Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Marriage debate

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:14 a.m.

    Utah is governed by a Supreme Law. That State's Constitution is that Supreme Law. That Constitution defines marriage. That definition was put there by the people of Utah. We voted on it. The Legislature can it do nothing about marriage unless the people repeal that part of the State's Constitution.

    All duties not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are left to the States. Issuing marriage licenses is not a duty of the U.S. Government. No authority has ever been given to the Federal Government by the people of the United States to define marriage or to issue marriage licenses. The10th Amendment clearly states that all duties not enumerated by the U.S. Constitution are to be left to the States or to the People.

    The 14th Amendment does not define marriage. It does not give the Federal Government the right to define marriage. It does not give the Federal Government to declare a person's sex based on that person's feelings nor to grant rights based on "feelings".

    The family is too important to be redefined by those who think that God made a mistake when He made them a man or a woman.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 5:56 a.m.

    Good Grief...

    The world always looks bleaker when all you see are straw men on your way down a slippery slope...

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    Joan;

    Businesses are in business to make money, not just to "provide services to 'heterosexual' couples". Businesses that make money by providing wedding services should provide those services to all couples, regardless of the type of wedding being performed. Research "Public accomodation laws".

    Churches already have the First Amendment right to perform ceremonies for whomever they choose and deny whomever they choose.

    Marriage laws won't need modification for LGBT marriage: IT IS THE SAME as straight marriage per the law. A contract between two people to merge their lives into a familial unit.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    @Mike Richards;

    Wrong. Utah is governed by The Constitution of the United States which takes precedence over ANYTHING in the state's constitution that violates the US Constitution.

    We are NOT a theocracy. Your "god" has no standing.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    @ Mike: Perhaps you should actually read the Utah State Constitution - and pay particular attention to where it states the the US Constitution is the supreme law if the land.

    As for the rest of your arguments - that would be why the current court case is an ongoing matter. And your repeated claims which ignore history and facts you find inconvenient do very little to further the discussion or prove that Amendment 3 should be upheld.

    Perhaps you should spend some time actually reading the cases/decisions and come up with arguments that address the points raised?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    Mike Said: " It does not give the Federal Government to declare a person's sex based on that person's feelings nor to grant rights based on "feelings"."

    Feelings-You mean like your entire argument is based on? I feel my religion is right, I feel like discriminating based on my hatred or feelings? Or your right to religious freedom which is based on "Feelings" and I'll ad religion is a choice, based on feelings that is protected by the constitution. So Feelings are important and concrete in religious context but invalid in the individual, got it.

    The legislature should probably not bother being pro active as they will most likely be wrong, again.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    ' I believe the Utah Legislature needs to become proactive and start discussions now about how to deal with this problem.'

    Something is only a problem…

    when you offer zero solutions.

    Let's factually take a look at the consequences of gay marriage.

    5 years:
    *'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

    Line:
    'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

    10 years:
    *'TEN YEARS later, 85 Percent of Massachusetts voters say NO HARM from Marriage Equality' – 09/27/13
    'Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, same-sex families now enjoy full legal protections….'

    So, what has factually happened after gay marriage?

    Nothing.

    If you are going to fabricate reasons to be against marriage equality, you are going to have a rough day before the supreme court.

    Opinions < Facts.

    And if God is perfect, and made everything…

    why do some choose to find fault with the LGBT people he created?

    False Witness.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    Ranch,

    You misunderstand the Constitution. You misunderstand the Federation of States that constitute the United States. You misunderstand the limits imposed on the Federal Government by the Constitution. You misrepresent the 14th Amendment which guaranteed that SLAVES would be recognized as citizens and no longer be treated as property. Nothing in the 14th Amendment requires special privileges for those whose feelings contradict their physical appearance. And most importantly, you misrepresent the God whom you represented as a missionary.

    Read the Constitution as it is written, not as you wish that it had been written. Read the limited authority granted by the people to the Federal Government. Learn for yourself that you are a citizen of the State of Utah. Your birth certificate tells you that. Your driver's license tells you that. If you own a business, your business license tells you that. Nothing on those documents mentions the United States of America. The highest government official in America who has responsibility for you is the Governor, not the President. The President represents the Federation of States and is elected by the States representatives in the electoral college.

    Understanding is the first step of enlightenment.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    You can't make something illegal retroactively. Everyone who married during the past couple of weeks entered their contracts with good faith. Those contracts are legal and need to be honored.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:55 a.m.

    One thing that hasn't happened yet would change this 'do heterosexual businesses have to serve same sex couples' discussion. Someone, somewhere, has to deny service to someone because they're heterosexual. It could be an apartment or an ice cream cone, it doesn't matter. They just have to come out and say 'we don't serve your kind'. Equality should come quickly after that.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    Those who use the fallacious claim that the United States should subject all States to a uniform set of rules in everything that touches our lives have opened an argument that they cannot support. All they have to do is to look at their driver's license. The State controls who can drive in Utah. It allows non-citizens of Utah to drive for a limited time in Utah, but if they stay for any length of time, they must give a Utah Driver's License to continue driving. If those people looked at the license plates on their vehicles, they would see that those plates are issued by Utah and that they must have Utah plates if they reside here for any length of time. When they visit their doctor, they will see that his license to treat them is issued by the State of Utah. When they visit their lawyer, he will have a license to practice law in Utah.

    Their claim that the 14th Amendment gives them special rights based on their denial of their physical attributes is as absurd as their reluctance to recongize a State's soverign authority.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    Mike -- Good morning, on guard...

    1. The Utah State Constitution clearly states that the United States Consitution is the Supreme law of the land.

    2. If you only want Utah to only recognize "Utah" marriages, then never move to another State. You would be committing adultery.

    3. You are Mormon based on your "feelings". You are protected for it under the Constitution. Same applies here.

    4. Still haven't got the whole difference between Transgender and Homosexual thing figured out yet, have you.

    5. The LDS Church recognizes than SameSex Attration is real, and has dedicated an entire website to it, are you implying God makes mistakes?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    J Thompson
    SPRINGVILLE, UT

    =========

    OK, let's see how this holds up to the smell test...

    The State controls who can [marry] in Utah. It allows non-citizens of Utah to [marry] for a limited time in Utah, but if they stay for any length of time, they must get a Utah [Marriage] License to continue [being married]. If those people looked at the license on their [marriage], they would see that those are issued by Utah and that they must have Utah [marriage] if they reside here for any length of time. When they visit their [wife], they will see that [her] license to treat them is issued by the State of Utah. When they visit their [husband], he will have a license to practice [marriage] in Utah.

    ========

    Marriage is valid in all states, with no time limits, regardless of what the state the license was issued.

    If you move to another state you are not logically legally and lawfully wedded.
    You are also committing adultery.

    Therefore -- Federal level.

    Smell test, failed!

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    @ mike richards. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Are you against giving citizens their constitutional rights? Why can't we let people live their lives as they see fit?

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    The letter writer feels that the Utah State Legislature should become pro-active regarding SSM. It wouldn't do any good. The courts will annul what the citizens of Utah through their legislature uphold.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:18 a.m.

    Claiming that "feelings" are "Constitutional Rights" misrepresents the Constitution. We have the right to PURSUE happiness. The Constitution does not grant us happiness. The Constitution does not guarantee us equality. If you think differently, walk into your boss's office and demand to be paid the same as he or she is paid. If you think that the 14th Amendment guarantees equality, show up at a hospital and demand the right to perform brain surgery or walk into an airport and demand to be allowed to fly a 767.

    Someone who "feels" that God gave him/her the wrong sex is homosexual, Airnaut. Someone who gets surgical help to change that gender is transexual. In neither case has that person changed God's will about that person's gender.

    "Feeling" that you deserve a bank's money does not a judge under the 14th Amendment to give you equal access to that money.

    Redefining "marriage" not a basis for changing the most important and the most fundament unit of society - the Family. Read "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" if you want to know exactly what LDS Church prophets have said about marriage, about gender, about males and about females.

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    @Mike Richards.

    I disagree with one of your premises about American citizenship. I think of myself as a citizen of the United States and a resident of Utah. You direct us to look at our drivers license. I did. It says nothing about citizenship. But the Utah Department of Public Safety website makes clear that a drivers license is contingent upon Utah residency.

    According to the Lieutenant Governor's office, I am qualified to be governor of this state if I am a U.S. citizen who has been a resident of Utah for 5 years.

    "Understanding is the first step of enlightenment."

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    @Mike Richards:

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

    Please explain to me how "All persons" only means "slaves". All, means "ALL".

    Please detail how "nor shan any state deprive ANY person of" not apply to LGBT citizens.

    You can't.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    @Mike Richards - I've come to respect the consistency with which you advocate your views, though I often disagree with you. You are normally thoughtful and respectful.

    Which is why your statement "Someone who "feels" that God gave him/her the wrong sex is homosexual" left me gobsmacked. That statement is simply not factual.

    You're talking about gender identity, a person's sense of him/herself as male or female. Gender identity usually but not always matches biological gender. A person whose biological gender and gender identity are nonconforming might choose to identify as transgender. Gender identity is separate from sexual orientation.

    Sexual orientation is about attraction and relationships. Being attracted to members of the other sex is heterosexual. Being attracted to members of both sexes is bisexual. Being attracted to members of one's own sex is homosexual. Gay persons are attracted to and build romantic and relationships with persons of the same gender. Throughout all of history, in every known culture, there are have been persons who are homosexual.

    Finally, as a Christian I believe all persons are made in God's image and deserve love, respect, dignity and the opportunity to build emotionally fulfilling intimate relationships.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    So Mike, since religion is a choice based purely on feelings, it has no place in the Constitution.
    Freedom of religion does not mean- free for you to impose your "feelings" on others by law.

    Your proclamation has no bearing in law, nor should it.

    Show me where in the constitution where It says that the religious majority can impose it's doctrine thru laws based on denigrating other citizens?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Someone who "feels" that God gave him/her the wrong sex is homosexual, Airnaut.

    ========

    1. See what I mean, I'm sorry I can't help you.

    2. For someone plaiying on their homefield,
    Preaching to their own choir,
    a bonafide, born and raised Utahan, Mormon, middle aged, white guy, and commenting on an LDS owned and "monitored" newspaper...
    you sure draw alot of negative responses.

    3. If you want to change the world,
    play Lehi, Jonah, Alma, Alumek, Samuel the Lamanite, ect.
    Take a risk, step out of your comfort zone a little,
    Take your "War" to those who need it most,
    and try commenting on the San Fransico Chronicle instead of cowarding here?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    Ranch,

    Does Congress have unlimited authority to make laws? Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the duties which we have delegated law making authority to Congress. All other duties that are not specifically enumerated are duties that must be left to the States. Your quotation from the 14th Amendment clearly states, "equal protection of the laws". Do you claim that Congress has unlimited authority to pass laws? Can Congress issue a marriage license? Please state your source from the Constitution that gives them that authority. Don't bother citing "forgoing powers" unless you want a 3rd grade student to remind you that that is a dependent clause of Section 8 and that it refers only to the enumerated powers listed in Section 8.

    glendenbg,
    Christ loves all of us, but He is the Savior to those who obey him. Even the woman taken in adultery was admonished to go and sin no more. Christ did not forgive her, he said that he did not condemn her. Forgiveness comes after obedience has been shown. Christ told us to STUDY His word and he reminded us that our greatest duty is to KNOW God and Christ whom God has sent.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "No authority has ever been given to the Federal Government by the people of the United States to define marriage or to issue marriage licenses. The10th Amendment clearly states that all duties not enumerated by the U.S. Constitution are to be left to the States or to the People."

    Do you believe the federal court was correct to strike down interracial marriage bans in the states? It would appear that the court has disagreed with your interpretation of this before.

    "Someone who "feels" that God gave him/her the wrong sex is homosexual"

    You're referring to the T part of LGBT, not the L or G part.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    Some are claiming that religion is not protected by the Constitution. Have they become so focused on misrepresenting the 14th Amendment that they refuse to even read the 1st Amendment? "Congress shall make no law pertaining to an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There are no words protecting a person's feelings that same-sex sex or same-sex attraction should be protected by Congress. There is no authority given to Congress to act in that matter.

    One poster seemed to think that popularity is the guage by which our thoughts are right or wrong. Hitler was popular. Was he right? Was his message right? Did whole nations agree with him? Did that make him right? Popularity almost automatically means that you're on the wrong side of any argument. Seeking approval is a surefire way to know that you have no position. Google the arts and entertainment. Would you do what those who are popular have done? Is that how you would value your soul?

    Who defines marriage, a judge or God? If a judge disagrees with God, does that make God wrong? More importantly, do you stand with God or with that judge?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    To "Joan Carlson" yes, if the district court rules in favor of Utah, the marriages performed here would be considered invalid. This is exactly what happened when Polygamy was outlawed, so there already is a precedent.

    To "Ranch" the issue isn't the Utah Constitution vs. US Constitution. It is Utah constitutio vs. Federal law, which takes priority. The 10th Ammendment says that if a right isn't listed in the US Constitution, it is up to the states or people. Utah followed that, and declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. The US Constitution does not say anything about marriage.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    J Thompson
    SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Some are claiming that religion is not protected by the Constitution. Have they become so focused on misrepresenting the 14th Amendment that they refuse to even read the 1st Amendment? "Congress shall make no law pertaining to an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There are no words protecting a person's feelings that same-sex sex or same-sex attraction should be protected by Congress. There is no authority given to Congress to act in that matter.

    If a judge disagrees with God, does that make God wrong? More importantly, do you stand with God or with that judge?

    11:58 a.m. Jan. 7, 2014

    ========

    What if you belong to a Church that sanctions Gay Marriage?
    Shouldn't your religous belief be protected under the 1st amendment?
    or
    only the Church's who agree with you?

    That depends on who has the "legal" authority,
    Does God declare a mariiage divorce, or does a Judge?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    @ Redshirt: The 10th Amendment addresses powers - not rights. It clearly states that some powers are prohibited to the states by the Federal Constitution.

    The 9th Amendment states that not all rights are listed in the Constitution and just because a right isn't listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    The 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee due process and equal rights. The First Amendment gives citizens the right to ask the government (in this case the courts) to review laws and see if they meet Constitutional muster (redress of grievances).

    So the question is: Does the State have the power to prevent same-sex marriages or is doing so a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments? (Even the State admits the question is under the Federal Constitution.)

    Asking the courts to review the laws provides the due process of the 5th and 14th Amendments. What the State has to prove is that either there is no right to marriage (which the courts have ruled there is) or that they can limit it to heterosexual couples to further a goal or prevent a harm (this is the argument the State is making and has not been able to prove).

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:16 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    glendenbg,
    Christ loves all of us, but He is the Savior to those who obey him. Even the woman taken in adultery was admonished to go and sin no more. Christ did not forgive her, he said that he did not condemn her. Forgiveness comes after obedience has been shown. Christ told us to STUDY His word and he reminded us that our greatest duty is to KNOW God and Christ whom God has sent.

    11:28 a.m. Jan. 7, 2014

    ========

    Nobody is disputing Christ, Mike.
    This is about civil law.

    The evil Roman Empire Christ lived under had SameSex Marriage,
    but it was the Jews who not believe in it and opposed it.

    I don't recall Jesus being negative, or judgemental of anyone -- especially outcasts of that pious self-righteous Society.
    and he repeatedly read them the riot act a time or 2.

    BTW -
    The Romans found Jesus innocent of any wrong doing,
    yet those same Jews crucified him anyway.

    Stop being so judgemental.
    He who has no sin, cast the 1st stone.
    Go, sin no more...

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:18 p.m.

    We have too many governments. We should check them out and throw our the ones we don't want.

    Henry Ford said "People can have any color car they want, so long as it is Black.

    In America, states can make any law they wish so long as it does not reduce life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:22 p.m.

    To "Maudine" either way, Utah acted in accordance with the constitution. The 14th ammendmetn does not guarantee equal rights.

    The 14th Ammendment says "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" It is only stating equal protection of the laws, it does not say anything about rights. The 5th is similar.

    The 10th Ammendment is still the question. Since the 10th Ammendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The US constitution says nothing about marriage, therefore, according to the US Constitution it is up to the States or people to decide.

    In the case of Utah, the people and the state have both decided. This is a question of which law is supreme, Utah's constitution or federal law (not constitution).

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 4:08 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701 - You're making a very clever but flawed argument in an attempt to place marriage beyond the reach of federal courts.

    The issue isn't marriage. It's about equal protection of the law. In this case, a law about marriage triggered equal protection questions, became a Constitutional question. State laws cannot violate the federal constitution.

    The 10th amendment reserves many powers to the states but the 14th limits how the states may enact those powers. If a state enacts a law which violates due process or equal protection, it becomes a constitutional question and the law can be struck down on those grounds.

    The 14th Amendment explicitly says that rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be infringed upon by any state (even if the people in the state vote overwhelmingly to do so). We could hold a vote and ban freedom of assembly or freedom of religion, but that vote would be overruled because it violates constitutional rights.

    It's not about one amendment being more powerful or more important than the other, it's about balancing the sometimes competing demands of the various parts of law.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 4:12 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701;

    Equal protection of the law.

    Marriage provides legal protections ("of the law"). The government gives these protections to some, it must, per the equal protection statement give them to all similarly situated citizens.

    "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

    Taxing LGBT couples differently upon the death of one of the couple is "depriving" that person of property without due process of the law. Inequitably from heterosexual couples (equal protection).

    Federal and state laws that violate the Constitution of the US, need to be overturned. Amendment 3 among them.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 7, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    @Ranch:
    "Marriage laws won't need modification for LGBT marriage: IT IS THE SAME as straight marriage per the law."

    Too funny! Have you ever opened a human anatomy book and made the comparison between a man and a woman?

    "A contract between two people to merge their lives into a familial unit."

    I'd agree that same-sex marriage is not necessarily about sex. It's sometimes about two people who can't seem to qualify for a man/woman marriage and yet, want a tie with another. Sorry, but marriage is reserved for something else... If two same-sex people wanta be together, just draw up some kind of a companionship contract. You don't have to get a license or go to a judge for approval. Invite your friends over and have a celebration. That's it.

    "Wrong. Utah is governed by The Constitution of the United States which takes precedence over ANYTHING in the state's constitution that violates the US Constitution."

    The US Constitution says nothing about defining marriage. So state constitution/law is superior in defining same.

    "Your 'god' has no standing."

    His god is in the US Constitution.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 4:44 p.m.

    @wrz;

    Dream on.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 7, 2014 4:57 p.m.

    @Kalindra:
    "Perhaps you should actually read the Utah State (sic) Constitution - and pay particular attention to where it states the the (sic) US Constitution is the supreme law if (sic) the land."

    It also says 'powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.' Defining marriage is such a power.

    @Pagan:
    "Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state..."

    Likely because the Catholic Church is predominant in Mass., not because of anything about gay marriage.

    "And if God is perfect, and made everything... why do some choose to find fault with the LGBT people he created?"

    LGBT's mostly created themselves.

    @GZE:
    "Those contracts are legal and need to be honored."

    Not if they are illegal by settled state law. The federal government will likely have to make it up to them some way for fumbling the law... Some kind of a payoff one would think.

    @Hutterite:
    "Someone, somewhere, has to deny service to someone because they're heterosexual."

    I was denied service in a restaurant once for being in a T-shirt and flip-flops. Is that the same thing?

  • Mr. Bean Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:34 p.m.

    @Shaun:
    "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why can't we let people live their lives as they see fit?"

    I think I agree... it's a travesty that all forms of marriage, polygamy, incest, sibs, age difference, etc., are not allowed by the state law.

    @glendenbg:
    "... as a Christian I believe all persons are made in God's image and deserve love, respect, dignity and the opportunity to build emotionally fulfilling intimate relationships."

    All persons have foibles to overcome. That's some of what life is all about. And some have harder tasks than others.

    @Happy Valley Heretic:
    "Show me where in the constitution where It says that the religious majority can impose it's doctrine thru laws based on denigrating other citizens?"

    I think I'm getting your point... all forms of marriage, polygamy, incest, sibs, age difference, etc., should be protected by state/federal law.

    @Mike Richards
    "Your quotation from the 14th Amendment clearly states, "equal protection of the laws."

    Amendment 14 also states clearly that the 'equal protection' issue applies to STATE law. And Utah's marriage laws are applied equally to all... marriage: One man/one women. This applies to ALL Utah citizens.

  • Truthseeker2 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:50 p.m.

    re:MikeRichards
    " Nothing in the 14th Amendment requires special privileges for those whose feelings contradict their physical appearance."

    I invite you to familiarize yourself with Loving v Virgina, in a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court:

    "This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations."

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:41 p.m.

    2nd try
    re:MikeRichards
    " Nothing in the 14th Amendment requires special privileges for those whose feelings contradict their physical appearance."

    I invite you to familiarize yourself with Loving v Virgina, in a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court:

    "This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations."

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    To "glendenbg" if you bothered to read the ruling, the judge cited that the issue was the 10th and 14th Ammendments. I am not being clever, I am just stating what the federal judges have stated.

    To "RanchHand" using your argument, the Utah constitution should stand stating that marriage is between a man and woman only. No life is being ended by the law, no property seized, and they are not being thrown into jail to deprive them their liberty.

    The question still remains, which takes precedence, the Utah constitution or federal law. The US constitution says nothing concerning marriage, so it is up to the states to decide how to handle it.

    To "Truthseeker" you should read recent Supreme Court ruling on DOMA. They state that "By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States." If it is a state issue, how can the Utah Constitution be in violation of the US Constitution?

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:31 p.m.

    People worry about somebody wanting a Mormon bishop to marry a gay couple. It isn't like other goods and services provided to the public! It isn't like you are a customer when you ask your bishop to marry you. It is your religious leader. There is a big difference. Since Church and State should be two separate things, it would be up to the state to provide somebody to perform the marriage. There is nothing saying that the state has to provide a Mormon bishop. So, therefore, a same sex couple is not being discriminated as long as the state provides someone to perform the ceremony. How many people are going to ask someone to marry them that sees them as an abomination!? Give me a break!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 3:52 p.m.

    To "RFLASH" how many gays have asked Doctors, Photographers, Cake Decorators, Wedding Planners to do things that they see as an abomination?

    There are already lawsuits in the UK to force churches to perform marriages that go against their beliefs. How long until some gays try that here?