Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Supreme Court stay a promising sign for democracy, federalism, families

Comments

Return To Article
  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    'Under our system of federal constitutional government, the role and duty of the federal judiciary is to say what the law is, not what it thinks it should be.' - From the article

    'Judge Rules Defense of Marriage Act Is Unconstitutional..' - ABC News - By Jake Tapper - 01/08/10

    'Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News 02/07/12

    "Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.'

    'Federal judge OVERTURNS Utah Same-sex marriage Ban' - By Emiley Morgan and Marjorie Cortez KSL - 12/22/13

    How many examples of law are we going to ignore, until we stop wasting Utah tax dollars in attempts to get a different result some think we should have, instead of what is...?

  • McMurphy St George, Utah
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    It may well be that "... children have greater opportunities when they are raised by a mother and a father". It is not at all obvious to me that gay marriage will result in more children being raised in same sex households other than those where one of the partners already has custody of a child.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    This makes me happy.

    Good to see families, and most importantly children, being protected.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    "... definitional choice by the state's electorate and Legislature provides our society with the aspirational goal, reinforced by moral teaching, by social scientists and by family scholars, that children have greater opportunities when they are raised by a mother and a father." Since marriages can cross state lines, this needs to be a federal issue. Someone married in Vermont should also be married when they're here. That right needs to accrue to everybody; it's not a popularity contest. Of course, limitations can be applied. The federal state can easily show harm if people are allowed to marry their cousin or refrigerator or pet. However, being affronted, or supposed wellbeing of children which are not mandatory in marriage, don't really measure up as arguments. This is about rights for people; it's not whether it's good for democracy as much as it's good for the republic.

  • Ronnie W. Layton, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    @Pagan

    I think if the judges had intentions of ruling Utah's ban unconstitutional they wouldn't have allowed the stay.

    Just my prediction, it will be left to the states. A California marriage will still need to be recognized in Utah but Utah will not be forced to officiate same sex marriages.

  • Kaotic USA, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    The LDS church is pro-family. Much of their doctrine and beliefs revolve around families, which is great and admirable. But I get the feeling from being around church members and reading comments from church members that unless you're LDS then a person or couple doesn't or can't have the same pro-family beliefs. Not everybody in Utah belongs to the LDS Church, but have wonderful family values, including same-sex couples. Even Non-LDS heterosexual people are wondering what the fuss is all about giving these Americans their constitutional right to marry whoever they want. The LDS Church absolutely runs things in Utah because of their WEALTH and INFLUENCE, but they don't have the right to discriminate against people and force their beliefs on people who have chosen not to be part of their church.

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    @Roonie W.

    A stay does show that SCOTUS justices prefer slower pace on this issue, it does not, however, indicate how justices would rule on this issue.

    "A California marriage will still need to be recognized in Utah but Utah will not be forced to officiate same sex marriages."

    That is actually a good compromise.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    "Under our system of federal constitutional government, the role and duty of the federal judiciary is to say what the law is, not what it thinks it should be"

    Yes, but that is what Judge Shelby was doing, you just disagree with him as to what the law is.

    "without the benefit of a trial"

    Utah's team pushed for the style of trial they had.

    "without direct precedent on the issue."

    No district court ever ruled against interracial marriage bans before the Supreme Court did?

    "that there is no discrimination in a state's rational decision to favor the benefits of gender complementarity in enacting marriage laws."

    Still have to prove that... in a state that doesn't limit marriage to other categories based on statistical averages (and the notion that same-sex couples do worse on average is highly dubious), and a state that lets single people adopt children.

    "children have greater opportunities when they are raised by a mother and a father."

    What kind of logic says that single gay people can adopt but a same-sex couple shouldn't which is what this state currently has for adoption policy?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:42 a.m.

    "... children have greater opportunities when they are raised by a mother and a father"

    Glad this is an opinion piece. Because…

    "In most ways, the accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are NOT markedly different from those of heterosexual parents."

    - AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP)
    - 'Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents' - POLICY STATEMENT - PEDIATRICS Vol. 109 No. 2 February 2002, pp. 339-340 - Pulished: 02/01/10

    *'Children of same-sex parents are healthier, families closer than straight-parents: Study' – By Tracy Miller – NY Daily News – 06-07-13

    'A new study from Australia's Melbourne University found kids of gay parents are growing up healthy and well-adjusted, despite continued discrimination against their families.'

    *New Study confirms, Same-sex couples make great parents' – By Zack Ford – Think Progress – 07-10-13

    *'Report details INEQUITIES for kids of gay parents' - By David Crary - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/25/11

    'Carrigan is among a growing multitude of American children possibly more than 1.2 million of them being raised by gay and lesbian parents, often WITHOUT all the LEGAL PROTECTIONS afforded to mom-and-dad households.'

  • Ronnie W. Layton, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    @YBH

    "A stay does show that SCOTUS justices prefer slower pace on this issue, it does not, however, indicate how justices would rule on this issue."

    Perhaps your are right. I was surprised by the stay though. It seems that the supreme court is avoiding the issue. Sooner or later they will have to decide if a state has the right to make same sex marriages.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:01 p.m.

    @Pagan - The State and many opinion pieces in this paper are only selecting a small sample of research available to push their agenda. The majority of research from leading academic research universities has proved that their is no significant change in outcomes of children who are raised in same sex households vs heterosexual households. The only thing that truly matters for improvising outcomes is living in loving and stable households.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    "We believe that there are ways to ensure equality under the law for all men and for all women,..."

    Perhaps - if Amendment 3 had not clearly stated, "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

    Amendment 3 clearly prohibits any form of recognition for same-sex relationships. The only way for same-sex couples in Utah to have any access to equality is to declare the entirety of Amendment 3 unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution - and once that is done, same-sex marriage is on the table. There is no way to now go back and allow civil unions or domestic partnerships. (Amendment 3 has no severability clause allowing part of it to be unconstitutional and dropped while keeping the rest intact.)

    "[R]efer to core constitutional principles..." such as equality under the law and due process which requires states to prove that their laws are narrowly tailored to address a purpose to which the laws are rationally connected.

    What is "gender complementarity" and what social benefits does it offer? How does it apply to marriage and child rearing? How does prohibiting same-sex marriage further this goal?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    Regardless of how you feel about SSM, this editorial is rhetoric. The court's action was about giving the issue a hearing. What will you say if the 10th Circuit upholds the decision? Will it still be a promising sign for democracy, federalism, families? It's a judicial procedural process, nothing more.

    Also, you say "there are ways to ensure equality under the law for all men and for all women, even as Utah appropriately insists that marriage consist of a husband and a wife." So what are those ways? Instead of vague platitudes intended to placate and mislead, put some specifics on the table. Otherwise, what you write is emptiness, the equivalent of a sugar high that is soon gone.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    In reading this editorial, one would think that the fate of the world hangs in the balance on both sides. In truth, the stakes are only high for those gay people waiting for equality under the law. For those who are not gay and can marry anyone of the opposite sex without regard for quality, the only thing we risk is a greater degree of moral outrage.

    Your gay married neighbors aren't going to denigrate your 'traditional' marriage any more than a mixed-race marriage or the pairing of Josh Hutchinson and Courtney Stodden. One may look disgustingly in their direction, but they will neither hurt you, your family, or your faith. There is no need to "hide your kids" from the nefarious loins of those that are different.

    What this article fails to address is how child-rearing in a gay household measures up to child-rearing in the household of those that are not married; gay or otherwise. This is the real comparison. These kids won't be shipped off to a straight family. No. They will simply continue to live in a limbo of intolerance and ridicule.

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    @Ronnie W
    I was surprised by the stay though.

    Just think this way: if SCOTUS decline stay request, then when other judges dealing with this issue, they probably have little hesitation to rule in gay marriage's favor. and the whole process may soon move too fast than those justices can handle.

    @Esquire

    I have the same question. what are those ways to ensure equality under the law for all men and for all women? civil union for gay couples? even we can put "separation is not equal" aside, that civil union route is already blocked by amendment 3. and DN editorial still hope appeal court will rule amendment 3 constitutional?

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    "Protecting families"? How does opposition to gay marriage protect families? I have yet to hear one sound argument supporting this claim. Outside of a religous argument there is no facts supporting that a Gay marriage is detrimental to society. Do opponents not understand how bigoted and prejudical they appear to the majority of Americans?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    The only thing the stay from the Supreme Court shows is that the court wants the issue fully briefed and argued before it makes any type of decision. Business as usual for the Supreme Court -- it is an incredibly slow-moving entity.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:09 p.m.

    The Supreme Court spoke and yet there are those who believe that Judge Shelby's "ruling" is more important than the voice of the entire Court. Why would they not want the full Court to carefully consider whether the Federal Government has been delegated authority by the Constitution to issue marriage licenses? That is a simple question. Surely at least one of the Justices knows where to find that enumerated duty in the Constitution. Could it be that those who want Judge Shelby's "ruling" to stand don't want the entire Court to ask him why he chose a dissenting opinion as the basis for his "ruling"? If Judge Shelby were ruled to be correct for using the dissent instead of the majority ruling, what will then happen to Roe v Wade or ObamaCare?

    The Supreme Court did what it had to do to keep society from completely falling apart. Hopefully judges like Judge Shelby have been put on notice.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:31 p.m.

    Woa hold on there State of Utah, the ruling is only to allow a stay until the 10th Circuit court hears the appeal. There is no telling if the SCOTUS will even take that appeal (depending upon what it is). Don't go running victory laps around the capitol just yet. And Justice Kennedy doesn't seem to keen on toing the conservative line when it comes to social issues.

  • Mukkake Montreal, QC, 00
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:34 p.m.

    Ronnie W.:
    [Just my prediction, it will be left to the states. A California marriage will still need to be recognized in Utah but Utah will not be forced to officiate same sex marriages.]

    But this is still inadequate for equal protection. As mentioned in another Deseret News article, even though gay marriages from other states are recognized here, divorce proceedings for these marriages cannot be commenced here. Because of this situation, and more, this issue cannot be left up to the States for long.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    @ Mike: How did the Supreme Court placing a hold on same-sex marriages in Utah put Shelby (or anyone else for that matter) on notice?

    They offered no chastisement of his ruling, or his lack of a hold, or anything else. They also offered no chastisement to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for not issuing a stay.

    Additionally, the stay or lack of a stay, has nothing to do with the legal process of the decision being appealed nor does it have any impact on what the 10th Circuit may decide - in fact, the stay is pending the decision by the 10th Circuit. And the 10th Circuit has already stated they don't think the State will win.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 7, 2014 1:56 p.m.

    Honestly, who doesn't know deep down that gay marriage is coming sooner or later? Even this editorial is full of doubt that gay marriage will be "stayed" for any long time. At least half of it reads like this: Whew! At least we have a little more time to warm up to the new, inevitable reality!

    Why not just stay ahead of the curve, and save a ton of money while we're at it?

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:32 p.m.

    I believe this is only a grandstanding event orchestrated by a bunch of celebrity wannabees that are trying to stay relevant. They want us to think that they will consider this with serious deliberation and wisdom. I believe that they want the chance to weigh in on the debate, and had they not issued this stay, states rights to define marriage would have taken a fast track to chaos and bedlam. But in no way do I believe that this will change the inevitable course spiraling into the loss of traditional family values and the government influence on them. Even today, we read a plea for government to stay its hand on former influences to encourage marriage and families in exchange for a more modern way. I can just guess that communal living of anyone with everyone will be the eventual approach. How sad. I pray that my family can hold together for many generations.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    Maudine,

    Do you think that other judges are not in the middle of ruling on same-sex issues? Do you think that other judges are not reading dissenting opinions, as judge Shelby did, in deciding that their "payback" for being appointed to the bench includes ruling the way that their "sponsor" wants them to rule?

    Just how does a judge get appointed? Does the President sit down with a council of judges and ask them who they think has most closely followed the Constitution in every case? Does the President only nominate those who never "legislated" from the bench? Or, do those who supported the President with favors and money come knocking at his door when a vacancy appears and tell the President that it's time to repay the favor?

    Judge Shelby showed what happens when a judge uses a dissenting opinion as the basis for his ruling. What makes you think that the Supreme Court - all nine justices, not just the one justice who is assigned the 10th Court of Appeals - have had enough of Judge Shelby and his distain for their ruling?

  • Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, ME
    Jan. 7, 2014 2:51 p.m.

    CHILDREN RIGHT NOW TODAY are being raised in same-sex couple households. Thousands of them. Preventing those same-sex couples from the rights and protections accruing to marriage HARMS THOSE CHILDREN.

    Apparently, Deseret News doesn't care about THOSE children.

    Deseret writes, "This [one man one woman] definitional choice ... provides our society with the aspirational goal ... that children have greater opportunities when they are raised by a mother and a father.

    But what about the fact -- FACT -- that thousands of children now live in same-sex couple families.

    Does Deseret advocate forcibly removing those kids from the only parents they know? Does Deseret advocate continued harm to those kids by denying their parents marital rights?

    Sorry, Deseret, but when I look at your words there is nothing but LGBT animus as far as the eye can see.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 3:52 p.m.

    "Just how does a judge get appointed?"

    You might ask Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee, both of whom spoke very highly of Judge Shelby when Hatch put his name in for nomination.

    Shelby didn't use the dissenting opinion as the sole basis for his opinion, he only included it. The main basis for his ruling was on the 5th and 14th amendment. Just as the majority opinion for Windsor was. The 10th Amendment has limits which are clearly spelled out in the 14th Amendment.

    There is no reading into how the Justices at SCOTUS will on the merits of the case by granting the stay. More hints can be gleaned from a careful reading of Kennedy's decision in Windsor. The State may want to believe he said that they had sole power to define who could enjoy the benefits of marriage, but that is not at all what Kennedy said. He said the State may expand marriage equality and the Federal Government must treat those marriages equally. But states still must treat it's citizens equally. He gave no exemption to the 14th Amendment in his ruling.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Jan. 7, 2014 4:22 p.m.

    “It gives those in Utah who support the traditional family…”

    It is a good day for democracy and the role of the judiciary… let’s hope the DN opinion writers will make the same affirmations after the SC issues final clarity on this issue.

    In reference to the quote above can we please have some truth in advertising here – it should read “who support the traditional family to the exclusion of any other.”

    Until gay people begin calling for the destruction of the traditional family (rather than an expansion of legal recognition), let’s drop the pretense that certain (religious) groups are the sole keepers of this flame.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 4:55 p.m.

    "The Supreme Court did what it had to do to keep society from completely falling apart. "
    Your Hyperbole is legendary but you may have topped it there. We had 2 week of gay marriage Mike, honestly how has it affected you personally because I don't see society falling apart?

    I see religious folks falling all over themselves at the chance to denigrate those in love who wish to share their lives together, but other than these radicals throwing tantrums and speaking for God, I see nothing else has changed.

  • MJF Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 5:25 p.m.

    The amount of petulance displayed by the pro-gay posters is really quite extraordinary. They pretend that they can see no reason why their position could in any way harm the family or society. Of course, when one does not want to know the truth, it is always easier to pretend incomprehension. One must merely study history and academic research. In addition, take a hard look at what has happened in Massachusetts since gay "marriage" was imposed on the population ten years ago. It has had an adverse affect on the rights of others in the areas of churches, schools, businesses, health care, etc. If one doesn't want to deal with these sources, one only has to look to the scriptures. Apparently, none of these people have heard of Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Seriously, I'm not trying to be unkind. But, it is patently obvious that this thing is not a healthy thing for society or families. In addition, the voice of the people should be respected and upheld. If it is not, we have lost everything.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:19 p.m.

    @Mike Richards. A strict interpretation of the constitution as you want with the issue of gay marriage is very dangerous.

    There is nothing in the constitution that makes segregation or discriminating against someone based on their race unconstitutional.

    If you really want a strict interpretation then we will be set back 150 years but maybe that is what you want.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:20 p.m.

    Federal court rulings should be respected until successfully appealed. Judge Shelby followed similar rulings and precedents in Windsor, Loving and others. Stays are only to be issued when imminent harm will be done and there is a likelihood of success on appeal. Here, only gay couples have been harmed by risking continued unmarried status in an uncertain world. The state of Utah, the incorporeal entity, cannot be harmed by the rejection of the stay. J. Shelby and the 10th Cir had it right. SCOTUS is wrong, and appears fearfully stuck in the dark ages. And there is no research supporting the newfangled rationale "gender complementarity". It's just pseudo-scientific emptiness with regard to raising children. See Zach Wahl

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    I agree with the article which was well written and thought out.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:27 p.m.

    MJF: OK, let's "take a hard look at what has happened in Massachusetts since gay "marriage" was imposed on the population ten years ago." Lowest divorce rate, high academic achievement, strong economy, families with gay members [that is ALL of us, to be honest] happier and more stable due to legal burdens and benefits. The only downside is in the minds of the people dead set against equal treatment under the law.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:35 p.m.

    MJF-
    Voice of the people? I assume you're refering to Utah because the people of Massachuetts are quite happy and support gay marriage. Additionally, every poll I've seen says Americans support Gay marriage as well. As far as your scriptures they're irrelevant when it comes to the laws of our land. Our founders and the "divinely" inspired constitution that they crafted made sure of that.
    We have several gay friends and family who are raising great, healthy families and I would put their relationships and results up against any religous, hetrosexual family. And that includes mine. I've been married 25 years and raised several great children so I know a thing or two about the families you think need protection. Opponents of gay marriage need to live their life as they choose and let others do the same.
    To requote your last paragraph. Seriously, I'm not trying to be unkind. But, it is patently obvious that opposing gay marriage is not a healthy thing for society or families. In addition, the voice of the American people and our constituion should be respected and upheld. If not, we have lost everything.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:54 p.m.

    Ft: No need to feel sorry? history will show that defense of marriage and family as designed and validated by God is the pre eminent issue of our day. It is worth any cost to defend.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:42 p.m.

    "The role and duty of the federal judiciary is to say what the law is, not what it thinks it should be." Surprisingly, the Deseret News hit a home run with this clarification, not that many will even understand it, including those who seem bent on "reeducating" the masses into believing that the voice of the people is to be denied. Perhaps, having not read the Declaration of Independence, some of the words there would be worthy of note: "...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." In the end, the Supreme Court will answer to the voice of the people, but only if the voice of the people demand it. In any case, the citizens of the State of Utah spoke and Judge Shelby spit on the very Constitution he was sworn to uphold. Shame!

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:55 p.m.

    Pagan-

    Regarding the AAP study:

    "Not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children. The available data, which are drawn primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalizable claim either way. Such a statement would not be grounded in science. To make a generalizable claim, representative, large-sample studies are needed—many of them" ("New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter", June 11, 2012).

    In "The New Family Structures Study" (NFSS) "...young adults whose mothers had a same-sex relationship tended to fare worse than their peers in intact biological families on 24 of the 40 outcomes examined…" and "Young adults whose fathers had a same-sex relationship showed significant differences from their peers in intact families on 19 of the outcomes. For example, they were significantly more likely to have contemplated suicide, to have a sexually transmitted infection, or to have been forced to have sex against their will."

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:58 p.m.

    Pagan-

    NFSS project director Dr. Mark Regnerus concludes in a piece running on Slate today that “the stable, two-parent biological married model [is] the far more common and accomplished workhorse of the American household, and still—according to the data, at least—the safest place for a kid.”

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:06 p.m.

    @Mike Richards;

    The Supreme Court didn't "speak". All they've done is postponed the issue. The 10th circuit is going to allow Judge Shelby's ruling to stand. Watch and see. As to other judges watching this ruling, well, they've already cited Shelby's ruling in Ohio - on the side of SSM. New Mexico also ruled that SSM is Constitutional.

    As for society "completely falling apart", what planet do you live on where bigotry is a more important value to society than acceptance?

    @Mukkake;

    Same sex couples married in other states are not recognized in Utah. That is why the one couple was included. They were married in another state and their marriage is not recognized in this one.

    @MJF;

    Which "truth" would that be? I'm really getting tired of the old "I'm not trying to be mean" statement. Of course you are.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:34 p.m.

    The authors of this editorial provide prime example of the kind of misinformation that is truly a disservice to this paper's readers. Such avoidance of relevant facts contributes to bubble that caused, for example, Mitt Romney's loss in 2012 to come as a surprise to so many right-wing voters and pundits.

    This article was presumably written by someone educated enough to know that the decades of rulings have repeatedly confirmed that the Federal Constitution does in fact trump state law in famous matters. To write a piece that ignores, for example, the Virginia v. Loving case (which struck down state laws banning interracial marriage) shows either flat out ignorance or a craven willingness to mislead readers.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:54 p.m.

    (Auto correct! "Famous matters" should be "family matters" in comment above.)

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    @ Pagan and some others who allude to California marriages being accepted in Utah;
    The SCOTUS has dodged same gender marriage as a Federal issue by very narrow decisions.

    1 They did not declare DOMA unconstitutional -- they declared that states actions (specifically ss marriages) had to be recognized for federal benefits purposes.

    2. They did not declare Prop 8 unconstitutional -- they refused to hear it because one of the parties had no standing to be heard.

    3. If (when?) it does actually get to a real SCOTUS hearing -- and if they follow through with the honor states actions (i.e. a legal marriage of 16 YO is a marriage recognized even in a state that has 21 as a marrying age) --- then that marriage that took place in a state solely because some lower judge said so --- does it stick (i.e. prop 8/ 3 rises from the ashes)?

    4. I would think both sides would like SCOTUS to speak clearly -- without the weasel-wording PC manipulation stuff that has been happening on both sides of the issue.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:10 p.m.

    '‘In our opinion: Supreme Court stay a promising sign for democracy, federalism, families’ - Title

    If this is your opinion of how this 'helps' families…

    I would have to ask what your definition of a family is?

    *'Report details INEQUITIES for kids of gay parents' - By David Crary - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/25/11

    'Carrigan is among a growing multitude of American children possibly more than 1.2 million of them being raised by gay and lesbian parents, often WITHOUT all the LEGAL PROTECTIONS afforded to mom-and-dad households.'

    Many claim to be against marriage equality because of the future of children.

    And yet, some factually work to punish children raised by LGBT parents.

    1.2 million, of those children.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 6:33 a.m.

    al of the ant-family and marriage writers here are absolutely correct in saying that the federal power has trumped state power since the Civil war. However, it is good that a few are beginning to see what the framers of our Constitution were extremely Leary of, which was any kind of government that would become tyrannical to the people. That is why, when the articles of confederation became superseded by the Constitution, they were quick to add the Bill of Rights. States need to reassert the power that was lost because of their own stupidity and sinfulness brought on by slavery! Originally, they are the ones who gave the power to the federal government and they need to wake up and do so again. It makes for a stronger, more unified and vibrant society. Regardless, even the voice of the people can't be denied. Utah's right as a sovereign state to define marriage is guaranteed under the constitution and didn't abridge anyone's rights. Governor Herbert should have told the Feds he wasn't going to abide by Shalby's subversion of our right to make our own laws.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 6:57 a.m.

    @banderson 7:42 p.m. Jan. 7, 2014

    I see your problem now. You are confusing the Declaration of Independence (a political manifesto using the inflaming rhetoric of the time) with the Constitution (the supreme law of the land which was ratified by the several states and further amended by the consent of the governed, acting though their elected representativss). The Declaration of Independence has no binding authority on anything. The CONSTITUTION is the law of the land, and there is nothing in it incorporating, specifically or by reference, the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is a stand-alone document, and is the supreme law of the land for the entirety of United States.

    I find it interesting that you cite the Declaration of Independence, and especially the provision concerning the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and then turn around and try to deny, and seek to deprive, a significant percentage of the citizens of the United States the fundamental, inaleinable right to contract a meaningful marriage and also their rights to liberty and the purssuit of happiness. That's sad.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    Did the states prevail when interacial marriage was the issue? No,in 1967 the high court struck down state miscegenation laws then in force in sixteen states 9 to 0, clearly establishing a Federal court right to overrule state laws that violated constitutional rights attending the issue of marriage.

  • The Skeptical Chymist SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    So state laws should remain in force "absent some novel recognition of a previously unrecognized, unenumerated right or some newly fashioned doctrine of anti-discrimination." Somehow, that argument didn't work so well in Loving vs. Virginia, did it? It will not stand now, either.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    Furry 1993: Your bias against the greatest charter of Freedom the world has ever known is obvious. As for your claim that I am confused (I'm sure you know that I am not),I am quite aware that the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. As for it being "flaming rhetoric",I can see that your respect for those who wrote it must be equivalent to my feelings about rats. However,I will just put it simply. The Constitution was made only for a God-fearing people, as many of our founding fathers said. Why? Because those who didn't fear God would use the Constitution to erode the liberties that bring freedom. If marriage, as God said it is, is between a man and a women, then someone using the Constitution as a battering ram for eroding truth and righteousness is going to come to know good, no matter how "inflaming" the rhetoric. The Constitution is document of light and truth, but if a group or individual want to use it to destroy God's work, then it isn't going to work. Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    @bandersen 9:42 a.m. Jan. 8, 2014

    Please point out to me the specific provision or provisions in the Constitution that support your position. I'll give you a hint -- there is nothing to be found. Your comments would be at home in a church service, but not in a discussion of the law.

    You've shown your confusion about the Constitution on many occasions, and I have been trying to figure out from where it comes. I guess you just take and twist anything to get you to where you want to go. Your opinions certainly aren't based on what is actually in the Constitution or applicable. It's sad that you refuse to learn what is really in that magnificent document.

    As to the signers of the Declaration of Independence -- I have the utmost respect for them and for what they accomplished. My husband and I are both descended from some of them. I just recognize the nature of what they produced and what it was intended to accomplish (justify the separation of the then-colonies from England). It wasn't intended to be law in any way, and is has no precedential authority now.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    banderson. It was not so long ago in Utah that interacial marrige was a "sin" worthy of death in the minds of many Utahns. It seems to me, in view of that historical truth, that what is thought to be "sin" today may not be so viewed in the future, even by high ups in the LDS Church. In the last General Conferece it was admitted that past LDS leaders have sometimes "make mistakes" in conduct and in doctrine. So banderson, how certain can you be that this "sin" of same sex marriage is not just some kind of a religiously motivated mistake?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Jan. 8, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    @bandersen – “The Constitution was made only for a God-fearing people, as many of our founding fathers said.”

    Actually most said it was made for moral people, but you’re correct in the sense that in their day virtually 100% of the population still saw religion & morality as synonymous and the FF’s understood this and spoke to that fact.

    But most of them did not share your religious convictions as evidenced by this small sample of quotes:


    "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

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    Tyler-
    Wow. Makes you wonder if any of the founders could even win a primary election in America these days.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:34 p.m.

    @FT – “Makes you wonder if any of the founders could even win a primary…”

    I doubt it… and I doubt Lincoln could or even St. Reagan.

    This is the problem with ideologues in general, and religious ones specifically – they are constantly distorting (or ignoring altogether) facts that don’t conform to their worldview, instead of the other way around.

    The Founders were geniuses and we’re their extremely fortunate progeny. While most believed in God, at least in a Deist (God doesn’t interfere with the natural world) sort of way, they were almost to a man highly skeptical of organized and revealed religion.

    To the degree they were “inspired” (as is often claimed) those inspirations would be Greece, Rome and the Age of Enlightenment (or Reason) and not the doctrines, theologies or scared books found in religion.

    It’s sad that these facts cause so much cognitive dissonance for many that they need to be swept under the rug, but I think it just confirms the fact that many people prefer mythology and marble statues over facts and real life (with all its complexity & contradictions).

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:01 p.m.

    "there is no discrimination in a state's rational decision to favor the benefits of gender complementarity in enacting marriage laws."

    Well, actually there is once you realize that a the now central argument of defenders of "traditional" marriage rests on the idea of gender complementarity; an idea undercut by very well-respected research showing that gender is dimensional rather than categorical.

    If you don't know what this means you better educate yourselves so that when the state's arguments are rejected by the 10th circuit, you'll understand why.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    I don't think the stay means anything and I would be careful of reading anything into it. I don't trust only 3 judges on the court and there are 3 others that are radically left so who knows how they will rule. I think this nation is losing its constitution FAST and I am thinking the ONLY way to save it is if 3/4 of the states unite in a constitutional states convention and amend the constitution....bypassing congress, the president and the Supreme Court. It can be done but it would take a long long time but the other option is to just allow the country to go up in flames.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 3:34 p.m.

    @David
    Centerville, UT

    NFSS project director Dr. Mark Regnerus concludes in a piece running on Slate today that “the stable, two-parent biological married model [is] the far more common and accomplished workhorse of the American household, and still—according to the data, at least—the safest place for a kid.”

    7:58 p.m. Jan. 7, 2014

    =========

    and 97-98% of humans will continue to be heterosexuals,
    and 100% of all homosexuals were born by heterosexuals.

    Too bad we don't live in YOUR perfect little world.
    I'm much more concerned about children starving, being rasied in poverty and crime, being physically and sexually abused, and neglected than I am by them having 2 mommies or 2 daddies.

  • Mkithpen Sandy, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 4:58 p.m.

    Now is the time for the 10th circuit court to rule using the Constitution as intended by the founders and not as they the judges intend for it to be used. We have enough judges in this country (and apparently in this state) who pretend to be all knowing including our Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as of late. The constitution protects God given rights, it doesn't invent nor grant rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as written.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 6:39 a.m.

    @Mkithpen 4:58 p.m. Jan. 8, 2014

    . . . The constitution protects God given rights, it doesn't invent nor grant rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as written.

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

    That assertion is not accurate and, in fact, is directly opposite to what is found in the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution which states as follows:

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

    There is nothing in the Constitution that references "God-given rights." The Constitution is a secular/civil document, and deals only with secular/civil rights and remedies. The only place that religion is even mentioned is in the 1st Amendment. God is mentioned nowhere.

    It is your right to cite God in your arguments. It is not right to say that the Constitution protects "God-given rights."

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 5:14 p.m.

    Another Study Shows Inferiority of Same Sex Parenting

    A new study by a Canadian economist is challenging the notion that children in families headed by homosexual couples are as well-adjusted as their counterparts in traditional families. The study by Douglas Allen, an economics professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, found that young adult children of same-sex couples are 35 percent less likely to graduate from high school than young adult children of traditional married couples.Allen's study, published in the October issue of the Review of the Economics of the Household, is based on a 20 percent sampling of Canada's 2006 census.Allen's findings challenge the notion that children raised in households headed by homosexual couples fare just as well as kids in traditional homes. While children of traditional married couples had the highest high school graduation rates, children raised by lesbian couples were at the other end of the spectrum with the lowest graduation rates.
    The gay community won't recognize any study like thin one that is counter to their pre-conceived notions.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    Meckofahess
    Salt Lake City, UT
    "Another Study Shows Inferiority of Same Sex Parenting"
    "A new study by a Canadian economist is challenging the notion that children in families headed by homosexual couples are as well-adjusted as their counterparts in traditional families. The study by Douglas Allen, an economics professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, found that....."
    --A biased story, based on 2007 data, that ignored the fact that, back then, most Gay couples in CANADA could only adopt troubled children who already had likely obstacles to succeed
    ---
    David
    Centerville, UT
    "Pagan-NFSS project director Dr. Mark Regnerus concludes..."
    ---

    The above two "studies" are the equivalent of my travelling to 1842 Missouri and talking to the general population about their opinion of mormons, except that, I would not have interviewed only a small number of messed up people and pretended I took a fair sample.

    Just because the authors of the "studies" have fancy titles, one ought not to forget that they are propagandists who keep their fame by catering to the worst in people

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 2:50 p.m.

    Mike Richards comment abut Judge Shelby being "put on notice" is offensive. If the ruling had been the other direction I doubt that Mike would have complained. There was a very well reasoned argument that Judge Shelby followed. I want to thank him for doing his job. Putting him on "notice" is offensive. This will all come out in the courts.