayed for stay on same-sex marriage ruling from Supreme Court

Comments

Return To Article
  • Visitor from California Berkeley, CA
    Dec. 26, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    Congratulations to the happy couple, and to Utah!

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 26, 2013 1:41 p.m.

    I think it speaks well of the people of the Utah County that such reconciliation can be found and good feelings shared even in the face of an emotional issue like this. It looks like every county in the State is complying with the Judge's ruling.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 26, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    Congratulations to the newly weds!

    A living proof that it is just a matter of time that marriage equality will win out.

  • firefly Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 2:21 p.m.

    Someone please look at those pictures and tell me why the government should prohibit such joy. Congratulations to the happy couple, to Utah County, and the State of Utah. Let love rule.

  • non believer PARK CITY, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    Still feel Thompson should be removed from office and do not buy his story for an instant!

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 2:51 p.m.

    Utah County was right to wait until after the decision was to not grant the stay was made by a court rather than a single egotistical judge. Now that a court has not granted the stay, every county has no choice but to grant the marriage licenses. I have said it before and I will again. Although I don't support it, I have no problem with the gay marriage movement as long as they don't take it to the extreme where they are suing churches for not performing their marriage for them and as long as they respect the religious rights of myself and many others. I also would prefer it be done by the voice of the people rather than courts, but that apparently is not going to happen as judges think they should have more power than the constitution allows them (which is a problem that spreads far beyond the gay marriage movement). I think it is a fair compromise for both sides of this particular issue to put their differences aside and respect the other group's rights to think, feel, or believe what they think, feel, or believe.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 26, 2013 3:02 p.m.

    Congradulations.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    Looking at a picture as evidence that something is working is not a reliable criteria for whether it is working. If this doesn't describe the approach of the leadership in Washington the past 50 years, I don't know what does. The appearance of reality is better than reality.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    The Mormon church agrees that sexual relations are also "to express love for one another" as another function besides procreation. But, says the Church, such sexual expression of love can only be allowed within the bonds of marriage.

    At least in the civil realm, could the church then not accept that a legally-married gay or lesbian couple is not sinning? According to Mormon morals, it would be preferable for them to marry rather than having sex outside the bonds of marriage. It would be such a simple step to acknowledge that, while still upholding the traditional-marriage-rule for church members.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 3:25 p.m.

    "I am not a hater, but to continue to devalue the purity of marriage for the "Gay" community is disheartening."

    ----------

    Oh, please. Marriage has been devalued already by plenty of heterosexuals before these two loving people took that civil commitment. You may think it is fine and does not tarnish the word if Brittany Spears was married for 27 hours, or that Ted Bundy was allowed to marry before he was executed, but I think all of us have our own houses to clean before we complain about a couple that has been together for as long as these two have finally being able to celebrate their county granting them a license.

    Congratulations to them!

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 26, 2013 3:28 p.m.

    @TN Cougar

    People can believe all they want, whether they oppose same sex marriage, or like the majority of American general public and 70-80% of young generation who support same sex marriage. But we have to agree, young generation's opinion matters more for this issue, and that is why like it or not, marriage equality is inevitable.

    @Billy Bob

    Some pastors decline to marry divorcees, and no one can prosecute them. There is no need to worry priests may be sued because of not marrying gays.

    Also, whether SSM is legalized by popular vote like in WA, MA, ME, or by legislature like in NH, VT, NY, RI, MN, DE, IL, DC, or by court order, they are all playing by the rules. After all, legislature and independent judiciary are both key elements of "check and balance" set by founding fathers.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 26, 2013 3:29 p.m.

    @TN Cougar --

    "it is wrong to attempt to destroy traditional American family values. "

    There is nothing about gay marriage which requires "destroying traditional American family values".

    Gay people who wish to marry cherish the very same traditional values of love and commitment as any other couples wanting to marry.

    "Liberals/anti-religionists will never be happy until they make everyone as miserable as they are."

    Yet again -- this isn't a question of "Religion vs. The Gay".

    Many Christian denominations are already happy to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.

    And many gay people are devout Christians.

    @omahahusker --

    "If two people want to have relations that fall outside the norms of biology "

    What does "the norm of biology" have to do with morality?

    I am left-handed -- representing 10% of the population. Is left-handedness immoral?

    I am also very tall -- taller than 95% of women my age. Am I therefore immoral?

    Don't confuse "norm" with right and wrong.

    In fact, many many nonhuman species practice homosexual behaviors out in nature. Therefore, it's perfectly natural.

    "to grant the the prize of marriage by activist judges is clearly against the wishes of the founders of the constitution. "

    How so?

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 3:45 p.m.

    I've said it before but it's worth saying again:

    "How many legs has a dog, if you call a tail a leg? Five? No. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln

    If the government classifies an SUV as farm equipment for tax and emissions regulation purposes, does that make it farm equipment? No. That's absurd.

    If the government classifies a homosexual relationship as a marriage, does it make it a marriage? No. It's still not a marriage. It's still a sham.

  • BYU-2000 Highland, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 4:02 p.m.

    CONGRATULATIONS!!! So excited to see love and equality win over ignorance and hate. The utahans I know are much more loving and accepting that what you see in blogs and on TV. Utah county takes one step closer to being a more Christian place to live.

  • grandmagreat Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Dec. 26, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    This is something that is so hard for me to understand why men/women seem to have a desire to marry each other. As a wife of 69 years, I am so grateful for a husband who helps me, and also for the wonderful children, grandchildren, greatgrandchildren and great greatgrandchildren that I have that they will never have to bless their life.

  • BYU-2000 Highland, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 4:18 p.m.

    @ Prodicus

    What is traditional marriage and when did it begin?

    I'm confused because I read through history and see:
    • Abraham had many wives (even married one of his half-sisters) and concubines (is that traditional marriage?)
    • Arranged marriages to promoting family ties and/or exchange of land and wealth (is that traditional marriage?)
    • Serial Monogamy, those who divorce and remarry multiple times (is that traditional marriage?)
    • Polygamy, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said that was required to gain the highest glory (is that traditional marriage?)
    • Monogamy becomes the standard for the LDS faithful in 1890 (is that traditional marriage?)

    I'm confused. What is traditional marriage and when did it begin?

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 26, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    @Prodicus

    If you want to believe same sex marriage is "not a marriage. It's still a sham", no one will force you to change your belief, and frankly, many same sex couples don't even care.

    What truly matters to them is that their marriages are recognized by the government, they now have equal protection and equal liberty under the US constitution. whether other people like it or not, after all, the government can no longer deny their 1100+ rights and benefits under the law. That is what they care about.

  • Guywithaquestion Orem, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    Does legalized same-sex marriage open the door for legalized polygamy? How about for other prohibited marriages such as to a sibling or relative?

    If the argument is over equality in marriage not social or religious immorality, shouldn't those other types of prohibited marriages also be allowed?

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 26, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    To BYU-2000

    All you need is look up the term marriage, origin and came abouts.
    It started with the use of the word, somewhere in the beginning of dark ages.

    But when did they start the term "traditional marriage", I guess in our time.
    I think many people like to be not bothered by these issues, and I do believe the SSM community has many nice and hard working people, just the propaganda elite is suspect to me.

    That elite is driving us all nuts, to change terms and definitions until we all give up.
    That is why we need to keep talking about it, and hold up some clear view what life is really about, or else they win over society, elections and our children' future.

  • Bloodhound Provo, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    What is a traditional marriage? Well, we've only got a few thousand years of history to work with in forming an answer. Whether polygamy or monogamy, males were paired with females and vice versa. Even ancient societies that tolerated or encouraged homosexual behavior didn't attempt to marry the individuals involved. It takes the decadent modern mind to come up with such an idea. Also, I don't understand Christians or Jews who encourage "gay marrioage." Homosexual behavior is condemned in the strictest of terms in both the Old and New Testaments.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    How does it hurt us if same-sex marriage is legalized? What is the downside?
    1- It violates the long held axiom that the family is the basic unit of society which is held by the majority of Americans (homosexuals are citing dubious polls to argue their point of view) but constitutional amendments in 33 states refute that illusion. It is offensive to supporters of traditional marriage to have this notion of "alternate legal definitions of marriage" shoved down our throats by activist judges.
    2- It introduces an un-natural biology (sodomy does not produce offspring)
    3- Children reared by homosexual parents are disadvantaged."In a historic study of children raised by homosexual parents, sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin has overturned the conventional academic wisdom that such children suffer no disadvantages when compared to children raised by their married mother and father. Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every category".

    Just a few of the reasons how same sex marriage negatively impacts us!

  • BYU-2000 Highland, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 4:58 p.m.

    That is what I can't wrap my head around... the definition keeps changing, so how can the argument be framed using the term "traditional marriage."

    My opinion is that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage. It should grant civil unions only. And let churches perform marriages. Straight people can get married at the church of their choosing. Gay people can get married at the church of their choosing. Everyone can do what they want. Some churches will never recognize gay marriages just like some churches still do not recognize interracial marriages. That is their choice.

  • Lady Wren Las Vegas, NV
    Dec. 26, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    So sad that the voice of the people is just cast aside. This country was supposed to be governed by the people, not by a few judges.

    The thing that gets me is that they said "if you don't like gay marriage, don't get one!" which was fine, but now they're saying "you still have to make our wedding cake, and take our wedding pictures, and participate in whatever way we want you to because if you don't, we're going to sue you." I feel like I'm losing my voice.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 5:29 p.m.

    @Meckofahess
    "It violates the long held axiom that the family is the basic unit of society which is held by the majority of Americans (homosexuals are citing dubious polls to argue their point of view)"

    Just about every poll this year shows majority support for same-sex marriage. Not my fault you deny reality. As for the family being the basic unit of society... you're the ones trying to break up a particular type of families.

    "2- It introduces an un-natural biology (sodomy does not produce offspring)"

    There's no offspring requirement in marriage. This is completely irrelevant and not any sort of "downside" since gay people are gay, married or not.

    "Mark Regnerus "

    Whose study compared families with a married mother and father to families to any family with a gay parent(s) which is not the same as comparing a married heterosexual couple led family to a married homosexual couple led family.

  • danr San Bernardino, CA
    Dec. 26, 2013 5:40 p.m.

    @ Meckofahess

    Your claims are bogus, as are most claims of the right wing.

    Regnes' study does NOT say what you claim.

    "Indeed, the study acknowledges that what it's really comparing with heterosexual families is not families headed by a same-sex couple but households in which parents broke up. A failed heterosexual union, Regnerus writes in the study, is clearly the modal method the most common characteristic for the group that he lumps in with same-sex-headed households. For example, most of the respondents who said their mothers had a lesbian relationship also endured the searing experience of having their mothers leave the household as the family collapsed.

    In other words, Regnerus is concluding that when families endure a shattering separation, it is likely to shatter the lives of those in them. And this is news?

    Not only is it not news, it keeps alive the mistaken impression that social science is on the side of anti-gay policy and law."

    If you can't be honest in your statements, don't join in the discussion. A simple Google search would tell you the truth.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Dec. 26, 2013 5:54 p.m.

    grandmagreat:

    There are plenty of things I don't understand the appeal of. I can't stand to watch more than a few minutes of "reality television" and professional sports just bore me to death. It doesn't mean I want to use the law to forbid others from enjoying them. As long as it doesn't impact me in a negative way, what do I have to complain about?

  • Jake2010 bountiful, ut
    Dec. 26, 2013 6:28 p.m.

    And in speaking of sibling marrying sibling, we already found that procreative possibility or danger is not justifiable grounds to prohibit a loving brother and sister from tying the knot as man and wife... I mean, that is just a matter of due consequence for what we have seen over the last few weeks. Polygamists should once again from sea to shining sea be able to marry legally to each other. Marriage was not defined by the constitution, therefore, any law that does otherwise is unconstitutional! Due process... Fine! Just let everyone win... Morality comes from within, laws and legality don't force it on anyone! However, within the realm of religious institutions, do not EVER expect things to change... And do keep in mind the eternal perspective... Is 100 years worth damning a period of time beyond mere mortal comprehension!?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 6:40 p.m.

    It took a bit, but it's nice to see people getting their rights and exercising them. Congratulations to everyone who got married.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    @Prodicus

    I always fall for Lincoln quotes...even those out of context.

    To continue your metaphor...

    If the scotus classifies a corporation as a person...

    (See Citizens United)

    It IS absurd and a sham.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 6:49 p.m.

    Art, poetry, liturature, sunsets, flowers, beaches, music, dance, science, invention- all spice up our life; some only want to speak of one subject. There is more than one key on a piano.

  • VA Saint Chester, VA
    Dec. 26, 2013 7:10 p.m.

    Disagreement with same-sex marriage is not 'hate' nor is it 'bigotry' -- what is bigotry is the intolerance of those who continue to trash those who disagree with same-sex marriage on religious and personal grounds.

  • Brer Rabbit Spanish Fork, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 7:42 p.m.

    Maybe now is the time for the state (county) to stop issuing marriage licenses in the state of Utah. What would be the harm? If marriage is simply a religious or moral issue, it doesn't need to be governed by the state. From what the 10th Circuit Court has said, no citizen or the state would be harmed by giving out same-sex marriage licenses. Just being in possession of a marriage license doesn't make the living arrangement, "normal."

    Marriage license could be replaced by civil contracts such as a prenuptial agreement, if the two parties (or more as in polygamy) thought that it was necessary. Groups such as the churches, atheists, homosexuals, etc. could make up their own cohabitation contracts for their organizations, if they wanted too. People could cohabitate in anyway that they wanted, as long as it didn't harm the state or individuals. If there was a contract disagreement that could be adjudicated by the courts, just as we do other contract disagreements. This is generally what is done in a divorce anyway. If there is no contract, child and property settlements could still be adjudicated by the court.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 7:46 p.m.

    @Wilf 55

    "At least in the civil realm, could the church then not accept that a legally-married gay or lesbian couple is not sinning?"

    That would be a subtle but extremely significant change that I'm positive will never happen. My understanding of the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints is what was taught (I believe in the last conference) that there are many actions that are sins (or immoral) but still legal. God expects us to keep the higher law and stay away from the immoral whether it's legal or not.

    I think what you are suggesting would be one more philosophical step in the demise of religion and the justification of transgression.

  • MissTeaching Layton, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 7:53 p.m.

    When I was fourteen, I was taking a creative writing class in school. They other students whispered that the teacher was gay and then told me she liked me. I was so upset that I transferred and quit writing. I was not no prepared emotionally for dealing with it. I don't think I ever could have been. For this reason, among others, I am against gay marriage. If I had known she was married, too, I believe I would have really freaked me out ever more. So now I have given you an example as to why I believe children should be kept safe in traditional marriage. I have relatives that are gay. I love them, but I cry for them when I hear about the choices they are making. I literally just want the whole thing to just go away, but I guess it won't.

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 8:14 p.m.

    @Brer Rabbit

    "Maybe now is the time for the state (county) to stop issuing marriage licenses in the state of Utah. What would be the harm?"

    Wait a minute. SSM proponents just won the rulings for SSM. They fought and fought for the right to legally marry. An now you're saying govt. should not even issue marriage licenses. Is that a turnabout to beat turnabouts.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 8:18 p.m.

    I promise that every pro-family, pro-marriage and Christian group in the country is now jumping on board with the State of Utah. They are offering expertise, resources and any other help they have in order to help the State fight this thing. Godspeed in all their efforts.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Dec. 26, 2013 8:46 p.m.

    @ Contrariuser

    There you go again. It is not perfectly natural nor will it ever be. I challenge you to look up the health risks on google. It has been claimed that it's 3 times more harmful than smoking. The fact that coitus between two men and even sexual relations between two women is physically harmful is so very obvious if you know anything at all about anatomy or physiology and especially about communicable diseases. Do some real research rather than just parroting back the typical and tiresome talking points of gays.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 8:53 p.m.

    Bob K, nice try but you're way out of bounds with the facts. If you have 5 sons there is NOT a likelihood one of them is gay. The old statistic used by the LGBT community was 10%. I can tell you that of all my family and my wife's family we have one gay relative among about 70 persons. Many families have none at all.

    It's also pretty apparent that the young, liberal thinking persons (every generation generally starts this way and then turns conservative as they grow older) think it is ok and should be allowed. Obviously they have no regard whatever for the scriptures in either the Old or New Testament. They also embrace adultery and personal perversions, as long as it feels good. Nor do they understand why living together outside marriage, divorce for convenience only or incest is bad. They ignore the Proclamation on the Family and follow whatever trend is next in a long line of questionable behavior, all in the name of freedom and pleasure. They wouldn't approve polygamy but they'd sure support nudity, adultery and fornication.

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 26, 2013 9:01 p.m.

    This isn't about equality. Homosexuals already have the same rights that the rest of us have. But they don't want that they want marriage changed to fit their own fancy!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 9:13 p.m.

    @Laura Ann
    "If you don't believe in the Bible, then, except in other religions such as Muslim, which believes in their own theology which prohibits such behavior, then I guess anything goes for you."

    New Hampshire is the state with the highest percentage of atheists. It's also the state with the lowest (least) crime rates. Atheists are just as good at following the common standard (law) as members of other faiths and they certainly have morals.

    Incidentally, I worry about anyone who can't imagine how they would have morals if they weren't religious.

    @Wilf 55

    "At least in the civil realm, could the church then not accept that a legally-married gay or lesbian couple is not sinning?"

    The church doesn't recognize that kind of marriage and would thus still consider it a sin.

    @Cats
    "I promise that every pro-family, pro-marriage and Christian group in the country is now jumping on board with the State of Utah."

    Oh good, now maybe we can figure out the answer to 'how many activists does it take to figure out how to constitutionally defend a marriage amendment'. Wouldn't count on it.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Dec. 26, 2013 9:16 p.m.

    The word marriage has been changing throughout history:

    1 --- From prearranged relationships to those based on contractual agreements

    2 --- From contractual agreements to those involved to form allegiances and bonds

    3 --- To relationships based on romantic notions

    4 --- to relationships where only the the elite, land-owners, male had privilege of inheritance and divorce

    5 --- to relationships where women eventually earned the right to own property themselves

    6 --- to arrangements where those who were enslaved or had been enslaved did not have arrangements akin to marriage, but were, in fact, married.

    7 --- to marriages where the ban on interracial relations were put aside and left to history

    8 ---to the eventual development of no-fault divorce.

    Wherein exactly did the SSM community change these definitions?

    How did people stand in relation to their religious beliefs every time the definition of marriage changed?

    Did people use the argument of "let's do it for the children?" and if so... what happened to that argument?

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Dec. 26, 2013 9:36 p.m.

    @ Vince
    Isn't it obvious? They were always between people of opposite genders.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Dec. 26, 2013 9:55 p.m.

    O'Really,

    It isn't obvious.

    They were not, in fact, always of opposite genders. Early Medieval Europe had recognized relationships akin to marriage and many Native tribes have recognized same sex marriages since before European colonization.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Dec. 26, 2013 10:21 p.m.

    Firefly,

    Admiring this picture says nothing about happiness- not theirs, their loved ones, children, etc.

    In records both modern, ancient, revealed and man-made, and from voices within each family and in each chapel- you will hear those testifying that they returned from living a life of choices which caused them pain. We do not speak in bitterness or hatred for a mere desire to be politically dogmatic or prohibiting. We speak from a safe harbor. We've made it and want to help others do the same so they can avoid a painful life, numb of joy. It's about helping people.

    People get so far away from the gospel that they forget what it's about: helping people remember who they are, who their Heavenly Parents are, and the love they can feel in their lives. Having recently entered the temple for the first time in over a decade, I can surely declare the happiness found from temple blessings. Constantly turning away from the truth may temporarily satisfy emotional voids or physical urges, but nothing can replace or satisfy the desire for happiness except returning to the Savior and feeling His love.

  • Margin Call Berkeley, CA
    Dec. 26, 2013 10:48 p.m.

    Such a lot of silly anti-gay comments here. "Grandmagreat," what on earth makes you think that gays and lesbians can't be blessed with children, grandchildren, and more? They already are. (And not all straight people want children, believe it or not.) Open your hearts, people, and your eyes and your minds. Live and let live. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 26, 2013 11:28 p.m.

    "The Mormon church agrees that sexual relations are also 'to express love for one another...'"

    I don't think the church meant 'sexual relations' as in how homosexuals engage.

    "At least in the civil realm, could the church then not accept that a legally-married gay... couple is not sinning?'

    The church calls SSM not a marriage. Accordingly, they're not married. Thus, their sexual relations are considered by the church not acceptable.

    "In fact, many many nonhuman species practice homosexual behaviors out in nature. Therefore, it's perfectly natural."

    Some animals even kill and eat their young.

    "Abraham had many wives (even married one of his half-sisters) and concubines (is that traditional marriage?)"

    No. It's called a polygamous marriage... and apparently approved by God as we can see the the Christian Bible.

    "What truly matters to them is that their marriages are recognized by the government..."

    Those benefits are available through a regular marriage... available to all.

    "If the argument is over equality in marriage not social or religious immorality, shouldn't those other types of prohibited marriages (polygamy, incest, juvenile, etc.) also be allowed?"

    Sounds logical.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 26, 2013 11:54 p.m.

    These country clerks were simply following Utah law... which states, marriage is between one man and one woman. Clerks might be breaking state law by issuing these licenses. The judgement by Shelby was about an amendment to the State Constitution.

    It has been prophesied that Salt Lake City will, one day, be the wickedest city in the world. Maybe Utah County ain't far behind.

    If the picture was of two siblings or a man and two women, would you think it would also be joy? If not, why not?

    Some people's objectives seems to be to totally do away with moral code. So far Utah is on track.

  • hanfrina Buffalo, NY
    Dec. 26, 2013 11:59 p.m.

    ... As a BYU alumni, who is Gay and a former Mormon, I'm glad to see Utah County - the home of the Y - comply with the law. Not in my wildest imagination, could I have seen this coming when I transferred from New Mexico Highlands University to BYU in '66. Change and progress is possible, it's all about education as well as people "Coming Out." With the new developments in Rome with the Pope, I trust LDS Church leaders will realize this is a human rights issue, nothing more, nothing less.

  • Endure2End San Jose, CA
    Dec. 27, 2013 12:45 a.m.

    The voters did the right thing by approving marriage between a man and a woman. The judge did the wrong thing by overturning the will of the people. There's still hope in the higher court.

  • Endure2End San Jose, CA
    Dec. 27, 2013 12:54 a.m.

    Highland, UT

    @ Prodicus

    To answer your question about traditional marriage and when it began, I remind you that November 2, 2004, Amendment 3 was approved by 66% of Utah voters, defining marriage between a man and a woman. The courts were wrong in June, and wrong again last week in overturning the will of the people.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 1:20 a.m.

    I'm rather annoyed that conservatives, who rail on and on about wasting tax dollars, are going to hire outside counsel on this.

  • BYU-2000 Highland, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 1:39 a.m.

    @ Vince here

    Well said!

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 27, 2013 1:42 a.m.

    VA Saint
    Chester, VA
    "Disagreement with same-sex marriage is not 'hate' nor is it 'bigotry' -- what is bigotry is the intolerance of those who continue to trash those who disagree with same-sex marriage on religious and personal grounds"

    ... Oh, please! Polite disagreement is fine, but comparing someone's love to bestiality and terrorism, etc., is rude and unkind. If you can't open your mouth to a Gay person without giving a sermon about Bible passages and your other beliefs, you are a bore. If you defend the lady who made love bouquets for 2 men for 9 years, but broke their hearts by refusing to do the wedding (after her church fought the law), you do not seem very Christian to me.
    Even in States where discrimination is forbidden, almost any Gay person is fine with a polite request to trade elsewhere.
    If you do not allow that a Gay person is a Christian also - rude!

    Charlemagne
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    "This isn't about equality. Homosexuals already have the same rights that the rest of us have."

    ... NO, not true -- without marriage, no sharing health benefits, pensions, Social Security, joint tax returns, inheritance by spouses, and hundreds more.

  • oldskool74 perth, 00
    Dec. 27, 2013 2:29 a.m.

    Sin is sin no matter how it is dressed up or clad in emotion

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 2:56 a.m.

    @Guywithaquestion --

    "Does legalized same-sex marriage open the door for legalized polygamy?"

    Individual rights are always limited by harm.

    Polygamy, incest, etc. convey significantly increased risks of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Gay marriage does not.

    It's a very simple distinction.

    @Bloodhound --

    "Even ancient societies that tolerated or encouraged homosexual behavior didn't attempt to marry the individuals involved."

    That's untrue.

    Same-sex marriages were even practiced as far back as the Assyrian culture. They were also known in Rome as early as 600 BC. In fact, Rome didn't fall until roughly 300 years AFTER they made same-sex marriage illegal. Same-sex marriage contracts are known from other cultures as well, including China, where homosexual relations were considered essentially normal until the invasion of Western values.
    '
    "Homosexual behavior is condemned in the strictest of terms in both the Old and New Testaments."

    Jesus never said a word against homosexuality. The ONLY person who spoke against it in the NT was Paul. Paul also supported slavery, thought women were inferior to men, thought that nobody should ever get divorced, and thought it was better to remain single than to marry.

    Do you believe everything Paul said?

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 3:10 a.m.

    @Jake2010 --

    "we already found that procreative possibility or danger is not justifiable grounds to prohibit a loving brother and sister from tying the knot as man and wife..."

    No we didn't.

    Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. But danger in procreation is still a valid reason for banning incest, according to states' interests.

    "Polygamists should once again from sea to shining sea be able to marry legally to each other."

    Here we go again.

    Harm always limits individual freedoms.

    Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey significantly increased risks of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Gay marriage does not.

    It's a very simple distinction.

    Look up the harm principle.

    @Laura Ann --

    "If you don't believe in the Bible, ...then I guess anything goes"

    Morality is not dependent on religion. Heck, I knew that much by the 4th grade.

    "Why is it wrong to steal?"

    Because it does harm, of course.

    "The ten commandments are being completely ignored."

    There is no commandment which says "thou shalt not be homosexual".

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 27, 2013 4:21 a.m.

    Come on, people. Take a deep breath. The panic over same-sex marriage is silly. Society is not going to fall apart by simply allowing the maybe 5% of people who are gay to marry each other. No one who is not already gay is going to forego a heterosexual relationship because of this ruling. Besides, where do you think gay people come from? They come from average, normal, heterosexual families. They're our brothers and sisters, our aunts and uncles, our children, our cousins. About 1 in 20, forever and always. Allowing them to bond and marry with their own kind doesn't hurt the other 19 out of 20 of us, and never will. In fact, it might make us happier to know that these few children or relatives of ours won't be outcasts and can live a happy and relatively successful life, with someone to care for who also cares for them.

  • cambodia girl Phnom Penh, Cambodia
    Dec. 27, 2013 4:47 a.m.

    Dear Billy Bob, You can be your bottom dollar that the Gay community will not stop at just a "civil" marriage. The next "tick" on their list is getting a "Church or Temple" marriage. Watch and see. Millions of dollars will be spent on Churches protecting their doctrines and practices.

    I hope I can ask this next question (Deseret News):
    I have always wondered, if same sex marriage is between two women, why does one of them always dress like a man? I see it over and over again. Is it just me or has anyone else noticed it?

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 5:34 a.m.

    The federal courts have required the state of Utah to extend to SSM the benefits traditionally provided to heterosexual couples. However, by definition a SSM has neither the power nor the inclination to provide to the state in return the same benefits as a traditional couple. As a consequence the state stands to lose the legal capacity to require heterosexual couples to feed, clothe, shelter, nurture, correct, and teach their children as a condition of marriage. The equal protection clause cuts both ways.

    The commitment traditionally required of heterosexual couples is significant and extends far beyond the coming of age of the youngest child. It is common for a married couple to dedicate the majority of their time and resources for fifty years or longer to the proposition of ensuring that their own children are cared for, and then watched over and mentored as they themselves become parents. It is impossible to overestimate the value of this commitment to society. Even childless couples play a valuable role through adoption, should they choose to adopt, and gender role modeling.

    While the joy of same sex couples at receiving this undeserved gift is understandable, the long-term social consequences may be devastating.

  • ValiantDefender Herriman, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 5:50 a.m.

    TO disagree is not hate.
    Many believe Adultery is wrong, but none claim that they hate all adulterers.
    I believe homosexual activity is wrong, but I do not hate them.

    As far as legality goes, there is a duality to marriage that has been splitting and is now torn from each-other: morality (spiritual) and legality (secular).

    While most of the religious folks want to defend both, it is more and more apparent that it is indefensible in today's climate. The state needs to get out of marriage, and just recognize legal contracts between consenting adults. Then churches can quit worrying about the legal designation and permit moral "marriages" according to their belief.

    The state would only affect tax status / medical information privileges / inheritence / division of property and child time in case of breech of contract.

    The religious side would determine was is moral, (polygamy, gay marriage, etc)

    People could choose one/both/neither.

    As long as we keep certain things illegal, we can all rest easy:
    - rape
    - incest
    - bestiality
    - pedophilia

    Rather than legislating morality or to control behavior, just follow laws that prevent/punish people for stepping on other people's freedom.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Dec. 27, 2013 6:48 a.m.

    If the only way in which those seeking to change marriage can force it on all is to disregard democratic law, then by what standard do they expect others to recognize or honor their counterfeit of such law? Do these people seek civil war?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 27, 2013 7:18 a.m.

    I got married 30 years ago for the exact same reason gay want to -- LOVE and committment.

    If you got married for sex, then you got married for the wrong reason.

    Congradulations!

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 27, 2013 7:39 a.m.

    @Pops
    NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

    Your point is moot.
    Most of the Gay people/couples I know -- already have children from previous "marriages".

    It's no different than the Brady Bunch, except gay/lesbian.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    @ Endure2End

    The Constitution trumps the electorate. You can't vote away someone's rights

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    @omahahusker;

    My, you're sure the grinch who stole Christmas, aren't you. LGBT couples haven't "devalued" the "purity" of marriage. You're doing that by denying them their joy.

    @Lady Wren;

    So sad when you can so easily vote away the rights of your fellow citizens. Does that not keep you up at night? Thankfully, we have judges who adhere to the Constitution to over-rule "the people" when they're wrong.

    @grandmagreat;

    Two of my close friends were married the other day. They raised two children who have both produced grandchildren for them. Of course, you don't recognize them as "family", I understand that; but they're not missing out on anything, you're just willfully blind to their joy.

    @VA Saint;

    Bigotry is using your religious and personal grounds to violate the rights of others.

    @Laura Ann;

    I don't believe in your vindictive, capricious god.

    @Cats;

    You're wrong. We're "pro-marriage"; you're "anti-marriage".

    @III;

    I don't believe in your "gospel", and I have the right to live free of it.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    @ Pops
    "However, by definition a SSM has neither the power nor the inclination to provide to the state in return the same benefits as a traditional couple."

    This is an assertion without basis and so easily disproven. Just take a look around, Pops. The evidence is everywhere, and based on the news in recent days, quite prevalent in your own community. Let your eyes see what is right in front of you.

    To those who object to being called bigots or haters for your anti-gay views, I agree. I doubt that most of you are bigoted or hateful in every aspect of your life. Very few human beings are. However, this particular belief of yours is bigoted in that it represents an intolerance of a group of people without a rational basis. The fact that (for some of you) the belief stems from your religious doctrine does not sanctify it. Religion must not be allowed to protect actions and beliefs that are harmful. If we never examined our religious beliefs, we'd still burn "witches" and condone slavery.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    @Schnee

    Sorry you missed my point about sodomy not being a natural biology. I did not say that marriage requires offspring my friend, the point is that sodomy is counter to the biology that the creator intended for the human race. It is un-natural and perverted. Homosexual sex will not result in folks who engage in sodomy having a posterity. Does that help?

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:11 a.m.

    Perhaps, the answer is to abolish all marriage, outlaw it for everyone; no more marriage for anyone. That way it will be a level playing field for every citizen, and show god's equal love for all.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    @Pops --

    "However, by definition a SSM has neither the power nor the inclination to provide to the state in return the same benefits as a traditional couple. "

    Again -- gay couples provide exactly the same benefits to the state as any other infertile couples do.

    And many gay couples are already raising children. They produce children in exactly the same ways as any other infertile couples do.

    @Jamescmeyer --

    "If the only way in which those seeking to change marriage can force it on all is to disregard democratic law"

    If the courts had refused to override "democratic law", then we would still have state bans on interracial marriage. That is exactly what Loving v. Virginia was all about.

    All state laws MUST conform to the US Constitution.

  • Ricardo Carvalho Provo, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    Congratulations to the gay citizens of Utah. I am truly happy for you. As a practicing member of the LDS faith (before other members of my faith begin the inevitable criticism of me, please note that had I believed blacks should have been allowed to hold the Priesthood in the 1960s, you would have criticized me then too), I want you to know that there are many of us who support your desires to live a full and happy life. My best wishes as many of you embark on a legally recognized path as a couple. May your marriage bring you and others great joy.

  • ChuckGG Gaithersburg, MD
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    I read the headline on this article. We have another name for this: "A Fool's Errand." The likelihood of SCOTUS granting a delay/stay on this seems highly improbable. On what legal grounds? We are dealing with secular civil marriage, not religious marriage. I just do not see anything in the Utah case where there are legal grounds for any kind of delay. If someone has one, please let me know. Again, this would need to stand up in court.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    The State of Utah is going to waste a substantial amount of tax dollars fighting an issue that the U.S. Supreme Court has already - clearly indicated it will not uphold Utah's law against gay marriage. The legislature is constantly fighting to save tax dollars and rails on about the national debt, but when it comes to their misguided agenda, based in theology, they open the vault and spend out tax dollars like crazy. I hope the Deseret News will keep track of the funds this nonsense will cost all of us.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    So ironic.
    LDS/Mormon people are pushing to have Mormon temples for marriages built worldwide.
    Now this religion wants to absolutely, positively make sure the world understands it is only possible to marry there if it is by THEIR definition of marriage. And..... ONLY certain, qualified people can marry there.
    Things could become even more confusing now for possible LDS converts throughout the world.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    If the Attorney General was deficient in his process due to his underlying problems in his personal and professional life and those in the Executive offices that didn't ensure he was pure to fulfill his obligations, we should not be spending money outside the AGs office. We knew this contest of the Utah mores was going to be pushed to the hilt for years and this was the perfect timing for the AGs office to suffer it's highest elected position to an appointment by the GOP and Governor. The Governor has his own issues and even though Sean Reyes may a good person, the office has been subjected to years of problems with the two previous AGs. We need to stand on our own. The House of Representatives used outside counsel to pursue the AG. They were on a selective mission to see if they had enough to impeach a person who swore on a bible that he was innocent as a newborn lamb. Utah has values and the GOP has pushed that to an area that they don't even know from the Eagle Forum and Tea Party which is almost like Germany in the 1930s.

  • kofender Rockaway, NJ
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:30 a.m.

    @ CATS:
    You said, "I promise that every pro-family, pro-marriage and Christian group in the country is now jumping on board with the State of Utah. They are offering expertise, resources and any other help they have in order to help the State fight this thing."

    Here's the problem. It all boils down to one question, which no allegedly pro-family, anti-marriage equality, and/or so-called "Christian" group in the country can answer: What negative impact has same sex marriage had on opposite sex marriages? As the lawyer (funded by LDS) in the Prop 8 case said in California when asked the question, "Um, uh, I can't think of any." Therein lies the crux of the case. (Religious citations are not valid in a court of law.)

    I think every one of those groups is running as far from Utah as it can. I mean, Utah has put forth this impossible argument: the 14th Amendment applies ONLY to African Americans because it was passed after the Civil War. You think anyone wants to be associated with this kind of reasoning? Pul-leez. Give us a break.

  • kofender Rockaway, NJ
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    @Prodicus:

    You said, "If the government classifies a homosexual relationship as a marriage, does it make it a marriage? No. It's still not a marriage. It's still a sham."

    Bzzz. I'm sorry, but thanks for playing. A marriage is a LEGAL, CIVIL agreement between two non-related consenting adults. Furthermore, in 18 states (plus DC) these ARE marriages. You might not like it, but it's all legal.

    And let's look at the harmful impact marriage equality has had in Massachusetts, where it's been the law for 10+ years. The divorce rate has dramatically declined. Yup, you add in all those LGBT people and divorce rates go down. Want to explain how this is a bad thing? I think with Utah having a divorce rate among the highest in the country, you should be encouraging more LGBT to get marry. They seem to set a good example. (And nothing devalues marriage more than divorce. Oh wait, that's right, Britney Spears, Newt, Rush, all the Kardashians--they've really elevated the sanctity of marriage.)

  • Sailor376 Oakland, MI
    Dec. 27, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    It is really simple. And I do not see it in any of the comments.

    If someone were born with a short leg, would we forbid marriage? If someone were born Black, would we forbid marriage? Tall ? Short? Born with a preference, meaning fall in love, for the opposite sex? Born with a preference, meaning fall in love, for the same sex?

    The only real question is a person born that way? In this case with a preference for someone of the same sex.

    If anyone is born with a specific preference, born with, THEN WE ARE ALL EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.

    And that is as it should be. We are all equal.

    The only degrading of morals, the only degrading of family values is the end of another discrimination, another bias, another bigotry. If Family values stands for bigotry,,, well heaven help you. You're gonna need it.

  • Chauncy Brinton Staunton, VA
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    I think the reason there is so much disagreement on this issue is not that one side believes that people should be denied rights and the other side believes no side should be denied rights, rather one side sees this as a civil rights issue and the other as a moral issue. As long as we disagree on this I don't believe we will get anywhere. Instead, I believe we could have much more productive dialogue if we could talk about what values each side is promoting. All of the name calling that goes on in these posts only takes away from each side's argument and desire to do what they believe is best for society.

  • abenq slc, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    For all of those people who talk about 'traditions and traditional marriage.' 'Traditionally' until at least until 1978, didn't the 'Mormon' church disallow 'Blacks' from receiving the priesthood in 1852? Some 'traditions' are meant to be broken.

  • Go West Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    Gender describes the qualities of masculine and feminine. (Sex describes male and female). So, same-gender marriage is not descriptive of what has come to pass to Utah this past week. Because those who choose homosexuality still display either a dominant feminine gender or a dominant masculine gender. Other thoughts on this is that marriage is not a right; it's a responsibility, and it's about families. Children do best when they have a father and a mother in the home. Last year, Obama and the left leaning Supreme Court struck down DOMA. And meanwhile, Utah was busy investigating John Swallow instead of paying attention to what was going to be dumped on them. I think our society has been like a frog that has been gradually boiling. If you want to know how this will end, look at past civilizations that have fallen. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah. Homeschool your kids. Homosexuality will be taught as a normal lifestyle choice in Utah public schools.

  • My house was stolen Roy , UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    The AGs office is wasting money on this. This is about Due Process and that Liberty is the Process that is Due under the Constitution of the United States. Courts have held that 14th Amendment due process claims of Liberty include marriage. This is the root of this. No state law by a State of the Union, can superceed the Process Due under the Constitution of the United States..

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    Utah may be making a serious mistake. If the state throws all its resources into this battle, as it appears they will, the result could well be economic disaster. We will be boycotted. Hi tech industry, the convention business, tourism--everything we depend on for growth will dry up. People will shun this state as it becomes the same thing Alabama was in 1963. Herbert should carefully weigh the consequences of being the modern-day George Wallace.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    @GoWest --

    "If you want to know how this will end, look at past civilizations that have fallen."

    No civilization has ever fallen because of homosexuality or gay marriage.

    In fact, ancient Rome didn't fall until roughly 300 years AFTER they made same-sex marriage illegal.

    "Look at Sodom and Gomorrah."

    That was about arrogance, not homosexuality.

    "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me." (Ezekiel 16:49-50 NASB)

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    Very sad state of events in regard to this case. The "will of the people" was thrown out by the will of one judge who just happened to have been appointed by Bush. Charles Krauthammer concurs. He stated that "the will of the people" seems to be evolving toward acceptance. In spite of this evolution, it is still the will of the people which must decide and not just one individual who appears to look at himself as a "czar".

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    No one will be gay in the hereafter.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    "However, by definition a SSM has neither the power nor the inclination to provide to the state in return the same benefits as a traditional couple. "

    Octo-mom had x8 children, with no husband.

    If we follow this albeit weak logic, then we should deny marriage to infertile couples, or people in advanced age.

    Do we?

    No.

    As such the double-standard was denied under a state judge, and now the 10th circuit in Utah.

    I see no reason the Supreme court would side against, when that state can provide no reason to be against marriage. And in 2013 years those against gay marriage have no proven one iota of any 'harm' done by gay marriage.

    Your morals, are great.

    And they should only ever apply, to you.

    If I eat a Ham Sandwich, it can offend someone's morals. Should I be denied from eating pork?

    No.

    And I agree that it's hypocrisy that groups rally against big government and adding the the deb..

    will now spend money outside the state, on an issue that has no legal standing.

    But, then again, this is the same group that took no issue, when George W. Bush DOUBLED the national debt.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    Same sex marriage is not legal in many states that do not have an amendment prohibiting the same. Striking down the amendment did not authorize same sex marriage. The county clerks need to pull back on this. There should be no rush just because of this ruling.

    This is why we need a constitutional convention and provide some accountability for our judges.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    @The Balloontic
    "The majority of Amercans are against changing the definition of marriage "

    Polling disagrees with you on this.

    "and suicide/depression. "

    Let's blame the bullied for being bullied.

    @Go West
    "Children do best when they have a father and a mother in the home."

    On average. Some single parents do great and some father/mother couples do awful. Studies show children do better... on average, when they have two parents in the household. Why do you want to limit them to one by preventing same-sex marriage? Also, you really don't care about this, none of you do. Utah wouldn't allow single people to adopt if you thought this was so important.

    "Look at Sodom and Gomorrah. "

    Heh, we'll be fine, in case you haven't noticed this area has been pre-salted. Also, natural disasters don't work that way.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    @omahahusker: "This is good news? All the values I grew up with now are vanishing before my eyes. " Your values were taught to you. That does not mean you were taught correctly. It may be time for you to start questioning the answers you were given during your formative years.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    @The Balloonatic

    "The majority of Amercans are against changing the definition of marriage"

    that was true in the last century even last decade, not so much now.

    Let's face today's reality: majority of general public, 70-80% of millennial support marriage equality. it is inevitable that SSM will be recognized nationwide, just a matter of time.

    and those "brainwashed" young people? they are entitled to their own opinions just as you do to your.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    @Go West who wrote; "Homeschool your kids. Homosexuality will be taught as a normal lifestyle choice in Utah public schools."

    The public school kids are taught not to bully others who happen to be different. They learn to respect diversity and get along with different opinions. They discover that kids from gay couples have just as loving and committed parents. They will contribute to a more tolerant world.

  • Ralph Mc Eugene, OR
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    As B.Y.U alumni, my family, including my wife of 41 years and three grown children congratulate all the same sex couples in Utah! Change comes slowly sometimes, but it comes. Blacks couldn't hold the LDS priesthood until there was a crisis for the church in the late 1970's. Religious insitutions will catch up to equality or will become irrelevant.

  • Heidi71 Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    Judge Selby was appointed by Barack Obama; not George W. Bush. But Shelby was, unfortunately recommended by Orrin Hatch.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    While I am delighted with the Judge's ruling, there is no question Utah's position was poorly represented in Court. I think Sean Reyes has done the wise thing in seeking outside help. While it is too late to expect a stay, it isn't too late to prepare an appeal that will actually address the Constitutional issues at hand.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    If "Pops" of N.SL believes in personal responsibility and in paying for what you get, then his argument is entirely in conflict with his beliefs.

    Any pair-bonded couple who live their lives together provides the State with lots of free services, taking care of each other so the State doesn't have to. An otherwise single person living alone who would need nursing care or hospitalization for an illness, gets free care at home from their partner. Couples provide all sorts of free benefits to each other that taxpayers would otherwise be on the hook for, including financial support, housing, healthcare, supervision, and burial expenses. When the State provides tax breaks for marriage, it is in recognition that these household units make for a stronger society and less burden on the apparatus of the State.

    To ask pair-bonded gay couples to do this for absolutely free, with no State recognition, and no legal status as a unified household is not only cruel, it's freeloading on the part of the State. You do owe them the same accommodation as any other married household which provides you that same benefit.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    The Governor appears to be running the boat. He and other elected officials don't agree on everything except the use of money for their own purposes. The State gave $13M to a Colorado company and at least $85K from Utah companies for election purposes.

    Utah needs responsible leaders that have integrity and honesty in their DNA. Developers and Payday loans are not necessarily the best purposes of elected leaders.

  • Heidi71 Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    As long as the courts interpret Amendment 14 to mean the right to marry who you want, Utah won't win. They must take a different approach. Of course it was unconstitutional for a judge who legislates from the bench to overturn a law which was the will of 66% of the people. Nowadays, the support for Utah's Amendment 3 is about 58%, which is still a majority. I think this should be on the ballot in 2014, following the due process. Overturning laws is not in the job description of the judicial branch.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    "This is good news? All the values I grew up with now are vanishing before my eyes. "

    Kim Kardashian was married for only 7 weeks.

    That had nothing to do with marriage equality.

    "The majority of Amercans are against changing the definition of marriage"

    'that was true in the last century even last decade, not so much now. - J.S.

    J.S. , please allow me to support your claim…

    *'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.'

    *'Poll: Support for gay marriage UP among Catholics' – By Jillian Rayfield – Salon – 03/08/13

    *'Poll: New High Of 58 Percent Support Same-Sex Marriage' – By TOM KLUDT – By Talking Points Memo – 03/18/13

    Notice, those against SSM are citing the 'will of the people'…

    from 2004.

    None are even making an attempt to try to claim that the majority of Americans support denying LGBT marriage today…

    because, that would be a lie.

    In today, 2013.

  • Anthropogus Montgomery, AL
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    "Overturning laws is not in the job description of the judicial branch."

    That is precisely the job of the judiciary. Do you understand "Separation of Powers"? Checks and balances. If the legislative branch decides to ignore the U.S. Constitution, the judicial branch is there to correct it.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    C'mon Moderators.

    @omahahusker;

    My, you're sure the grinch who stole Christmas, aren't you. LGBT couples haven't "devalued" the "purity" of marriage. You're doing that by denying them their joy.

    @Lady Wren;

    So sad when you can so easily vote away the rights of your fellow citizens. Does that not keep you up at night? Thankfully, we have judges who adhere to the Constitution to over-rule "the people" when they're wrong.

    @grandmagreat;

    Two of my close friends were married the other day. They raised two children who have both produced grandchildren for them. Of course, you don't recognize them as "family", I understand that; but they're not missing out on anything, you're just willfully blind to their joy.

    @VA Saint;

    Bigotry is using your religious and personal grounds to violate the rights of others.

    @Laura Ann;

    I don't believe in your vindictive, capricious god.

    @Cats;

    You're wrong. We're "pro-marriage"; you're "anti-marriage".

    @III;

    I don't believe in your "gospel".

  • EJM Herriman, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    Who is in favor now of legalizing polygamy ? If the courts are going to declare same sex individuals rights for marriage are protected under the 14th Amendment then they have to give polygamists this same opportunity.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    @Heidi71;

    What part of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause and the part about not making laws disenfranchising citizens didn't you understand?

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 27, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    These 'happy couples' may find that they have gotten themselves into alotta difficulties. Should they decide to later separate and go their own ways, they will now have to go through a divorce court rather than just parting company. This may involve the nasty job of showing up in divorce court, splitting assets, child custody, and of course, hefty lawyer's fees. We wish them luck.

    But wait! Perhaps if the courts and judges (who seem to be able to make decisions for the vast majority of the citizenry) decide that multiple marriages are OK (such as polygamy and even group marriages) divorce and divorce courts may not be necessary if a couple decides to split and go their separate ways. I think we are gradually moving into a very interesting era of human existence

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    @EJM --

    "Who is in favor now of legalizing polygamy ? "

    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. Every judge understands this principle, even if you don't.

    "...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."

  • Mr. Bean Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 27, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    "The likelihood of SCOTUS granting a delay/stay on this seems highly improbable. On what legal grounds?"

    The legal authority re determining marriage arrangements is vested in the states. And the state of Utah has decided that marriage is between a man and a woman and the state's law books reflect such a determination.

    Some say 'Equal Rights' (14th Amendment) are violated by Utah's marriage law. This is not so. Everyone can marry provided they meet certain criteria... i.e., they are not trying to marry more than one person, they are of a certain age, they are not closely related, they are not juvenile, and they are not of the same sexes. This law applies to everyone. And everyone can marry by following these clear-cut rules.

    And, of course, if some in those restricted groupings wishing to marry, and get authority to do so by legal decree, all others in the groups should have the same freedom to marry else they become the subjects of discrimination. It if only logical and fair.

  • fourfunsons Calgary, 00
    Dec. 27, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    I used to live with women, but we were housemates, or roommates. Never would there have been even a Thought of any of us having a sexual liaison. Why can't these men and/or women be happy sharing a house as good friends without trying to "redefine marriage"? It is not theirs to do.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 1:56 p.m.

    "Why can't these men and/or women be happy sharing a house as good friends without trying to "redefine marriage"? It is not theirs to do."

    ----------------

    Who does it belong to? As long as the United States of America uses the term "marriage" in granting privileges and rights to married couples, it belongs to every citizen.

    The reason that "these men and/or women" don't want to just be good friends is because the actually love the person that they are living with. Would you like to be "just friends" with your spouse? Not have that special touch, look, or understanding that couples in love share? Would you like to be the one that makes these couples have less rights, less privileges and be second class citizens just because you are afraid of what adding them to your interpretation of a word might mean?

    Have you ever read the 14th amendment? I would recommend that you do so.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    @wrz (yes, yes, I know, "Mr. Bean") --

    "The legal authority re determining marriage arrangements is vested in the states."

    States do not have unrestricted rights to determine marriage arrangements. If they did, there would still be state bans on interracial marriage. That's exactly what Loving v. Virginia was all about.

    Here's a clue for you: Virginia lost.

    ALL state laws MUST conform to the US Constitution. Utah's amendment 3 didn't.

    "Everyone can marry provided they meet certain criteria..."

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

    "all others in the groups should have the same freedom to marry...."

    Yet again --

    All individual rights are limited by harm.

    Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey significantly increased risks of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Gay marriage does not.

    It's a very simple distinction.

    Look up the harm principle.

    All judges understand this principle, even if you don't.

    @fourforsons --

    "Why can't these men and/or women be happy sharing a house as good friends..."

    Because they are more than just "good friends", of course. And they deserve the same rights as all US citizens.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 27, 2013 2:20 p.m.

    This comment board does not represent the average Think Tank in Utah, but it shows something very interesting. The propaganda machine of the "SSM Community" is bussy and drawing the line where ever possible. They are very bussy.

    And those defending the traditional values are weak and difficult to understand.
    I bet the line drawn here is not between pro and contra, but rather who understands the gospel.
    Those who do not understand gospel doctrine, will never come to the sense of what most people in Utah want them to know.
    Utahns are traditional in the eyes of the world, but they are unprepared for this one.
    Here is a very weak point, where gospel teachings could start, not to strangers but to Utahns.
    Like in the era of purpose and pre-existing feelings. There is always a win in helping out, but on the ground of legal rights, language is shifting slowly.
    To Sum up this : there is still room for improvement in representing Utah to the rest of the world.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Dec. 27, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    @cambodia girl

    To answer your question, yes.

    I've been asking that question too.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Dec. 27, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    Contarious

    "Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey a significantly increased risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage."

    Polygamous marriages can work also. But their rights don't matter because it's not in the mainstream right? Violence has the potential to exist in any marriage. You have no leg to stand on. Polygophobia has got to go.

  • benjoginko Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 2:47 p.m.

    @ Bloodhound

    I will admit I'm not much of a New Testament scholar. Where is the New Testament does it condemn homosexual behavior? I did a quick search and couldn't find it. I know where to find it in the old Testament.

    Thanks,

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Dec. 27, 2013 2:57 p.m.

    This won't get overturned. The monkey is out of the bag now.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 3:07 p.m.

    @wrz --

    "The legal authority re determining marriage arrangements is vested in the states."

    States do not have unrestricted rights to determine marriage arrangements. If they did, there would still be state bans on interracial marriage. That's exactly what Loving v. Virginia was all about.

    Here's a clue for you: Virginia lost.

    ALL state laws MUST conform to the US Constitution. Utah's amendment 3 didn't.

    "Everyone can marry provided they meet certain criteria..."

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

    "all others in the groups should have the same freedom to marry...."

    Yet again --

    All individual rights are limited by harm.

    Polygamy, incest, etc. all convey significantly increased risks of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

    Gay marriage does not.

    It's a very simple distinction.

    Look up the harm principle.

    All judges understand this principle, even if you don't.

    @fourforsons --

    "Why can't these men and/or women be happy sharing a house as good friends..."

    Because they are more than just "good friends", of course. And they deserve the same rights as all US citizens.

  • ValiantDefender Herriman, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 3:15 p.m.

    @Contrariuser

    How does Polygamy cause harm whereas Gay marriage does not?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Dec. 27, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    I've already addressed the issue of how marriage might be beneficial not only to gay men or women, but to their families, their brothers, sisters, parents, etc., who could then hold some comfort that their family member was in a recognized, mutually-caring relationship.

    And, I've addressed the issue of how the State benefits from the free services both members of a couple provide each other that the State would otherwise be on the hook for: nursing, housing, support, etc.

    Now, let's address "redefining" marriage. First, what marriage is not: Marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with sex or having children. It can't possibly, since people do that without being married, ALL THE TIME. (Witness all those "living in sin" or "playing the field" or born out of wedlock.) Marriage as an institution simply recognizes a life partnership, granting next-of-kin rights and legal status to a household for social and governmental administrative purposes. You folks who want to add sex and children to the equation are actually the ones trying to redefine it, long after that horse has left the barn.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Dec. 27, 2013 3:43 p.m.

    Perhaps this is where the LDS and other religion's negativity and "fight to the death" comments are coming from?
    Many are inquiring about what may have been stated at the pulpits last Sunday during Mormon Church services.
    Could those church congregations have completely lost sight of what they, and now their children, studied in school as they learned about history, the United States government, and the Constitution?
    Are these church members being told in their many meetings each Sunday that they should stand up and fight our country's legal system and the Constitution?
    Is this their "White horse riding in with the Constitution hanging from a thread" that so many of them warn the rest of us about?
    What did their LDS leaders advise them to do regarding Same Sex Marriage soon to be the law of our land?

  • American Patriot Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    This is nothing more than the manifestation of a corrupt government allowing for moral decline in this nation. Gay anything is against GOD's laws and that's all that matters. Our society will continue to decline until such time as it is abolished by Jesus Christ and He reigns again.

    Homosexuals will have no place in the Kingdom since they have violated GOD's law. Gays are free to live their lives out on this planet doing whatever but they will not have the blessings that others are entitled to. Again, GOD's laws are very specific - marriage between a man and woman is the only acceptable option to GOD.

    If all were gay we would all do extinct. Sounds like Satan's plan to me.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 4:12 p.m.

    As a High Priest, I am assigned to watch over several single sisters in our Ward. I have often thought how much benefit there would be if some of them moved in together and shared and cared for each other. Now, with same sex marriage legalized, the benefits are even greater!

    It is not good for human beings to be alone. Same sex marriage encourages support, caring, and togetherness.

    This is a good thing!

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 27, 2013 4:14 p.m.

    Why are lds members writing here ignoring your own Gay children, and referring to Gays as if they were only some outside group, not mormons too?

    If you have 5 sons, there is a fair likelihood you have a Gay one. You might have a Gay daughter, or aunt, or cousin. All of you went to school with Gay people, had Gay teachers, shopped in stores with Gay clerks, etc etc etc.

    Why should these people, who are Americans, taxpayers, and part of your community have to accept one of 4 rather odious choices --

    1-- They can lie and enter a sham heterosexual marriage, with great risk of causing hurt.

    2-- They can accept the current church doctrine and live without love, without sex, without someone waiting at home with dinner for their entire lives, as if crippled by what God has put into their hearts.

    3-- They can have discreet relationships, but always be "on the back streets", and in disapproval by their church and community and families.

    4-- They can leave, forever damaged by having to give up famiy and community because they are different, and hope to be maybe welcomed for Christmas, if they are lucky.

    God is ready to change this

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    Contrariuserer,
    your confusion between Inter Racial marriage and Gay marriage is apparent, Inter racial case that was won was based on the Anti-miscegenation laws, therefore, were attempts to eradicate the legal status of real marriages by injecting a condition—sameness of race—that had no precedent in common law. For in the common law, a necessary condition for a legitimate marriage was male-female complementarity, a condition on which race has no bearing.

    It is clear then that the miscegenation/same-sex analogy does not work. For if the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws was racial purity, such a purpose only makes sense if people of different races have the ability by nature to marry each other. And given the fact that such marriages were a common law liberty, the anti-miscegenation laws presuppose this truth. But opponents of same-sex marriage ground their viewpoint in precisely the opposite belief: people of the same gender do not have the ability by nature to marry each other since gender complementarity is a necessary condition for marriage.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    Part II
    Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural trajectory.

    In other words, the fact that a man and a woman from different races were biologically and metaphysically capable of marrying each other, building families, and living among the general population is precisely why the race purists wanted to forbid such unions by the force of law. And because this view of marriage and its gender-complementary nature was firmly in place and the only understanding found in common law, the Supreme Court in Loving knew that racial identity was not relevant to what marriage requires of its two opposite-gender members. By injecting race into the equation, anti-miscegenation supporters were very much like contemporary same-sex marriage proponents, for in both cases they introduced a criterion other than male-female complementarity in order to promote the goals of a utopian social movement: race purity or sexual egalitarianism.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 4:23 p.m.

    Part III

    This is why, in both cases, the advocates require state coercion to enforce their goals. Without the state’s cooperation and enforcement, there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be no same-sex marriage. The reason for this, writes libertarian economist Jennifer Roback Morse, is that “marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government.” Hence, this explains its standing as an uncontroversial common law liberty. “By contrast,” Morse goes on to write, “same-sex ‘marriage’ is completely a creation of the state.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    @md --

    "Two homely women who obviously had no other options. "

    That just says it all, doesn't it? The anti-gay crowd is reduced to insulting a happy couple.

    And then they dare to mention "the adversary" as though petty personal attacks are works of God.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    @Anti Bush-Obama --

    "But their rights don't matter... "

    It has nothing to do with "mainstream" vs. "non-mainstream". It has to do with harm.

    "Violence has the potential to exist in any marriage. "

    Think about drunk driving. All driving carries some risk. But drunk driving carries significantly greater risk than sober driving. Therefore, drunk driving is illegal and sober driving is not.

    Similarly, polygamy (and incest, etc.) convey significantly greater risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage. Gay marriage doesn't. Therefore they will remain illegal, and gay marriage will not.

    @benjoginko --

    "Where is the New Testament does it condemn homosexual behavior? "

    Paul is the ONLY person in the NT who spoke against homosexual behavior. It is never mentioned anywhere in the Gospels.

    @ValiantDefender --

    "How does Polygamy cause harm..."

    There are many studies which demonstrate several different harms conveyed by polygamy. I don't have nearly enough words to include them all here. In general, harms include physical, sexual, and psychological abuse of women; abuse and neglect of children; increased disease transmission; displacement of young unmarried men; poverty; unequal legal protections for women (inheritance, financial holdings, etc.); and I'm out of words!

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 27, 2013 5:06 p.m.

    @Confused --

    "...the miscegenation/same-sex analogy does not work. "

    It depends on what parallel you're drawing.

    It works perfectly for states' rights arguments, religious arguments, and bigotry-based arguments.

    "...such a purpose only makes sense if people of different races have the ability by nature to marry each other."

    Define "nature". There are plenty of examples of nonhuman same-sex couples "marrying" (pair bonding and raising offspring) out in nature. It is, indeed, natural.

    "“By contrast,” Morse goes on to write, “same-sex ‘marriage’ is completely a creation of the state."

    False claim.

    See my comment above about nonhuman animals. Additionally, same-sex marriages are known from the very dawn of written human history. For examples, the Assyrians had blessings for same-sex unions in their books of prayer. They were also recognized in Mesopotamia, and they were celebrated in ancient Rome by 600 BC. Likewise the ancient Asians accepted homosexual relations as normal elements of life before Western influence invaded, and Hindu religious texts even told of some of their gods being BORN from same-sex unions.

    If you base your arguments on false assumptions, you end up with false conclusions.

  • Captain Green Heber City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 5:31 p.m.

    This is very sad, indeed.

  • RN4moms Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 6:49 p.m.

    Today it's this, tomorrow it may be something else that one single judge can decide taking away states' sovereignty and undermining laws and elections. For courts to become all 3 branches of government is dangerous. Clearly people can't see down the road to unintended consequences and precedence that can harm in many ways.

  • 4Liberty SLC, UT
    Dec. 27, 2013 9:25 p.m.

    There are many comments about democracy. If this is a COTUS issue, why not change the US Constituion? All it takes is a 3/5th vote from the states?

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 3:26 a.m.

    Where did traditional marriage begin? Why with Adam and Eve, of course. They were married by God.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    'Where did traditional marriage begin? Why with Adam and Eve, of course.'

    Where should I send the wedding Presents?

    Address please.

    Longitude and latitude?

    If the only place you can support your religion, is in your religion…

    than Spider man is real because I read him in a comic book.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:13 a.m.

    It is a sad day in the history of the Republic. One judge has overruled the considered will of the voters to establish a marriage system that advances the public policy goals they see as central to marriage. Marriage needs to be in the form of a man/woman institution to focus it on its main goal, creating a situation where as many as possible children are raised by both of their biological parents.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    Do judges in Utah have to recognize these licenses, or do they still have the right to follow their religious beliefs and not perform marriage contracts that support what is directly and firmly against their understanding of God's law? How long until a judge is sued or forced from office for following their religious beliefs?

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Dec. 28, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    Utah county should not have given up. 2 judges on the Court of Appeals should not be able to unilaterally overturn the law. It will be a three-judge panel that will consider the appeal, and that will then be open to appeal to the full circuit and then the Supreme Court. This still has a long way to go. Issuing licenses now is a way to poison the situation and bias the outcome. It should not be done.

  • BWF Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 28, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    Separation of church and state, what a concept. What is the big deal about letting two people who love each other get married? I guarantee the percentage of divorce is much higher between heterosexual couples than homosexual couples. I'm straight; I don't want to marry a man, but it sure doesn't bother me if a male who is sexually attracted to males, wants to marry a male. Just imagine being told you have to marry the sex you are not sexually attracted to? That's not right. I've never met one gay guy friend who I thought could be "changed" into liking women. Let's not waste taxpayers' money on trying to remake an unjust law.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Dec. 28, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    Remember the Equal Rights Amendment? Remember all the effort to draft and pass it and the failed attempt to ratify it? How silly was that.

    All it takes is to have something made law by a few more-enlightened-than-thou judges.

    Government of the judges, by the judges and for the unenlightened masses.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 29, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    @ John Pack

    This isn't a theocracy. Your religion begins and ends with you. "Because God says so" is not a valid legal argument. Also, a judge who signs a marriage license of a homosexual couple is not going against his/her religious beliefs anymore than an LDS cashier at a grocery store who sells beer to somebody. Another person's life-style choices have absolutely nothing to do with you, and you would be better off not trying to control everybody else.

    Lastly, having children was never a requirement to get married. Infertile couples and elderly couples get married all the time and nobody says anything about them not being able to have kids.