Quantcast
Utah

Utah grappling with legal status of married same-sex couples

Comments

Return To Article
  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:25 p.m.

    This confusion is the inevitable result of an activist judge who attempted to set public policy himself, rather than the Constitutionally authorized brach of government do so. Regardless of the correctness of a decision, a judge who engages in legislating from the bench only manages to create disrespect for the judicial system as a whole, and disdain for the judicially created law specifically. Judge Shelby should have taken a lesson from the Founding Fathers who knew and taught that unless law is created in a legitimate fashion, the law will never obtain the respect of the people.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:29 p.m.

    The stay changes nothing. It simply says no more. But those who were legally married deserve to remain legally married!

    How heartless, cruel, and hateful it would be to take legal action to dissolve these marriages! I would expect better from people who claim to not be hateful. Prove it! Let these couples live in peace!

    If their legal marriages are declared null and void, I would hope to see a huge outcry and a class-action suit against the State of Utah and the AG!

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:33 p.m.

    Making something legal, doesn't make it right.

    Can't legalize murder, lying, or immorality.

  • UTSU Logan, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 6:58 p.m.

    Simply put, the marriages performed before stay will stay legal. Those married same sex couples already have their legal rights and will keep them.

    It is shameful that Utah governor and AG attempt to take them away from legally married couples. But such attempt can not pass constitutional scrutiny and is not going to succeed.

  • JNA Layton, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:00 p.m.

    Life is made up of millions of choices. These people made a choice to get married when nothing was completely settled. This was their choice and their choice only, there were even quotes by some of the couples who ran to the alter because they didn't know how long it would be until the stay was in place. There are consequences to that choice. They need to deal with it and not blame others.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:07 p.m.

    This was the intended outcome from the beginning: Judge Shelby forced open the floodgates in hopes that a huge surge of people would rush to take advantage and then be able to cry crocodile tears about the evil hateful people who want to take away their new "rights."

    If they lose their rights, I say, they deserve it. Blatant attempts to game the system. Everyone KNEW the Supreme's would be the final word; to cry foul when it's totally possible that this ruling is reversed is stupid.

    Just remember, O ye SSM advocates: The Supremes, after the 14th Amendment was ratified, had absolutely no problem at all with thousands of prior legally married people in Utah not only losing their marriages but being put in jail and having their property seized. Be grateful that the worst that is likely going to happen to you is you have to move to California to get "married." I have no sympathy at all for those who are attempting to game the system.

  • UTSU Logan, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:08 p.m.

    @John Charity Spring

    Like those Supreme Court justices who struck down a federal law--DOMA; struck down a Colorado referendum--amendment 2, Judge Shelby is just doing his job.

    Please keep in mind that independent judiciary is a key part of check and balance, which is established by our founding fathers.

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

    Let both sides of this issue consider the needs, concerns and rights of both the gay community as well as the straight community. We need to see if there is some common ground where the needs of the gay community can be met - perhaps through legal civil unions that recognize differences with marriage between a man and a woman? This debate has become so emotional that perhaps all of us lose some objectivity at times - sorry for the times I may have done that! I believe the citizens of the State of Utah can find some solutions that address the needs of both sides of the debate. If Amendment 3 doesn't allow for some options like "civil unions" then lets revisit it. If we don't find a "win-win" solution, I believe it will only make matters worse for everyone in the long run.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:16 p.m.

    worf:

    Yes, because murder, lying, and immorality are exactly the same things as two consenting adults making a commitment to spend their lives together. Four peas in a pod.

    You see, this is why your side is losing: people are seeing arguments that are nothing paranoia and personal biases and fewer of them are buying your story. If you have a reason to outlaw gay marriage besides "because God says homosexuality is gross", let's hear it. You've certainly had plenty of chances to give us one...

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:22 p.m.

    worf
    Mcallen, TX
    "Making something legal, doesn't make it right.
    Can't legalize murder, lying, or immorality."

    ---Utah has a dozen strip/topless/gentleman clubs. Liquor is legal, adultery is not a crime, nor is divorce, lying is pretty common etc

    ---Married love acts between Gay people seem a lot more moral to most Americans.

    ---I would say "Can't legalize or unlegalize them in the USA if they are simply about religious choice, contrary to freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution"

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

    It's a misdemeanor to solemnize a same-sex wedding? So... you all say you're fine with gay people having rights, but you ban civil unions in Amendment 3 and you make it illegal for churches to do their own thing symbolically. Wow, so much for even the freedom of religion stuff being said.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:50 p.m.

    Hey, Utah don't stop here...
    Perhaps you wish to backtrack on laws that have been around for a LONG time?
    Yes, numerous legislators and others of influence have made it very clear how they want this state to be represented.
    These Natives, who had ancestors who came here first, have made it very clear the State of Utah was meant to be a moral sanctuary, very, very different from the other states. They hope that laws that came from the time of Adam and Eve, other ancient biblical times, and other religious texts will coincide with 2014 society and government.
    Those who do not fit into their extensive plan, have always been requested to leave this state.
    This appears to be the Utah so many continue hope comes to pass.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:52 p.m.

    @Meckofahess
    "concerns and rights of both the gay community as well as the straight community."

    Straight community? As a straight person I'm not affected in any way by same-sex couples getting married too.

    "perhaps through legal civil unions that recognize differences with marriage between a man and a woman?"

    You banned them in Amendment 3. Plus you are advocating a "separate but equal" status that would never be agreed to. You know why?

    You still oppose gay adoption.
    You still oppose acknowledging same-sex couples exist in schools.
    You still oppose cake makers having to treat all customers the same.
    The state still opposes job and housing anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation.

    You don't even support separate but equal because I am sure the civil unions you propose are not even equal. 2nd class citizen status is not an acceptable "compromise".

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 7:53 p.m.

    The stay should have been granted automatically by Judge Shelby. He wasn't oblivious to this fact, and allowed the confusion to happen. It is his fault. The blame for any sadness or heartache that may end up occurring if these marriages are invalidated lays squarely on his ultra liberal activist shoulders. Basically, he made the wrong decision and then made it worse by not granting the stay when the issue obviously wasn't resolved and was clearly going to go higher in the judicial process. He is a horrible judge, regardless of how you stand on the issue.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:00 p.m.

    The word "marriage" should be reserved for one man, one woman. We should not discriminate in taxes, medical visitation, or in any other way against those who deserve equal protection under the Constitution. But don't thieve the term "marriage" from our culture. It deserves to stay, as marriage is the fundamental building block of the human race, and of societies worldwide. Where marriage is not the norm, these cultures struggle to progress. Marriage between one man and one woman is biologically logical, and socially most common. Call same-sex unions something else. Domestic Partnership, Domestic Union, Same-Sex Union, anything. But keep "marriage" as a meaningful, relevant, important word. It is what is ideal for most human beings.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:10 p.m.

    What is all the fuss about? Here in California where we believe in equal rights for all Americans 100000s of gay couples got married last year and nothing much has changed the sun is still shining ,matter of fact today it was 72.
    We had rough time to get this far , the Mormon Church put up millions to defeat us but in the end freedom always wins and the same is ahead for the lgbt community in Utah ,the Supremes know which way the wind is blowing. Congratulations to all you married couples.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 8:19 p.m.

    It appears the only problem is that, for 17 days some sort of equality existed here, and people who have known for too long how this state operates seized the opportunity. Now, we're left with the legacy. The problematic part is that there is no problem. Nearly a thousand couples who were almost all living together anyway got married. But crime hasn't increased. Straight marriages remain unaffected, as do children everywhere. The rivers haven't risen, and the cold weather went mostly east. The sun comes up. No underage brides were coerced, and no one married their horse or microwave oven. In an argument where we're going to have to prove the real harm of same sex marriage, there isn't any, and it gets demonstrated more every day.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:01 p.m.

    It wasn't long ago that acceptance of glbt behavior became widespread. Prior to a few decades ago, it was considered - by all but a few - to be unnatural and unhealthy. Almost all religions rejected it as a sin. IMHO, the growth of its support is due to A) more people participating in homosexual behavior, B) political correctness keeping the moral majority in check, and C) aggressiveness of some homosexual activists who likely won't be happy till religion is no more. Any religion that doesn't espouse their agenda must go.

    I believe there MAY be a biological propensity to homosexuality, but that does not mean its uncontrollable nor good for the person/society. There are research studies about various biological propensities that are not good (i.e. alcoholism). That doesn't mean we celebrate those propensities and give susceptible individuals special rights. But I DO take off my hat to those who resist these propensities.

    I believe God loves all His children, regardless of what they do. But our actions DO bring consequences. We all sin. It is only through the atonement of Christ that we can be forgiven, become like Him, and find happiness.

  • FREDISDEAD West Point, ny
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:01 p.m.

    God made Adam and Eve.

    NOT Adam and Steve.

    End of Story.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:23 p.m.

    Not too many top professionals are jumping to be closely associated with a losing cause? You might be able to get a second-tier firm looking to make a name for themselves, if you pay them enough.

    The Supreme Court stay of Shelby's injunction against the State of Utah only lasts until the Tenth Circuit finishes with it. If the Circuit confirms the order, there's still no guarantee that the Supreme Court will grant cert.

    By the way, that law you have that makes it a misdemeanor for a religious cleric to solemnize a same sex marriage? That's unconstitutional, too. I wonder if there's a minister in Utah brave enough to conduct such a ceremony on the steps of the AG's office building?

    Some of us equality-minded Christian denominations were solemnizing same-sex marriage commitments a decade before our state legally started recognizing them.

  • Serious Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:33 p.m.

    How about a refund?

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 9:39 p.m.

    Give them a refund and say, "Sorry but we ain't going to marry you."

  • Starry starry night Palm Springs , CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 10:57 p.m.

    Worf...you equate being gay with murder, lying and immorality....do you think that this statement adds quality to this historic debate?

  • Starry starry night Palm Springs , CA
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:04 p.m.

    No, Fredisdead....God made Adam and Eve, Adam and Adam,
    Eve and Eve, and while you're at it...Steve and Steve.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:05 p.m.

    Article: "Gill said the ceremony would violate the state constitution and state law, which makes it a class A misdemeanor to solemnize a marriage between same-sex couples."

    This paper has repeatedly raised a royal hullabaloo over the alleged infringement of secular Hobby Lobby's religious liberty for being required to very indirectly support contraception by providing insurance policies that include contraceptive coverage, yet here we have a case where the power of the state is directly interfering with the ability of actual religious institutions to practice the tenets of their faith and we hear crickets chirping.

    FREDISDEAD: "NOT Adam and Steve."

    David Sedaris has the best rejoinder: Of course it's not Adam and Steve. No self respecting gay couple would be Adam and Steve. It's Adam and STEVEN.

    That's the end of that story.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:12 p.m.

    'God made Adam and Eve.'

    AND Adam and Steve.

    Unless you want to claim your infallible God made a mistake….?

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:30 p.m.

    It is silly to try to blame the state or the AG for this conundrum. If the law is ultimately upheld you can blame the judge that acted hastily. If the law is ultimately struck down those that rushed to get married will remain married. It is in the courts hands. Let the judicial process sort it out.

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:48 p.m.

    @FREDISDEAD "God made Adam and Eve. NOT Adam and Steve."

    But how?? I've heard this trite couplet my whole life. In every creation story in my faith tradition, God or Gods (all male) create Adam by using their power to command the elements. Maybe gender roles and relationships beyond our limited existence are beyond our limited understanding.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 7, 2014 11:57 p.m.

    I have had mixed views of SSM, but it is ABSOLUTELY unreasonable to break up the marriages which have been performed. Such is unthinkable, period.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:19 a.m.

    ohn Charity Spring
    Back Home in Davis County, UT
    "... the inevitable result of an activist judge who attempted to set public policy himself"

    -- NO, the confusion is because the Utah AG office completely dropped the ball on preparing the proper motion for stay in advance, just in case the judge happened to actually do his job and come up with the obvious verdict, for the plaintiffs.

    If the AG had been on the ball, the judge would have granted or not granted it, and the appeal to the 10th Circuit would have been speedier.

    All this fantasizing about "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" ought to be saved for an occasion when the judge has not rendered the obvious Constitutional relief the plaintiffs sued for.

    The Judge simply followed the LAW -- not the book of mormon or the Bible

    ---As for those married: since the marriages were perfectly legal and valid on the day they were performed, they will remain so.

    Fairly soon, there will be some pressure on churches from INSIDE, not out, for them to be fair to their Gay members, sons and daughters, friends, etc.

  • Grammy3 SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:50 a.m.

    A marriage between a Man and a Woman is a religious action.When they get married in a Church it is a religious action. When someone gets married in a Courthouse it is a civil matter. Why can't the Gay and Lesbians have a civil union and have the same rights as a Married couple but not call it a marriage. In the beginning God created Adam and Eve so in God we see that a marriage is between a man and a woman. This is how God wanted it to be. This was his commandment not our's. We can all tolerate and should tolerate everyone no matter how they are or what they believe in. What we need to do is make sure that the Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. But not judge and love all of God's children no matter what they believe or who they are.

  • RichLussier Columbia, SC
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:28 a.m.

    You're going to lose. Gay marriage will be legal throughout the Union. It's just a matter of time.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Jan. 8, 2014 1:38 a.m.

    FREDISDEAD,

    God did create Adam and Steve.

    Your argument is flawed.

  • LiveFreeOrDie2016 Chula Vista, CA
    Jan. 8, 2014 4:26 a.m.

    There may have been dozens of ways to grant couples who wanted to have equal protection under the law to be given those protections: the Citizens of Utah chose to ignore those gaps in equal protection, and instead wrote a knee-jerk constitutional amendment that simply denies same-sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples. This may have been an unintended consequence, but denying visitation, survivorship and inheritance rights purely on the basis of sexual orientation seems to be problematic. Imagine the following scenarios:

    1. Opposite sex couple that were physically unable to have intimate relations, and could not procreate: should this couple be given equal protection under the law?
    2. Same sex couple that is sexually celibate: not really participating in any activities that would be biblically "immoral": why would this couple be denied equal protection and rights granted to the couple in "1"?
    3. Same sex couple that engage activities considered biblically "immoral" (Like eating ham and cheese sandwiches?): what is the basis for denying them the rights granted in "1"?
    4. Oppositie sex couple that actively "swing" committing serial adultery (Also biblically "immoral"): Should this couple be treated the same as 2 and 3?

    Seems like this ain't so easy.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 5:50 a.m.

    "Making something legal, doesn't make it right.

    Can't legalize murder, lying, or immorality."

    The exact same was said when the Constiution defeated states which banned inter-racial marriages, allowed slavery, and established Jim Crow laws.

  • Sailor376 Oakland, MI
    Jan. 8, 2014 6:07 a.m.

    Worf, of Mcallen, TX,

    If same sex preference is something a person is born with,,, and all available evidence, evidence, not opinion or morality, points that it is innate.

    Born with short legs? Born as a red head? Born in Texas? Born white? or Black? Male ? Female? Or LGBT? Born that way.

    Then by all that is Constitutional, and ALL that is moral and right, Equality to all.

    Bigotry and discrimination are both sins,,,, but those both can be cured by education, or healed with thought and effort.

  • sunderland56 Moab, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 6:24 a.m.

    @riverofsun:

    >>Perhaps you wish to backtrack on laws that have been around for a LONG time?

    The US Constitution has been around for longer. When two laws conflict, the Constitution wins, and the other law is invalid. That is the basis of Judge Shelby's ruling.

    >> These Natives, who had ancestors who came here first, have made it very clear the State of Utah was meant to be a moral sanctuary, very, very different from the other states.

    They also made it very clear that the State of Deseret was meant to be a part of Mexico.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 6:57 a.m.

    @Meckofahess:

    "...perhaps through legal civil unions ..."

    In order to do that, you MUST strike down Amendment 3, which says that NO unions, of any sort (i.e. "civil unions") will be recognized. Amendment 3 violates the civil rights of LGBT American citizens.

    @rw123;

    Why do we frighten you so much? Why should I "control" my desires when you refuse to control yours?

    @FREDISDEAD;

    If you believe the bible, literally, then God cloned Adam to create Eve. She, clearly would have been a 'he'.

    There is no uncertainty about these marriage. They were legal when they were performed, they'll remain legal. That is exactly what happened to those marriages performed in California before the stay was issued and before Prop-H8 passed.

  • philipcfromnyc Far Rockaway, NY
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    Ultimately, this matter will be decided by the US Supreme Court. In California, after US District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 by using very similar analysis (violation of Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment), the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld his ruling, but on narrower grounds. It also issued a stay of Judge Walker's opinion. The US Supreme Court held that no legal entity had standing to challenge Judge Walker's decision, thereby lifting the stay and permitting gay marriages to continue pursuant to Judge Walker's decision. In Utah, the US Supreme Court has issued a stay until the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit can hear an appeal of Judge Shelby's decision. If the decision is upheld (my money is on this), couples will be able to marry immediately. If the decision is overturned, we simply go back to invoking the democratic process. At least 18 states have legalized gay marriage to date, and this trend can only climb.

    PHILIP CHANDLER

  • goodnight-goodluck S.L.C., UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    what's to grapple with? if they were legally married at the time the marriage occurred then common sense would dictate they are legally married. the stay of further marriages pending the outcome of the appeals process said nothing about invalidating any marriages already performed.

  • concretebo Sandy, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:17 a.m.

    What is the A.G. Paid for ??? I thought this is Top Cop Attorney at the Capitol, why does this
    office get to spend taxpayers money to do their job ? Homeless people in the street and we throw 2 million out the window. The A.G. is going to lose this and we all know this. While I do not agree with same sex marriage , I do believe to each their own and under the Law these folks deserve the same rights as everybody else . Plain and Simple. Let God be the Judge in the end ....

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:37 a.m.

    @carman says:
    "Marriage between one man and one woman is biologically logical, and socially most common. Call same-sex unions something else.... keep marriage meaningful...it is what is ideal for most human beings."

    Of course man-woman marriages are biologically logical and common. They may even be "ideal" for most human beings (though you'd have to ask a lot of people about that).

    None of this changes when gay people marry.

    "...don't thieve the term "marriage" from our culture"

    We are *all* from our culture, and marriage belongs to everyone. Gay people don't sprout up in outerspace and decide to come live next door to you.

    Suggesting "another name for it" might seem reasonable. But when it comes to the law, there isn't one: a legal marriage is a legal marriage, and Amendment 3 ensured there would be never be "another word" for gay people: "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

    Ask yourself why you think married gay people "sully" or "diminish" your idea of marriage. You might find your feelings about gay people are problem.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    @Red Corvett: You are not almost there!. This debate in Utah is just beginning. The majority of Utahns do not favor changing the definition of marriage and I believe we are willing to put our money where our mouth is. If these blogs are any indication, it does not appear that the gay community is very interested in seeking to work with the straight community to find a win-win solution. It feels like the gays are saying to the majority of Utahns its their way or the highway. Well, I think we old fashiion traiditional marriage folk are not quite ready to abdicate our constitutional rights and freedoms to a minority of the population who is heck bent on forcing us to accept a host of new laws that are contrary to our intelligence, little lone our religous convictions. So no, the debate is not over - it is just beginning. Lets find a solution that respects EVERYONE'S rights!

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    As the exchange of argument has been allowed so far,
    here is the proof to what it really says.
    The proof that we are not only made in the image of one god, as to some would think he could err, but as many gods would be the standing model for creating us in their image :

    "So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the gods to form they him, male and famle to form they them" Abraham 4

    The ultimate return to god will include our own repentance on this matter, to go back as sons and daughters of god.

    The social acceptabilty of anything else, depends on the willingness of the people to tolerate such.God cannot.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 8, 2014 7:49 a.m.

    @Grammy3: No. A religious act is the act of a religious denomination in the course of its practice of its religion. You're free to practice your religion as you will, as we are to practice ours as we will.

    A marriage in the Quaker tradition of our Meeting is the commitment of two people who see God's Light and love in each other and pledge themselves to each other in that Light and love and the care of the Meeting. Our Meeting stopped worrying about gender combinations years ago. God's love is God's love is God's love. Marriage is marriage. That is our discerned Truth.

    Now, civil marriage is an act of the State. I don't understand your inability to accept the concept of "civil marriage." Young couples have run off for generations, side-stepping family disapproval and church rejection, and eloped at Justices of the Peace. Your church already considers civil marriage second-class, so why do you need to create some new, third-class version which wouldn't meet federal standards for recognition? Just accept that civil marriage isn't church/temple/meeting/mosque/synagogue marriage and be done with this nonsense.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    Utahns, think the gay community will be fair to your needs and concerns? Think again!

    For example - "The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) published a special issue of their bi-monthly journal “The Therapist” dedicated to the subject of same-sex marriage. Guest authors were asked to contribute articles, half of the writers in support and half opposed to same-sex marriage. A stated goal of the issue was to determine whether the organization should adopt a formal position on the matter.

    Subsequent to publication of the May/June 2009 special issue (Volume 21, Issue 3), homosexual activists within and without the organization pressured CAMFT to not only apologize, but also expunge from their organizational archives those articles that voiced opposition to same-sex marriage. CAMFT capitulated to those demands. The Director of CAMFT apologized for publishing articles critical of same-sex marriage and all the "offending" articles were censored from the CAMFT website archives. So much for intellectual debate and freedom of opinion".

    Yet the gay community in Utah cries out for understanding and tolerance. Utahns, lend your voice to recognition of everyone's rights - not just a "special class" of citizens that oppose your God given rights!

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:02 a.m.

    As a Utahan, and even though I don't agree with same sex marriage, or marriage for more than 2 people, I suspect that it would not end up a good thing for the state of Utah to be granted states rights on this. Consititutionally, I would normally say it is a state issue. But pragmatically, I see Utah becoming the center of a vicious hate campaign by the left in America should Utah be one of the few states to not allow same sex marriage. This campaign would involve more attacks against the Mormon Church, as well as called for boycotts of Utah businesses ect. All in all it would be a continuing headache for Utah.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    To dwayne:

    You are grinding an axe, sir. If you read my comment, I don't want to control anything. I want equal rights for all. I just want to call the legal union of one man and one woman "marriage". Call other unions something else. Don't discriminate. Let the equal protection clause reign. Just reserve the word marriage for the fundamental building block of society: the biologically logical, social norm of a man and a woman, committed to each other and legally bound. Just come up with a different word for other unions.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    @Grammy3;

    Because we don't live in a theocracy and what "god" wants is irrelevant to civil life and law.

    @philipcfromnyc;

    Nice summation. The only thing you left out is that if the 10th overturns Shelby, an appeal will go to the Supreme Court. Whether or not they'll take it, regardless of which side the 10th sides with, is not known. Then, we could look at it legislatively.

    @concretebo;

    Agreed.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:22 a.m.

    @rw123 says: "I believe there MAY be a biological propensity to homosexuality, but that does not mean its uncontrollable nor good for the person/society. There are research studies about various biological propensities that are not good (i.e. alcoholism). That doesn't mean we celebrate those propensities and give susceptible individuals special rights. But I DO take off my hat to those who resist these propensities."

    Your perspective is incredibly self-centered.

    Regardless of the "cause," of course it's easy for you to see "gay" as a controllable behavior: If *you* were to have "gay" sex, it would be an unnatural action. But you could do it. You'd be *doing* a gay thing.

    Now imaging choosing to *be* gay: to have natural romantic and erotic feelings for a member of the same sex. You CAN'T choose that--any more than you chose to have romantic and erotic feelings for the opposite sex. It just happened to you. Same with gays.

    Gay people aren't a corrupted version of you. They are their own thing.

    Why ask someone gay to *do* straight just because it happened that way for you?

  • uwishtoo MESA, AZ
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    @Wolf: Wow REALLY? You are actually comparing the love between two people to MURDER? WOW

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    It is entirely demoralizing to read some of the hate-filled posts from those who continue to endorse state-sponsored discrimination.

    Absent a compelling state interest, the US Constitution guarantees equal treatment under civil law to all citizens, including gay citizens. By denying marriage to law-abiding tax-paying gay citizens, they are depriving gay citizens of the more than 1100 federal rights, responsibilities and benefits that flow from marriage via **civil** law. This is *undeniably* unequal treatment under civil law.

    What those people fail to grasp is that this case is about equal treatment under the law. It has nothing to do with a religious position. The reason Utah will lose when the 10th Appeals hears the case is that there is no rational basis for treating a minority differently under civil law. "Ewe, it's icky and gives me the willies" is not a defensible legal basis.

    Seriously now... just what are you so afraid of? What consequences can you enumerate that will be so dire as to overwhelm the mandate for equal treatment and the benefits of gay marriage to gay families, their children and society?

  • D-Ferg American Fork, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    @Meckofahess
    Please elaborate; which constitutional rights and freedoms will you be required to abdicate by granting constitutional rights and freedoms to more people?

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Jan. 8, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    I personally don't care if a person wants to marry a fence post. I really don't care for the gay life of two same sex people but I respect peoples rights and they should have the right to get married if they so desire. It is small narrow minded people who do not respect other people rights.

  • 4BS St George, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    I'm sorry folks, but God did not create Adam and Steve. If he did, there would be no offspring. He created Man and Woman, that is the way he wanted it and commanded it to be. If you don't believe in religion, fine, but don't expect me to just accept it because it's the politically correct thing to do. Never.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:10 a.m.

    God made Adam and Eve.

    NOT Adam and Steve.

    End of Story

    So, who did make Steve?

  • CDL Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    Vanceone~ You are exactly right. It was a deliberate political move to flood the gate before providing a stay. They wanted to insert a new problem into the mix, hoping to create a situation that could not be turned back just as they did in Calif. Frankly, I would simply declare them 'Civil Unions,' so they are still legally coupled. And issue new 'Civil Union' certificates. Then make sure Civil Unions have all the same legal protections and benefits as 'religious marriage' unions and call it a day. They are equal giving both side essentially what they want. Gay coupling legal recognition, and the religious 'rite and ceremony' of marriage left for the religious. After all, there are plenty of non religious straight people who have 'Civil Unions.' There is a reasonable compromise.

  • Dan Taylor Keyser, WV
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    Wrong is wrong and this was wrong from the beginning. Shelby should loose his bench over this and in the end all the rushing to the alter will have been a big waste of time. Signs of the times for sure. What is going to happen in this world when someone wants to marry their dog or cat? They'll be some judge out there that will say they have a right to do that and allow it. It's amazing to me that the state of Utah allowed this to happen and then you have sister wives going on in the same state not that far from the state house and there are things going on in that compound against women and the state does nothing about it. Amazing.

  • D-Ferg American Fork, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    @CDL
    That won't work because Utah's Amendment 3 also forbids civil unions.
    "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    carman
    Wasatch Front, UT
    Call same-sex unions something else. Domestic Partnership, Domestic Union, Same-Sex Union, anything.
    8:00 p.m. Jan. 7, 2014
    Grammy3
    SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    When they get married in a Church it is a religious action. When someone gets married in a Courthouse it is a civil matter. Why can't the Gay and Lesbians have a civil union and have the same rights as a Married couple but not call it a marriage.
    12:50 a.m. Jan. 8, 2014

    @Meckofahess:

    "...perhaps through legal civil unions ..."

    ========

    See an excellent reply by --
    Ranch
    Here, UT
    6:57 a.m. Jan. 8, 2014

    In order to do that, you MUST strike down Amendment 3, which says that NO unions, of any sort (i.e. "civil unions") will be recognized. Amendment 3 violates the civil rights of LGBT American citizens.

    ==============

  • B-BALLER SLC, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    uh.., Adam and Eve made Steve, its not that complicated, that is how it is suppose to work :-)

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    @TheTrueVoice:

    You suggest the heterosexual view toward gays can be reduced to something as simple as "Ewe, it's icky and gives me the willies" as the basis for our concerns. That is not true at all. I don't find my gay friends to be "icky" at all - they are good people, excellent emmployees, etc. Our concerns are well beyond that oversimplified explanation. We do not want someone (a bilogical male) confused about his gender identity to have a legal right to enter into the girls locker room at school for example. We do not want our employers to lay off straights emmployees simply out of fear of legal prosecution for laying off a gay because he/she is now in a "protected class". We want fair and equal laws that recognize all citizens rights and not just the rights of a "special class" of people. Let's look out for the equal rights of all people (including the heterosexuals). Let's find a win-win solution for everyone. Same sex marriage laws will lead to the above examples of inequalities as has already happened in California and Massechussets.

  • B-BALLER SLC, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:27 a.m.

    God did make Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve, don't twist that fact. He also commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth. Lets see Adam and Steven do that......huh

    This is a great comment earlier, "I want equal rights for all. I just want to call the legal union of one man and one woman "marriage". Call other unions something else. Don't discriminate. Let the equal protection clause reign. Just reserve the word marriage for the fundamental building block of society: the biologically logical, social norm of a man and a woman, committed to each other and legally bound. Just come up with a different word for other unions.

    I dont understand why gays are fighting over the word married. What they (gays) want, is different then what we (straight) have. Mainly the natural ability to procreate, a very important aspect of any all societies. We straight people don't want the gays to share the same word "married" because their not the same as we are. It is that simple.

    Oh, by the way. I wasn't born to like or desire chocolate or mtn dew. It is called an acquired taste.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    " I'm sorry folks, but God did not create Adam and Steve." Well it turns out that God not only created Steve, but He created dinosaurs, duck-billed platypi, and a whole bunch of other exotic stuff not documented in your tidy rendition of Genesis. My point is that SMM is about what is best for society, not about what is doctrinal from a religious perspective. In a way SMM is like climate change, we won't know the full consequences for many years. Better minds than mine have to call this one. But few such minds appear here.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    For those of the opinion that the LGBT crowd should get their own word and leave marrage alone, why don't those of us that practice opposite sex marrage get our own word instead.

    And guess what: for those of us Mormons, we already have that seperate word: Sealing. I was sealed to my wife 4 years ago.

    Voila! I just fixed the proble and saved the state $2 Million!

    You're welcome.

  • CDL Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    Amendments can be changed or redefined if Utah's 3rd amendment is an issue. Providing Civil Unions with equal status should not be a problem and does not provide a second class citizenship. That is utterly ridiculous. But is does protect professional individuals that decline specific services based on religious beliefs from vindictive law suits from gays when they don't get their way. Even though the 1st amendment should protect them, activist judges have been ignoring the 1st amendment in those states that have already legalized gay marriage. If you want equality and tolerance, the door swings both ways.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    @Billy Bob

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

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

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    @Meckofahess: "We want fair and equal laws that recognize all citizens rights and not just the rights of a "special class" of people."

    I am reasonably sure the end goal here would be a stage of enlightenment among citizens where there is no need to have a "special class" of people whatsoever. The LGBT community does not want "special rights". The want the *same* rights you enjoy today. Not "special" rights... just the same "rights" all citizens are afforded. Big difference.

    The "win-win" solution is when all American citizens are treated equally under the law of the land, who's authority is derived from the U.S. Constitution. This is the only document germane to this issue.

    If you are honest when you say above that "We want fair and equal laws that recognize all citizens rights", then you are in agreement with Judge Shelby's ruling.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    this legal circus and more like it will continue until the US Supreme court finally gets off its rump and rules once and for all. Same sex marriage is not a constitutional guarantee and must therefore be left to the states to rule on this issue as many already have...until activist and rouge federal judges come in and attempt to strong arm the states into conforming to their ideology.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    @carman
    Call same-sex unions something else. Domestic Partnership, Domestic Union, Same-Sex Union, anything.
    @Meckofahess
    "...perhaps through legal civil unions ... " "Let's find a win-win solution for everyone"

    Sorry to remind you but, even if it goes your way, you still have to strike down amendment 3 first, because it bans both SSM and civil union.

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    @CDL
    "Providing Civil Unions with equal status should not be a problem and does not provide a second class citizenship."

    Sorry to disappoint you but, it will be a big problem because you have to strike down amendment 3 first, it bans both SSM and civil union.

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    "They were legal when they were performed, they'll remain legal."

    Prior Precedence - It was why the 9th circuit stuck down the law voted on by the citizens of CA.

    I hope the readers are seeing these arguments for what they are. There is a reason that the courthouses were flooded within minutes of Shelby's ruling. The LGBT community is seeking to accomplish their aims through manipulation of the legal system.

    SSM is winning the hearts and minds of our country. I don't know why the supporters of SSM would resort to the legal chicanery at this point. Perhaps that is all they know and are simply ignorant of their new found acceptance?

    We need to have a fair fight in the courts (SCOTUS) and put this issue to rest. If opponents of SSM lose (I am one of those) then we move on to other issues. If the LGBT community loses will they let it rest? Doubt it.

  • Lillith70 SLC, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    So is Judge Shelby adjudicating to get publicity so he can has a more legitimately earned salary as a TV Court Judge. Lots of good democrat contacts. What is a Kangaroo court?

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    I am glad to hear the nuttiness has ended.

    From the standpoint of Utah the ruling should be that the marriages are not legal and have no effect. A woman who "married" another woman late last month, if she wakes up tomorrow and decides to get married to a man, should be able to do so with no legal problems at all in Utah. Her marriage made after Shelby did not stay his decision has no legal standing at all.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:21 a.m.

    Just as judges like Robert Shelby don't want their name enshrined forever on the wrong side of history, many of the best law firms don't want to be associated in perpetuity with a losing cause, even if they happen to win one battle.

    To paraphrase Lincoln, this nation cannot survive half allowing same-sex marriage and half rejecting it. Or perhaps to paraphrase someone else, you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube. It's not a question of whether same-sex marriages will be recognized in every state; it's a question of when.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    The claim that we "make it illegal for churches to do their own thing symbolically" is hogwash. There is no law that bans churches in Utah from having same-gender commitment ceremonies. They can do it all they want. As long as they do not try to claim they have the legal force of marriage.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    The claim that the Hobby Lobby case is about contraception is a lie. Hobby Lobby has no objection to funding 16 forms of contraception. Their only objection is to the 4 abortion ppills in the HHS mandate.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    Available evidence points out that same-sex attraction is a complex system that arises from multiple causes, many of which are other than genetic, and that manifests in various levels in various people.

    That said, the cause of same-sex attraction has no bearing on the issue of redefining marriage away from being a man/woman institution in a form justified by the governments high interest in seeking to have the highest percentage of children possible raised by their biological parents.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    @Patriot "Same sex marriage is not a constitutional guarantee and must therefore be left to the states to rule on this issue as many already have."

    The constitutional guarantee is that every state must give Full Faith and Credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. The Supreme Court does not have to order Utah to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It just has to order Utah to recognize marriages from other states. Invest wisely: Buy honeymoon resorts with marriage chapels in California, Hawaii and Iowa. Well, maybe not Iowa.

  • REALLY-WOW SLC, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    I agree with this comment "To paraphrase Lincoln, this nation cannot survive half allowing same-sex marriage and half rejecting it. Or perhaps to paraphrase someone else, you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube. It's not a question of whether same-sex marriages will be recognized in every state; it's a question of when."

    And the answer of when should be when a majority of voters want it.....Not because of a single judges opinion, or because of a loud squeaky wheel......

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    "That said, the cause of same-sex attraction has no bearing on the issue of redefining marriage away from being a man/woman institution in a form justified by the governments high interest in seeking to have the highest percentage of children possible raised by their biological parents."

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

    Did you look at the pictures of who was marrying? Some of them were gay couples with children. Gays can adopt in Utah right now! Gays are having children via adoption, in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, and raising children from other marriages. Keeping gays from the legality of marriage is NOT keeping them from having and raising children. They will continue to do so with or without marriage.

    This is not a viable argument.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:08 p.m.

    JPLofMI: "There is no law that bans churches in Utah from having same-gender commitment ceremonies... As long as they do not try to claim they have the legal force of marriage."

    Then it is not a marriage. It is a commitment ceremony. The churches are denied religious their liberty.

    JPLofMI: " Hobby Lobby has no objection to funding 16 forms of contraception. Their only objection is to the 4 abortion ppills in the HHS mandate."

    Clarification noted. It does not change the gist of my previous post.

    JPLofMI: "Available evidence points out that same-sex attraction is a complex system that arises from multiple causes..."

    We actually agree on something for once.

    JPLofMI: "That said, the cause of same-sex attraction has no bearing on the issue... justified by the governments high interest in seeking to have the highest percentage of children possible raised by their biological parents.

    There are thousands of gay couples with children obtained through biological means (i.e. not adopted). SSM achieves the government's goal of maximizing the number of children raised by their biological parents. If that is the goal, it's an absurd policy that prevents these children from having married parents.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    64John Pack Lambert of Michigan 10:31 a.m. Jan. 8, 2014

    The claim that the Hobby Lobby case is about contraception is a lie. Hobby Lobby has no objection to funding 16 forms of contraception. Their only objection is to the 4 abortion ppills in the HHS mandate.

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

    The problem with that comment is the fact that there are NO abortion pills in the HSS mandate. The only abortion pill -- RU-486 -- has to be given in a doctor's office under the supervision of that doctor. The pills in the HSS mandate prevent pregnancy, not abort it.

  • jimhale Eugene, OR
    Jan. 8, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    When Utah appeals to the 10th Circuit, one would hope it would do so carefully.
    The argument that marriage is based on the production and guidance of children will not carry the day with the Supreme Court. Too many heterosexual marriages do not result in children....and many of those couples never intended to have children.
    This is not about children. It is about sex.
    Some is inherently natural, some is not.
    And it is about choice.
    Anyone can get married now. They just have to find someone of the opposite sex to agree to put up with them.
    Many sexual activities are undertaken out of sexual desire. Many of those activities we have made illegal because they entail choices society disapproves. Some are given legal status/protections and economic subsidies because society chooses to encourage them.
    Homosexual desire may or may not be immutable. But homosexual actions are a choice.
    If Utah chooses to define marriage (i.e protect and subsidize it) as being between a man and a woman, that is a choice the people as a whole should be able to make.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 8, 2014 4:38 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert says that marriage must be of a, "form justified by the governments high interest in seeking to have the highest percentage of children possible raised by their biological parents."

    jimhale says, "This is not about children. It is about sex. Some is inherently natural, some is not. And it is about choice." He also says, "Many sexual activities are undertaken out of sexual desire. Many of those activities we have made illegal because they entail choices society disapproves. "

    They are both wrong. More than four out of ten births in this country are out of wedlock. (I'm guessing we can't blame the gays for this one.) The government's interest couldn't be very compelling, or they would have addressed this.

    Marriage is not about sex, either. Witness all those children being born out of wedlock, for one thing, so straight people are having lots of sex outside of marriage. As for "illegal" sex? The Supremes, in "Lawrence," struck down all the sodomy laws, not just for the gays, but for everyone. All those "special bedroom tricks" in Cosmo are legal now.

    Marriage in today's world is about love and commitment. Period.

  • donquixote84721 Cedar City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 9:45 p.m.

    If The United State Supreme Court rules, as they should, that this is a States Rights issue, these marriages should be voided, as this is just another attempt to go around The Constriction of The Unite States of America.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:05 p.m.

    John Pack Lambert says that marriage must be of a, "form justified by the governments high interest in seeking to have the highest percentage of children possible raised by their biological parents."

    jimhale says, "This is not about children. It is about sex. Some is inherently natural, some is not. And it is about choice." He also says, "Many sexual activities are undertaken out of sexual desire. Many of those activities we have made illegal because they entail choices society disapproves. "

    They are both wrong. More than four out of ten births in this country are out of wedlock. (I'm guessing we can't blame the gays for this one.) The government's interest couldn't be very compelling, or they would have addressed this.

    Marriage is not about sex, either. Witness all those children being born out of wedlock, for one thing, so straight people are having lots of sex outside of marriage. As for "illegal" sex? The Supremes, in "Lawrence," struck down all the sodomy laws, not just for the gays, but for everyone. All those "special bedroom tricks" in Cosmo are legal now.

    Marriage in today's world is about love and commitment. Period.

  • zumagirl Draper, UT
    Jan. 8, 2014 10:46 p.m.

    Why not spend 2 million on cleaning up our air? We should be worrying more about how that will affect our children than any supposed threat from SSM.

  • tgurd Gonzales, LA
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    I would like to speak on this gay marriage situation, they say that 83% of Americans believe in God and I realize that a lot of them don't use the King James version of the scriptures because of all the new scripture that has come about from ministers that have taken the Holy Bible and put their spin on it. The king james version of the bible flat out tells you that there is something wrong with same sex marriage the destruction of Sodom and Gumoraha should satisfy any that want to say its ok and that God doesn't care. There are comments in there also about men and women doing unseemly things and being together which meant they could be put to death just like adultery or fornication. If there are those precentages of Christians out there speak up vote on whats right and get off the idea that you should be quiet because of a very small minority of people are screaming unfair.

  • sjames AMERICAN FORK, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    @Willem "the Mormon Church put up millions to defeat us but in the end freedom always wins" Perhaps you need a reminder of how Prop 8 went down in California. Remember that the PEOPLE of California OVERWHELMINGLY voted to keep the traditional definition of marriage. Democracy voted same sex marriage out. It was a handful of elite judges that decided that the people's voice didn't count and they over ruled it. That's my only problem with this whole thing.
    I honestly could care less if gay people want to have the same rights as married straight people. I think that all people deserve those rights, that's why govt should get it's filthy little hands in marriage period. That being said, when you live in a democracy or republic, the voice of the people decides these kinds of things. Imagine if the people voted to allow same-sex marriage and 5 judges decided that the people were wrong and overruled it, would you be upset then?