Quantcast
Utah

Supreme Court stay on marriage shows desire for slower process

Comments

Return To Article
  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:16 p.m.

    “The other side says we have to do that to avoid a backlash, but all it takes is a bill to remove the exemption,”

    Such a bill would be unconstitutonal. Now that's not to say there won't be people who want a church to change, but any push would be through public pressure (and mostly internal, consider the United Methodist Church who is facing some dissent in their own clergy) but the law cannot legally force a church to marry a couple they don't want to marry. That's why we have laws protecting from religious discrimination but say... the LDS church can choose to not marry people of other faiths in their temples.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:17 p.m.

    Just remember-- In New Jersey, the Democratic majority pulled a bill legalizing gay marriage. Why? Because the bill gave religious institutions an exemption from being forced to perform gay ceremonies.

    The gay lobby objected vociferously. They do not want churches to be exempt. So the Democrats pulled the bill.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:20 p.m.

    Proposition 3 was declared unconstitutional by a Federal Judge. The State of Utah appealed the decision and got a stay by the SCOTUS.

    The SCOTUS has to review the 50 pages of Shelby's ruling. Study Utah's appeal and make a decision.

    Please let's stop the speculation, name calling and emotional discourse, let's history take its course.

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    Nice! Order restored.

  • JosephSmith4ever Spanisfork, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 9:33 p.m.

    "Where the courts have mandated gay marriage, Wilson said, no such religious liberty accommodations are offered."

    That is a totally bogus statement. Mandating gay marriage doesn't mandate religious institutions to perform gay marriage. You notice how it was the county clerk offices that were being told to offer marriage licenses in Utah and not religious authorities being told they had to perform the ceremony. It seems that that religious zealots lack the mental capacity to draw a distinction between a state issued marriage license and the marriage ceremony of the couples choosing (religious, at the court house, or other type). No such religious liberty accommodations are offered because all necessary accommodations are already there.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:04 p.m.

    To my LDS friends who oppose same sex marriage: We have a bit of a reprieve now, so let's chat. I am a 100% Mormon--RM, BYU grad, YM presidency, go to the temple, etc. The family is the most important unit in society. A natural mother and father is ideal. Promiscuity and debauchery are not the way to happiness, Christ is the Way. I'm with you 100%. We know this and love it. Awesome!
    I'm also gay, or deal with SSA, or however you want to say it. 100%. I can't change. I've prayed and done therapy. I have no romantic interest in women. At all. Anatomically I could have kids, but I would not love a woman--so I am single 'til death.
    Feeling same sex attraction, at least for some people, is innate and unchangeable. To have a conversation about this, it is important to show empathy for this reality and think about what that means. If you have never really talked with someone who is a gay then there's a chance you have some false assumptions about what it means and what motivates people. Please meet a gay person and try to understand.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:23 p.m.

    ' It seems that that religious zealots lack the mental capacity to draw a distinction between a state issued marriage license and the marriage ceremony of the couples choosing (religious, at the court house, or other type).'

    I think this was perfectly stated to get to the crux of the issues.

    You can marry in a church as much as you like.

    You get zero legal recognitions until the marriage is recognized by the state.

    So all religious arguments are now moot.

    Whatever region you subscribe too….

    the state is the one that has given marriages legal recognition for the last 153 years.

    It's about time some recognized that instead of fabricating some recognition in their own religion…

    upon person who do not subscribe, to that religion.

    That, is tyranny.

  • BlackDiamond Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:23 p.m.

    Stop Gay Marriage! Just Stop it!

  • Cougar11 Highland, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:43 p.m.

    Tiago,

    I am sorry for the struggles of your life. I know only a few gay people including a brother-in-law who we love very much. He is in a monogomous relationship for several years and I hold no ill will to the gay community. However, I cannot accept gay marriage because I believe in God and I believe in his gospel. He has said without hesitation that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. The church cannot change and I cannot change because God has made it clear and has commanded it so. I believe in fairness and thus believe that the state should allow the rights that a two way relationship should demand regardless of gender. However, marriage is a three-way commitment between one man, one woman and God. He does not recognize it; he has said clearly it is a sin and therefore can not stand as a marriage. Just as if two heterosexuals are living together outside of marriage, he does not recognize that and calls that a sin as well. I am sorry for your struggles and wish you well in life.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 10:59 p.m.

    @JosephSmith4ever: not a chance that the next step will not be a push for gays to be married by religious clergy. They are already trying to force, through legislation, religious photographers to do gay weddings. Catholic adoption centers have been forced to close over this issue.

    The religious history of this earth shows that people of faith will be persecuted again and they are and it will increase. Darkness has to put out the light that reveals the sin. It won't rest until it is extinguished. Then the catastrophes befall the nation.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:10 p.m.

    ‘Supreme Court stay on marriage shows desire for slower process' - Title

    I disagree.

    *'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011

    'For the first time since Gallup started studying the issue in 1996, the polling organization found a majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.'

    *'Poll: More Americans favor same-sex marriage' - CNN - 04/19/11

    *'Poll: MAJORITY backs same-sex marriage' – By Paul Steinhauser and Bill Mears – CNN – 06-26-13

    'According to the CNN/ORC International survey, a majority–55%–of Americans back same-sex marriage, up 11 percentage points from 2008.

    *Same-sex marriage legalization seen as INEVITABLE to most Americans' – By Anjani Trivedi – TIME Magazine – 06-07-13

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

    *'A Majority of Young Republicans Support Gay Marriage' - —By Tim Murphy – Mother Jones – 03/08/2013

    I could see how some want to 'slower process'…

    when all they are doing is holding America, back.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:51 p.m.

    Re:Cougar11
    "However, I cannot accept gay marriage because I believe in God and I believe in his gospel. He has said without hesitation that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. "

    (Except when He said marrriage is between a man and a woman and another woman and another woman and a man and.....)

    Marriage is a secular institution as well--not just a religious institution. You live in a pluralistic society--not just an LDS one. Nobody is requiring the LDS church to sanction or perform same-sex marriages.

    Ultimately, what you do is between you and God. If you believe same-sex marriage is a sin-- don't get one. Will He hold you responsible for your brother-in-law's "sins?"

    Re:Sal
    Catholic Adoptive services in MA placed 2 children with same-sex couples. It became an issue when it was reported in the Boston Globe and Catholic leaders were made aware.

    Public businesses are required to conform to anti-discrimination laws. Religious institutions are not. Many religious organizations still discriminate against women. The LDS church restricted the priesthood based on race for many years after the Civil Rights Act.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:53 p.m.

    This keeps going between lower and higher courts, it will never end !
    The fundamental rights are not defined, who might have a "gender", who does marry any of another "gender", if people manage to twist such fundamental dimensions what is left to define ? They might define what Gay Marriage would be, but what comes next ?

    There is no hope in this struggle, until people stop making such things popular all the time, as reflected in polls, that do show a merciful attitude, but no thoughtful balance for future generations.

    What should change is, people must change.
    They go by the rush of time, to let everybody do whatever fits them, in order to gain peace and to be left alone. That is what this government is all about lately, people stay out of it, so the rule of thumb is more involvement of government, less involvement of people.

    This LGBT movement is showing forth weakness of its own people to rule country.
    The Constitution was intented to tell us just that. We forgot ?

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Jan. 6, 2014 11:58 p.m.

    Tiago, Many wanted to come to earth in the pre-existence, but were not as worthy or valiant as others. The lord wanted to provide the opportunity for eternal happiness and celestial glory if they could prove themselves worthy of such blessings. Such is your task on earth you were given the "blessing" of same-sex attraction to overcome in your short mortal time on this earth. Live your life in righteous and show the lord you are indeed worthy of celestial glory and eternal blessing.

  • informed? Hooper, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:06 a.m.

    I think there is a huge misunderstanding, as most people who do not support gay marriage do not wish any ill will towards those who do support it. Please don't be confused. In fact, we need to assure that those who live a lifestyle that is outside of One man and One woman, are treated kind and respectful. We should even find ways that they can financially be treated equal.
    However, that is not marriage.
    Marriage is for one man and one woman. Whether you believe in God, or in Evolution, or both it is the same. Man and woman can procreate. No other combination works in human beings. Two men or two women cannot procreate. Their genes will die off if they are true to their way of life. According to experts, a traditional family is more likely to provide a healthy and happy life for those involved compared to those who are missing a mother and or father. The evidence for Gods Plan of happiness in families is everywhere for those who choose to look and see.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:19 a.m.

    Remember when the Democratic party used to be for the poor? The poor don't get talked about much now.

  • InLifeHappiness Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:22 a.m.

    I really appreciated the previous comments. Salt Lake City, Utah is home to more same-sex couples with children (approx 26%), thus leading the nation's metropolitan cities (see UCLA School of Law recent statistical report). Has Utah's pushing this issue to the higher court led to a possible federal law to approve same-sex marriages? Could polygamy and polyandry be included as well? Would this protect all married spouses to a greater degree? Just a few thoughts ... looking for guidance as to these questions. Thank you!

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:24 a.m.

    Since no one is talking about how the Full Faith and Credit Clause would provide a way for the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriages for many, if not all couples -- it's probably a safe bet that's how it is going to be done.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:27 a.m.

    The institution of marriage has hooks into every part of society; that's what making a decision on SSM so difficult. We try to anticipate what SSM will do to the fabric of society today and in the future. Here is an angle not discussed. It can be argued that the role of males is the most fragile in our system or any system. Socialization of males is critical and difficult - women as bearers of children have a much more secure footing. What will happen to boys being raised by two women? We know that one of the problems faced by black America is the lack of male presence in most black families - with disastrous consequences for boys raised under that circumstance. Those boys are in turn not ready to form households, being not well socialized into the process. In my view there is a real threat to boys and young men (and the families they might have formed) coming from SSM.

    We socialists try to say that we are biological beings, and for that reason we can't mix and match at will in defining families. SSM is a bad deal for boys and young men.

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 3:09 a.m.

    To the dismay of Chris B. Black Diamond and my personal favorite Joseph Smith4ever...The ruling will stand. More whining will ensue and reality may set in. SCOTUS simply desires an opportunity to etch their mark in history and finalize equal rights for all.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 4:32 a.m.

    The stay is not an indicator of how the Supreme court will decide this issue, or even if it will accept certiorari if requested. They just like to have cases fully briefed and argued before a decision is made. The stay just allows everything to play out. Wait and see what happens.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 7, 2014 5:00 a.m.

    Vanceone
    Provo, UT
    In New Jersey, the Democratic majority pulled a bill legalizing gay marriage. Why? Because the bill gave religious institutions an exemption from being forced to perform gay ceremonies.
    The gay lobby objected vociferously. They do not want churches to be exempt. =

    ---NOT TRUE -- the bill was pulled because it was overkill,about ONE church that owns a wedding hall open to the public.

    Cougar11
    Highland, UT
    ".. marriage is a three-way commitment between one man, one woman and God."

    YES, to some religions, but the Constitution does not support your view.

    Tiago
    Seattle, WA
    "I'm also gay, or deal with SSA, or however you want to say it. 100%. I can't change. I've prayed and done therapy. I have no romantic interest in women."

    ---I am sorry that you placed remaining in a procreation-based prosperity scheme church above the true nature that God put into your heart.
    Jesus died on the cross so that you would not have to. You are deceived into trying to do His job.

    Cougar11
    Highland, UT
    --- Your brother in law, whom you claim to love, might want to marry.Your false interpretation of what God wants in 2014 stop him.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 5:05 a.m.

    @Tiago,

    I'm concerned about your statement "I would not love a woman". I love a lot of people regardless of gender, or whether they're gay or straight, or whether I'm married to them. Perhaps you meant something different than "love".

    I know of at least one instance of a gay man who married a woman, had children, and remains faithful to his wife and children because he knows it's the right thing to do in spite of his natural sexual attraction to other men. He and his wife did this with their eyes fully open - their was no deceit or hiding of the situation. What was his motivation? I believe it was love - love of God, to begin with, and love of correct principles. He understands the importance of having children, and the importance of raising children with appropriate gender roles. But I'm pretty sure he also loves his wife and children.

    Sexual attraction and love are two different things that are perhaps often confused.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 7, 2014 5:14 a.m.

    It is NO surprise that the writer, a DN employee, manages to see the obvious coming, but does not offer a reasonable chance of a fair result that everyone can live with.

    1-- The religious need to accept that businesses open to the public in States with public accommodation laws can't say no to Gays without paying a fine, or being sued by the State Attorney General.
    --- There have been a tiny number of cases.

    2-- The religious need to give up the heinous lie that Gay people are on a crusade to force them to perform same sex marriages. Only ONE case, where a church owns a facility for weddings away from the church, open to the general public, has caused a suit.
    --- Please use your brains to realize you have been lied to: no legislature is ever going to pass a law saying clergy must perform church weddings for anyone.

    3--- Everyone needs to remember that Gay people are your children, friends, and neighbors, who want to get along, not some enemy conspiracy against religion.

    4--- If we are honest, we know that the problem is not Gay strangers oppressing religions ----- religions must get over making their Gay children 2nd class.

  • mohrman Payson, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 5:26 a.m.

    The beginning of this article sets the stage of an attitude I do not and will not agree with. To say Utah wants to be slow in making progress makes the assumption that progress means putting aside the religious beliefs of the majority of the people in Utah and more importantly, it's saying that progress means to put aside the teachings of God that have been around since the Bible. To those who do not wish to believe in God, that is your choice but this country was founded on religious liberty. No matter how much noise the media or groups scream and try to make it the mainstay, who are we to tell God what is best for a family...who are we to tell God the definition of marriage. Yes there are those who will be single as they have SSA. Isn't life about having faith though? If one simply pulls away from all the noise of the world and read and study what God has shared, it would be less complicated. I wish people would simply stop throwing God away as that is the ultimate lack of respect to others and to this country.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Jan. 7, 2014 5:39 a.m.

    Utah, bigotry with a smile. :)

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    Jan. 7, 2014 5:40 a.m.

    I disagree with the process needing to be more slow. The LGBT community has waited too long for equal rights. The state of Utah should have never gotten a stay. I believe it will be resolved quickly and it will pave the way for equality in the rest of the country. Love will prevail.

  • JMT Springville, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:27 a.m.

    What has bothered me most about this is the radical zeal of the Left, exposed, once again.

    Judge Shelby acted in a manner absolutely inconsistent with legal protocol.

    Most leftists are in fact 'low information' voters and when the actions of this judge were pointed out, they simply didn't care because 'the end justifies the means.' They want what they want and they have zero regard for a "democracy" (actually a republic but...)

    Many leftist are super-high informed voters, knew the judges actions were out of protocol and again, didn't care because 'the end justifies the means.' They simply want what they want and will destroy anything to get it.

    This is like the Senate end the filibuster, passing the Affordable Care Act via the made up 'deemed' rule, the President implementing 'the DREAM Act' even though Congress never passed it, sending money to the Muslim Brotherhood even though...

    To my leftist friends, these are not the actions of a free people (yes, debate that) but of tyranny and fiat. The 'means' matter. If this is OK what happens next?

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:32 a.m.

    Cougar11: "The [Mormon] church cannot change and I cannot change because God has made it clear and has commanded it so."

    I understand this as far as it concerns its own church members. But how can the Mormon doctrine of eternal marriage (official basis to reject SSM) be valid to deny SSM to non-members who marry civilly "till death do you part"? I recommend the article comparing Mormonism and Catholicism in the latest issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (free downloadable article). It argues that Mormonism is more compassionate and thus amenable to soften its viewpoint on SSM, as far as it concerns civil society.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:40 a.m.

    >>That is a totally bogus statement. Mandating gay marriage doesn't mandate religious institutions to perform gay marriage.

    Perhaps not religious institutions, but there have been several instances where private business owners who run wedding-related businesses (photography, venue, etc) wanted to decline a same-sex couples' patronage on religious grounds, were sued, and then ordered by the courts to make their services available.

  • SherryPC Salt Lake, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    The very idea that we should oppose marriage of one American to another based on gender is much like opposing it based on race (loving vs. VA) which was once the law in VA and other states.

    Suggesting that it needs to be opposed because children need both mother and father is even more bizarre. Are we to only allow people to marry who can demonstrate their willingness and ability to bear offspring? Are we to eliminate divorce in cases where there are offspring? How old would the offspring need to be before we allow divorce? Do we abort all fetus' which lack a married father? Maybe force adoption (only into a married man and woman, of course!) in those cases of unmarried mothers giving birth? The downstream consequences are unthinkable. Many millions of people get married after their breeding years are over. Do we deny them as well?

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:59 a.m.

    What I always find amusing is how the opinion of the Judicial Branch (whether it be Federal Judges or the Supreme Court) swings like a pendulum. If the judges agree with what we think as individuals, why then they are the wisest people on the planet. But if they disagree with us and what we think and 'feel' then the judge is reactionary, an activist, or a revisionist.

    It's about time that some people admit the judges in this case, as in other controversial topics, are for the overwhelming part, primarily concerned with the Constitution and doing their jobs in interpreting the laws and determining whether or not any given law is aligned with the Constitution. It's why Federal judges go through a vetting process.

    It's also about time for some to face the possibility that they (we), not the judges are the reactionaries and activists, according to our beliefs, swayed by our emotions and not necessarily an objective reading/interpretation of the Constitution.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    Churches and individuals already have protection via the Frist Amendment. Businesses, in the public arena, should not be allowed to discriminate based on "religion" (which is impossible for a business to practice, as they are not living beings).

    @Tiago;

    I sincerely hope you aren't going to be "single 'til death". Life is for LIVING; that's what you're here for. You were given 'talents'; don't bury them.

    @BlackDiamond;

    Stop discrimination and bigotry. Just stop it!

    @Cougar11;

    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.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:04 a.m.

    >>Such a bill would be unconstitutional.

    History is instructive. Anyone living in Utah should know that the Edmunds Tucker Act of 1887--upheld by the Supreme Court several times as constitutional--is counterexample #1 to any claim that the First Amendment will be an effective shield for people of faith against a Federal Government determined to enforce its preferred definition of marriage.

    And note that the Ednmunds Tucker Act, among other things dis-incorporated the church and put its assets, including all temples and meetinghouses, under government control.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    Cougar11: 'I cannot accept gay marriage because I believe in God and I believe in his gospel."

    Well that's the very heart of this issue.

    I _don't_ believe in your God, I _don't_ believe in your gospel, and my status as an American citizen is equal to yours. Your religious beliefs don't make you better than other people who don't share them.

    You don't get to decide who has their constitutional rights violated, ever.

    And is marriage a constitutionally guaranteed right? Of course it is. Try to imagine your reaction to a state law forbidding your from marrying the person you love on the basis of eye color, hair color, height or bone structure.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:20 a.m.

    Sal: "not a chance that the next step will not be a push for gays to be married by religious clergy. They are already trying to force, through legislation, religious photographers to do gay weddings."

    Nonsense. Commercial photographers who refuse to offer services to same-sex couples are being treated exactly the same way you'd expect a private business to be treated that refuses to offer its services to Mormons. They're being sued in civil court. There is no legislation.

    "Catholic adoption centers have been forced to close over this issue." Only because they received state money for adoption services, and they chose not to work on adoption at all rather than accept state funds. They could perform adoption services with as much religious discrimination as they want so long as they do it without taxpayer support.

    "The religious history of this earth shows that people of faith will be persecuted again and they are and it will increase. "

    That's complete fantasy. The actual history of human behavior is that people "of faith" do most of the persecuting.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    @Tiago,

    I appreciate your sincerity and honest comments in this discussion. I think your assertion that "Feeling same sex attraction, at least for some people, is innate and unchangeable" is accurate from what I have learned listening and learning about same sex attraction. I think we in the "straight" community need to recognize and try to understand your point of view and respect you as a child of God who has special needs like everyone elso. May I also suggest that our friends in the gay community need to try to understand the "straight" point of view too and work with us to find some common ground and legal solutions that are fair and acceptable to both sides.Please recognize that some things being pushed by the gay community like "gender identity" laws that allow anyone to use men's or women's restrooms regardless of their biological identity may not be acceptable to the straight community.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    Tiago: You may want to chat, but, as is the case with any deviation from Christ (which all sin is), I hardly think that a latent adulterer is going to ask for the same leniency and understanding in public! So, if you want to chat, at least admit that what you are calling SSA is nothing more or less than what ever human being suffers with any other sin or thought that deviates from a Christ centered life! Instead of announcing with proud acclaimation your on the edge sinning possibilities, why not just quietly seek for remediation from Him who heals all? That, my friend, would give you the best chance to make a difference in not only your own life, but others as well!

  • Wadyaknow Baltimore, MD
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    The only people who see chaos in all of this are the political people who won't let it go. the Attorney General of Utah talks about the hurt this is causing people but he is the one doing the hurting.

  • Visitor from California Berkeley, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    Those who represent a minority in this country, even if they're a majority in Utah, are wise to remember the importance of protections for minorities. It's unconstitutional for majorities to vote to deprive minorities of equal treatment under the law. And it's civil laws we're talking about! Separation of church and state exists for good reason. Just because your particular religion doesn't approve of same-sex marriage doesn't mean your religious beliefs should hold sway over state and federal laws and the hundreds of benefits (and responsibilities) that civil marriage entails. Everyone deserves equal rights. Then it's up to each religion to choose whether or not they want to perform a religious ceremony in addition to the civil license a couple has received (many religious denominations will gladly perform ceremonies to bless same-sex marriages). No one is forcing any church to change its practices surrounding same-sex marriage, but no one church has the right to take anyone's rights away, or to stand in the way of the continuing expansion of our understanding of justice and equality, which is part of our heritage as Americans.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    Dear Bob K:

    Religious people don't have to accept being forced to do things that are against their religion. There has clearly been an encroachment on religious freedom by the gay agenda. We are sitting on a precipice of very dangerous actions that could completely unravel our society. People of conscience have to continue to fight to save this country from the slippery slope which will destroy us as a people if we don't wake up.

    I have great sympathy with individuals who struggle with same-sex attraction. I have no sympathy with the radical gay agenda. Anyone who wants to know about the dangers needs only look at Massachussetts and what has happened there over the last ten years of gay marriage. It's frightening.

  • tethered Salem, OR
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    Regardless of what faith you have...

    Regardless of what religion you have...

    Regardless of what church you belong to, or donate to...

    RELIGION IS A CHOICE!

    IF it was not a choice, then why do so many religious groups employ missions, to convert people to their particular view of God?

    Likewise, there are people who live long lives who do not believe in a god.

    If you believe that atheists will go to Hell, then that is THEIR choice!

    No one in the United States should be using any aspect of religion, faith or God to change your neighbor's ability to enjoy their rights as a Citizen of these United States.

    If you do not believe in gay marriage, then DON'T MARRY A GAY PERSON!

    But you should not have the legal ability to block my choice of the one person who I want to marry.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    Good. Let's get the process correct and straight, so it eliminates that entire segment of the argument against same sex marriage. Then, let's move forward with it.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    I applaud the decisions to have the stay.

    Irregardless of how this all turns out, I think that one benefit of the discussions is that a lot of people are going to give more weight to the instituion of marriage as a stable environment for the raising of children as opposed to sleeping around, living together and getting married only when there is a pregnancy.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:36 a.m.

    Re: ". . . the law cannot legally force a church to marry a couple they don't want to marry."

    While that may be true today, there are certainly liberal and LGBT activists that will continue to push hard to change today's reality tomorrow.

    Recent developments clearly demonstrate that it is now firmly entrenched in US law that a single radical, agenda-driven, liberal judicial appointee is free -- without significant consequence -- to disingenuously wreak tremendous havoc with American law.

    And that's the op-ed's point -- this issue is better considered and more judiciously decided in legislative discussions than in legal proceedings before corrupt, unhinged liberal judges, who have recently demonstrated precious little fealty to the rule of law or their oaths of office.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    Whatever resolution is reached on what shall be the law of the land cannot change religion. That’s not the issue. Likewise, sectarian religious beliefs cannot be the basis for public law that applies to believers and non-believers alike.

    Keep religious belief out of the discussion. The picture is muddled enough without making it impossible for reasonable people to work something out.

  • Reader Sandy, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    To Liberty For All: Your comments are your doctrine not LDS Church doctrine.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    Every time I see that baby in the arms of two 70 year old men (Elton John and his "husband") I can't help but feel sorry for that kid. Actually, I get a little nauseous.

    Marriage is more than binding two adults. It was ordained for the proper raising of children. As sympathetic as I am to all the claims and testimonies of gay people, I can't help but wonder why we can't all agree that the best way for a child to be raised is by a man and a woman. It just seems like that natural order of things...like since the beginning of beginning of time.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    It seems like a lot of religious people who have never felt same sex attraction believe that sexuality is fluid and that there is a significant number of people who could be happily heterosexual but are also curious about exploring same-sex and other non-traditional relationships and will explore them if they are legally and socially accepted. It seems they are worried about normalizing gay love because it will make more people gay. Based on my experience, I don't think this is true and I'm not worried about it.
    What I guess I most want to add to the discussion is that we need to assume the best about other people and not see evil intentions where they don't exist, no matter which perspective you're coming from. There are legitimate concerns to discuss, but we need to at least start by accepting that a gay person's feelings are real and not inherently evil.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    I hope this stay puts some urgency on it for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court needs to rule on this once and for all. They seem to keep stalling and delaying. They SHOULD have decided this way back when they got the California case, but instead of deciding they just send it back without a decision on a technicality (deciding the people who questioned the lower court ruling didn't have standing, and the California AG failed to defend the Amendment approved by Proposition 8).

    I think State AGs should defend EVERY part of their State Constitution (new or old, whether they agree with it personally or not, whether they agree with it politically or not, it's part of their job description to defend the Constitution).

    Just letting this Amendment fall that was a result of a legal Constitution Amendment process and got the required votes... was Government neglect of the will of the people if you ask me. California should have defended it (even if the AG knew he would loose) so the Supreme Court would have to actually DECIDE (not just reject the case due to lack of standing allowing the lower court decision to stand).

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:27 a.m.

    @Cats: Whether or not you intend it, your "slippery slope" argument and fear-mongering serve the purpose of hate-mongering, since fearful people often hate that which threatens them.

    The key point here is that no one is threatened by allowing same-sex couples to pledge themselves to a lifetime relationship. No one. There is no slippery slope. We are asking the exact same thing of them that we ask of the 95% of couples who are straight. They must be unrelated by blood, currently unattached by marriage, of the age of consent, and willing to pledge to each other for life.

    This is not a big change.

    To those who point to child-bearing as a requirement... For this to be true, first:

    . Change marriage to require child-bearing. Disallow all infertile marriage.

    . If a couple doesn't bear a child within three years, dissolve their marriage.

    . If a couple's last child dies and they don't bear another within three years, dissolve the marriage.

    . If parents can't support their children, dissolve the marriage.

    Make those changes to marriage, and your arguments will be valid. Otherwise, no.

  • mhenshaw Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:29 a.m.

    >>No one ... should be using any aspect of religion, faith or God to change your neighbor's ability to enjoy their rights as a Citizen of these United States.

    You're demanding an impossibility.

    All laws are moral decisions about which behaviors we as a society consider right and wrong. In the US, citizens cast votes to direct how laws get shaped, executed, and interpreted based on personal beliefs about what is right and wrong. Those beliefs, for most of us, are influenced by religion. So while it's unconstitutional for government to prefer any one religion, it's impossible to require that individuals or groups not us any aspect of religion or faith to influence the shaping of laws (and even civil rights).

    My religion informs my values, which influence my vote and political behavior. If you can demand that I can't use religion-informed values to direct my civic choices, then I can demand that you abandon whatever value system you use to guide your civic choices.

    I think what you really want is for me to abandon my values while you get to apply yours.

  • Ticus Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    I think a more fundamental question is, Does a State in the United States under the Constitution have the right to create laws which are based upon a recognition of the differences between Men and Women and their innate roles in society? Traditional Marriage recognizes this, while a genderless marriage does not. Is it constitutional for a law to recognize that men and women are different, albeit equal, before the law? It is this fundamental principle which is under attack.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    @JMT
    "Judge Shelby acted in a manner absolutely inconsistent with legal protocol.
    "

    It is the duty of federal courts to strike down laws that violate the US Constitution. If that were not an option then there'd be no point in ever challenging any laws. Guess what, sometimes you lose (just like Chicago just had one of its gun laws struck by a federal judge yesterday).

    @Meckofahess
    "May I also suggest that our friends in the gay community need to try to understand the "straight" point of view too "

    Roughly half of straight people in America disagree with you on the matter of same-sex marriage.

    @Cats
    " Anyone who wants to know about the dangers needs only look at Massachussetts and what has happened there over the last ten years of gay marriage."

    Absolutely nothing except kids learn that some families have two parents of the same gender, which probably helps reduce bullying of kids with those families. Oh, and Catholic Charities doesn't get state funding anymore because they don't follow state guidelines for adoptions. They could still use their own funding to maintain their... standards... but chose not to go that route.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    “I think the Supreme Court sent a very clear message to other lower courts that these things should be stayed until they are finally resolved.”

    This was predictable…

    @bandersen – “what you are calling SSA is nothing more or less than what ever human being suffers with any other sin or thought that deviates from a Christ centered life!”

    What if you were born into a religion (go with the irony here) that told you opposite sex attraction was a sin and a deviation from a “Flying Spaghetti Monster” centered life?

    Since gay people do not chose to be gay (who would chose the hassle?) it follows that they were born/created the way they are, so your admonition sounds (to them) exactly like mine does to you.

    Is it any wonder that most gay people flee religion the minute they can?

  • rick122948 boise, id
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    let's maintain separation of church and state, accept that religion or faith is an individual right, and create an environment of inclusion rather than exclusion. the biggest problem we have in this country is the never ending struggle of the have not's trying to make a place for themselves and their children in our economy which is becoming more and more reminiscent of the oppressive days when the Vanderbilt's, etc. ruled the economic life of our country and where most were relegated to a lower working class. we need to end the slippery slope into a true class structure.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    Re:Meckofahess
    "Please recognize that some things being pushed by the gay community like "gender identity" laws that allow anyone to use men's or women's restrooms regardless of their biological identity may not be acceptable to the straight community."

    Consider a woman who identifies as a man and from all outside appearances is a man. What would your response be if this person walked into the restroom you are using?

    Would that be more acceptable to the "straight" community? Having men and women who appear as the opposite gender using the bathroom that represents their "biological" identity? My guess is it would be unnerving to many women to have a man walk in and use women's facilities.

    Google and read the case of Jonas and Wyatt Maines, " Led by the Child Who Simply Knew."

  • CDL Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    Pagan~ Marriage is a religious 'rite' or ceremony and traditionally has been. Ceremonies performed at the court house are civil ceremonies performed by judges. One religious and the other secular. No one is attempting to stop individuals from coupling, and most agree there is the free agency to choose. Even the religious understand it is not a sin to be 'gay' but according to religious tenants it is a sin to act on it. A difficult struggle in deed, a trial so to speak for them and their families and for how others react to and treat these individuals. For those that choose to live the gay life style I have no problem with them having civil unions, but understand that where some 'benefits' that do not match that of those that are married, should be extended and that is where 'equality' is attained. Some claim that the only way to attain equality is to provide 'marriage.' That is false and opens up other issue where gays show their animosity anytime a religious professional declines services based on religious believes. Courts defile constitutional rights of religious individuals forcing them to go against their religious beliefs. Compromise. Civil Unions equal benefits.

  • CDL Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    For those that claim that this does not affect or force clergy to marry, your naïve. That would be the next step, to sue churches for not performing gay marriages, just as the recent law suit brought against the LDS Church displays. They do this in incremental steps, not in sweeping motions. Just as other professionals face law suits by vindictive gays when they are denied various services because of religious beliefs, once gay marriage is established in their states.

  • SamoanYfan WEST JORDAN, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    If you're for gay marriage you are not gonna get through people who are against it and vice versa. Why waste your time to try and convince anybody to see your way.

    Im not for it but I know it's inevitable, it's a matter of time. The only issue for me is the government forcing religions to marry gay couples. Is it gonna happen? I don't know. Could it happen? It's definitely in the realm of possibility. As long as it's written clear as day that gay couples that are turned down by a religious institution for marriage can NOT pursue any sort of law suit then I'm completely fine with them being married.

  • UTSU Logan, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    @Vanceone

    In New Jersey, the Democratic majority pulled a bill legalizing gay marriage. Why? Because the bill gave religious institutions an exemption from being forced to perform gay ceremonies.

    The truth is, Democratic majority authored that bill, and it already passed both state congress and senate in 2012. If republican governor Christie signed it back then, religious institutions would already have their exemption.

    In stead, Christie vetoed. Now, gay marriage is legalized in NJ by state court, and no exemption for religious institutions was mentioned in court order.

    That is exactly the point this article’s author tried to make: rely on legislative compromise to get gay marriage exemption for religious institutions, before court rules, it will be a win-win.

    But if you refuse to legalize gay marriage through legislature and wait for a court ruling, religious institutions may risk getting nothing.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    CDL,

    "....Compromise. Civil Unions equal benefits."
    ______________________________

    If you’re willing to go that far, what's the objection to a legal spousal relationship? That’s all that same sex couples are insisting upon. It accords them the same formal social status that has long been enjoyed by heterosexual couples. Is it so hard to see why they would yearn for that same level of acceptance in the world? That’s what makes me wonder if what opponents to gay marriage are really so desperately fighting to hang onto is a social pecking order.

  • DavidNL Holladay, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    Nimble legislature? That's funny. In the same sex marriage debate we have: a citizenry that voted on a law that went well beyond its stated intention, and would clearly not pass again today. We have states' rights activists claiming legal authority to effect unequal treatment of a minority group. We have religious activists claiming same sex marriage is an affront to religious freedom, despite any evidence and a powerful 1st amendment to protect them. Then there are the family welfare folks who believe the only place for kids is in a "traditional home" although that is a thing of the past (stats bare this out entirely). We have "an activist judge" who "legislates from the bench". A seemingly "activist supreme court" that places more value on smooth and orderly social transition than it does personal freedom and liberty! And finally, we have folks who are tired of waiting in line as a second class citizen and simply want to get on with their lives, families and kids with the full protection of the law. In other words, democracy is working PERFECTLY folks.

  • orem_man_am_i orem, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    @Pagan

    The constitution does not forbid an individual from using personal values based upon religious conviction to make decisions on laws and policy that effect the community. The founding fathers were all religious men and left Britain to be able to have that freedom.

    Also, I find it hilarious that the so called "atheist" who clams to only use science and reason in all of their decision making have to constantly resort to "name calling" people of faith. So much for good sound logic based argument.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:26 a.m.

    Re: ". . . the law cannot legally force a church to marry a couple they don't want to marry."

    Actually, the LDS church has already been named as a defendant in a law suit claiming the church denied someone their rights because they were gay. It was reported in all the local papers and on the news. It was thrown out when the court discovered that the couple named as the complainant didn't even know they were part of the law suit (turns out it was an opportunistic lawyer that saw a possibility of getting a big settlement without even going to court, and just grabbed a bunch of names of gay couples and filed the papers without even contacting the people he claimed were suing).

    But it's already happened. I think it's safe to assume that the church will be sued again in the future if they don't relent and allow gays to marry in their temples. The legal battles over this have already started.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    Craig Clark:

    Civil unions provide for the same legal protections marriage does. In CA, civil unions were already legal when Prop 8 was passed, and later overruled by the court. Thsi is not about equality for the LGBT activits; it is about retribution and destruction for societal values.

    We have gone from equal protection based on characteristics to protection based on behavior. Homosexual behavior is different from same-sex attration. SSA can and is overcome every day by men and women who strive to follow their Higher Power. The entire human genome has been mapped, and no "gay gene" has been found.

    If we are going to protect behavior, where do we stop? Is it my right to run a prostitution business because that is how I choose to follow the "pursuit of happiness"? I am not hurting anyone else by this behavior.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:34 a.m.

    @orem_man_am_i – “The founding fathers were all religious men and left Britain to be able to have that freedom.

    You mean these Founding Fathers?

    "The United States in is no sense founded upon the Christian religion." George Washington

    "Revealed religion has no weight with me." Benjamin Franklin

    "I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature." Thomas Jefferson

    "This could be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it." John Adams

    "I disbelieve all holy men and holy books." Thomas Paine

    "Religions are all alike, founded upon fables and myths." Thomas Jefferson

    "In no instance have churches been the guardians of the liberties of the people." James Madison

    "The Christian god is cruel, vindictive, capricious, and unjust." Thomas Jefferson

    "What has been Christianity's fruits? Superstition, bigotry, and persecution." James Madison

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    It's hard to tell if these "worries" that churches will be compelled to sanctify gay marriages are honest, if ignorant, beliefs, or are fabrications intended to sway others to oppose SSM.

    Because, it's not true, there's no way, and the proof is all around you.

    . NO ONE can marry in a Mormon Temple without a Recommend.

    . Non-Catholics, excommunicatees, or divorcees can't marry in a Catholic Church.

    . Non-Jews, non-members, or anyone the rabbi doesn't approve of, can't marry in a Jewish Temple.

    . Interdenominational couples often can't marry in either faith.

    Discrimination in the offering of rites is not only allowed, it's the prerogative of every religious denomination, and within most denominations, within the prerogative of the individual cleric to further reject performing them for anyone.

    Even in a Quaker Meeting where marriage is conducted without a cleric, and a couple can just stand up and say their vows to each other, no marriage will be witnessed without prior approval of the Meeting, which involves three levels of committee approvals by my count.

    Plus, it says right in the First Amendment that government doesn't have a say in religious matters.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    @RedWings

    "Civil unions provide for the same legal protections marriage does. In CA, civil unions were already legal when Prop 8 was passed, and later overruled by the court. Thsi is not about equality for the LGBT activits; it is about retribution and destruction for societal values."

    Do you mean "separate but equal?" Where have I heard that before?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    Here is a compromise.

    Call ALL unions conducted by the State "Civil Unions" (Regardless of the sex of the couples). So a justice of the peace or a judge could conduct a wedding resulting in a Civil Union. But a religious ceremony based on the religious definition of "Marriage" that goes back to Adam and Eve... would be called "Marriage".

    In reality it doesn't matter what you call it. Call it "Marriage" or "Civil Union"... as long as they both have the same legal rights, it seems like this would satisfy BOTH sides.

    Ceremonies conducted by judges and other government officials would be called "Civil" union, and ceremonies conducted by religious clergy would be called "Marriage"... but they both have the same legal rights. And we don't force God to accept OUR definition of "Marriage" as his.

    We shouldn't force either side to do it your way, or force one side to give up their beliefs. They both get what they want (legal union) but you allow religious people to still see the religious significance in their union. It may be fictional... but at least it makes them happy. Why FORCE them to do it your way?

  • Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    @mohrman:Yes, this country allows for religious freedom, and it should stay that way. However, this country was not founded on religion, otherwise the word God would appear in the U.S. Constitution, and the first amendment would not say, "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which is what you and other theocrats desire. You are free to believe as you wish, but you are not free to impose your beliefs on others. If you want to be a part of a religion that says gay marriage is evil, go for it; just don't try legislate your religious beliefs. The U.S. Constitution opposes such measures.

  • windsor City, Ut
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:51 a.m.

    Schnee said "the LDS church can choose to not marry people of other faiths in their temples."

    Do you also agree that LDS people could have their children protected from being taught that same-sex is natural and normal?

  • Crow Sandy , UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:54 a.m.

    @Truthseeker Business should still have the right to do business with whom ever they please. If a florial shop owner or baker does not want to participate in a SSM then they should not have to do to their rights. That is the issue now is that everyone has to bend over backwards for the minority in America. Is their rights not being squashed? The people of Utah already spoke and voted not to legalize SSM. So why should the majority have to compromise when those who wanted SSM had a chance to cast their vote in a legal election. Those who supported SSM lost it is not only the will of the people but the will of God to not allow SSM.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    RedWings,

    "....This is not about equality for the LGBT activits; it is about retribution and destruction for societal values...."
    ______________________________

    You have the right to believe that if you choose. I don’t share that view. But I would still be supportive of same sex marriage even if I thought that gays and lesbians were pushing for marital rights simply to lash out the world. If it was just a vendetta, it wouldn’t have the support it has.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:00 p.m.

    900 'marriages'. That is all?

    So, that means that there is less than 1 in 1,000 people in Utah who are trying to dictate tyrannically to the rest of us by corrupting and subverting our communities/society on the function and purpose of marriage and family.

    How greedy and self absorbed have these people become?

  • Turtles Run Houston, TX
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    @informed?

    Separate but equal did not work for segregation between the races not will it work for the LGBT community. Claiming you want LGBT to be equal and then deny them equality is frankly hypocritical. This is not an issue in which people have a difference of opinion based on what they believe is right, it is about denying people their constitutional rights and human dignity.

    Arguments based on procreation and religion are just to give an air of legitimacy to identity-based prejudice. Bigots love to use this arguments, particularly those based on scripture, because it imparts an air of authority that helps tamp down the stench of prejudice.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    Justice Ginsburg may have tipped the hand of the majority when she said she was worried the Court was "getting ahead of public opinion." I've always suspected that public sentiment drives much of what the Courts do on social issues, I've just never heard a Supreme Court Justice say it during oral arguments. If that is the case, what the Big PLan?

    I doubt very seriously that Justice Kennedy's choice of words in the Winsor ruling were casual statements. I also suspect Scalia's rant was based on the deliberations of the Court, not just the opinion delivered by Kennedy.

    I suspect they want more states to overturn their own laws either through the legislative process or by not appealing Federal decisions overturning their laws. Then when the majority of states allow Gay Marriage and a larger majority of the public say they are in favor of it, the will issue the landmark decision.

  • TrueChristian Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    To my fellow Mormons who are posting here about gay marriage ruining our society and violating their beliefs, I have one word: Repent. The scriptures tell us that our greatest commandments are to love God and to love our neighbor. It's time to love your neighbor. We had same sex marriage in Utah for what - two weeks or so, and it changed nothing. The gospel is still true, Joseph Smith is still a Prophet of God, the Book of Mormon is still the word of God. We gain nothing by trying to punish our brothers and sisters who are trying to make their way in the world. Instead of spending your time and energy trying to make life harder for people who have already had hard lives, help the poor. Visit the sick and elderly. The Constitution was inspired by God and it provides equality, even if we don't agree. Let people use their agency, we already fought a war in heaven for them to do so - Gay marriage in Utah won't change my beliefs or what is true, but it is a great opportunity to show Christlike charity.

  • TrueChristian Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    Also, for those who think that the radical gay agenda wants to force you to change your religion somehow, that is patently false and without any proof. You can talk about businesses who have had to follow anti-discrimination laws and provide services to everyone, but you can't cite a case where a religious clergy men has been compelled to perform a religious ceremony. It just doesn't happen, and hysterics are no way to conduct responsible public policy. The Constitution protects religions from that kind of risk, just as it provides equal protection for all Americans, including the gay ones. We should celebrate that we have a society where ALL men can be free, because the same Constitution that is going to allow gay marriage is the same one that lets you practice your religion freely.

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:11 p.m.

    @orem_man_am_i
    "The constitution does not forbid an individual from using personal values based upon religious conviction to make decisions on laws and policy that effect the community."

    that is true, but the court of law must decide issues based on constitution, which guarantee equal protection for every citizen, and not based on religious conviction.

    @Rightwings and @2 bits

    Even we may put "separation is not equal" aside, and agree on civil union, amendment 3 already banned civil union along with SSM, that is why this amendment is discriminatory and has to be struck down.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    RE: TrueChristian,(Jesus)“that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male(Adam) and (Eve)female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’(Mt 19:4-5)

    Also consider the O. T. on this: The Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the N. T. (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and the like, are still abominations before God.

    RE: A Quaker. Not all Quakers believe the Bible if not, how about,

    Mother (Saint)Teresa loved those who had same-sex attractions, but she still called them to purity. In fact, it is precisely because she loved them that she called them to practice chastity. “It is a false form of compassion to lead others to think that they can find fulfillment by living outside the will of God.

  • TrueChristian Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:39 p.m.

    @sharrona - I think you missed the entire point of my post. I'm not saying that you should believe homosexuality to be moral, I'm saying that the Bible commands us to love all men, and not judge them. You can cherry pick the Old Testament all you want and say that certain parts have to be followed and certain parts not, but at the end of the day when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandments were, he didn't say 'make sure you judge others and tell them if they are moral or not'. In the parable of the good Samaritan Jesus specifically used someone that was considered religiously unworthy to demonstrate who your neighbor was.

    "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2)

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:44 p.m.

    @tiago
    I don’t know your life. But consider:

    Your body, mind and heart have discovered you'll fall in love with a man, but you are countermanding that to adhere to religious belief.

    You want to be in the world you were born into, the lives around you. You knew nothing: they taught you God. Heaven. How to believe. They taught you their beautiful world.

    Their story casts them at the center of all meaning, all creation. They have order. The way to their own eternal lives. And it conveniently corresponds to their own sexual impulses. No wonder it works for them.

    Conform, and all is well. But the only role they have for you is off to the side.

    Seeing you as whole would require them to re-examine their foundational worldview. They must see you through the lens of their own sexuality, reduce you to an urge, or risk threatening their very identity, their role in cosmic order.

    They've spent your whole life making your world one with no place for you. But they have more to lose in accepting that gay people are real than you do. You have everything to gain.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    It takes great strength to live a life of personal integrity.

    Some religions demand that gay people act the part in someone else's storyline. But you don't have to accept a life of half-measures, semi-love, sort-of belonging. You don’t have to suffer this "test." You can live the life that's yours.

    You can have your turn to be swept away in the love that is just for you: to find that person who makes every part of your being tingle, who thrills you, who holds you, who sees you as no one else can, who shares your darkest fears and most cherished dreams. You can find the one your heart loves. You can marry. You can have a family.

    You can know happiness, not through self-destructive determination and sacrifice, but through bravery and integrity. You can be the person you were born to be.

    You can be bigger than the religiously small. You can teach them about unconditional love. Consider that the test is theirs, not yours.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    Craig Clark: "Do you mean "separate but equal?" Where have I heard that before?"

    Civil unions protect those in same-sex relationships and provide for proection of religious beliefs by keeping "marriage" where it belongs - in church. This is completely different situation than "separate but equal" diners, restrooms, etc during the civil rights movement.

    Again, SSM is about providing legal protection for behavior, not a characteristic. The argument has completely shifted on this basis. No one is forced to live a homosexual lifestyle. I have denied the SSA desires I suffered with, and now I no longer struggle. And yes, I live a happier life as a result.

    Choice in behavior is what separates us from animals.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    TrueChristian:

    I hate no one. I have gay friends and co-workers and have never mistreated anyone for their choice. However, Christ Himself came to call sinners to repentance. As an LDS member, the Law of Chstity is not bendable. Relations between a man and a woman in marriage is the only acceptable use of the powers of procreation.

    YBH: "@Rightwings and @2 bits"

    Clever play on my screename. The problem is that I have never voted for a Republican presidential candidate in my life. My party (Democratic Party) has left me behind by pursuing a platorm of hypocrisy.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:13 p.m.

    Informed? said: According to experts, a traditional family is more likely to provide a healthy and happy life...

    No, the experts don't say that. There are all sorts of ways to a healthy and happy life, although the experts do acknowledge that the stability of a legal marriage sure helps. You thus imply support for SSM, as you should if you want to promote healthy and happy lives. The definitional waffling in saying "We should even find ways that they can financially be treated equal... but not marriage" is a compassionate step toward the Golden Rule, but legally unsupportable. If civil marriage is good for you, isn't it also good for those to whom you want to show kindness and respect? Separate and unequal treatment shows neither kindness nor respect, only underlying fear and self-interest. It takes courage to truly embrace the Golden Rule.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    @Atl134

    In response to Cats who expressed concern over the damaging things that gay marriage has led to in Massachussets you cavalierly said - "Absolutely nothing except kids learn that some families have two parents of the same gender". Well many people don't agree with you friend.

    One observer in Massachusetts shared the following - "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.

    I and many citizens like me do NOT want to have our children indoctrinated and forced to accept the normalization of homosexuality - to us it is not normal intellectually, biologically and morally!

  • Nelson D Garland, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    Sometimes I honestly wonder if people even read the Bible or just believe what they are told without question.

    One man and one woman only?

    In the Bible, you will find that many of God's chosen servants, the patriarchs, were polygamous (multiple wives) not monogamous (one wife). Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, just to name a few, and that polygamy came with certain blessings (God's promises to Abraham).

    Is God the same yesterday, today, and forever? So it says in the Bible.

    If your happy with making up your own religion, that's fine, just don't try to force it on others by the power of law, which is essentially collective force.

    People came to America to flee being told how to live and what to believe, and what are we doing today?

    What a shame!

  • 4blade2007 Provo, Utah
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:55 p.m.

    My concern is the example the adults of this world are setting for their children. Boys learn how to be fathers by watching and learning from a brother, father, grandfather, uncle, cousins, school or church leader. Girls learn how to be women by watching and learning from a sister, mother, grandmother, aunt, cousins, school or church leader. In a same sex marriage have you thought about future generations? Our children are our future leaders. This thought process and behavior will affect generations upon generations, lets stop it before it gets totally out of control.

  • TrueChristian Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    @RedWings - I think God calling sinners to repent is different from people feeling that the government should enforce their view of morality. As an LDS member, the law of chastity isn't bendable, and I'm not saying it should be. But that doesn't mean I feel that the secular law of the land should enforce my religion. People have their free agency, and gay marriage doesn't change the law of chastity. If you feel that marrying someone of the same sex is immoral, then don't marry someone of the same sex. The Church also teaches that divorce is wrong, but I don't see anybody going around trying to ban divorce - which is a much greater threat to marriage. Let gays get married. Live your beliefs and set an example. Let God judge us all in the end, but I'm tired of people using Christianity to make people suffer.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    @TrueChristian:

    I see you were critical of sharrona's comments. Well, sharrona made some very important and salient points related to this whole issue. We are not judging the gay community un-righteously - we are only following what God said about homosexuality, which is that it is wrong. That is his judgment not ours. We love our fellow brothers and sisters who are gay, we just don't love all of their behavior and some of their demands that we sacrifice some of our basic rights as citizens. For example, we do not want men or women who have a gender identity confusion to be able to enter into public restrooms designated for men or women unless they are biologically a man or a woman. We do not want our children to be taught in tax supported schools that homosexual partnerships are the same as marriage between a man and a woman. God judges morality not us - true Christians just follow his word - they don't try to pervert it.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    @ Marco Luxe: Here is another study that shows the disadvantages of same-sex "parenting", which shows that your assertions are counter-factural:

    NEW Canadian study - rate of graduation using census data

    Now a new study from Canada shows that children growing up in homosexual households do NOT do as well as those growing up with married parents.

    Dr Douglas Allen, economics professor at Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, has published a peer-reviewed study titled High school graduation rates among children of same-sex households”.

    It was published in Review of the Economics of the Household, Vol 11, Issue 4.

    Dr Allen used a 20 % sample of the 2006 Canada census to “identify self-reported children living with same-sex parents” and investigated graduation rates of various family types.

    He found that, “Children living with gay and lesbian families in 2006 were about 65 % as likely to graduate compared to children living in opposite sex marriage families. Daughters of same-sex parents do considerably worse than sons.”

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    Jan. 7, 2014 3:34 p.m.

    @RedWings

    I apologize for the mistake. It was my negligence, never intent to play on your screename.

    However, although I appreciate your attempt for compromise by suggesting civil union, and even if people can put their difference on "whether separation can be equal" aside, it still can not change the fact that amendment 3 bans both SSM and civil union. Therefore, your proposed compromise is not going to work in Utah, unless amendment 3 is repealed.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    RE: TrueChristian, If judging is totally forbidden, then that would make the doctrinal and moral purity of the church impossible to maintain. This would violate other teachings Christ has revealed in His word (see: Mt 7:16 ,By their fruits you shall knew them). It would commit us to neutrality and that is the very opposite of the stance Christ wants us to take.

    Jesus taught,that we are given the right and responsibility to make judgments in order to help our fellow man with their problem of sin, provided we have first "remove the plank from our own eye." Jesus expects you to be able to see clearly, so that you can "remove the speck from your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:5). So there are judgments to be we cannot ignore our Lord's commands that instruct us to make judgments.

    In John 7:24, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment". we are clearly commanded to judge with righteous judgment.

    RE: love all men,(Example) Mother Teresa loved those who had same-sex attractions, but she still called them to purity. it is precisely because she loved them that she called them to practice chastity.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 7, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    @sharrona: Your self-serving reading of the Bible is lamentable. Don't idolize words. Read the message.

    TrueChristian, above, correctly implores you to read the theme message. Love God. Love thy neighbor. The Bible says this many times, in many ways, over and over and over, in both the Old and New Testaments. It is more than charity, it is a Commandment.

    Leviticus has 21 admonitions against abominable things. You've latched onto an interpretation of one of them. What about the others? Do you even know what the first one is? It concerns eating meat from an animal slaughtered more than two days ago. Even the kosherest of kosher salami fails this by a mile.

    Genesis has two creation stories. Before the Eden story, it tells us that men and women are BOTH in God's image, something that Quakers take deeply to heart. And, if both are in God's image, than in EVERY couple, straight or gay, we see God's love paired with God's love.

    If you count yourself a Bible-believing Christian, please re-read The Sermon On The Mount, and pay attention this time.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 3:53 p.m.

    @JosephSmith4ever It is not a bogus statement at all. Lawsuits have been filed against people who refused to marry homosexuals due to their religious beliefs, and a recent lawsuit was filed against a baker for refusing to bake a homosexual couple a wedding cake. Not only that, but the judged ordered him to do so, if I recall correctly.

    It's really simple. If somebody believes that adultery is wrong, they probably aren't going to drive their friend to meet his mistress. If somebody believes drugs are wrong, they're probably not going to allow others to do drugs in their homes or places of business. And, if somebody believes that homosexuality is a sin, they shouldn't be made to participate in it, and indeed have a constitutional right to refuse to condone or serve it based on religious beliefs.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Jan. 7, 2014 4:01 p.m.

    sharrona,

    "....consider the O. T. on this: The Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the N. T. (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and the like, are still abominations before God...."
    ______________________________

    Same sex marriage must be a powerful issue if it can prod someone steeped in Pauline doctrines of salvation to take a sudden keen interest in Mosaic law. Leviticus reflects the culture and mores of a time in antiquity that is long gone. After all these centuries, it’s time for us to let the dead bury the dead. We need to move on.

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    @cristoph The Democrat party has never been for the poor. Not for helping them to not be poor anyway. It is in their best interest to keep the poor in poverty so they can use their sweet promises of a better life every election to get votes. Republicans do the same thing.

    If the government really wanted to help the poor, they'd quit bolstering up skyrocketing costs of higher education via loans, and they'd make welfare at least partially dependent on whether the recipient was attending school and maintaining good grades or not, in my opinion.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Jan. 7, 2014 4:05 p.m.

    @TrueChristian, who said "To my fellow Mormons who are posting here about gay marriage ruining our society and violating their beliefs, I have one word: Repent."

    And to the many Mormons who have chosen to side with the 'happiness' of having same sex and have gone against the Lord's 'Great Plan of Happiness', we could say the same.

    TrueChristian suggests service and charity and I am all for those, and do those.

    But all the kindness or service or charity or loving others in the world has got nothing to do with someone's agenda that children must be taught that same-sex is and I quote, "just normal and natural."

  • Clinton Draper, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 4:27 p.m.

    @ TrueChristian Are you saying that the message of the Bible is that we are to love everybody, not judge them, and support them in whatever debauchery they want to participate in? That doesn't seem to fit with all those prophets telling people to repent, lest they be destroyed.

  • Cougar11 Highland, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 5:08 p.m.

    I've had several people comment on my earlier message.I will say this. I believe in the constitution and I don't believe my rights or beliefs trump the constitution or someone elses rights. However, I believe that the constitution has left the decision about the right of gay marriage to the states which is what this case is about. When it was left to the state, the state voted to secure the definition of what marriage is by a constitutional amendment. If SCOTUS overrides it, I will acknowledge it as law of the country, just as I acknowledge drinking or peoples right to view pornography but I won't support them either. As a citizen of this state I will vote my moral stance. Many of our laws are already based on morality issues that affect society, agreed upon by the majority of that society, I believe the definition of marriage is one of these same issues. As many of you said I can't dictate my morality. I'm not dictating morality, I'm voting for it. SCOTUS will decide if my voting was constitutional not your rantings and hysterics

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 5:16 p.m.

    re:MeckofaHess
    "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."

    You keep repeating this falsehood.
    David Parker was arrested because he refused to leave the school building at closing time.

    "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?" presented all different types of families--including animal families. The book was sent home, and was not mandatory reading.

    "For example, we do not want men or women who have a gender identity confusion to be able to enter into public restrooms designated for men or women unless they are biologically a man or a woman. "

    You think a woman, self-identifying as a man, looking like a man from outward appearances, should be using the women's facilities? And vice-versa?

  • Dr. Thom Long Beach, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:44 p.m.

    Until the Supreme Court rules the whole argument is moot since a legal marriage in one state isn't automatically recognized in another state. Just because someone has a medical license or passes the bar in one state doesn't mean they automatically can practice in every state, so just because someone is married California doesn't mean they will be legally married or recognized in Utah or any other state.

    And if same sex marriage is upheld by the Supreme Court, then there isn't any argument against plural marriage since the ethics, normality, and morality argument will a useless defense.

    Now let's talk about same sex marriages that end in divorce and what happens to the communal property or any children that may be adopted.

    Who would get alimony, or child support?

  • Azagthoth Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:29 p.m.

    Seriously? They want a SLOWER process? Yeah, we need to be dragged into another year of attorney fees.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 5:12 p.m.

    RE: Craig Clark ,Leviticus to Paul,… do you not know that the unrighteous] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality(1 Cor 6:9)

    RE: A *Quaker, Discrimination is not only allowed. True,

    …, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.(Rom 1:26-27)

    *Friends as a whole have widely differing views. Liberals run the gamut from non-theist to various flavors of Christianity to Jewish to Buddhist to uncategorized spirituality, and on and on.

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:20 p.m.

    Azagthoth: It was a pre-trial motion, not typically binding, and beyond what the judge in California did. For there not to have been an immediate stay was the fault ot another judge, which has caused a lot of confusion. Anyone on either side of the SSM needs to understand that the judge tried to undermine legal Constitutional authority to the States. This is huge. He should (at the least) be impeached. ANY citizen of a State would have had less rights, and the federal government would have MORE, no matter who you are or what your marriage status is. This goes beyond the SSM issue.

    A ruling like this is after a TRIAL - and it was not. Not only did this judge did the citizens of Utah, and those seeking SSM marriage a huge disservice by ruling in this way, but it is very revealing to me the agenda.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:28 p.m.

    Cats
    Somewhere in Time, UT
    "Dear Bob K:
    Religious people don't have to accept being forced to do things that are against their religion. There has clearly been an encroachment on religious freedom by the gay agenda."

    -- A FEW PEOPLE have been told to pay fines for violating public accomodation laws in their States. They chose to violate the law. No one is forced to do anything.

    "I have great sympathy with individuals who struggle with same-sex attraction"

    --I have no sympathy for those who think their religion trumps the Constitution.

    "I have no sympathy with the radical gay agenda"

    --You mean like, wanting just to be free and left alone?

    "Anyone who wants to know about the dangers needs only look at Massachussetts and what has happened there over the last ten years of gay marriage. It's frightening."

    -- What is frightening is that the untruths about MA are swallowed so easily. Two troublemaking families moved there. Everyone else is happy.

    -- Liberal areas should be as free to include community norms, which may not be to your liking. Modern parents are happy to have kids taught that not all of us are the same