Quantcast
Utah

Attorney General Reyes directs counties to give certificates to married same-sex couples

Comments

Return To Article
  • Janet Ontario, OR
    Jan. 9, 2014 7:41 p.m.

    It's the right thing to do.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 7:51 p.m.

    There's only one word to describe his decision. Legal.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 9, 2014 7:51 p.m.

    Mr. Reyes did the right thing.

  • Steven S Jarvis Orem, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 8:04 p.m.

    Good decision. Utah won't recognize these as valid but other states and the Federal Government likely will unless SCOTUS rules against State rights.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 9, 2014 8:06 p.m.

    So are the marriages for real or not?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 8:15 p.m.

    '"This would allow, for instance, same-sex couples who solemnized their marriage prior to the stay to have proper documentation in states that recognize same-sex marriage," Reyes wrote.'

    Like Utah.

    For those 17 days.

    It is estimated that 1300 couples married in that time.

    You cannot have 'some' marriages legal, in 'some' states, for 'some' unspecified timeframe.

    That is not equal treatment, under the law.

    LGBT Americans pay their taxes, go to work, and die for this country.

    They do not deserve, this treatment…

    *'Kept From a Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09

    '...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills, advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.'

    And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information...

    Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond.

    They were together for 18 years.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:02 p.m.

    SAD to think of the county clerks in a few counties who took it upon themselves to pick over the pending certificates and hold back the same sex ones. The poor things! As I read in another DN comment, Utah is known for unusual first names that sometimes can be confusing.

    Wondering if those clerks kept aside the same sex paperwork, hoping it would be invalidated, or simply placed a pink triangle on each.
    (I am making fun of the few clerks that took the extra effort to show either disapproval or possible disbelief, rather than processing all, as the big counties did. The people were entitled to the certificates.)

    "Gov. Gary Herbert put state recognition of same-sex marriages on hold Wednesday on advice from the attorney general."
    --- Meaning Herbert was glad to find a legal excuse.
    --- Ignoring the fact that the AG office totally dropped the ball on being prepared when the perfectly expectable legal verdict came through.

    Some folks think there is karma involved in Utah having all this kerfuffle and upset over the issue, since we saw the influence of some Utahns' California invasion in 2008, and the completely callous lack of taking responsibility for it.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:16 p.m.

    Pagan,

    Historically (thousands of years) marriage has been between a man and a woman. The LGBT community knows this. They know it when they enter into a relationship. It is no surprise.

    Every single individual in America has the exact same, equal opportunity to marry someone under the law…in a relationship comprised of a man and a woman. The fact that some choose not to marry under that arrangement is their decision. But that does not mean the nation, or state, must change the definition of marriage, or the definition of family.

    There has never been a single child born without a mother and a father. Never in the history of the world. There has always been a man providing the sperm, and a woman providing the egg. A mom and a dad.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:26 p.m.

    While I do not personally agree with same-sex marriage, I agree that having all this legal back-and-forth does create a lot of confusion. Because those individuals were legally married under Utah state law as of December 31, 2013, does that mean they can file a 2013 tax return using a married filing joint status? I'm assuming so, but again, there's a lot of confusion around how all this will be ironed out. Interesting to think of a scenario where you're married in a state, then that state invalidates your marriage, but if you cross over state lines you could be recognized as legally married. Or to file MFJ on a federal return but not on a state return. What a mess.

    I'm also kind of surprised that SCOTUS issued a stay given their prior rulings last summer. Wasn't expecting that. I think this issue needs to be handled on a state-by-state basis, though, and definitely should not be handled through judicial activism -- that knife cuts both ways and is too unstable, as we have seen in Utah.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:28 p.m.

    @Pagan
    "You cannot have 'some' marriages legal, in 'some' states, for 'some' unspecified timeframe. That is not equal treatment, under the law."

    What law are you referring to? Isn't that the "law" they're trying to figure out right now? Why else would SCOTUS issue a stay?

  • Rational Animal Independence , UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:39 p.m.

    This is exceptionally poor legal reasoning. "Stay" means you stop what is in process. By issuing marriage certificates after the stay, under the flawed reasoning that Utah gay couples that receive marriage certificates can have them honored by other states that recognize gay marriage while an appeal pends, contradicts Utah's basic legal position. Such basic position, apparently lost on AG Reyes, is that Utah has the right as a sovereign state government to determine/define marriage and Utah has determined that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Another state recognizing a marriage certificate issued to a gay couple by Utah presupposes that 1) Utah intended its county governments to issue such certificates and 2) such certificates are validly issued under Utah law. Neither is the case according to the AG's own legal position.

  • HENELSON lindon, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 9:43 p.m.

    Our nation was founded on basic beliefs. The Declaration of Independence..."that all men are created equal, 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."
    Rights come to us from God, not government. Otherwise government can arbitrarily grant rights or take rights away. We the people have God given rights. We, the people, delegate a limited number of rights to government. We the people are accountable individually and collectively to God.
    In Utah, we the people passed amendment3 defining Marriage as “between one man and one woman”. Amendment3, backed by thousands of years of recorded history and the Bible. How many civilizations self-destructed through this kind of moral decay - the children in these fallen civilizations are gone, because parents used their God given freedom to live contrary to God's laws. We the people should humbly thank God for our rights and must bring our lives into harmony with God's law, otherwise our civilization will self-destruct.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:13 p.m.

    We must not judge anyone for the feelings they experience. Members of the Church who have same-sex attractions, but don't act on them, can continue to enjoy full fellowship in the church, which includes holding the priesthood, carrying out callings, and attending the temple. - From the LDS website "mormonsandgays"

    In the LDS Church we believe that feelings don't define behavior, but we realize that people feel differently about this. We don't turn people away in exclusion for feeling differently. We welcome everyone. We simply don't praise and honor relationships which we believe don't lead us back to our Heavenly Father.

    Likewise, we believe the state we're part of should recognize and honor certain relationships. We believe special recognition will benefit society. We do not believe in taking things away from people. We struggle ourselves every day so we very openly recognize other people's struggles and want to help. You may not want the help. You may hope to come into the savior's loving arms. But whatever the case may be... our feelings are in love. We may not welcome all choices or philosophies. But we welcome people with loving arms.

  • OneAmerican Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:27 p.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar You state "Because those individuals were legally married under Utah state law as of December 31, 2013" They were never legally married "under Utah state law". Utah State law makes it ILLEGAL to marry someone of the same sex. A JUDGE ruled that law unconstitutional. But until a final decision eventually comes down from SCOTUS, that ruling is up for scrutiny. So, no, their tax return will have to wait for another year. They could file an amended return down the road if SCOTUS rules in their favor.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:36 p.m.

    @ David

    Historically marriages were also arranged and women were property of the man... Also, your argument that "everybody has the same right to marry somebody under the law" is the same argument people used to try and prevent interracial marriage. It didn't work then and it's not going to work now.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 9, 2014 10:42 p.m.

    @David: I have two comments on your little biology lesson.

    1) Marriage has nothing to do with childbirth. Zero. Many heterosexual couples never have children. And many, many, many women bear children out of wedlock. The last two years of statistics say 41% of all births are NOT products of marriage. Neither seems to be the cause of the other, so they're clearly not related.

    2) The Lord commanded us to "Go forth and replenish the Earth." Okay. We did that. We number seven billion now, and are straining the planet's resources. What's next? Maybe we should relax for bit? Have we missed God's "Stop, already" message, or is that going to be delivered in spectacular fashion?

    Sort of related: I recently read a story about a woman in Provo, 58 years old, who is carrying to term the product of her daughter's egg and her son-in-law's sperm. While I commend them all for finding a solution to infertility, and wish them only good, I have to admit to feeling somehow squeamish about this particular arrangement.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Jan. 9, 2014 11:11 p.m.

    Again, numerous posters on these related forums ask...
    If SSM is to be the law in Utah, how will the religious majority deal with this?
    Will the environment in Utah, be as it was in the Southern States, where the new law became the law of the land? The South....a place where the new law was ignored by those who did not want it put into place?
    Is this what Utahns should expect if SSM becomes the law?
    Many on these related forums have made it very clear at what non SSM people expect from SSM couples should the law NOT pass.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Jan. 9, 2014 11:18 p.m.

    David,

    You are working under the assumption that because someone does not fit into your paradigm of marriage, therefore, the LGBT should also.

    Gay men have the right to marry a heterosexual woman. True.

    Lesbians have the right to marry a heterosexual man. Also true.

    Technically, you David, if you were single, you had to marry a gay man in that window of time. I am not saying you would or you wanted to. But technically, you had the point.

    What am I getting at?

    You don't want it! It's not for you.

    That's the whole argument. Why would an LGBT person want to marry someone of the opposite gender? They do not want it!

    Also, to follow your logic, there have been gays for thousands of years.

    Marriage, likewise, has been redefined and redefined in every society. The more I read, the more I find that in every culture, marriage customs are different.

    There were relationships akin to marriage in antiquity - and granted - in antiquity, heterosexual marriage is not as we know it today, so we are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 11:39 p.m.

    'Pagan,

    Historically (thousands of years) marriage has been between a man and a woman.'

    I am really getting sick of the Deseret news blocking this.

    Utah stopped practicing polygamy in 1890. That was marriage between one man and many, many, many women.

    Not 'a woman'.

    If the Deseret news want to stop everyone from acknowledging factual history, then they are just a partisan rag.

    Newspapers don't stop the facts.

    So stop lying that marriage is 'thousands' of years old…

    to fit a context that has only been in Utah for 123.

  • liberate Sandy, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 11:44 p.m.

    There may be justifiable reasons to oppose gay marriage but "because that is the way it has always been" is not one of them. Yet this seems to be the main argument put forth by those opposing gay marriage, at least on this board. News flash for all of you but that type of thinking has never led to progress (technology, government, finance, etc) on anything and shouldn't be relied upon in any discussion of the pros and cons of gay marriage.

  • poyman Lincoln City, OR
    Jan. 10, 2014 2:15 a.m.

    @pagan... Sorry, but you're wrong... Being Gay does not put you in a "protected class"... A person is still subject to the rule of law in Utah which states that marriage is exclusively “between a man and a woman... “.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 10, 2014 5:11 a.m.

    @Quaker:

    "1) Marriage has nothing to do with childbirth. Zero.". Your evidence only shows that some people have children without being married and not everyone who gets married has children.

    If marriage is not about childbirth, then why are brother-sister marriages banned? Why do various cultures make symbolic gestures wishing the married couples fertility?

    If marriage is only to celebrate an important commitment made between two people, why don't we give tax breaks to roommates? Or if someone moves in with his aunt? Or his best friend from high school? Or her brother after her divorce?

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 5:41 a.m.

    A Quaker,

    Do you believe in God? If so, is sex out of wedlock acceptable to God and to your religious beliefs? The fact that it happens does not mean God condones it. But having children still requires a mom and a dad. God did not create us so that children can be born from homosexual relationships. It is impossible. You must have a mom and a dad. Homosexuals can never create children together.

    The commandment given by God is to marry and then have children.

    Now if you don't believe in God, then any type of relationship is possible. I suspect that there are some who post on this comment board who do not believe in God. Understanding that gives me perspective upon why this topic is even a topic. But for those who do not believe in God, if they understand that there are many more people who do believe in God, then it will provide them perspective as to why so many of us believe bearing children out of wedlock is wrong, as are homosexual relationships.

    God has not commanded us to stop having children.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 5:46 a.m.

    Quaker,

    I remember in the 70's and 80's people were arguing that the world's resources are stretched to capacity and that we must stop having so many children.

    I believe what the Lord has said: Doctrine and Covenants 104:17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves. Though this revelation was given over a century ago, it also has not been rescinded. We must be wise with resources and I do not believe we are always wise in this way. But that does not mean we stop having children.

    Science makes all sorts of things possible with in-vitro, etc. But it still requires a mom and a dad. This, in my mind, proves that in the creation, God did not create us to have children in homosexual relationships.

    Now we are commanded to love everyone. We try to do that. But it still does not make gay marriage right, nor something we feel to work towards.

    I do not speak for my church. I am imperfect in my understandings. I speak only for myself & my current understandings.

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 6:12 a.m.

    Hey Quaker,

    Cool Story Bro. Not really related at all.

  • manuretruck St. George, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 6:32 a.m.

    @David

    For thousands of years in many cultures across the world, homosexual relationships were common and in some cases even encouraged. From the greeks and spartans in the west, to the japanese samurai in the east who often had homosexual relationships with their squires, and many cultures in between. These practices were not frowned on, and were usually openly accepted, if not commonly discussed. Certainly, nobody was put to death over it, nor even punished at all. Of course, unfairly, women were usually still expected to maintain their virtue for their first husbands, but some cultures did not frown on pre-marital lesbian relationships either as long as the maidenhead remained intact.

    Homosexuality only started becoming taboo in Japan when the early Catholic priests starting opening missions there. It's not as though the Japanese were an uncivilized, uncultured society before the priests arrived - anyone who would suggest that is wholly uneducated. This idea that homosexuality will somehow ruin society is ridiculous and completely without any rational basis. Allowing homosexuals to enter into committed partnerships, especially for tax and probate purposes, is simply a modern extension of an ancient practice, and there is absolutely no rational reason to fear it.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 6:51 a.m.

    A Quaker,

    Lastly, I doubt you really mean to imply that gay marriage will help solve a perceived over-population problem. Really?

    The problem with resources and population is probably more related to corrupt governments, greed, poor systems of distribution, education, technological advancements, etc.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 6:57 a.m.

    We are so lucky to live in a society where so many have complete understanding of the thoughts and intents of others, even when they have never met them. It makes complaining and accusations so much more meaningful and valid...

    These are wonderful, enlightened times, aren't they?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 7:03 a.m.

    Questions
    1.If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls his child out of school, and because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed, is he harmed?
    2.If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes bankrupt, is he harmed?
    3.If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone hurt?
    4.If a public school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook on his own time, away from work, in his own home, on his own computer, and is fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?
    5.If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worship service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, is the congregation harmed?
    6.If Christians are forced into silence because of fear of legal, social, and financial retribution, are they harmed?
    7.When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality are labeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate mongers," "right wing fanatics," "preachers of hatred," "intolerant," are they harmed?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 7:09 a.m.

    If you try to legislate your religious beliefs, you potentially violate the religious beliefs of others. God has no standing in our legal system.

    This is the right decision. These people were married and they are still married.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 7:10 a.m.

    Issuing marriage licenses is a ministerial function of government, sort of like recording births and deaths.
    All along the government has recorded marriages of illegal aliens to citizens without regard to their immigration status, creating a nightmare for families and society.
    The clerks are not validating anything; merely recording an event for the public record.
    If they record the deed in a home purchase and the sale itself was illegal, they will simply void the transaction later.
    The same will apply if these marriages are found to be illegal.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 7:20 a.m.

    @I know it. I Live it. I Love it:
    You say "Likewise, we believe the state we're part of should recognize and honor certain relationships. We believe special recognition will benefit society. We do not believe in taking things away from people". If you are referring to "special recognition" to traditional marriage, I agree. If you are referring to "special recognition" to same-sex marriage, I would ask you to consider the following:

    "We all care about fairness, and adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to Utah's nondiscrimination law might sound reasonable and fair, but it's not. The problem is that it would give special rights to some people at the expense of other people. In fact, it would give special rights to some that conflict with the first freedoms of others" (from fairtoall.org).

    We must protect our first freedoms granted to all citizens by our constitution!

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    Goll. Another of my freedoms taken away.

  • tethered Salem, OR
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:19 a.m.

    I am responding to the 7 questions asked by Meckofahess:

    1. Any parent can pull their child out of school for any reason in order to home school them, or send them to a private school. BULLYING has nothing to do with MARRIAGE.

    2. Anyone who turns away any customer is losing their business and the profits thereof. Today's pauper could be tomorrow's millionaire. This is not a question of MARRIAGE

    3. Utah authorizes single people to adopt children. Obviously some parenting is better is better than no parenting. This is separate from MARRIAGE.

    4. This has nothing to do with MARRIAGE.

    5. ACT-UP focuses on HIV & AIDS, not on sexuality. This has nothing to do with MARRIAGE.

    6. That is coercion, not MARRIAGE.

    7. This is name calling, not MARRIAGE.

    No one is forced to REACT that particular way in any of the questions.

    None of these examples of rhetoric & hypotheses are about MARRIAGE!

    People are legally responsible for their choice of actions & reactions.

    If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry a gay person.

    BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BLOCK YOUR GAY NEIGHBOR FROM MARRYING A GAY PERSON!

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:22 a.m.

    Meckofahess-

    Yes there is great harm!

    But there is a class of people here who simply don't care about anyone but themselves.

    They don't want freedom of religion or freedom of speech or freedom of thought for everyone. They seek to dictate religion and speech and thought, by making laws requiring everyone else believe, say and do as they say. They tell us, "We can have homosexual relations and you have to perform our ceremonies in your churches, bake our cakes, make our flowers, take our pictures, and call us married."

  • B-BALLER SLC, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    quote from liberate

    "There may be justifiable reasons to oppose gay marriage but "because that is the way it has always been" is not one of them. Yet this seems to be the main argument put forth by those opposing gay marriage, at least on this board. News flash for all of you but that type of thinking has never led to progress (technology, government, finance, etc) on anything and shouldn't be relied upon in any discussion of the pros and cons of gay marriage."

    Yea But, Right is still Right, and Wrong is still Wrong. That should never change, and if or when it does, will destroy any society.....

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi: I hope you realize your argument is specious. I'll take your points in order:

    Correct. There is no correlation between babies and the legal institution of civil marriage. Show me where on your marriage certificate it includes the number of children you must bear, under pain of having the marriage dissolved. Show me where in the legal code we force unmarried women to get abortions or throw them in jail for giving birth. You can't, so there's no correlation.

    Incest is banned, period. Why would you expect legal recognition for a banned thing?

    As for marriage, are you certain you understand what it is? It's not just roommates. It's a loving life commitment to care for another person, in sickness and in health, to share life and responsibilities, and to bury your spouse when they die and celebrate their life. The State benefits from such a bond, in many ways, including stability for childrearing and eldercare, which is why we recognize marriage of unrelated, loving, committed, consenting adults as something special.

    By the way, how goes the proselytizing in Saudi Arabia? Do you get out much?

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    @David:
    1. Marriage has been defined differently by various cultures and has evolved continuously over the 100,000 or so years of humans existing together in organized communal populations.

    2. Organized human created monotheistic religions and their definition of marriage evolved well after the concept of marriage and by no means should be credited with the absolute definition of marriage.

    3. You appear to have difficulty differentiating between marriage and procreation.

  • jcobabe Provo, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    Inventing something that is dramatically new always seems to involve a fair amount of uncertainty, even if it happens to be a near-imitation of something that is old.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    I find it very interesting that it seems most of the pro-gay marriage posters on these articles are from out of state. Why are they so concerned about what goes on in Utah since they don't live here? Interesting!

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 10, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    * cannot make bad into good
    * wrong cannot become right
    * evil does not transform into good
    * a lie does not become truth

    No spin, majority, wishing, judge, or certificate can change these things.

    After all that's been said, and done-

    Gay marriage is what it is.

  • pleblian salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 10, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    Mr. Reyes,

    You know as well as anyone that the Governor's move to "freeze" any process for those marriage certificates already issued is unconstitutional.
    The state of Utah issued them pursuant a federal ruling that they are constitutional. While many disagree with either the outcome or reasoning of that Judge's opinion...it remains the law of our district until the 10th Circuit or Supreme Court say otherwise.

    You, as a member of the bar, and the foremost representative of law in the state, simply must follow your duty to law and instruct the governor that those licenses already issued are due the full faith and credit of all state and federal benefits and rights of a marriage.

    I would be disappointed if somebody didn't step in and correct the governor on this. It is unlawful conduct by the state.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 10, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    @David: I do not question your belief in God. You should not question mine.

    Suffice it to say that Quakers have a much different theology than you do. I can't get too deep in the weeds without making the moderators uncomfortable, but you're free to do a little research on the web if you're interested.

    There is only one God, though, so no matter how we approach the subject, we should agree that we're agreed on that, at least.

    As for what God condones, I think Quakers at least think we're in tune with that. As a non-hierarchical denomination, we're rather "hands on" with the Lord, or in our language, we live "in the Light."

    Our beautiful and mature children, high school seniors, met in retreat in 2005 at Powell House and developed a wonderful Minute on the subject of sexual relations and sexuality. It includes, "Sexuality is an outward expression of love that comes from deep within. It includes deep connections that we have with each other filled with love, trust, respect and the deepest sense of the Divine." I encourage you to look up the rest. (Just google the quote.)

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 10, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    @Cats: Perhaps non-Utahns are interested in this case because Utah will be responsible for making marriage equality the law of the land.

    Why? Because the state wants to push this issue to SCOTUS, which will only prove to be their complete undoing. It virtually guarantees the upholding of the Shelby ruling, insofar as the Shelby ruling is based upon ironclad Windsor logic, and not emotional dogma. This case is about constitutional law only, it has nothing to do with procreation, 'family unit', 'tradition', or any other dogmatic deflection that doesn't even begin to pass the rational basis test.

    It is little wonder the Utah AG is having trouble finding an outside state law firm to take on this case... no one want to be associated with an non-winnable court case of such far-reaching importance.

    My prediction: the 10th Appeals Court will uphold the Shelby ruling, and when Utah appeals to SCOTUS, they won't hear the case, and that will be that. Then states under the 10th District (like Kansas and Oklahoma!) are immediately subject to the same ruling.

    And that's why this case is so closely followed by others.

  • elisabeth American Fork, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    "The Deseret News does do a good job of noting Utah voters’ strong support for civil unions, pointing out that the BYU poll suggests Utah voters support civil unions in greater numbers than the general population does. That being the case, it simply doesn’t make sense to frame Utah as anti-equality, claiming that “72 percent of Utah voters oppose gay marriage.” Reporting on poll questions in this way is misleading, and obscures the push toward greater support for the LGBT community — including within conservative communities such as BYU — that is evident across the United States." New Poll Misrepresents Attitudes On Gay Marriage In Utah think progress

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    LDS belief is that you must be married in the temple for God to acknowledge this and to have an eternal marriage. So what do you care if people are married outside of the temple? Your faith basically nullifies 99% of marriages on this planet after death anyways. I'm keenly aware of this since I won't be attending my sisters actually wedding inside the temple. Only the reception afterwards.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    @Cats
    "Why are they so concerned about what goes on in Utah since they don't live here? Interesting!"

    Utah got heavily involved in California during the Prop 8 debate.

    @Meckofahess
    For someone who is looking for being "fair to all" your support of letting businesses discriminate in who they serve as customers is completely contrary to that idea.

  • Russell Spencer Boise, ID
    Jan. 10, 2014 10:25 a.m.

    Shorter Pagan: "Don't bring obvious historical facts into this discussion!" (she cannot respond to them with anything other than circular reasoning and begging the question).

    It's not a "lie" that the institution of marriage is millennia old; the institution predates recorded history. And Pagan's argument that Utah's polygamous past negates the requirement of gender complementarianism essential to marriage is a total non-sequitur. Whether it's Man A with Woman A, Man B with Woman B, Man C with Woman C, etc., or Man A with Woman A, Man A with Woman B, Man A with Woman C, etc., we're still talking about a man and a woman.

    A side note: It is, however, a lie to say that "traditionally women were considered property in marriage." In reality, marriage was seen as the transfer of a person--not "property"--from her father's household to her husband's household, making her husband responsible for her care and protection. It's a tradition most still follow in form (if not in substance) today as they leave their father's last name and take their husband's when they get married.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Jan. 10, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    In view of the fact that other states and now the federal government recognize those marriages, it is only fair to make sure the paperwork is completed. A similar ruling was made in California. Its the right thing to do.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    Schnee: Actually, Californians got involved with Prop 8. There are a lot of California Mormons. They, along with many others, got involved with Prop 8 which they had a perfect right to do. Of course, one gay judge overturned the will of the people in that case, too.

    I just find it interesting that so many out-of-state posters are so emotionally involved with Utah and what goes on here. One might almost get the impression that they have been assigned. Gosh, that couldn't happen could it?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    '@pagan... Sorry, but you're wrong... Being Gay does not put you in a "protected class"

    Neither does being straight. And if you want marriage to only apply to heterosexauls than you advocate…

    special rights.

    'Lastly, I doubt you really mean to imply that gay marriage will help solve a perceived over-population problem. Really?'

    No. But since we are at 7 billion humans, the claim that gay marriage will 'stop' procreation is a proven falsehood. Now, about all those children put up for adoption by 'traditional' families….?

    '1. Marriage has been defined differently by various cultures and has evolved continuously over the 100,000 or so years of humans existing together in organized communal populations.'

    Once again, Utah only starting recognizing marriage involving monogamy (two people only) in 1890. You are not on the 'right' side of history…

    if you have to lie about the numbers.

    '...most of the pro-gay marriage posters on these articles are from out of state.'

    *'Mormon Church agrees to pay small fine for mistake that led to late report of contributions in Prop. 8 campaign' - By Scott Taylor - DSNews - 06/09/10


    LDS persons make up less than 2% in California.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    @ Badgerbadger

    Legalizing SSM has no effect on your freedom of religion, speech, or thought. You don't have to participate, but you can't discriminate just because it's different from what you believe.

  • Disgusted American deptford, NJ
    Jan. 10, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    David

    Centerville, UT

    - your family - just like YOUR Marriage is What YOU MAKE IT! No one else - YOU!!!! why cant you people get it thru your thick skulls? It's just like life...IT'S WHAT - YOU MAKE IT!!!!!

  • jimhale Eugene, OR
    Jan. 10, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    The competence of the attorney general is suspect.
    His reasoning seems to be: Utah's county clerks should recognize that those unions took place. And other states should recognize those as valid. But the rest of Utah should not.
    A more rational, consistent decision would have been to say to everyone: we don't know the status of these ceremonies is until the Supreme Court rules. Therefore no one should do anything but root for their favorite appeal court lawyers.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    'There has never been a single child born without a mother and a father.'

    Octo-mom. 8 children created from invitro fertilization.

    i.e. no father.

    If you are going to have a reason to be against gay marriage…

    at least make it a real one.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 10, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    @Henelson "The Declaration of Independence..."that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    Words written by Thomas Jefferson, who enjoyed a sexual relationship outside of marriage with a teen-age slave. Perhaps not surprisingly, he did not write "pursuit of Money" or "pursuit of Religion." If we could all remember that the nation's founders endorsed Happiness, maybe we could agree to let others find their own way to Happiness, as we find ours.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    David
    Every single individual in America has the exact same, equal opportunity to marry someone under the law…in a relationship comprised of a man and a woman.
    KJK
    Every single individual in 1950s Mississippi had the exact same, equal opportunity to marry someone under the law…in a relationship comprised of a man and a woman of the same race. Subjective restrictions have no place in limiting rights per ancient and modern scripture.

    Tekakaromatagi
    If marriage is not about childbirth, then why are brother-sister marriages banned? … If marriage is only to celebrate an important commitment made between two people, why don't we give tax breaks to roommates? Or if someone moves in with his aunt? Or his best friend from high school? Or her brother after her divorce?
    KJK
    It's one thing to not allow a marriage that would likely produce kids that would burden society (though we allow people with congenital diseases to marry), but another to disallow one that couldn't, otherwise seniors couldn't remarry. We don’t give tax breaks because the pairings you list have no legal commitment to each other. Legal commitments benefit society. Banning SSM therefore objectively hurts society.

  • Anti Government Alpine, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    Well, unlike our President who chooses to selectively enforce the laws of our country based on his whim, this individual appears to understand the rule of law.

    Can't say I agree with what happened in the first place regarding the original ruling but at least he is clearly not playing agenda politics unlike our pathetic excuse for a President and his slimy AG.

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 10, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    @Cats

    "I find it very interesting that it seems most of the pro-gay marriage posters on these articles are from out of state. Why are they so concerned about what goes on in Utah since they don't live here? Interesting!"

    Because equality is guaranteed under the constitution to ALL Americans. Even if they live in Utah. Very interesting indeed!!!

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    @Meckofahess
    Here are my responses:
    1.Ridiculed? No. It's free speech. Jailed? Yes…but that isn’t happening.
    2.No, because they voluntarily opened a business in a jurisdiction that protects gays. They agreed to obey the law as a condition of getting a business license.
    3.The Catholic orphanage closed because it was taking government money and the government required them to treat all equally. They CHOSE to close rather than obey the law.
    4.This issue affects far more than SSM. Many private and public organizations forbid members/employees from expressing controversial opinions in public fora. The courts are filled with such cases by people who were fired for it.
    5.Obviously and the group should be prosecuted.
    6.Christians need to know the law and should feel free to express and defend themselves but must be willing to risk the consequences of their choices. If they choose silence rather than face the legal consequences of their legal actions, that is their choice. I choose not to tell my wife that her cooking stinks rather than face the consequences of doing so. Am I being persecuted?
    7.No, because all people are free to express their opinions.

  • Macfarren Dallas, TX
    Jan. 10, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    Marriage is not a constitutional right. Nor is it a federally-regulated institution. As a legal contract it is an entity officially granted and sanctioned by the state,and as such, is regulated by the state.

    Check the Utah Statues. There are numerous restrictions on marriage in addition to those relating to gender. It is most certainly not open to anyone. Close relatives may not marry, nor minors among many others. People are free to 'live' anyway they like, they can in fact, even call it a 'marriage' if it makes them feel better, but receiving state sanction for that relationship is an altogether different matter.

    It is sickeningly ironic that Eric Holder refuses to enforce federal immigration laws, but he feels he has the power to personally over-ride state-established marriage restrictions.

    Are we living in an alternate reality?

    Elections mean things. Make the next one count.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    I predict that half to three quarters of those marriages will end in divorce over the next few years and that the supreme court will recognize Utah's right to self-govern on this matter. That will put us back to normal in the not too distant future.

  • Wolfgang57 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    Marriage is a contract and those old enough to enter into a contractual arrangement, and who do so while not under duress should be allowed to do so. The difference between same sex marriage and polygamy is that same sex marriage is not entered into under duress (or it would be void if such were true in a particular case) while polygamy is entered into under duress (religious and and/or physical threats) and is void. Same sex marriage involves the human rights of humans and can not be decided on a state-by-state basis any more so than can be freedom of speech.

  • poyman Lincoln City, OR
    Jan. 10, 2014 12:15 p.m.

    "Special Rights"? No pagan, Any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man... Such union (marriage) cannot be denied because of skin color or ethnic origin and it cannot be denied because of one's religion or faith, and it also can't be denied due to one's age if that individual is under 40 or younger than the age of the majority (without parental consent)...

    But it can be denied if a person wants to marry a close relative (in some states), or if they want to marry an animal that the person is particularly fond of, or it can also be denied if the person is a Yankee fan instead of a Red Sox fan, or if the marriage is between two individuals of the same sex. In short, it can be denied to anyone who is not in a protected class...

    "Choice" does not put one in a protected class and right now, many parts of the world believe that being Gay is a "Choice" or a "Behavior"... And Utah is one of those places.

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    I have been impressed with Herbert and Reyes so far in this case. They has been fair to all,acted in the legal best interest, and stand in stark contrast to the horrible way Judge Shelby handled things. It is the right (legal) thing to not recognize same sex marriages in Utah until the case has worked its way all the way through the judicial system and the Supreme Court decides. It also is the right (legal) thing to issue certificates to those who were married during the time it was legal, so that it can be recognized in states where it is legal (and in Utah if the Supreme ultimately rules that way). It also is the right thing to defend the voice of the people and Utah's constitution. I think it is clear that Herbert and Reyes are willing to set aside their personal views on the SSM issue if that is what the Supreme Court decides, but at the moment they are doing the right thing in defending the voters in Utah and the Utah constitution.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    @elisabeth;

    Civil unions are not allowed right along with marriage in Amendment 3.

    @Midvaliean;

    I don't want to be married in your temple and I don't care if god recognized my marriage or not. It isn't any of his business, it is between the US government and the couple married. I find it extremelely distasteful that the LDS church doesn't encourage their members with non-member family or "unworthy" family to have a civil wedding first and then go to the temple after. That's how they do it in other countries.

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    Gee 'Pagan gets all tied up because of Plural marriage. Do you not know that when that was practiced in the LDS Church it was legal and when it became illegal the church stopped performing such marriages. It was after the government sent a judge here from the east, (who abandoned his
    wife and children and brought his 'mistress' to sit beside him) that members of the church were
    imprisoned for continuing to support their wives and children they had been legally married too, before the law was changed. Anyone who performed/married plural marriages where disciplined by
    the church losing membership or being dis-fellowship.
    'Midvaliean' if the gays were content to get married and leave the activism out of it, I would
    be more than happy to allow them an empty piece of paper. But this is not their agenda.
    They want to teach my grandchildren the litany of their lifestyle, encourage experiment (this I am
    personally aware of) . Take away the livelihood of those who do not want to participate in celebrating their lifestyle and what they might consider as bad behavior. It's their agenda
    that I will vote against, not their relationship.

  • MikeyB26 West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    I'm a white, conservative, heterosexual, Mormon man... I don't understand why we're having such a problem with same sex marriage. I have friends and family members who are gay and I want them to be happy! I want them to have the same potential for happiness that I have. Why not? I hear a bunch of talk about historic definitions of marriage etc... but why are some so vehement against this? Is it because it's a sin? Well... guess what guys... I have my own stuff to worry about. I don't feel like I have the right to tell someone else they can't do something because it's a sin. As long as it doesn't harm me (and let's be honest... it DOESN'T harm me or my wife and kids), what is the hang-up? Semantics?

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Jan. 10, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    This is a horrible decision. The only way to respect the law of Utah is to not give any recognition to these fake marriages. Marriage is between a man and a woman, nothing else.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 10, 2014 1:07 p.m.

    Is to be kind to each other?
    Was Judge Shelby a kind man in his legal actions ?
    Was this Stay an unkind action ?

    The legal interpretation of marriage is as dry and cold as anything could be,
    but either way, is it to be kind ?

    Is nature kind to us, the weather, sickness, earthquakes and landslides ?
    It should be a very normal and natural attitude to be kind to gay and other SSM people,
    but that is not the issue!

    The issue is to secure a lasting future for our children, and that will be trampled down again as so often, because we are adults and selfishness is in the interest of adults.
    The natural man is an enemy to God, and will it be always, unless man become as little children and humble and submissive to God.Fools will always mourn.

    This kind approach to everybody is misleading us into a new era, where our children will have less rights, more persecutions and less health.
    Purity does not come by marriage alone, it comes by the people to be pure in heart,
    but that is immpossible if you deny the divine intent of creation. No end of story.

  • EthanX Moab, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    To David
    Centerville, UT

    Pagan,

    Historically (thousands of years) marriage has been between a man and a woman. The LGBT community knows this. They know it when they enter into a relationship. It is no surprise.

    ==

    For hundreds of years Christians persecuted Jews and other Christian sects for whom they did not approve. Not to mention the way certain demographics have been treated historically, even in America.

    Tradition is no substitute for rectitude.

  • nycut New York, NY
    Jan. 10, 2014 1:34 p.m.

    @Cats said:
    “I find it very interesting that it seems most of the pro-gay marriage posters on these articles are from out of state. Why are they so concerned about what goes on in Utah since they don't live here? Interesting!”

    We recognize that Utahns are citizens of the United States first and of Utah second. Seeing the particular inequities dealt to all who cross its borders is an insult to fair-minded people everywhere, not just those in Utah.

    It's a close contest, but "leave if you don’t like it here" and "go back where you came from" could each easily be Utah’s motto.

    Some day, expressing something other than a provincial, self-centered point of view won’t automatically trigger the assumption that the speaker is of some alien origin. Until then, Utah will have to settle for being "a pretty, great state," but only for its natural beauty.

    Utah's signature “family values” have been running gay people out of their families, jobs, homes, religion and state for far too long. Lives have been diminished and destroyed.

    It's time to do better.

  • D Mike Rochester, NY
    Jan. 10, 2014 1:50 p.m.

    Why is it that one of the biggest conditions put upon Utah in becoming a state in the Union -- marriage between one man and one wife -- is being turned against them today? Utah is just being consistent in its original agreement with the Union.

    The real issue is that religious marriage ceremonies can provide intangible marriage benefits that go beyond what the government offers or even cares about offering. Such an example is marriage for eternity. Government should protect freedom of religion to define additional benefits of what marriage can and can't offer. Gay couples should be allowed to have civil unions with full government benefits, including tax benefits, welfare benefits, hospital visits, raising children, and more. That shouldn't be the issue. The Supreme Court should recognize marriage is an ancient practice beyond any definition of mere benefits government can come up with. Give gay couples their equal civil rights, but leave religions the freedom to determine what benefits they can give a couple and who is eligible to receive such a marriage. Marriage is by definition a religious ordinance. Get government out of defining and re-defining marriage!!

  • OnlytheCross Bakersfield, CA
    Jan. 10, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    From the Biblical Christian perspective, any deviation from God's Will and perfect plan will cause heartache and ultimate conflict. Many here misquote the words of Jesus re His desire for our "happiness". All are free to believe and live as they choose; all are not free to impose their interpretations on others. Quoting all His words on a topic, not just favorites, is the honest way for a Christian interested in full disclosure.

    1Timothy states every ban for believers, from sexual impurities to gossip and gluttony. Obviously the list is long and meant to protect from the effects of infidelity, "sodomy", out-wedlock/unprotected children, etc. Post-moderns have only rearranged the deck chairs by removing certain social stigmas: The world still suffers the effects of leaving God's Will. Prisons are full of examples.

    @Quaker: Your honesty in differentiating your beliefs vis-a-vis traditional Biblical perspective is refreshing.
    @Cats: This issue transcends Utah or any state. But I feel your pain in the reverse: I can't get an active LDS to answer what they would do if their prophet reversed his marriage stance.
    @MikeyB26: Reading scripture makes the difference in what you'll undertstand.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    I have a question for the proponents of Amendment 3. Why do we even have it? After over a 100 years of the state Constitution not having Marriage defined as between only one Man and one Woman why all the sudden in 2004 would we think to change it?

    To me the answer is obvious but I am curious what the proponents of Amendment 3 think about the reasons and it's timing. I get it if it were in the early 1900's and the state felt that it had made a mistake but 2004? Wasn't 2004 about the time the rumblings of prop 8 started in California not to mention other states who were considering legalizing Gay Marriage?

    I am happy for the AG's decision and I hope it only but one of few more stepping stones on the path to equality.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 10, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    It is interesting to see the Federal government/Department of Justice clearly does not agree with the Utah governor decision not to recognize their own marriages. The Fed just announced the following:

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    Worf:

    * cannot make bad into good
    * wrong cannot become right
    * evil does not transform into good
    * a lie does not become truth

    I whole heartedly disagree with your statement.

    *Would you not agree the Crucifixion of Christ was bad in the beginning? Did it not turn out to be good for all humanity?

    *Have you ever herd of the statement "Fiction Becomes Fact"? This happens a lot in the Sciences.

    *Have you never witnessed an evil wretch who sees none of the light of Christ turn to him in their hour of need and be transformed into an inspiration to others?

    *Have you never witnessed a Mother and Father calm their dying child by telling them it is going to be OK knowing the child is doomed? Have you ever seen that very child beat death and become healthy living a full and happy life and being referred to as a miracle? I have.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 10, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    @Macfarren "Marriage is not a constitutional right."

    Well, no, that's not what Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in 1967 for a unanimous Supreme Court in the unanimous Loving decision. You can look it up.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 2:30 p.m.

    @poyman
    "it can also be denied if the person is a Yankee fan instead of a Red Sox fan"

    Well yeah, gotta raise children with basic morals after all (heh, as a Red Sox fan I couldn't resist).

    @MikeyB26
    "what is the hang-up?"

    Some people think "gay" is contagious, I guess. Actually it's kind of the same logic behind the Utah curtain. The theory is kids seeing alcohol makes them want it, and kids seeing same-sex couples makes them want that.

    @TheTrueVoice
    "It is interesting to see the Federal government/Department of Justice clearly does not agree with the Utah governor decision not to recognize their own marriages."

    The difference is that federal law post-DOMA requires accepting all marriages, including the same-sex marriages in Utah that are sorta in limbo, but Utah law currently prohibits recognition of same-sex marriages thanks to Amendment 3 still being in effect with the stay. It's kinda weird, but I believe both state and federal are following the law correctly (even if I don't like it for the state one).

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Jan. 10, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    Neal A. Maxwell says it perfectly.

    "But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions.

    President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had "never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, or political life"This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ."

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Jan. 10, 2014 3:18 p.m.

    continued

    "We are now entering a period of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: we shall see in our time a maximum if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism that uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

    If we let come into being a secular church shorn of traditional and divine values, where shall we go for inspiration in the crises of tomorrow? Can we appeal to the rightness of a specific regulation to sustain us in our hours of need? Will we be able to seek shelter under a First Amendment which by then may have been twisted to favor irreligion? Will we be able to rely for counterforce on value education in school systems that are increasingly secularized? And if our governments and schools were to fail us, would we be able to fall back upon the institution of the family, when so many secular movements seek to shred it?"

  • Chilidog Somewhere, IL
    Jan. 10, 2014 4:01 p.m.

    Here is the next issue the state has to figure out.

    The federal government recognizes SSM from Utah as well as from other states where it is legal.

    Those couples can file joint income tax returns.

    Those states, like Utah with a state income tax that refuse to recognise SSM, now have an issue. The state tax is based on the federal AGI and the federal exemptions. Therefore the state HAS to recognize SSM in order for those citizens to be able to pay their state income tax.

    Once a state implicitly recognizes those marriages, it becomes that much harder for them to justify the discrimination against them.

    This is a losing battle. SSM will be legal whether they like it or not.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Jan. 10, 2014 4:29 p.m.

    Why are you quoting the 12, Anti Bush-Obama?

    Hundreds of quotes could be cited from the 1800s and into the 20th century regarding many Church policies were are now gone, no more, extinct, hasta la vista.

    With all due respect to the Brethren, this is not a religious issue because mind you, Amendment 3 says nothing - absolutely nothing about the LDS Church performing same-sex marriages.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 7:25 p.m.

    Today more than 1000 people tried to protest Governor Herbert and Attorney General Reyes out of defending Utah's laws. Such pressure tactics were successful in California, so they are trying to rein in more power and influence in Utah.

    So far our leaders are stronger, and will stand with integrity in defending Utah laws whether they agree with them or not. They are doing their duty in the office they hold.

    Too bad other leaders in our country won't defend and uphold the laws they swore to, when they took the oath of office. Utah leads the way in integrity, again.

    Great job Governor Herbert and new Attorney General Reyes!!! We need to send them our support.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 4:21 a.m.

    Its not the right thing to do and Reyes is overstepping his authority to impose his views on judicial supreme court opinions he has no business trying to enforce.

    We do not have to accept them or honor theses unnatural conflicts of human misfits.

    For business they carry on as usual and do things according to state and federal tax laws in place. All entitlements and job benefits are not the jurisdiction of the law or courts so these misfits have no arguments with busienss owners. They are forcing busienss owners to make more choices by discriminating to deny homosexuals jobs just on the basis of employees rights and rest room facilities in established busienss. We cannot expect that the heterosexuals will be forced to accept sexual predation one of the rights of homosexuals and sharing restrooms where sexual exposure will be risky for everyone now.

    This opinion is not law but it will close many companies who cannot and will not abide by the special interest demands of homosexual for specail treatment.

    Closing more factories and business is all this national uprising by discrimination is causing. This organization has won nothing but our contempt and dislike for their demands.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    Vince Here.

    Something being outdated is the excuse of Apostates. I never said anything in regards to the constitutionality of SSM. I could really care less if they marry or not. But that doesnt mean I have to support it. But Neal A. Maxwells talk given way back in 1978, was talking about today. If you dont think they are making an effort to make non religon the state religon then you are blind. You cant be a fence sitter forever. Your going to have to make a choice eventually. I chose not to put societal norms ahead of the gospel. If dping the unpopular thing costs me friends that will never deter me.

  • HENELSON lindon, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    Red Corvette. People of faith have known for thousands of years that the "last days" would be filled with men and women who used their God given freedoms to engage in actions that are contrary to God's laws (sexual immorality, dishonesty, etc). Paul the apostle saw our day and told us what men would do. The Almighty God, gives men freedom to choose but consequences follow actions. God does not shield His children from the natural consequences of choice. Legalizing same sex marriage does not make it "good" in the sight of God, it will bring about greater moral decay and eventually America and society will rip itself apart. Every person has freedom to choose, I hope that the LGTG community will do what many Americans do; learn God's law, then use their freedom to change behavior and live God's law. (I want thieves and murderers do the same) The action of Judge Shelby overrides the voice of the people who passed amendment3. We the people have right to enact moral laws like Amendment3 protecting ourselves from moral decay. We the people passed Amendment3. We the people will act within the law to defend our law-freedom.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    2For

    Your 2 statements contradict each other. Religious freedoms are being taken away as religious people and their families are sued to poverty, win or lose, in court. People are being forced to violate their religious beliefs in the name of non-discrimination, which is discriminatory against the religious. O ye hypocrites.

    Take marriage away from the state and give it back to the religions where it came from and problem solved. The state can then offer secular contracts, according to what is best for society.

    KJKirkham

    Not only are the SSM proponents redefining marriage, but they are making new definitions of bullying/name calling. If they say it is free speech. If a person opposed to SSM says it, it is hate speech. Equality is supposed to mean the same set of rules of engagement for everyone.

    Aren't there children, called orphans, effected when an orphanage is closed? And going after nuns, like they are scary bashers??? I dare you to find one case of a nun curbing someone. Catholic or not, you have benefited from things done by nuns.

    Ignoring the harm done by SSM does not make it go away.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 6:23 p.m.

    Badgerbadger
    Not only are the SSM proponents redefining marriage, but they are making new definitions of bullying/name calling. If they say it is free speech. If a person opposed to SSM says it, it is hate speech. Equality is supposed to mean the same set of rules of engagement for everyone.
    KJK
    Agreed. Both sides have the right to be civil or be crass.

    Badgerbadger
    Aren't there children, called orphans, effected when an orphanage is closed? And going after nuns, like they are scary bashers???
    KJK
    It wasn’t the gays who went after the nuns. It was the state of MA. The nuns broke their agreement with the state to treat all equally so the state quit giving them money and the Catholics decided to close rather than funnel funds from elsewhere.

    Badgerbadger
    Ignoring the harm done by SSM does not make it go away.
    KJK
    You have yet to show ANY harm.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:01 a.m.

    @ Kevin, showing harms of SSM?

    Ok then, let me ask you what parent you didn't need or could have gone without, your mother, or perhaps your father? Which one?

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:59 a.m.

    Badgerbadger
    Ignoring the harm done by SSM does not make it go away.
    KJK
    You have yet to show ANY harm.
    Liberty For All
    Ok then, let me ask you what parent you didn't need or could have gone without, your mother, or perhaps your father? Which one?
    KJK
    You can ask that same question to kids raised by same-sex couples. Which parent can they do without? All people have differing backgrounds, education, personalities, talents, experiences, etc… and having parents with differing traits allows kids to learn more than having parents who are basically carbon copies outside of anatomy. If my wife had died, I’m sure I could have raised my daughter and taught her what it means to be a lady. Sure, when puberty hit, there would be some things I couldn’t do, but there would be other family, friends, teachers, etc… that could have made up for it. Same-sex parents do the same.

    Your point fails to address those same-sex couples who won't be raising kids. Why should those relationships be denied when there is no potential harm to kids?