Quantcast
Utah

U.S. Supreme Court puts same-sex marriage in Utah on hold

New A.G. says Utah gay couples who recently married are in 'legal limbo'

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    As expected. However, it's not a bad thing; we need to go through this to eliminate all the arguments about process and how it was handled, so we can finally eliminate the laws that affront our basic constitutional freedoms, whether we are straight or gay.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    ANY good judge would have stayed the decision right after it was entered. Shelby, by not staying it, showed his activist bias. Even the gay judge who overturned Prop 8 in California immediately stayed it in order to give the case a chance to work through he judicial process. Of course, the California case was not decided on the merits because the governor refused to do his duty to support the will of the people. he instead refused to fight the case in the Supreme Court so it lost on the basis that the parties who were fighting it had no standing.

    The Supremes have done the right thing and all nine justices signed on. If there is any power left in the voice of the people, this travesty will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    This may be a good thing. As I have said before on these blogs, if SSM endangers the conventional family and conventional marriage I don't want it. Does SSM pose a danger? My honest answer would be "I don't know." We have a lot at stake in the family. As the late Karl Polanyi (needs to be read) pointed out - the family is about the only thing which makes life in a commercial society remotely tolerable.

  • Mukkake Montreal, QC, 00
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    [the stay puts same-sex couples in a legal limbo]

    It would probably be more relevant to Utah culture to call it a "legal spirit prison". It also better illustrates the fact that these people are now being denied their rights and freedoms and being treated like second-class citizens; the same way we treat prisoners.

    Utah! This is the place... where love and commitment are treated like crimes.

  • Alex 1 Tucson, AZ
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    Good call, SCOTUS! Give this case its proper review then, and only then, can I accept the verdict. Regardless of the outcome, legality cannot trump morality.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    @Cats
    "If there is any power left in the voice of the people, this travesty will be overturned by the Supreme Court."

    The only travesty is that there's a lot of people who think that the majority should be able to limit the rights of a minority, especially sad in this state whose founders faced heavy persecution.

  • Richapotamusrex lehi, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:00 a.m.

    The issue is simple. The citizens of the state of Utah voted overwhelmingly not to allow same sex marriage. I find it ironic and extremely hypocritical that those in favor of equal rights for gays and lesbians are so quick to trample the rights of everyone else. If you want to make a change do it the right way and get it on the ballot again. If you are right and everyone agrees that same sex marriage should be allowed then so be it.

  • History Freak Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    I'm so tired of all the emotionalism the gay community always brings into this issue...like "love is a crime," and "gay families are in limbo." I think it's pretty clear that all these people ran out and got "married" immediately because they thought there was a pretty good chance it would be overturned.

    Any rights not specifically given to the federal government are delegated to the states under the U.S. Constitution. States have the right to determine their marriage laws. Marriage is not a right and is not regulated by the federal government. If it was a right, you wouldn't have to get a license. No one has to get a license to exercise their freedom of speech. That is because it is a constitutional right.

    If this same-sex so-called "marriage" stands, the state will have no power to make ANY laws regulating marriage. The door will be opened to all kinds of craziness.

  • Michael-D Riverton, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    Good Decision,, this is a State Issue / Law.. and more importantly in Utah a religious belief.. Put it on the Ballot.. Nobody is stopping a Gay couple from moving to a State that recognizes SSM... Our state does not,, the Majority of our citizens do not,,, and I am sure that includes NON-Mormon / LDS folk..

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    A stay is sometimes issued in a case that might have implications for the entire country. I don’t think the lower courts acted in haste. It’s puzzling that the Supreme Court neither indicated it wants further review in appellate court nor will review the case itself. It leaves it ambiguous as to who the next move is up to.

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    Rights, rights, rights... I think I am sickening of that word, because it now means the ability to demand something without being accountable for that which is demanded. It as though words have little or no meaning any more. I believe that a clever way of lying is to change the definition of words. "Gay" no longer means happy. "Marriage" no longer has the meaning of one woman and one man uniting for a higher purpose. "Right" now means what "I" want - to the exclusion of everyone else. Society can't function without understanding the meaning of words. I don't know anyone that wants to keep someone from loving someone else. Please stop framing arguments in terms of selfishness and self interest - or civilization will become chaos.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    "If you want to make a change do it the right way and get it on the ballot again". No. Because it is a constitutional right which accrues to each of us that does not require any further consent from anyone. It's a republic, not mob rule.

  • Hugh1 Denver, CO
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    If this battle is anything like the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruling that overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a ruling prohibiting "state sponsored segregation" in education, expect a series of legal maneuvers that try to stretch this one out - perhaps five or even ten years. The court felt burned by its Roe v. Wade (1973) abortion ruling for getting too far ahead of public opinion. Chief Justice Roberts understands the magnitude of this ruling, and knows that establishing separate and unequal marriage will be overturned once he, Scalia, Thomas, or Alito are replaced by a centerist. In a perfect world, anything over two-thirds of states permitting same sex marriage provides adequate cover for an affirmative Court ruling - and public opinion will be there before 2020. Chief Justice Roberts must make a ruling during his term, or risk another "Brown" decision that makes a mockery of his legacy as Chief Justice. Remember too that the battle is not about a marriage certificate, or even inheritance rights and Social Security, it is about procreation, those who are favored and those who are not. There is one likely outcome - it is only a matter of time.

  • Joe Carlin OAKLAND, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    "Shelby, by not staying it, showed his activist bias. Even the gay judge who overturned Prop 8 in California immediately stayed it in order to give the case a chance to work through he judicial process."

    Shelby was never asked for a stay, and it would have made him an activist judge to stay the decision when there was no petition for a stay. The judge (what difference his sexual orientation makes doesn't matter any more than his gender) was asked to stay the decision and granted it.

    Shelby can't unilaterally stay the decision unless asked to do so and he was asked to do so so he didn't. He followed procedure to a T. The state, however, did not. You can't blame Shelby on the state's incompetence.

  • Joe Carlin OAKLAND, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:25 a.m.

    "The issue is simple. The citizens of the state of Utah voted overwhelmingly not to allow same sex marriage. I find it ironic and extremely hypocritical that those in favor of equal rights for gays and lesbians are so quick to trample the rights of everyone else. If you want to make a change do it the right way and get it on the ballot again. If you are right and everyone agrees that same sex marriage should be allowed then so be it."

    The issue is simple. The citizens of the United States of America voted overwhelmingly by 3 to 1 margin of the states to amendment their federal constitution to guarantee equal protection of the laws. I find it ironic and extremely hypocritical that those opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians are so quick to trample on the federal constitution. If you want to make a change to the federal constitution, do it the right way and amend the federal constitution. If you are right and a 3 to 1 margin of states agree that gay and lesbian couples should not be protected in the federal constitution the same way straight people are, then so be it.

  • Joe Carlin OAKLAND, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    "As I have said before on these blogs, if SSM endangers the conventional family and conventional marriage I don't want it. Does SSM pose a danger? My honest answer would be 'I don't know.'"

    Then clearly it does not. Over 1,000 same sex couples are now married in Utah. They are recognized by the state and federal officials, receiving state and federal married benefits and filing state and federal taxes as married. They will continue to be married until another judge says otherwise.

    We can now watch to see how these couples supposedly "endanger the conventional family and conventional marriage."

    Please, every one detail every way your convention family and conventional marriage are now being harmed in tangible ways. I'm waiting. We're all waiting.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    If activism is where the finger should be pointed at, you need to start with the anti-gay activists who had this law drafted and put on the ballot in the first place. The restrictive Utah law virtually begged for Federal Court review. The predictable result was that a state that many logically thought would be the last place in the country to legalize SSM is now at the center of the storm.

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    The right decision was made to grant the stay, regardless of how you view the issue. It should have been granted by the judge who made the original ruling. The decision will be a tough one by the Supreme Court. It is not as clear constitutionally as either side would want it to be. I think the correct decision would be to reverse the decision. The Judicial branch should not be able to erase the voice of the people of a State in the case where the meaning of a Constitutional amendment has to be stretched and interpreted "creatively" at best in order to deem the will of the people unconstitutional. This should be a state issue. The Federal government should stay out of it.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    Lets not forget what this is really about.

    This is about the 14th Ammendment vs. the 10th Ammendment, and the order that dictates which law is supreme.

    The 10th Ammendment says that if a right isn't listed in the Constitution, it is up to the states to decide. The 14th Ammendment says that everybody must be treated equally under the law. So, which is supreme, can states define marriage, or must any form of marriage be allowed because of equal protection?

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    Joe go back and read your history. The 14th Amendment passed because the government held extending reconstruction over the southern states heads. Did the 14th Amendment need to be passed? Yes it did. Did twisting arms to make it happen need to be done? Possibly. Was it intended for anything but Slavery? No.

    The better question would be, and that is asked of the lawyer. Just how does not being married harm them?

  • UTSU Logan, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    For the ruling of prop 8, Judge Walker granted stay because opposing counsels requested stay instantly, unlike Utah state attorneys, they didn’t wait AFTER gay marriage resumed in CA and THEN asked the court for a stay. It was Utah state attorneys who made a big mistake back then. You can not blame their own incompetency on other people.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:42 a.m.

    Also Joe, the state attys asked for an immediate stay after the ruling. Shelby said no. They went back the next monday and asked for another one. He again said no.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    @History Freak
    "I'm so tired of all the emotionalism the gay community always brings into this issue...like "love is a crime," and "gay families are in limbo.""

    As opposed to the emotionalism the other side that brings into the issue laments about the supposed end of religious freedom and destruction of the family if same-sex couples were to marry?

    "States have the right to determine their marriage laws. Marriage is not a right and is not regulated by the federal government. If it was a right, you wouldn't have to get a license."

    Loving vs Virginia wouldn't have gone the way it did if you were correct.

  • Mack2828 Ft Thomas, KY
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    Wow!! Thank you SCOTUS!!!!! At least for the time being order is restored. I'll bet judge Shelby is a little embarrassed this morning.

  • Mack2828 Ft Thomas, KY
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    Even if marriage between a man and a woman is eventually jettisoned. Even if the Boy Scouts of America is run roughshod over. We don't have to worry. In the world we will have tribulation but we can all be of good cheer because their is one who has overcome the world. All we have to do is keep our eyes on HIM.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    "Marriage is not a right ...."

    If ones right to marry isn't a "right", I am not sure what basic core aspects of humanity is. Again, not a supporter of gay marriage, but honestly marriage is one of the most basic aspects of civility. It is one of the things that separates us humans from other species that inhabit this earth. If having the right to choose whom you will associate with, and create a committed relationship with, regardless of the nature of that relationship so long as it is not criminal in nature, is not a secured right - what is.

    To me, marriage does have a certain connotation of a man and woman coming together to create a family... whether that family includes kids or not. I understand that other groups of people would like to create "committed" relationships. I really do get that. But to me, that is something other than a marriage. Should have all the same legal rights...but it just isn't marriage to me. Call it semantics.... but words do matter.

  • Florida Boy Melbourne/USA, FL
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    How ironic. This is the same State of Utah that abhors the federal government's meddling into state affairs, yet NEVER turns down an opportunity to take federal money - i.e. educational funds, tobacco settlement funds, preservation funds, Hill AFB funds, etc.

    Now the State of Utah is crawling back to that very same federal government (the one that it abhors) and is seeking its assistance in overturning a ruling on same-sex marriage. What a piece of work.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    The religiously motivated opponents of marriage equality are making this a State's Rights fight. Their interpretation of "Federalism" simplistically presumes that The definition and regulation of marriage is solely and absolutely the legal and Constitutional domain of the State Legislatures. In short, they argue that such a federalist interpretation of the Tenth Amendment means that State Legislative and Constitutional authority trumps Federal authority.

    But precedent says otherwise, based on the COTUS principle that individual rights trump both Federal and State authority.

    Rock, paper, scissors anyone?

    Citizens of the United States have inherent rights that exist and do not need to be "enumerated" in order to be rights and in order to be guaranteed by the Constitution. This fact is explicitly and deliberately recognized in the Ninth Amendment:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    In other words, the right to marry is an un enumerated individual right that must be afforded equal protection and due process.

    Shelby's ruling eloquently articulated this, and will be upheld. Sotomayor's stay is just to buy time for SCOTUS to prepare to rock the worlds of religious zealots.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    Joe Carlin,

    "Please, every one detail every way your convention family and conventional marriage are now being harmed in tangible ways. I'm waiting. We're all waiting."

    Many "traditional" families are reporting being "very sad".

    Does that count?

  • Uncle Rico Sandy, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    Where did my comment go? Why do i even waste my time posting when you guys "lose them" . Hard to find good workers these days.

  • History Freak Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    Dear Schnee:

    If you don't think same-sex marriage harms the rest of us, you'd better take a look at what has happened in Massachussetts over the last ten years that so-called SSM has existed there. This, again, was forced on the population by the court and the majority of the state was shocked and outraged by it. Polls showed that, even in liberal Massachussetts, the population didn't want it. When they tried to get it on the ballot to overturn it, the court wouldn't even allow them to vote on it.

    It has adversely effected almost all aspects of life including schools, churches, employment, healthcare, etc. EVERYONE needs to take a close look at Massachussetts to see how much damage it has caused. Gays got what they wanted at the expense of children, parents and everyone else.

  • D-56 Riverton, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    Is being Gay a Constitutional Right? I think not, nowhere is it written,, just interpreted, by many as a religious freedom. It is a choice that is not recognized by the majority of citizens in the State of Utah.

    This is a state issue,, the majority here in Utah do not want it..... This is no more a Constitutional right than Marijuana, Alcohol,, Otherwise,, Polygamy should never have been made illegal and should be legalized as a Constitutional Right... long before Gay's came out of the closet..

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    Everyone says "traditional" marriage, as if the fairytale where "boy meets girl, wedding bells, babies and soon we're a cute old couple rocking at the sunset" version is ONLY version of "marriage" that is, was, or ever shall be. Marriage has many more warts than that. We all know marriages come in many forms and have many meanings.

    So they must mean "Idealized" marriage-- but it's only ideal if you happen to think it is and are lucky enough to get it.

    It's hardly ideal for gay people. Their story usually starts out "boy meets boy" or "girl meets girl." You don't have to relate, but you can if you want to: be born, grow up, discover who you desire and who you love, meet someone, fall in love, be together, have kids or don't, build a life. Not that hard.

    "But.. religion?" You have yours. Other people have theirs.

    How nosy and selfish to think someone else should live the life YOU want rather than their own. Nobody actually needs anyone else to "believe" in their marriage, and they don't need your permission. Just try to be a good neighbor.

  • JN Chubbuck, ID
    Jan. 6, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    “The decision by a single federal judge to redefine marriage in Utah is lawless, and we are pleased that the Supreme Court has put this decision on hold to allow the state to appeal it in an orderly fashion,"
    I can't agree more with this statement. I am very grateful the supreme court ruled the way they have.

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    Dipping my toe into the prediction game -- the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will uphold the trial court decision supporting same-sex marriage. Period. Full Stop.

    This is because the appeals courts must adhere to Supreme Court precedence. And -- in light of Lawrence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans, U.S. v. Windsor and a SLEW of other highly relevant cases (Meyer v. Nebraska, Skinner v. Oklahoma, Brown v. Board of Ed., McLaughlin v. Florida, and many many more -- there is one and only one decision that the appeals court can reach, namely, that the civil right of marriage cannot be denied to persons merely on account of their sex because doing so violates the equal protection and/or due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    Maybe if the case gets to the Supreme Court for a decision on the merits, marriage equality could be shot down. That's unlikely, but possible. Nevertheless, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals will have no choice but to uphold marriage equality.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:15 p.m.

    For those of you expressing how Marriage is not a right, can any of you tell me if a Male/Female couple have ever been denied a Marriage license? I'm serious, I honestly don't know. I suspect licenses have been denied based on the age of the applicants but I can't think of any other reason. What about atheists? They don't believe in God and marriage is sanctioned by God and he doesn't believe in SSM, can they get a license? I'm thinking marrage is a right at least male/female couples

    History Freak, I was wondering if YOU can elaborate and give me some of the problems the people of MA are suffering and why all of them are lamenting their decision to make Gay Marriage legal?

    Just remember, the Constitution works both ways and you never know when your going to be on the wrong side of a Constitutional issue. Now that there is a stay I hope cooler heads prevail and the right thing is done. Congrats on the temporary victory same sex couples!

    It's a shame really, we all lose on this one.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:18 p.m.

    Voice of the people vs. one judge!

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    "The state's request to the Supreme Court was filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from Utah and the five other states in the 10th Circuit. Sotomayor turned the matter over to the entire court.

    The action now shifts to Denver, where the appeals court will consider arguments from the state against same-sex marriage as well as from the three gay and lesbian couples who challenged the ban in support of Shelby's ruling. Shelby and the appeals court had previously rebuffed the state's plea to stop gay weddings pending appeal.

    The 10th Circuit has set short deadlines for both sides to file their written arguments, with the state's first brief due on January 27. No date for argument has been set yet."
    (MarkSherman, Associated Press)

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    @History Freak

    "Dear Schnee:
    If you don't think same-sex marriage harms the rest of us"

    I don't.

    "Polls showed that, even in liberal Massachussetts, the population didn't want it."

    The majority want it now.

    "It has adversely effected almost all aspects of life including schools, churches, employment, healthcare, etc."

    Would you like to provide examples? I have no idea what you can even be referring to with respect to employment (since firing someone just because they're gay is bigotry) and healthcare (I'm going to assume you don't oppose hospital visitation rights). Having schools acknowledge that some families includes two dads or two moms isn't a bad thing in my opinion (especially for the kids raised in those families). And for churches... the only thing I can think of Massachusetts related that you'd even refer to is Catholic Charities not being allowed to receive state funding unless they adopt to same-sex couples which is no intrusion on religion since there's no religious right to gov't funding. They are able to still adopt to only opposite-sex couples with their own funds (just like LDSFS). So... I see no issues.

  • Steven S Jarvis Orem, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    I am quite sure that those in the legal limbo this has all been caused by Judge Shelby's personal actions to not grant the stay immediately are still considered legally married for purposes of Federal Government functions and protections. The State probably has had people married outside of Utah where the laws allowed it who were able to file Federal taxes as a married couple since moving or returning to Utah without being allowed to file as a couple for State taxes.

    This issue needs to go before the Supreme Court. I believe both sides of the issue want that to happen so we can all move on. There are certain arguments I feel BOTH sides have made that have validity. For example, the right to be with someone who is near death is probably the most compelling one. That right should be EXTENDED to include more than family if the person who is ill wishes it to be so. On the other hand, the state should be able to continue to designate acceptable family situations for foster and adoptive care for child placement.

  • Lovedums Franklin, IN
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    @ Hutterite:

    "so we can finally eliminate the laws that affront our basic constitutional freedoms".

    Please understand that the "Constitutional freedoms" that you refer to for homosexuals are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. No where does the Constitution mention or refer to specific rights based on a persons sexual preference. Gays have not traditionally been considered to be in the "protected" class that most equal protection claims have gone through. The Equal Protection Clause was tailored to help with racial discrimination after the abolition of slavery to be sure all races were given equal protection under the law with respect to basic rights. It never was intented to deal with a person's sexual preference. Plus, marriage is not necessarily a fundamental right. The gay lobby is pushing hard to make this the case, but please don't go saying that your sexual preference guarantees you extra protection under the U.S. Constitution. This notion has been pushed by liberals and homosexual activists in order to put it in the same bucket as race, sex, religion, etc., but it is wrong.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:34 p.m.

    @Jim Dabakis:

    The children of gay parents are NOT being told that they are "second-class" citizens at all. The obvious message is that their family arrangment is different from other families and that the legal system of the United States needs to weigh the rights and concerns of all of it's citizens (including the majority point of view). These children are not stupid, they know that their same sex parents look different from most of their peers in school and in the neighborhood. Perhaps they already asking questions about what the historical mores of society are, and about the diversity of views of the place of morality in society? They might even ask upon what principles was our country established and what was the role of religion in the birth of our country? As a parent, I want my children to understand the history of my county and its early foundational principles. Let's respectfully discuss both sides of this issue and help our children learn that fairness to all citizens is important. Let's seek for some middle ground that respects all citizen's concerns.

  • Steven S Jarvis Orem, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    Amendment Three's purpose was to reaffirm the state's right to designate who would be eligible to enter into a marriage contract. Currently the State (and Federal government in most cases) discriminates on who can marry for a variety of factors including age, how closely related a couple are (ie family members), mental capacity and even incarceration. The state even disallows people to have more than one active marriage at a time! No doubt that Amendment three is discriminatory. Contract law by its nature is.

    @sid 6.7

    Many female/male couples have been denied marriage based on being related and therefore having an increased risk of passing on defective genes to offspring. I believe only one state allows first cousins to marry, and that is only after they reach the age of 65 or older. No state allows biological siblings to marry.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    IMO this is a sensible decision. It makes no sense for the court to make same-sex marriage legal in Utah against the expressed will of the majority, and at the same time leave same-sex marriage illegal in the 30 other states.

    This is actually a good thing for BOTH sides.

    The stay adds urgency, which means the Supreme Court will hear it more quickly. Which means these marriages that took place on the quick while an appeal was in process won't hang in limbo for so long. We will probably get a real decision because of this (which is a good thing). Because the Supreme Court won't be able to just send it back, or put it on the back burner (because the stay makes a final decision more urgent).

    ---

    IMO they should answer this question for all 30 States at the same time, not just for Utah. They should bring these cases to the Supreme Court one-by-one. If it's illegal in Utah.. it's illegal in all 30 States that have laws preventing same-sex marriage.

    So in a way it expedites that process as well (addressing it in all 30 States instead of just Utah).

  • Joe Carlin OAKLAND, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:38 p.m.

    "Was it intended for anything but Slavery?"

    Irrelevant. "Intent" is irrelevant because the actual text of the law is what matter, regardless of why it was intended to be passed.

    That text is: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    Amendment 3 attempts to deny those in same sex relationships equal protection of its marriage laws. Therefore it is in violation of the 14th amendment. "Intent" is irrelevant given the actual text of the constitution.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:41 p.m.

    I find the logic of SSM supporters beyond ridiculous.

    - They want us to believe marriage is an implied constitutional right yet many want to restrict the explicit constitutional right to bear arms.

    - They want us to believe each man is an island (their actions don't affect anybody but themselves) yet they insist we tech our children things we may disagree with, that we photograph their weddings, and that we pay for their insurance needs with diseases caused specifically through their behaviors.

    - They call SSM opponent people of hate yet they use bullying tactics like targeting individuals and boycotting business. They ruined lives for no other reason than opponents disagreed with them. Compare the behavior of the "losers" after Prop 8 (horrendously hateful) and the "losers" (amazingly benign) of Shelby's decision. Actions show who the real haters are.

    It's pathetic, really, to see a group of people so self-contradictory while proclaiming at the top of their lungs their infallibility in political and social thought.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    Hutterite
    Re: "it is a constitutional right which accrues to each of us that does not require any further consent from anyone"...

    You would be correct IF it were a Constitutional Right. But same-sex marriage is not in fact a "Constitutional Right". If it was... the Supreme Court would have struck it down right away (and they have had several chances to do that already).

    It may turn out to be indirectly protected by a Constitutional Right, but it is not itself a Constitutional Right. The court needs to decide. You can't pontificate it as "a Constitutional Right" on your own. You're not a Supreme Court justice.

    I hope the current Supreme Court justices are not as prejudice as you are and as prone to rule on emotion. I hope they will actually consider everything in the Constitution including the original intent of the 14th amendment, and how they all pertain to this issue (they are not supposed to rule based on emotion, or popularity, they are supposed to decide based on the law and only the law).

    I hope we get a true legal opinion (sans emotion) from the Supreme Court.

  • JerryBall San Francisco, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    This court is terrified that it will have to be either a Constitutional Court or a NonConstitutional Court. It keeps this marriage freedom and equality question stalling until that time in place when it just is going to have to do right -- or do wrong against Constitutional Rights for all. Scalia's sphincter is trembling with fear before his version of god, and Clarence Thomas is hiding his public hair on the coke can because he has his freedom and wants to deny it for anyone else -- unless a fee is paid or a grand cruise is offered for he and his wife.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:01 p.m.

    [For those of you expressing how Marriage is not a right, can any of you tell me if a Male/Female couple have ever been denied a Marriage license?]

    Marriage licenses have been denied based on the results of blood tests and based upon the close relationships of the applying parties. States regulate marriage. It would be foolhardy if they didn't. If states couldn't regulate marriage, all kinds of crazy things would begin to happen. For example: even the LGBT community have not suggested that marriage requires sexual relations between the parties. So, mothers could marry one of their offspring, fathers the same; brothers could marry a brother or a sister, sisters the same; dirty old men could marry six-year-old children, dirty old women the same. How thankful we all should be that marriage licenses are not issued for such licentious relationships. How glad we should be for state regulation of marriage.

  • JerryBall San Francisco, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    Flashback: "Just how does not being married harm them?" Then rescind all marriage rights and see how that one plays out in Peoria? What's good for one is good for all, or none.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:15 p.m.

    @ sid 6.7
    You asked about problems caused by same-sex marriage in Massachussetts. Here is one of many examples:

    Anyone who thinks that same-sex “marriage” is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts. It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. And this train is moving fast. What has happened so far is only the beginning.

    Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

  • jazzlover Highland, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    Joe Carlin,

    False. Many, many cases have gone before the Supreme Court where the original intent of the Constitution (and its associated wording), matters. To say otherwise is an outright lie.

    That is what the judicial branch does. They interpret the law.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:19 p.m.

    @Flashback

    Actually, this is how state attorney should have handled the case:

    First, Utah state attorneys should have asked judge Shelby BEFORE the ruling, that if the ruling does not favor the state, it should be stayed. That is the right way of handling. Judge Shelby did not grant stay because it was not asked in the first place. That is the first mistake state attorneys made.

    Second, after gay marriage started, state attorneys should first go to Judge Shelby to request stay. But instead, they surpassed Shelby and directly asked 10th circuit, that is why 10th circuit court rejected the state for three times, because it was not properly handled on procedural grounds.

    Even many lawyers in conservative corner admitted that the state attorneys made several mistakes that only freshman law student would. So, they really should not blame their own incompetency on other people.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    OK. Now lets pray that level heads will prevail. Obviously the one head that changed everything was not level.

  • IMAPatriot2 PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:27 p.m.

    Florida Boy wrote: "How ironic. This is the same State of Utah that abhors the federal government's meddling into state affairs, yet NEVER turns down an opportunity to take federal money - i.e. educational funds, tobacco settlement funds, preservation funds, Hill AFB funds, etc.

    Now the State of Utah is crawling back to that very same federal government (the one that it abhors) and is seeking its assistance in overturning a ruling on same-sex marriage. What a piece of work."

    Aren't you missing a few facts in your tirade? How about where this "federal" dollars came from? Although I must admit that the current administration likes to print money the real money was taken from the citizens and businesses. It does not originate in Washington. It is disgusting that we even have to ask for this money to be returned. But the federals want this arrangement because that way they can control us more easily.

  • Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:30 p.m.

    @Alex 1: Homosexuality is not a moral issue.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:43 p.m.

    @sid 6.7 You asked about examplef of the harm caused by same-sex marriage laws, Here is one alarming example:

    Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a new law into effect on Monday afternoon affording students confused about their “gender identity” a host of new rights, including the ability to use either a boy’s or girl’s restroom and either locker room. The legislation, Assembly Bill 1266, authored by Democratic State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano from San Francisco, allows students in grades as young as kindergarten to use “facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”Ammiano’s spokesman, Carlos Alcala, told TheBlaze on Monday afternoon the bill would even permit high school males who say they identify as females, to use a woman’s locker room.

    Still wondering?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:55 p.m.

    Re: "'If you want to make a change do it the right way . . . .' No. Because it is a constitutional right which accrues to each of us that does not require any further consent from anyone."

    We'll see.

    In the meantime, LGBT activists may want to start dusting off their "Plan B."

    And start looking into more disingenuous ways to back up and suggest the next adverse ruling was expected, as well.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 2:58 p.m.

    To VST and Stephen Jarvis:

    I had not considered relatives. Thanks for the "Heads Up". It makes sense as procreation between the two parties could have an adverse affect on the resulting children. What if they were both sterile? Without the possibility of having biological children would they be allowed to marry? Would there be public concern about two relatives becoming united in Marriage even though they could not pro-create?

    My point is this. Short of denial because of age and genetic issues and with out further evidence of a specific case of denial, it seems every Male/Female couple is entitled to a Marriage license. In my opinion that would make receiving a Marriage license a "Right". It may not specifically say that in the Constitution but that seems to be the practice.

    Another question for all of you. Does it specifically state in the COTUS that Marriage is only for a Man and a Woman or are you arguing that it specifically does not say that Marriage can be between 2 men or 2 women?

    Semantics. Aren't they great?

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    Sid 6.7

    Closely related blood relatives including first cousins, brother/sisters, father/daughters.
    A man who is already married to one woman
    Those with certain venereal disease (hence blood tests before marriage licenses)

    All states have regulation on marriages. Now people want to add only one group to the "definition" and leave these others out. You cannot be hypocritical if you are basing on your argument on love. Love doesn't discriminate. The above mentioned groups love each other and therefore should be able to marry. Right.

  • JeffreyRO555 Auburn Hills, MI
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:21 p.m.

    People opposed to equal legal rights for gay people sure are gluttons for punishment! Do you really want to go through this process again and again, state by state? Since it harms no one when same-sex marriage is legal, but merely ruffles some peoples' feathers by not having the government agree with them on whom should be allowed to marry, it would seem to me to be less painful to just get this over with, and legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states!

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    This is a great decision. We need to sort this out in an orderly fashion. Not with judicial trickery and prior precedence as has been used in other states. The lack of principal by the proponents of SSM is astounding.

    We need this issue solved and put to rest. We need the SCOTUS to make a decision on this that will resolve the conflict for good. In order to do this, both sides need to put their collective best foot forward and make their case!

    I personally am on the side of Utah and our present amendment 3. My belief is that SSM will prevail and we will move on. My hope is that the arguments against SSM can be articulated and convincing.

    My opposition is born of my belief that same sex attraction is a disorder. It was classified as such until recently. The idea that a disorder making it difficult to participate in a protected act as foundational as marriage thus requiring a redefinition of the institution is, to me, absurd.

    That being said, I grow weary of the issue and desire the courts to put it to rest.

  • Ramjet2 Milwaukee, WI
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    Historically a marriage that has taken place in one state in the US has always been recognized as valid in all the other 49 states, even in cases where the marriage could not have taken place in one of those other states. Examples would be age restrictions or marriages between cousins.
    I recently married my partner in Minnesota. We drove home to Wisconsin where our marriage is not valid under state law. How did that work, exactly?
    Are we both now free to go out and find women willing to marry us here in Wisconsin? Is bigamy a state or federal crime?
    14th Amendment:
    "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
    In Wisconsin I am being denied the equal protection of the laws that I am entitled to in Minnesota.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    Blaming a judge for not staying his own decision is preposterous. Let a higher court do that, which is what happened. Too many commenters are more about politics and not about judicial process.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 4:19 p.m.

    Meckofahess:

    The Elementary School story could certainly work the other way couldn't it? What if it was offensive to gay parents of children of the school that there were books showing Heterosexuality in a positive light? What if they barged in and demanded all pro Heterosexual books be removed because they deemed them harmful to their children. Do you think they would have been arrested also? I think so. And if they were arrested would you be as outraged? No difference none. Please don't get statuesque confused with interpretation of the Constitution.

    Also do some research on Gender Identity Confusion. I'll fill you in on a well known secret, Gender Identity Confusion has nothing to do with Homosexuality! People who have Gender Identity Confusion do not see them selves as Homosexual when they have relations with the same sex. Do you want to know why? They see themselves as opposite of the sex they were born. That's where the confusion part comes in.

    So yea, I'm still wondering.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 4:46 p.m.

    Mick:

    Very good points one and all and I totally agree with you.

    As I listed above I do not believe closely related people should have the ability to marry. The STD marriage is a no brainer to me. If both parties are aware of the contamination and still choose to marry why would you want to prevent that?

    Now on to Polygamy. I whole heartedly disagree with Polygamy. I have numerous issues with it. In fact I believe it to be detrimental to society. I don't like it all but my belief regarding Polygamy has no baring on a Polygamists Constitutional rights. In my opinion if both parties are of CONSENTING age then I believe they should have the right to marry.

  • BlackDiamond Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 5:04 p.m.

    Yay! Stop Gay Marriage!

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 5:35 p.m.

    The US Supreme Court needs to just rule already. Geez - just rule that states have the power to control their own and let it be done. So tired of heavy handed federal judges trying to void states rights.

  • John Locke Ivins, , UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 5:45 p.m.

    The Supreme Court voted 9-0 to delay the marriage of gay couples allowed by the actions of Judge Robert Shelby, whose personal political agenda got in the way of his deliberative judgment. He should have stayed his own decision, but he chose not to. Four liberal judges agreed that a methodical, legal review is necessary. That in itself is a judicial slap upside the head of any judge, and should, at the very least, give rise to a second thought in the future.

    Whatever the ultimate outcome, the courts, and probably the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the issue, as it should in what it appears may be a dramatic reversal of public will, traditions and religious doctrine.

    Through education, especially through current religious teachings and a growing acceptance the Bible's admonition to "...love thy neighbor as thyself..., many have come to the probably correct conclusion that we should not be critical or judge a person based on his or her determination of their own sexual persuasion.

    Whatever the final ruling, we are now on the correct path to a rational decision, whether accepted by the majority of Americans, or not.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Jan. 6, 2014 5:48 p.m.

    This may be discouraging, but it's best to let the process play out and allow this to be settled once and for all. The only argument the anti-equality crowd has been able to offer is that God thinks homosexuality is gross and that allowing gays to marry will hurt their feelings. If they had any legal maneuverings other than that, I think we would have seen them by now.

    Feel free to gloat right now, guys. Amendment Three is still doomed.

  • Captain Green Heber City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 5:49 p.m.

    Thank Heaven for a US Supreme Court that unanimously recognizes the validity of State law and the consideration that must be given to activist decisions which attempt to overturn it. Judge Shelby was wrong in what he did and he will pay a price for it, potentially damaging his career on the bench. States' rights are paramount in matters such as this. "32" States have similar laws prohibiting homosexual marriages, so Utah is not uniquely alone. If the federal government started violating the 10th Amendment, which grants States the right to make their own laws, it would be a serious problem for our entire nation. Fortunately, the level-headed Supreme Court recognizes this.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2014 5:51 p.m.

    Sid 6.7

    A few more points-

    Most couples don't know they are sterile until after they have been married for a few years. The government could make all couples test for fertility but that is not very cost effective.

    What about those who love each other and want to live as a couple and care for each other where sex is not part of the relationship. What if my unmarried sister who is in her 30's lives with my widowed mom. They obviously love each other. Can they get married so my sister can have access to my mom's health care benefits? She works for the school district and has great insurance. Can the government discriminate against this loving, caring relationship even though it is not based on sex?

    Most polygamists in this day and age are Muslims. You are denying them freedom of their religion and freedom to marry who they want.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 5:59 p.m.

    The eventual judicial resolution will be in favor of same-sex marriage. Let's hope it's sooner rather than later because justice delayed is justice denied.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 6:01 p.m.

    justice has been delayed but we will have full citizenship and full equality.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 6:05 p.m.

    The ability to make laws regarding marriage and divorce are reserved by state governments, so Shelby shouldn't have been able to make the ruling anyway.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 6:23 p.m.

    re:Meckofahess
    "Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents."

    The book "Who's in a family" included different kinds of families-grandparents, multi-racial families, single-parent families, animal families, and yes, families with gay or lesbian parents. The Boston Globe reported parents were given the opportunity to preview books at the beginning of the year, and it wasn't required reading.
    David Parker was arrested because he refused to leave the building at closing time.

    You are free to teach your children whatever you want about LGBT people or same-sex marriages. You are also free to teach your child about creation. And, most likely, your children will adopt your views. But your child may very well have a classmate(s) with same-sex parents. Actually, the school is doing you a service. You can even use the book to teach your values. When you get to the same-sex family you can point out that God doesn't approve of them. You can teach your child not to associate with children who have same-sex parents as well.

    But I wonder:
    WWJD?

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 6:31 p.m.

    I find it funny that the Supreme Court allowed a federal court to overturn prop 8, allowing the federal government to take away a state's right to define marriage law and now they put a stay on this case, saying they need to explore further a state's right to define marriage laws. The hypocrisy is disgusting. Either states can define marriage laws or they can't, but please stay consistent.

    Way too many corrupt judges (aka activist judges). That goes for both the right and the left fringes of the political spectrum.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 6:34 p.m.

    Steven S Jarvis: "I believe only one state allows first cousins to marry, and that is only after they reach the age of 65 or older."

    Actually, half the states allow first cousin marriage, including Utah. Utah is among those that require first cousin couples to be infertile (age), but many do not.

    IMAPatriot2: "How about where this "federal" dollars came from?"

    Utah, like many "red" states is a net importer of federal tax dollars taken predominantly from citizens of the "blue" states. Those New York and Taxachusetts liberals are subsidizing the state.

    Meckofahess: "Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a new law into effect on Monday afternoon affording students confused about their 'gender identity' a host of new rights..."

    You bring this up repeatedly as if it is self-evident, but you have never demonstrated the alleged harm. Many of us see it as a positive development that will benefit the lives of transgender youth and reduce suicides and homicides.

  • wwookie Payson, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 6:45 p.m.

    Eliminate marriage laws all together. Just get better estate transfer laws that allow you to indicate in a will who is your heir.

    What else do the silly lgbt activists claim? That they're not allowed to be happy? In half the cases, marriage actually reduces happiness, so in reality, you are being protected from making yourself unhappy by not being allowed to wed.

    I wish everyone would just tell the truth. Lgbt crowd state that you have an inferiority complex and opponents state you are scared of lgbt people. I love all of you, but the arguments are so silly. We should really be more worried by the federal government overstepping its bounds. There will come a time when you will be on the other side of a federal case and cry that states rights overrule federal laws (Mary Jane knows what I'm talking about.)

  • Utah Soldier Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 7:01 p.m.

    I am pleasantly surprised at this ruling.

    To those who say that Shelby couldn't have issue a stay on his ruling cause he wasn't asked are forgetting that he was asked to stay his ruling and he didn't. The lack of stay at that time is what is causing the legal limbo for SSM given the current stay.

    Are there any states in the jurisdiction of the 10th circuit that also have state constitutions that prohibit SSM? If so, I would expect that they will file Amacus (sp?) briefs supporting Utah's cause. Nevertheless, this issue will go to the SCOTUS as whichever the 10th circuit rules, that ruling will be appealed. Once this hits SCOTUS, the many states whose constitutions prohibit SSM will support Utah in its case as the case will not only affect SSM, but also the 10th Ammendment to the Constitution which gives the states all rights and powers not listed in the US Constitution.

    That shall make for an interesting day in SCOTUS history.

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    Jan. 6, 2014 7:10 p.m.

    This is the greatest country on earth, and irrespective of the outcome, this democracy in action. This what people fought and died for. Hopefully, the emotions and rhetoric, won't interfere with decisions. Hopefully the judges will make their decision based on the evidence and argument presented, and not the tissues and tears.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 7:28 p.m.

    I have tried to put this into words to prove myself, to show others what I understand from my own experiences. No matter how much I try, I cannot.

    The only thing I have to offer is that I do not hate anyone. I can't prove my principles sound, my beliefs fair or my understanding true. Perhaps all men are bound be the same inability. I figure it's more important to treat people well, love and serve each other. To teach and learn how to be better and truly happy.

    I know what has helped me to do that. Returning to my bishop, a man with an extraordinary love for others, returning to the scriptures, and kneeling day and night to return to my Heavenly Father. These things have brought something into my life that no opinion, argument, or political victory ever can. I'm happy. I've returned to the temple. I couldn't remove the requirements, I couldn't remove temptations, but I removed some of my choices. And I'm so happy I did it!

    I extend the invitation to return. There is so much waiting for those who do. It's indescribable.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 6, 2014 7:38 p.m.

    The laws of the land are becoming unstable,
    our views to personal rights are focused on selfishness,
    contentions among us spread out to include fundamental issues,
    that have never been questioned before.

    What is going on here ? Are we just not of the same opinion ? Or what ?

    The LGBT community is dishonest ! Rights are in question, Yes. But their intentions go far further into changing society to a more non-religious and less-legal ground to stand on.
    That might be their long term goal, but why don't they say so, instead of using the marriage issue as tool to fit their intent ? They want much more than just get married !

    In Utah the majority of people would never question the rights of others to be Atheists or to represent any other Modern Philosophy.

    But stepping into their sacred home with trampling their peace, is just one step ahead of a secret combination, that they will not like or tolerate.

    Go study on it, and you will understand why Utah wants this Appeal to go right.
    It is not about the Now and Today, it is about the consequences of our way of life !

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:23 p.m.

    Let us consider the Polygamy cases in the 1800's. After the 14th Amendment, thousands of legally married people in the territory of Utah were arrested, thrown in jail, etc for violating the marriage laws. The Supreme Court.... came down on the side of throwing people in jail. Polygamy was not allowed. In fact, in Idaho, Mormons as a class were stripped of their right to vote, regardless of whether they practiced polygamy or not. The Supreme Court upheld that action 9-0.

    All of that was legal under the 14th Amendment. If existing polygamous marriages could be ended, why should SSM be allowed? If people could be thrown in jail for breaking the 1 man 1 woman law, why should SSM be exempt? To this day--if you have one man and 2 women, you can and will go to jail (except in Utah, thanks to another federal judge). Why should gays get an exemption? Why should they be granted more rights than straight people? Or explain why 2 men is okay but 3 men is not.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 8:34 p.m.

    "If you want to make a change do it the right way and get it on the ballot again".

    Wow did i get to vote on your marriage?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    Those who oppose SSM see the stay by the SCOTUS as a victory to their pursue of bigotry and discrimination against homosexuality.

    Father, mother, brother, sister, cousin, uncle, niece , nephew, grandparent, let me tell you that we are still part of you, we share your blood, most of your culture and we still love you. We are homosexuals and we want a life of commitment and monogamy just like you. Yet, you insult us with your promiscuity comparing our feelings to bestiality, polygamy, incest and whatever other perversity comes to your mind.

    The SCOTUS have declared a stay. Does it mean it agrees with your bigotry? No! Does it mean it agrees with SSM marriage? No! it just means the SCOTUS will take Judge Shelby's ruling and listen to the appeal and decide on the evidence.

    Let's wait and see what the interpreters of the U.S. Constitution have to say. We as good American citizens will listen and accept the dictates of the American constitution. If we don't agree with the results we can use our check and balance system and change the constitution if deem necessary.

    Peace and love to all.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:29 p.m.

    I did not make homosexual sex incapable of producing children. God did that.

    Those who wish to call the contractual union of two same sex people a marriage are barking up the wrong tree. Your fellow man can't fix this. Expecting him/her to is outrageous. This is God's call. I see no reason why I should try to undo what God has done.

    And yes, even though God saw fit to discriminate in this way, I still have the right, in this country, to exercise my religion and worship Him as I see fit. It is called the First Amendment.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:34 p.m.

    I know it, I live it, I love it.
    Good for you but for others we have found true, eternal happiness without it. Respect this and defend our rights, just as others have for you.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:43 a.m.

    Let's talk about preserving real family values.

    Let's talk about stopping the insane practice of kicking out LGBT youth in Utah, the likes of which is shameful.

    5000 youth experiencing homelessness in Utah and people instead take to "preserving traditional marriage." Get over yourselves already and start living the edicts from Moses 7.

    Let's talk about the real preservation of the family unit - so that depression is not rampant throughout the state.

    Let's talk about why, despite doctrinal teachings, Utah's divorce rate does not fare better than the nation's.

    That would be more practical than people cheering when others lose rights enjoyed by others.

  • Ximena Provo, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:43 a.m.

    Looking at the LDS Articles of Faith, lessons can be learned about respect for one's country's and state's laws. Number 11 says that We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. And, Number 12 says that We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. I like allow all men the same privilege, and being subject, obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. Perhaps it is time to follow this ... obey, honor and sustain the law as well as allow all the right to worship according to their own dictates. The LDS moved to another country, Mexico (Utah) in order to continue their practice of polygamy (an unusual choice of marriage) - perhaps it's time to move again to another country? If the U.S. and/or State of Utah judicially allows same-sex marriage as law, perhaps it's time to obey, honor, and sustain the law.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:18 a.m.

    Disappointed, but not surprised. I couldn't shake a slight uneasy feeling at the lower courts' refusal to grant a stay. This is a big issue in the country, and things were happening awfully fast. The right to gay marriage across the land IS coming, but people currently opposed to it need more time to wrap their minds around it. Hang in there my LGBT family members, friends, and fellow citizens. It's coming...

  • choosehappiness Concord, NH
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    Very, very good news… I'm so grateful for our Supreme Court's decision concerning this matter.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    "The LGBT community is dishonest ! Rights are in question, Yes. But their intentions go far further into changing society to a more non-religious and less-legal ground to stand on. That might be their long term goal, but why don't they say so, instead of using the marriage issue as tool to fit their intent ? They want much more than just get married !"

    So all gay people are dishonest, atheistic, against the rule of law, and have an agenda of anarchy. Wow…. you have really opened peoples eyes… not to the LGBT agenda…. but to something else. I would not debate there are some who are reflective of this gross stereotype…. but I would say that it is exactly that.

    Just as inferring from the headlines we read after BYU-Utah football games of boorish behavior by fans - I would hardly castigate all Utah or BYU fans as against the rule of law as evidenced by the actions of a subgroup of their fans. But somehow I think you have made up your mind that all "LGBT" people are a despicable crowd… and for that I feel sorry for you.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    Avenue
    Vernal, UT
    The ability to make laws regarding marriage and divorce are reserved by state governments, so Shelby shouldn't have been able to make the ruling anyway.

    6:05 p.m. Jan. 6, 2014

    ==========

    If you got married in California 22 years ago, is your marriage recognized in Vernal, Utah?
    If you got married in Utah, moved and got divorced in Iowa, is that divorced recognized in Utah?

    This is were inter-State recognition of State laws at the Federal level [Constitution] comes into play.

    BTW -- One other example.
    If you got married in Sweden or Japan, is that marriage recognized in Vernal, Utah?

    You see -- you must look outside of the little knock-hole Utah Bubble to see the world as it really is.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    Even if the courts say that gay marriage is legal, the state can always copy Colorado and ignore federal law. Since states are allowed to pick and choose what Federal laws to obey, Utah could simply say that it doesn't care what the Federal law says. What is there to prevent Utah from enforcing all federal laws? There is alread the precedent showing us that federal laws can be ignored.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    @Meckofahess

    sid 6.7 asked about example of the harm caused by same-sex marriage laws, and you replied by bringing up a different issue, transgender students, what is your point?

    @dwayne, thank you for clearing up the fact that David Parker was arrested because of committing a crime of trespassing.

    @John Locke

    Please read the posts in Page 3 by Mcbillary 1:26 pm and J.S. 2:19 pm.

    Summary: Utah state did not get stay because AG legal team made unbelievable mistakes that only first year law student would make. They did not follow the procedural rule to request stay BEFORE the ruling came down. And later they did not follow the procedural rule to request stay from Judge Shelby first, but instead surpassed him and directly asked the 10th circuit.

    Even attorneys from conservative corner think AG's team did a terrible job. If you want to blame anyone, blame those state attorneys who collected paychecks from taxpayers but failed to perform.

  • Crow Sandy , UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    @ Ranch It isn't for you to decide who marries whom. We are NOT a theocracy; god's will isn't relevant to civil law (you never know who's god is going to take precedence). Your church doesn't have to change it's INTERNAL policy. It has no business interfering in the lives of non-members.

    You are right but a civilization can determine what are the standards and norms that they will follow. The citizens in the State of Utah through a legal election the good people of the State of Utah determined the stadard that they want for their society. Those who wanted SSM had their chance to vote.

  • Crow Sandy , UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:02 p.m.

    @ nycut that is right be a good neighbor and concern yourself with your own neighborhood. The good neighbors in Utah have already spoken by 64% and do not want this in their neighborhoods

  • tellitstraight Hurricane, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 3:35 p.m.

    One of the many arguments offered in the debate over same-sex marriage relates to child-rearing. Some say the population will decline so dramatically that we'll suffer as a species. Some argue that children prosper better when parented by both a mother and a father. Just for argument's sake, let's assume that the latter argument has merit and that I'm a citizen of Utah who wants to maintain the ban against same-sex marriage, for whatever reasons. Because the research is still inconclusive on the question of what parental (homo, hetero) arrangements best benefit a child, I might instead just focus on the advantages of a mother/father arrangement and then press the other side to show how a mother/mother or father/father situation outdoes mine.

    One place to start might be the state laws related to child custody and contact when heterosexual couples divorce. I would need to show how the laws reflect a genuine interest in children having strong and abiding relationships with both mom and dad throughout and after the separation.

  • tellitstraight Hurricane, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    (cont'd) I might reference laws that seek to maintain equitable contact for both parents and that do not imply a preference for one or the other parent. I might also give evidence of court practices that frown upon preferences based on gender, and I would provide examples of cases in which evidence of alienating behavior on the part of one parent (moving children away without court notice, repeated protective orders that are dismissed, violating temporary parent-time orders, introducing a new “mother” or “father” into the children’s lives, etc.) was met with strong disapproval by the courts. I might even construct an equivalent term for mothers whose actions mirror those of a “deadbeat dad.” You get the gist. Then I’d focus research on how this approach produces better outcomes for children than those of other states…like Utah…

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:47 p.m.

    Of course, because it's not the high divorce rate among heterosexuals that is the problem, it that more people want to get married that is the problem.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 12:37 p.m.

    Tellitstraight
    Some argue that children prosper better when parented by both a mother and a father.

    KJK
    I think that it might be more important to have parents with diverse personalities/communication styles. I attended a class that discussed the 4 basic personality/communication styles – Talkers (fun/outgoing), Doers (direct, results oriented), Controllers (deliberate, detailed oriented), and Supporters (relationship oriented, consensus builders). Everybody has some of each and will change styles to some extent under differing circumstances, but they usually have a dominant style.

    If both parents have the same style vs. opposite styles (Talkers/Controllers or Doers/Supporters), then the kids might be harmed (less well-rounded) more than if they had parents of the same sex but opposite styles. Many people believe that all men are type A disciplinarians while women are soft nurturers. That's not always the case. Sometimes, the dad is the softy.

    Sure, 2 gay men may have a problem helping a daughter through the issues of puberty, but good same-sex parents will make sure that their kids have trusted adults of both sexes in their lives that the kids can turn to for such occasions.

  • ExecutorIoh West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 5:13 p.m.

    What happen when the 10th Amendment and the 14th Amendment contradict each other? You get a stay from the US Supreme Court, so plenty of discovery can be made for a precedent-setting decision.

    The argument that a federal court violated the 10th Amendment by getting involved in a state right is stronger than the argument that a clause in a state constitution defining marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Considering the national impact of the USSC's upcoming decision (33 similar states), I see this going in favor of the state and it's voters in the end.

  • Lovedums Franklin, IN
    Jan. 9, 2014 5:38 p.m.

    Lagomorph:

    Will you please stop perpetuating the tired old distortion that Blue states are the givers and Red states are the blood suckers of Federal money simply because they are blue states. First of all, look at the level of affluence in NY, CT, NJ, and so forth. They have a LOT of weath in those states and a LOT of single or child-less, rich people who pay a lot in taxes. Many of them are Republicans, too. They are not all Democrats. Furthermore, MOST of the Red States that take more federal money than they send in have a LOT of federal land, roads, bridges and not a lot of people (western states). The other states are the Southern Red States who all have large percentages of poorer minorities and poor people in general. Bottom line: more rich people and not a diporportionate amount of land and roads to people means a surplus of tax dollars. It's not a virtue of Red State inhabitants being diliberately taking federal money.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:49 p.m.

    @ ExecutorIoh

    The 10th Amendment in this case is irrelevant because state laws can stand so long as they don't clash with the United States Constitution. Amendment 3 violates the 14th Amendment, and therefor is getting shredded in court. A large part of the voters in Utah are about to discover that they can't force everybody to live by their standards just because they are the big fish in the world's smallest pond.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 7:12 a.m.

    To "Two For Flinching" you are wrong. The Utah Ammendment 3 was enacted in accordance with the 10th ammendment, and met the requirements set by the Supreme Court in the recent DOMA case. The 10th ammendment says that if the constitution does not give the Federal government power to do something, that it is left up to the states. According to the Supreme Court, the Federal Government has no authority to define marriage and that it is up to the individual states to determine that.

    Now, we have a judge that wants to use the 14th ammendment to violate the 10th ammendment and a law that meets the requirements of a recent SCOTUS ruling.

  • TriSam North Carolian, AP
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:42 a.m.

    Excellent, this is good. It would be great if this sticks, and the people of Utah who voted for the sanctity of marriage win out. But alas, I think we we know how it will eventually play out. But we also know how it will in the end eventually play out, and that gives me hope, be it likely a long time down the road.

  • TriSam North Carolian, AP
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    But you know what really confounds me, and i just can not figure it out? Its my fellow "card carrying" Mormons who are for same sex marriage, and are supporting this cause. My question is this? If Christ came to America today to rule.....would he support same sex marriage and allow it to stand under his rule? This question was only for my fellow Mormons who should know the answer but seek to justify it against what they have been taught and what the Lord teaches. Me thinks there are some testimonies in real trouble out there.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 3:23 a.m.

    @ Redshirt

    2013, section 3 of DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. "...the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Not only does Amendment 3 violate this, but it also denies benefits for same-sex civil unions, which was the downfall of Prop 8. Amendment 3 is doomed. Federal > State

    @ TriSam

    Christ isn't ruling, and this country is not a Theocracy. There is not a single reason SSM should not be legal in this country.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 6:12 p.m.

    TriSam
    ..i just can not figure it out? Its my fellow "card carrying" Mormons who are for same sex marriage, and are supporting this cause.
    KJK
    The D&C says that the Constitution was established to maximize individual freedom and agency. The brethren have stated that laws that punish acts that don't objectively harm others harm agency. If we didn't want people to sin, we should have sided with someone else in the Pre-Existance. Will allowing SSM result in more or less promiscuity in the gay community? Will it promote or dissuade gays from forming stable families/relationships? Will it promote or hinder the spread of STDs? Will it result in more or fewer people relying on government for insurance and other benefits?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    To "Two For Flinching" read the courts ruling. They state specifically that the definition of marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue. They mention the fact that it is a State's rights issue to determint the definition several times in their ruling.

    Please read it before you comment again.