Quantcast
Utah

Lesbian couple say marriage lawsuit against Utah, LDS Church was filed without their knowledge

Comments

Return To Article
  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 6:59 p.m.

    What a joke of a lawsuit. Hey counselor go back and read the section on ethics.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 7:14 p.m.

    It was good of the couple to call this lawyer out. Even thought I completely disagree with gay marriage, I do not think all those who participate are bad people out to ruin what I believe to be right.

  • MarkA Logan, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:43 p.m.

    Unethical lawyers like these are running rampant in our state and country and ruining our society. Hats off to the couple to ask to have their names removed from the suit.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:53 p.m.

    Now this is a lesbian couple who represent what I believe most of them represent. They aren't looking to tear religion or society apart they just want equal protection under the law. I commend them, and hopefully this opens some people's eyes about the true nature of the LGBT community and what their desires are...equality. They aren't out to attack traditional families folks, they just want equal treatment.

  • rlsintx Plano, TX
    Dec. 31, 2013 8:59 p.m.

    Not a good thing for a member of the bar to have done. Not good at all.

  • jskains Orem, UT
    Dec. 31, 2013 11:17 p.m.

    The real story here is it begins, exactly as predicted. Lawsuits to bully the LDS Church into performing gay marriages. I, for one, am not very shocked.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 1, 2014 12:16 a.m.

    @ BYR: What makes you think this attorney is part of the LGBT community?

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 12:53 a.m.

    I'd say it's time to hold a de-barring hearing. It's amazing what some attorney's will do for money. They almost make gambling and prostitution look acceptable.

    Make this guy get a job serving fast food.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 1:57 a.m.

    @byr

    Do you have some evidance this lawyer is lgbt, it sound more like someone out to slander these women and/or make a name for themselves.

  • delasalle Sandy, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 3:20 a.m.

    Good they are calling out this lawyer on this. On the other hand, how long are we (Utah and LDS) going to continue to fight a fight that is not winnable or justified. Let's not make the same mistake made with blacks and priesthood and 30 years after the fact admit error and mistakes. Let's practice what we preach and allow all to have the constitutionally guaranteed right to marry. It's very simple yet for some reason we can't see the light on this one.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 1, 2014 5:28 a.m.

    Wow great news lets hope the fight for equal rights for all Americans will be won and rewarded,congratulations to all the gay and straight couples that got married.

  • 1Observer Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 5:32 a.m.

    Another meritless lawsuit filed by an unscrupulous lawyer. Unfortunately for the unwittingly named plaintiffs the Bar will do little or nothing with their complaint. For all their talk of ethics the Bar has a woefully lackluster track record of policing their own ranks. ie - Swallow.

    On its face the claim of denial of religious freedom for the individuals against a religious institution would be akin to a Native American demanding the Catholic Church erect sweat lodges and provide peyote to their membership at all of their cathederals. It is such a ridiculous notion that I can only hope the courts boot this thing in summary judgment after about 5 minutes of argument, or less. Mr. Smay will get his five minutes of fame, the reputation of the legal industry (which I generally hold in high regard) will take another hit and somewhere out there will be a few individuals who might actually agree with his preposterous argument. Let's hope it's not contagious.

  • Johnny Moser Thayne, WY
    Jan. 1, 2014 6:46 a.m.

    This is one of those lawsuits that will be used as evidence that the Supreme Court must issue a stay until the legal issues are completely sorted out. Oops.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Jan. 1, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    He should be dis-barred! Totally corrupting our legal system!

  • Million Bluffdale, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 7:12 a.m.

    The whole dislike and discord towards the LGBT community reminds me of the Jonathon Swift quote, We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another."

  • JMT Springville, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    My guess is the majority of gays feel the same way. I have debated two different activists, one gay and one straight. Both hate religion and one had a particular zeal for the Mormon church. Both wanted to destroy organized religion.

    This doesn't end with equality in marriage. The fight for freedom of thought and religion have just begun!

  • Pragmatic One Mesa, AZ
    Jan. 1, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    Only question I have is whether those who review this case will have the backbone to dis-bar Mr. Smay. No-one, regardless of who they are or what their values or beliefs should have to worry about unethical counsel using them for personal gain. We already have enough of those types in Washington ruining our daily lives.

    I also question whether or not there are adequate safeguards in place to prevent such things from happening, and, if there shouldn't be some kind of review process for these types of situations that involve responsible citizens who are not Attorneys. Something along the lines of a Grand Jury.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 1, 2014 7:59 a.m.

    I don't understand why people keep raising the fear that their churches and temples would be compelled to sanctify same-sex marriages. That is nonsense.

    For starters, the very beginning of the First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" This so-called "Establishment Clause" sets out the crystal-clear separation of Church and State.

    No church has to provide any rites for anyone it doesn't want to. The proof of this is all around you. Catholics can't even marry in a Catholic Church if they're divorced. Mormons can't even marry in a Mormon Temple without a Temple Recommend, if I understand correctly. In my own Quaker Meeting, which is Equality-minded, open and welcoming, even birthright Quakers can't marry without the okay of their Clearness Committee. No minister, priest, imam or rabbi can be compelled to officiate any marriage, not in any religion, not in this country.

  • Million Bluffdale, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    Some things change (obviously) while other things don't. Here is a 14th century rhyme.

    St. Yves is from Brittany
    A lawyer but not a thief
    Such a thing is beyond belief!

  • DrGroovey Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    This just seems a little too weird. I don't know the couple involved, and I don't know the lawyer.

    I think there is a decent chance that the attorney may be the victim of a scam here too. An attorney can not collect there share of a judgement unless they are legally retained and are the counsel for record for the plaintiff. It makes no sense that an attorney would make such a basic error that is sure to be noticed. I think it is much more likely that someone else filed the suit using the attorney's name (which is not hard to do) as a way to get some media attention to their cause. I bet the attorney will be a little surprised when he gets home from the holidays and finds out his name is mixed up in this mess.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    So much for claims that Churches will not be attacked. They already have been attacked. Another lie is exposed.

  • Macfarren Dallas, TX
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    @delasalle

    "Let's practice what we preach and allow all to have the constitutionally guaranteed right to marry."

    This is the major error in understanding that everyone seems to be making. Marriage is NOT a 'constitutionally guaranteed right' any more than is holding a driver's license. Both are regulated by each state. Two people can't simply get married because they want to. There are limitations. Check Title 30 Chapter 1 of the Utah State Code. There isn't even enough room to list all the limitations of marriage in this box.

    I find it highly ironic that the 'left' is perfectly happy to regulate everything from toilets, to light bulbs, to the car I drive, to dictating what health insurance plan I must now purchase all for the 'greater good of society,' however when it comes to the issue of marriage it's 'all hands off' no regulation at all. Suddenly died-in-the wool statists turn into Ron Paul libertarians.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    Shady lawyers never make any situation better.

  • Reasonable Person Layton, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    cjf
    You might want to learn about the Constitution of the United States of America.

    We do not vote on rights, and under our Republic, the majority cannot take rights from the majority.

    That includes your right to worship as you please.

  • grip Meridian, ID
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    Did I miss something? My understanding from the article is that the two women did NOT file the suite, but an overly ambitious lawyer filed suite without the knowledge or permission of the two women. If so, the "lawyer" should be dis-barred at least.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    If the DNews was interested in people reading a news article, they should publish the article in the comments section. People read a headline and jump right to the comments section with a bucket full of assumptions.

    That was never more true than this article where a number of commenters are lashing out at the couple, when the first sentence clearly states "their names without their knowledge or permission".

  • bradleyc Layton, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    It took guts and a great amount of integrity for you to pull your names from this suit. Well done.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    Without knowing more facts, it's hard to guess whether the attorney involved might be subject to a reprimand, suspension or disbarment, but a first-year law student would know that you can't file a suit on someone's behalf without their consent to representation.

    This does not, however, address the merits of the suit or the motivation of those who were the original plaintiffs, and little of that is discussed in the article. In any case, filing a suit against a church faces considerable hurdles because of First Amendment protections. While there are some circumstances in which one can prevail against a church, the courts will not intervene in matters of doctrine and polity. In other words, they're not going to force the LDS Church to conduct Temple weddings for gays any more than they're going to force the church to allow Temple weddings for Mormons who lack a temple recommend. And let's be honest here: there are a lot more of the latter who would like a temple wedding than there are of the former. It remains a non-issue.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Jan. 1, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    There has to be "rule by law". Even Charles Krauthammer believes that the country is swinging toward the acceptance of gay marriage. This is unfortunate but well within the confines of the U.S. Constitution. Nevertheless, the taking of a set of marriage partners and using their name without their consent as the basis for a class action suit is way beyond the pale. This lawyer should be disciplined and disbarred. I am quite sure that there was a couple out there who were aching to sue. He was in a hurry with his "ambulance chasing" and wanted to be the first one on the merry-go-round grabbing for the brass ring. This is totally ridiculous.

  • gittalopctbi Glendale, AZ
    Jan. 1, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    "Good they are calling out this lawyer on this. On the other hand, how long are we (Utah and LDS) going to continue to fight a fight that is not winnable or justified"

    @Delasalle speak for yourself. The fight is both winnable AND justified. SSM vs. Blacks and the priesthood are not the same. The church is on the wrong side of SSM? Please go read the doctrinal, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

    I tire of Mormons who just do not get it.

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    I applaud the couple in standing up for their rights in this case. I also think the lawyer is way out of line.

    But I agree that this is a sign of lawsuits to come. It seems that the 14th amendment has been - and will be - used at the expense of the 1st.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    Jan. 1, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    I guess I don't understand how this might fit under a religious discrimination complaint.

    Religious discrimination tradtionally suggests that a group or individual were denied employment or housing opportunities, etc., because of their religious beliefs. To my understanding, people, under the bill of rights, are allowed to join any religion of their choice and/or believe anything they want. The bill of rights does not allow people to force religions to alter their doctrines or policies to accommodate individual beliefs. If I do not like going to midnight mass, I cannot file suit against the Catholic Church. That is part of their doctrine and it is not up to me to shape or alter it. By the same token, no one is forced to adhere to LDS doctrine -- if you don't like it, you go somewhere else and find a church which matches your belief system, or even start your own religion.

  • 1Observer Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    @ delasalle

    Not sure if you have read the Constitution but there is no right to marry specifically enumerated in the document. Courts have interpreted the Constitution in various rulings that have established a legal framework that creates the sense of a right, but it is not a "constitutional" right. More a right by court decree.

    Marriage has historically been a religious ceremony. What government should do is get out of the marriage business and start sanctioning and documenting civil unions and let each Church define its marriage sacrament in the way it sees fit without legislative or judicial interference. This would create a bright line between church and state and would allow other, non-traditional familial relationships to establish civil unions to provide tax benefits, end-of-life care decisions, simple transfers of property, etc to others in mutual, care-giving relationships that are essentially a single economic unit/household.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    @ulvegaard

    That maybe why this couple did NOT actually file this claim and why the rhetoric by those that scream their religious freedoms are going to be violated and churches are going to be forced to perform lgbt marriages tends to fall on deaf ears.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 1, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    @Willem:
    "Wow great news lets hope the fight for equal rights for all Americans will be won and rewarded..."

    Equal rights will not have been attained until all humans of whatever stripe, persuasion, age, or relationship can also marry... such as polygamists, pedophiles, juveniles, sibs, close relatives, and folks with substantial age variances.

    The Supreme Court has got to tread carefully, once this case gets to that level, to ensure that it doesn't make a ruling forcing discrimination on others (as above). If two sexually oriented groupings can marry, such as heterosexuals and homosexuals, all other sexual persuasions should also be allowed the same freedom. It's only fair. Anything less would be discriminatory.

    Having said that, let me say this... the government has a vested interest in marriage, that of assuring the continuation of civilization. The institution that best assures his end is marriage between one man and one women. Thus, the government has a vested interest in that specific kind of marriage arrangement. The state has no vested interest in same sex marriage because it does not further the objective.

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    Jan. 1, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    Nothing like 15 minutes of fame. Perhaps tolerance is needed, not law suits

  • funny_guy Vacaville, CA
    Jan. 1, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    JMT: You are 100% correct in your assessment.

    The GLBT agenda has nothing to do with equality, but rather the destruction of organized religion -- as they attempted to do to the Boy Scouts years ago. If you don't like an organizations "rules" then start your own. People are free to think and believe as they want in this country. Plenty of churches will see marrying same-sex couples as a new revenue source and gladly accommodate you. Don't attempt to legally require others to accept your lifestyle.

    My sole objection to same-sex marriage is their intolerance towards anyone with different values. Even though I find you to be repugnant, I am willing to tolerate your "alternative" lifestyle as long as you don't mandate that I embrace it.

  • sukiyhtaky us, CA
    Jan. 1, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    The attorney should be disbarred as well.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Jan. 1, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    I've heard of "ambulance chasers" but "gay wedding chasers?"

    I would think anyone doing this could get disbarred or at least suspended.

  • intervention slc, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    @1ob

    The ninth amendment clearly states that simply because a right is not "specifically enumerated" does not mean the right does not exist. Additional marriage a and has historically been a civil contract between parties to manage the orderly transfer of properties, wealth etc.. Perhaps churches should do what the LDS church does have their members get a civil marriage license and do their "temple marriages."

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 1, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    I don't see anywhere in the article what the complaint is against the LDS church in the lawsuit. I can't imagine what they would be suing the church for anyway.

    Kudos to these ladies for doing the right thing in this case. It will be interesting to see what's behind all this. Sounds like the lawsuit was a bucket of hogwash to begin with.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 1:03 p.m.

    I sure agree with those that have contributed that gay people are basically good just as heterosexuals are. This was certainly an example of what good people can do.

  • donn layton, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    @ Ulvegaard: Christian discrimination is Biblical:
    ”For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone “who believes” in (Jesus)him will not perish but have eternal life.”(John 3:16) .

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    Please stop with all the fear mongering that gays want to destroy religion. Marriages performed in church rites and ordinances are protected under the constitution and always will be. It's the state that has to comply in issuing licenses to marry that has to recognize civil rights and the constitution. If you own a business that makes gain from public consumption then you cannot discriminate against people based on their religion, race, or sexual orientation...it's called the civil rights act, created to protect minorities and give them equal treatment in trade, employment, and any other worthy endeavor.

    LDS temples will NEVER be required to perform gay marriages. Marriage in the temple is a religious right, where obtaining a license to marry is a state and civil right. The fear mongering and false bravado from religious zealots needs to stop. Take some courses in constitutional law and actually understand what you're talking about before spreading fear and hate.

  • jimhale Eugene, OR
    Jan. 1, 2014 2:58 p.m.

    It sounds like the facts of this situation are not fully known.

    These women may not be "out to tear religion". But someone will be.

    Unfortunately, in our legal system, it only takes one.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 1, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    @intervention:
    "The ninth amendment clearly states that simply because a right is not 'specifically enumerated' does not mean the right does not exist."

    Who's saying gays don't have the right to marry? They have the same rights as anyone else (except polygamists, children, etc.), so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. It's not rocket science.

    "Additional(ly), marriage has historically been a civil contract between parties to manage the orderly transfer of properties, wealth etc."

    Managing properties, wealth, assets through marriage is a recent phenomenon. Historically, marriage has been mostly to produce, raise, and protect children (citizens) through to adulthood.

    "Perhaps churches should do what the LDS church does have their members get a civil marriage license and do their 'temple marriages.'"

    Everyone who marries has to have a 'civil' marriage license. That's the law. The 'temple' thing is for another purpose, I think to do with the hereafter.

    Father to elderly parishioner: We need to sit down some day and talk about you and the 'hereafter.'

    Elderly parishioner: I know what you mean... when I go to the garage for something, I ask myself 'what am I here after?'

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    I will be honest and say I have some concerns and important questions about same-sex marriage. At the same time however, we need to be careful about knee jerks reactions to stories such as this.

    The fact is, this lawsuit sounds like a frivolous attempt by some ethically challenged lawyer to try and profit from the recent rulings on Amendment 3, and the fact that at least one lesbian who was on the plaintiffs list doesn't want to have anything to do with it, tells me this lawsuit isn't worth the paper it is written on.

    Let's all take a step back and calm down for a moment.

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    Jan. 1, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    This lawsuit is just the beginning. How quickly the true intent is revealed of the gay and lesbian community...What is funny is the lawsuit claimed they were denied their religious freedom, yet the whole time the gay community has been screaming the 14th amendment of due process was being violated.

    By the way religious communities WANT the religious freedom debate...because clearly now this is what it is.

    Kudos to the two individuals who had some integrity.

  • Johnnyoh! ,
    Jan. 1, 2014 5:33 p.m.

    What a shocker, an unethical lawyer.
    Must put a lot of miles on his vehicle chasing ambulances
    Good for the couple to come forward
    Odds are the judge will not throw it out.
    Could be someone misrepresenting the attorney

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Jan. 1, 2014 5:59 p.m.

    Follow the Prophet, he knows the way: LDS Children' songbook #110.

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 7:11 p.m.

    It wasn't that long ago that SSM was even an issue. All the GLBT community wanted was "civil unions". And it wasn't long before that that SSM or civil unions were even considered. They weren't even on the radar.

    In other words, I don't have confidence that some in the GLBT community will be satisfied with their marriage "rights". I agree (with other people who have posted here) that churches still have a lot to fight for. Some opponents of religion would deny religious liberties (as outlined in the first amendment) in the name of individual "equality" (fourteenth amendment). I don't think that's what the authors of those amendments had in mind, using one of them and forgetting the other.

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 8:42 p.m.

    Wait a minute. If there is a suit out there with twenty-five couples as plaintiffs, and one couple claimed they weren't consulted and want out (to their credit), then what about the other 24? Is this real? Is there a lawyer out there with 24 plaintiff couples suing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints and the State of Utah over marriage?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:33 p.m.

    @ alfred
    "Who's saying gays don't have the right to marry? They have the same rights as anyone else (except polygamists, children, etc.), so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. It's not rocket science."
    It would seem for some we need to start with a history lession not rocket science seeing your comment is almost verbatim the arguements used to oppose interracial marriage and is no less redicoous now as then and as was the case then been rejected by the courts . You also seem to be lacking in understanding the history of this debate or you would now the arguement that "marriage has historically been mostly to produce, raise, and protect children (citizens) through to adulthood," has been found time and again to be without historical or legal bases.
    Not sure what your argument is in terms of civil licenses since you seem to be simply proving interventions point.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:50 p.m.

    That some could be so full of hate, and not even recognize it, just breaks my heart.

    These fears and worries about the "agenda" of advocates for LGBT equality, where are they really from? Is it some fear that those you've repressed and reviled for many years might somehow revisit those same sins upon you, that those you've ill-treated will treat you the same way? Ask yourself, if in fearing that, do you express that as even more hate and contempt?

    Because these fears are thoroughly unwarranted. There is no conspiracy against Christians in this country. Everyone is free to worship in their own way and their own houses of worship. The fact that no denomination is entitled to bring Dominion to our secular society is not an example of oppression.

    The last time a government in this country achieved Dominion, the Puritans of Massachusetts Colony, they methodically slaughtered "savages," accused and burned "witches" and hung Quakers as heretics. Their abuses, though, are what motivated writing our First Amendment, to prevent theocratic tyranny.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 1, 2014 9:59 p.m.

    Those of you that keep claiming this is evidance of some grand conserecy by the lgbt community knowing full well this couple did not file this claim only continue to hurt your own cause. If you want to now why those against gay marriage are losing look back at these post they undermine your own credibility.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 1, 2014 11:36 p.m.

    @spring street:
    "... seeing your comment is almost verbatim the arguements (sic) used to oppose interracial marriage and is no less redicoous (sic) now as then and as was the case then been rejected by the courts."

    Of course the court ruled on interracial marriage. And the federal government ruled on polygamy, incestuous marriages, age differing marriages, and several others. If the court (or government) can rule that these are illegal marriages, it can also rule that same sex marriages are also illegal... and should.

    "You also seem to be lacking in understanding the history of this debate or you would now the arguement (sic) that "marriage has historically been mostly to produce, raise, and protect children (citizens) through to adulthood," has been found time and again to be without historical or legal bases."

    No historical basis? Marriage has been around for centuries. Children need to be born or the humans will disappear forever. And they need to be nurtured lest they die of lack of care. Marriage is a formal commitment to assure that this transpires as planned. With same sex marriage, bringing offspring into the world and nurturing to adulthood is a nonexistent objective... or secondary at best?

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 12:56 a.m.

    Look, I can make the attorney's case really easily here: The LDS church should be forced to marry gay couples in their temple because now that gays can legally be married, every person licensed by the state to marry someone has to conduct all eligible weddings. What if you went to a licensed state garbage dump to dump your garbage and they told you no, because you are gay? Illegal. LDS temples are there to marry people, so they have to marry all people. It's equal services. If they don't want to marry people, then get out of the marriage business.

    And after all, The LDS church has been told long ago that they in particular must comply with the law of this country on marriage.... Reynolds v. US, the 1800's. The 1st amendment doesn't allow you to refuse to comply with the law.

    See? The legal argument is easy. If the LDS church, a state licensee to conduct marriages, wants to conduct marriages then they must marry anyone that can be married legally. Otherwise they must lose their license. Any liberal, leftist judge will follow this reasoning.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 2, 2014 1:51 a.m.

    funny_guy
    Vacaville, CA

    "The GLBT agenda has nothing to do with equality, but rather the destruction of organized religion -- as they attempted to do to the Boy Scouts years ago.

    ... COMPLETELY untrue that there is a Gay agenda to destroy religion. The agenda is to live without interference from religion and have equal rights, to be the same as everyone else.

    ... The Boy Scout comparison is utter nonsense.
    A--Boys join very young and may realize they are Gay half way through scouting. Would you turn them away from their friends, unable to finish their scouting?
    B--If you had 3 straight sons and one Gay, would you want him excluded?
    C--There have ALWAYS been Gays in scouting, often the best scouts. The issue was making them violate their oath by lying.

    "Even though I find you to be repugnant....." Many in California finds mormons repugnant now, but you have freedom there.

    "My sole objection to same-sex marriage is their intolerance towards anyone with different values."
    ... Think what you want, say it politely, don't block rights, live in harmony. If you need to say Gays are going to hell, you will be invited to go first.

  • bigirish OREM, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 4:24 a.m.

    So much publicity to all this hubbub, just what the same sex community wanted to spark their cause, when if we would just keep things in perspective, we'd see that this is such a small population trying to get all the attention and news! And our news people jump on it and make it front page stuff! No balance here, eh?

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 2, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    Utah is the first post-DOMA case based on a fundamental right to marry. Judge Shelby repeatedly quoted Scalia's dissent rants to bolster the argument that since marriage is Constitutionally protected, and since we can't discriminate against homosexual marriages just because of the ick factor, then ALL marriages are Constitutionally protected.

    If Utah continues to push this to SCOTUS, it will be the height of irony when SCOTUS has no choice but to rule for equality, it becomes the law throughout America... all due to Utah's insistence to codify state-sponsored discrimination into law.

  • hillplus Aurora, CO
    Jan. 2, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    Class action suits are big bucks for unscrupulous lawyers!

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 2, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    Vanceone, your "argument" is completely false. Firstly, as I understand it, Temple weddings are religious only. From what I gather from another commenter, the couple must hold a civil marriage certificate first. If so, there's no "licensed" officiant involved.

    Second, and more importantly, only State officers, such as judges and justices, and by extension municipal officers such as clerks, are compelled to marry any qualified couple that presents with a license, relevant fees, etc.

    Religious clerics are recognized/"licensed" as being ABLE to officiate weddings as a clerical function of their religion, but are not COMPELLED to, at all, let alone outside their religious tenets. Try marrying someone outside your religion and see how quickly your options become limited. A Jew marrying a Catholic can't marry in either a Church or a Temple.

    I haven't seen the suit, so I don't know what it was about, perhaps illegal political activity, but it's certainly not going to compel religious marriage. That idea is nonsense.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    Au contraire: I was married in the temple and I only got a marriage license--a license to be married. It was the officiator in the temple who actually performed the marriage. So, indeed, they DO have a license to marry people. You are right, though--in England, you have to go through two ceremonies, one civil and one religious.

    I was just explaining a path that some LGBT friendly judge could take to mandate religions being forced to marry gays against their will. The argument is there, if the judge wants it. And as we have repeatedly seen, there are a lot of judges willing to ram gay rights down the populace's throat.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    @alfred

    And the difference between the other forms of marriage that the court has upheld laws against and gay narriage is that the people defending those laws were able to prove a harm if they were allowed something those that oppose gay marriage have never been able to do, which bring us to your see one point, marriage has never been defined by law and is not currently defined by law as being for the purpose of procreation and there is no evidance that allowing gay marriage would in anyway negatively affect procreation or the raising of children. again this argument has been vetted in the courts time and again and found to be baseless, you are not covering any ground that has not been worn thin over the years

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 2, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    Vanceone, no judge would reach that conclusion. The First Amendment prohibits it.

    No civilian religious cleric can be ordered by a court to conduct any rite or ceremony. I'm not sure how the military regs handle Army chaplains, who have responsibilities towards all soldiers, but that's another situation.

    As a Mormon, Jew, or Quaker, you can't be married in a Catholic church. You could sue until the cows come home, and it wouldn't matter. That's how it is.

    Churches are independent of each other, and of the State. Each denomination is free to practice religion according to their own faith.

    Here's an interesting tidbit about Quaker marriages. We believe no man or woman has the power to marry a couple in our religion. Only God does. The approved couple stands before the assembled body and commits themselves to marriage, speaking their own vows. The Quaker Meeting's function is only to witness and record that marriage. There is no officiant as such. The marriage laws of my state have a special section to accommodate us.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 12:19 p.m.

    If you think the 1st Amendment is going to stop some gay judge from forcing religions to marry gay people, your naivety is showing. The Constitution also protects freedom of contract. You have the right to engage, or not, in business with whomever as you choose. Except for civil rights, and especially in the case of gays, where they can force you to conduct business with them. Just ask any wedding planner/baker/florist what happens when the gays come demanding you serve them. The state forces you to--you have no freedom anymore. Except to go out of business, that is.

    Do you honestly think that the gay judge who overturned Proposition 8 wouldn't use any theory he could to force a church to perform a gay ceremony? In New Jersey the courts already force churches to allow gay ceremonies to occur on their property, but as of yet not conduct them. There's not much difference between forcing them to allow a ceremony and forcing them to conduct one.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    Sounds to me like a lawyer smelled a big payout... and didn't even think to stop and ask the people he was going to USE for his lawsuit to see if they wanted to be part of the suit. Probably figured "who WOULDN'T want piece of this payout"?

    Layers like this one are the reason the profession has such a bad reputation.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 2, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    Actually, supporting same-sex marriage increases government regulation. In Utah in November 2013 homosexuals could live to gether with no state interference. There was no law against such action, they faced no criminal penalties. They were free to stay or to leave, and one party could not bring the state to try to regulate the actions of the other.

    A married couple agrees to allow the state to regulate their actions. If you doubt this, just look at some things that are required of parents after divorce. The only justification for such regulation is the state wants to create a situation where as much child rearing is done by biological parents. This requires marriage in the form of child producing relations and creating an expectation of sexual exclusivity in marriage. Both of these will be undermined by same-gender marriage.

    Why does same0gender marriage undermine the form of sexual exclusivity? The easy answer is because some non-lesbian single women will enter it while still being open to finding a male spouse. I have even seen a commentor on this board advocate such a course.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 2, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    When a New Mexico photographer was told the price of being a US citizen is being forced to violate her deeply-held religious beliefs, why do we thing other organizations are far behind.

    How long until a homosexual sues the LDS Church for not being allow to hold their wedding reception in an LDS facility? Probably a while. However, a Bed and Breakfast in Vermont already stopped hosting weddings rather than schedule a same-gender one, and still was somehow roced to pay $30,000 although they had totally left the business before the couple in question planned to get married.

    A baker in Colorado has been threatened with jail time if he does not make a cake for a same-sex wedding. This is a clear violation of freedom.

    In Kentucy a t-shirt business has been gone after by the "Human Rights Commission" for refusing to provide T-shirt to a gay rights parade. This incoherent law suit is part of a much larger trend.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    Jan. 2, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    Vanceone:
    You're comparing apples and oranges when you talk about religious marriage ceremonies and then bring in businesses and whether they have the right to withhold services. Any business that offers it's services to the public is required by the CRA (Civil Rights Act) to provide their services regardless of race, religion, and now sexual orientation (as SCOTUS has declared is a civil rights protected minority group). A business can't refuse to serve someone because they are Mormon and the business doesn't agree with their lifestyle. A business can't refuse service to an individual because they're black, Latino, or Asian. The fight you want to bring against gays is no different than the fight southern states wanted to take against blacks and segregation. A public business CAN NOT discriminate on who they will provide services to...this battle was already won and is history (over 50 yrs ago).

    Religion and religious marriage ceremonies have never had the same requirement as businesses. They have the right under the 1st amendment to perform ceremonies to whomever they want according to their religious views...separation of church and state.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 2, 2014 4:22 p.m.

    Vanceone
    Provo, UT
    "If you think the 1st Amendment is going to stop some gay judge from forcing religions to marry gay people, your naivety is showing. ...Just ask any wedding planner/baker/florist what happens when the gays come demanding you serve them. The state forces you to--you have no freedom anymore. Except to go out of business, that is."

    ---Please look up "public accomodations laws" and remember you are riled up over 3 or 4 cases in the nation.

    "Do you honestly think that the gay judge who overturned Proposition 8 wouldn't use any theory he could to force a church to perform a gay ceremony?"

    ---- SAD, completely mistrusting of human nature!
    If I write that judges from "the other side" will make dishonest rulings, it reveals me as a person to whom dishonesty is natural.

    "In New Jersey the courts already force churches to allow gay ceremonies to occur on their property, but as of yet not conduct them. There's not much difference between forcing them to allow a ceremony and forcing them to conduct one."

    ---NO, a facility that a church rents to "anyone" for profit was involved, not a church.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Jan. 3, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    Article title: "‘Lesbian couple say marriage lawsuit against Utah, LDS Church was filed without their knowledge’"

    Gee, imagine that.....somebody screaming at the top of their lungs (via a lawsuit) against the LDS church about homosexual "inequality" when those involved want nothing to do with the screaming.

    In other words, more lies and falsehoods involved in the homosexual agenda.

    What a shocker....

    I commend the lesbian couple in calling out the falsehoods.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 3, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    @Vanceone
    "Look, I can make the attorney's case really easily here: The LDS church should be forced to marry gay couples in their temple because now that gays can legally be married, every person licensed by the state to marry someone has to conduct all eligible weddings. ... Any liberal, leftist judge will follow this reasoning."

    This liberal thinks you'd lose the case because the church already has the right to deny any couple they want because say one of the two isn't LDS. There has never been any requirement for churches to marry every type of couple that is eligible under state/national law.

  • G L W8 SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 4, 2014 5:17 a.m.

    Those who are critical of Vanceone for making a thorough, hypothetical legal scenario which could occur, and probably will, considering the state of things on the SSM issue, need to pay close attention. You have more trust in the "free exercise" clause of the 1st amendment than I do. For nearly the last half-century, the ACLU and others have been promoting the "establishment" clause at the near-exclusion of the "free exercise" clause, building up a plethora of precedent that would make the argument under the "free exercise" clause extremely difficult. Only time will tell who is right on this one.