Quantcast
Utah

Same-sex marriage supporters rally on same day feds recognize Utah nuptials

Comments

Return To Article
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 6:22 p.m.

    Another step in a positive direction for those of us who cherish individual rights and freedoms so much. Ultimately, Utah will be remembered for the large role it played establishing same sex marriage nation wide.

  • UTSU Logan, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 6:44 p.m.

    Now that federal government honors Utah SSM, it will be more difficult for state government insisting not to recognize those same sex couples' legal rights. I am afraid there will be whole lot of litigation coming against the state.

    If you think the state of Utah spends $2+ million to defend amendment 3 is not wise, imagine fighting against its own residents who legally married in their own state, whose marriages are honored by the US government. AG office will waste a lot more taxpayers' money in a slew of losing legal battles.

    And for those who blame Judge Shelby because he did not stay his ruling and simply let gay marriage happen, take a look at wikipedia, Kitchen v. Herbert.

    3 Response, it says "Because the state's lawyers had not filed a motion for a stay in district court, some Utah county clerks began issuing marriage licenses immediately to same-sex couples."

    In another word, it happened because the state attorneys mishandled the case, badly.
    So, If you want to blame anybody, blame the state's lawyers first.

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Jan. 10, 2014 6:51 p.m.

    its good to finally see the other side of the issue and the rally for those that support same sex marriage.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Jan. 10, 2014 6:58 p.m.

    So happy for these couples!
    Looks like smooth sailing from here on out.
    Perhaps today's decision will help Utah understand it's inevitable future.

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Jan. 10, 2014 7:09 p.m.

    "Some people do not believe I am from a loving family because my moms are gay. They are wrong," Family isn't it about love?

  • Dan Maloy Enid, OK
    Jan. 10, 2014 7:18 p.m.

    So much for being able, as the Constitution allows, for people to govern themselves.

    Yes, I know the pro-homosexual crowd will come on here in 2.7 seconds and say that laws against homosexual 'marriage' are un-Constitutional, but they, like the activist judges that refuse to think clearly, are wrong.

    Sad. Just sad.....

  • Way of the Warrior Arlington, WA
    Jan. 10, 2014 7:17 p.m.

    @ Hutterite,

    Your comment made me wonder if this will end up being a "Thank God for Utah" moment for gays and lesbians across the nation.

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Jan. 10, 2014 7:23 p.m.

    "I love my moms, and my moms love me and my brother unconditionally." from the quote from the article its clear that these families love each other. With this family and others composed of same sex parents raising their kids with love and tolerance its clear that gay marriage is good for the family and is not hurting the family but rather strengthening it. So it begs the question Same sex marriage isn't it about time Utah?

  • 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.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 10, 2014 7:38 p.m.

    I especially liked attorney Conder's statement: "I don't consider myself a straight person, I consider myself a person." Exactly.

    To all supporters of persons and families in Utah: Way to go!

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:10 p.m.

    @Dan Maloy
    There are two different issues, state recognition of marriage and federal recognition of marriage. Thanks to DOMA repeal the federal gov't is required to recognize it, but since Amendment 3 is still in effect thanks to the stay the state is required to not recognize it. Rather a quirky combination. The only same-sex couples in Utah getting recognized by the federal gov't are the ones with marriage licenses issued by the state, even if the state is at least for now not recognizing them.

    And yeah, those laws banning it are unconstitutional (sorry I'm late).

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:16 p.m.

    The showdown has been set up:

    I believe my sister in law, and her longtime partner / new spouse, will file their 1040 jointly, and also file jointly in Utah - and in so doing will pay a lower amount - and will sue the State on discrimination grounds when the State moves to enforce Utah tax laws and force them to file separately.. (So much of Utah's income tax laws are based on the federal forms, anyway.)

    Another point that could be interesting, and certainly symbolic: my sister in law, and her new spouse, are an interracial couple that have been together longer than my wife and I, 26 years.

    Will the Supremes follow Loving V Virginia and overturn state laws, again?

    More drama than Gary Herbert had in mind when he ran for Governor, I'm sure. Will public opinion move so fast that Herbert is mentioned in the same sentence as George Wallace, in the future?

    Stay tuned!

  • J. S. Houston, TX
    Jan. 10, 2014 8:35 p.m.

    @Badgerbadger

    If history is moving towards the direction of marriage equality, but Governor Herbert and new Attorney General Reyes still fight against the inevitable, they are just following the footsteps of George "segregation forever" Wallace.

    And by the way, according to yesterday's DN article 'Traditional marriage advocates rally over lunch in Orem to make voices heard':
    "Even the Republican Party in Massachusetts has caved and will no longer oppose same-sex marriage," the former GOP U.S. Senate candidate said, adding that Republicans there now march in gay pride parades

    Maybe Governor and AG should re-evaluate whether they can buck the trend of history or not.

  • Jaar van kwaad Salem, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 9:03 p.m.

    It's unfortunate that those of us that heartily disagree with the concept of SSM tend to be so quiet.

    The DN article states that more than a thousand opponents of Amendment 3 rallied at the State Capital. It's too bad the hundreds of thousands of us against the aberration that is same sex marriage, don't get the same press coverage.

    The way these stories are written, I'm not sure if I'm reading the DN or the SLT.

  • Saguaro Scottsdale, AZ
    Jan. 10, 2014 9:04 p.m.

    I am waiting for the Utah chapter of the SSM history to be written. It's probably not time yet, for the organizers to reveal all of their strategy. But I find it hard to believe that 1,300 couples showed up ready to marry, without some community organizer to inspire them. I also would bet that if local journalists ever got around to asking them, we would find that a good percentage of these couples had already married elsewhere.

    Same-sex couples may be outnumbered, but they weren't going to allow themselves to be outsmarted when it comes to (pardon the term) public relations.

    The federal decision to recognize these marriages is a ho-hum non-event. These couples can go to California and get back the same day, with a marriage that the federal government will recognize.

  • Jaar van kwaad Salem, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 9:22 p.m.

    @Karen,

    I used to consider myself a "person." Now I'm forced to acknowledge that I'm a heterosexual male that can't have a belief system without being called a bigot.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 10, 2014 9:58 p.m.

    DN : Holder said despite the doubt cast on Utah's same-sex marriages, they "will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages."

    If you cast doubts on something that is in place already, your move shows an almost undesireable attitude for those inflicted. If this is Eric Holder language or DN comment on this matter, I do not know, but rather would I like a more clear seperation between legal rights and activist's loud demands.

    At least we can observe, what for most of us is plain political rather than the sufferings of the mistreated. I wished the Mormon church would more love them into repentance, than all this admiration for "kindness" and being treated "equal".

    If politicians like Eric Holder are excluded from repentance, things will go down even further even sooner.

  • Ximena Provo, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    Grateful Federal A.G. Eric Holder has clarified the marriage status for those who married - grateful that Utah A.G. Reyes has recanted his original instruction not to recognize or finish paperwork, but ha now confirmed this as well. Utah ironically has pushed the issue of marriage freedom all the way to the Supreme Court which may require all states to comply with possible new federal ruling in favor of marriage equality for all. It is quite ironic that initially Utah's new attorney general guaranteed that the both the federal Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court will find Utah in violation of the 14th Amendment concerning legal marriage, thus invalidating an individual state as final arbiter of marriage. Possibly this has left the federal courts with no recourse other than invalidating both a state attorney general's definition of legal marriage and a state constitution's definition of legal marriage when such definitions abridge the rights of citizens as stated in the Supreme Court's invalidation of DOMA. Ironic indeed!

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 10:23 p.m.

    @Jaar van kwaad
    "I used to consider myself a "person." Now I'm forced to acknowledge that I'm a heterosexual male that can't have a belief system without being called a bigot."
    I agree with this statement, completely.

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

    Grateful Federal A.G. Eric Holder has clarified the marriage status for those who married - grateful that Utah A.G. Reyes has recanted his original instruction not to recognize or finish paperwork, but has now confirmed this as well. Utah ironically has pushed the issue of marriage freedom all the way to the Supreme Court which may require all states to comply with possible new federal ruling in favor of marriage equality for all. It is quite ironic that initially Utah's new attorney general guaranteed that the both the federal Circuit Court and the U.S. Supreme Court will find Utah in violation of the 14th Amendment concerning legal marriage, thus invalidating an individual state as final arbiter of marriage. Possibly this has left the federal courts with no recourse other than invalidating both a state attorney general's definition of legal marriage and a state constitution's definition of legal marriage when such definitions abridge the rights of citizens as stated in the Supreme Court's invalidation of DOMA. Ironic indeed!

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 10:35 p.m.

    @Jar van kwaad

    "It's too bad the hundreds of thousands of us against the aberration that is same sex marriage, don't get the same press coverage."

    Is this a joke?

    Perhaps the two days the "rally" at the Golden Corral in Orem with 75 participants that was on the front page of the DMN (for two days) wasn't enough for you?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 10:48 p.m.

    'Utah ironically has pushed the issue of marriage freedom all the way to the Supreme Court which may require all states to comply with possible new federal ruling in favor of marriage equality for all.'

    Well said!

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

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

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

    *'Breaking: Utah marriage ban UNCONSTITUTIONAL' – Advocate - 12/20/13

    You cannot claim 'some' marriages are legal, in 'some' states, at 'some' times…

    and claim you want to treat someone equally.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 10, 2014 11:03 p.m.

    @ Jaar van kwaad

    It's perfectly acceptable to believe whatever you want. You set the standard for your own life and you should live how you see fit. Nobody is going to call you a bigot for doing that. However, if you are actively trying to take away something from somebody else that has absolutely nothing to do with you just because you don't agree with it; well now you're starting to toe that line....

  • oldskool74 perth, 00
    Jan. 10, 2014 11:16 p.m.

    1000 protesters- is that all they can get

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 12:17 a.m.

    @badger
    When those that showed up at Golden Corral a few days ago to discuss their shared desire and plan their plans to not only try to stop SSM in Utah but stop theLGBT from having anything more then second class status in our country did you decry their "pressure tactics? "

    @jaar and avenue
    I am that people are calling you a bigot for supporting ideas and laws that leads others to be viewed and treated as less then.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 11, 2014 12:51 a.m.

    Jaar van kwaad
    Salem, UT
    "The way these stories are written, I'm not sure if I'm reading the DN or the SLT."

    ... In fact, the article contains quotes from AFA and NOM, very conservative groups, so the DN is trying to cater to you, in my opinion.

    ... It's all about one's PERSPECTIVE. I came here many hours ago looking for the DN to post a story, about Holder's decision, that was on Huffington at 10 AM Mountain Time.

    My take: the DN held back and included as the 2nd part of the headline about the rally, 8 hours later, giving rise to suspicion that they were holding back a bit on news that some readers, such as you, would not like.

    I keep saying that the DN, being owned by the lds church, ought to be held to a higher standard of truth and honesty than the average news outlet. when there is a story that contradicts the opinions of some readers, the DN ought to be forthright and let everyone decide their own interpretation.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 11, 2014 1:02 a.m.

    desert
    Potsdam, 00
    "DN : Holder said despite the doubt cast on Utah's same-sex marriages, they "will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits..."
    "If you cast doubts on something that is in place already, your move shows an almost undesireable attitude for those inflicted. If this is Eric Holder language or DN comment on this matter, I do not know, but rather would I like a more clear seperation between legal rights and activist's loud demands."

    --- You misinterpreted it. Holder was saying the doubt was cast by officials in Utah, statements of the church, and folks like DN commenters. He did NOT say or imply that he had doubt.

    "At least we can observe, what for most of us is plain political rather than the sufferings of the mistreated."
    --- Sorry you feel that way.

    I wished the Mormon church would more love them into repentance, than all this admiration for "kindness" and being treated "equal".
    --- If they aren't mormons, are they the business of the church?

    If politicians like Eric Holder are excluded from repentance, things will go down even further even sooner.
    --- Please speak for yourself

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 11, 2014 3:44 a.m.

    What a great country we have,soon we all have equal rigths gay and straigth.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 11, 2014 5:13 a.m.

    @Jaar van kwaad

    If we hold a bigoted or discriminatory belief, we should indeed expect to get called on it. One belief, however, does not make one a bigot.

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 5:31 a.m.

    Like it or not change is coming to even Planet Utah and all the narrow mindedness will not matter. Little do all of its people know that the state's A.G & Governor have paved the way for not only marriage equality in Utah but soon nation wide. @Chris B, @Worf, @DN News subscriber & all of the countless others that have been leaving gay bashing post after gay bashing post...Good morning!

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 5:33 a.m.

    Love will continue to win over hate and bigotry. Even in Utah and to the dismay of its religious sect.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 6:20 a.m.

    Is this the Eric Holder that arranged the Marc Rich Pardon? The one that perjured himself before Congress about Fast and Furious? The one that just appointed an Obama contributor to investigate the Obama Administration and their abuses through the IRS? That Eric Holder? Wow, he really has a lot of credibility.

    And....of course since the Supremes struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and found that the Federal Government has no role in the marriage business, it being a matter for the states to regulate, I don't see how this has any validity whatsoever.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 6:55 a.m.

    The announcement by Holder was a non-event and no surprise at all. I assert my constitutional right to disagree with Mr. Holder and with the notion that same-sex marriage is equal to God honored marriage between a man and a woman. As stated by the leaders of the LDS Church in a press release today "changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society". I also agree with our LDS leaders that those who promote same-sex marriage are "equally deserving of civility". They also correctly remind that "Just as those who promote same-sex marriage are entitled to civility, the same is true for those who oppose it"

    Lets strive for a win-win solution to this issue that respects the needs and rights of all sides of the issue. To the minority that support SSM in Utah - remember there are hundreds of thousands of us that do not support it. Let's see if gays will be civil in their disagreement with us.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    Jan. 11, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    Rightfully, there was a stay allowed by the Supreme Court. The law is now in the process of being evaluated by the judicial system. The attorney general of the United States, Eric Holder, should not have intervened and interfered with the process by acknowledging the status of those already married with federal recognition. The issue is one of whether the people of Utah have a right to make their own decisions without federal interference. The federal administration has made it plain that they would do the same if possible in such areas as "gun control" and education. Obviously, this is "a clear and present danger" to the U.S. Constitution. It has already been stated that Justice Kennedy is the swing vote for states' rights and that it appears through such conservatives as Charles Krauthammer that "the will of the people" appears to be evolving toward gay marriage. There is just no excuse for such a blatant power grab. This is not really a conservative v liberal issue. It is now a matter of whether "the people" make the rules or whether we have a dictatorship.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    A reply to Eric Holder and to those who would exclude voice of religious citizens from the public debate about SSM and morality, please ponder these words of GEORGE WASHINGTON:

    “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens? The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity.
    Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice?And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

  • Uncle Mordecai GREAT FALLS, MT
    Jan. 11, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    How is it in the interest of the state to validate love? It isn't. The church created marriage. The state adopted it. Going back to colonial days it was determined that what was important for survival was to fortify the family and hold men accountable as fathers. Every individual was steered towards establishing a family of their own. Now, survival isn't so much the question as civilization. As marriage is trivialized / dramatized it's value is diminished and so is the worth of the individual.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 11, 2014 7:39 a.m.

    How is it possible to have two mothers? Where is the father? Constitution does not mention marriage. SSM proponents don't take the will of the people seriously

  • Joemamma W Jordan, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    these are the facts and where the pavement meets the road.
    The federal government has no right to recognize gay marriages and nowhere in the constitution is marriage is gay marriage mentioned, so the notion that just because a radical political administration chooses to go out of the normal confines of the constitution or chooses to interpret it in a way that suits their political purposes or their personal ideology does not letigitimize gay marriages.
    I'm sure that 3.5% of the population is in a bliss, however last I read the 10th ammendment states have rights and Utah already spoke on this issue.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    Jaar van kwaad says:

    "@Karen,

    I used to consider myself a "person." Now I'm forced to acknowledge that I'm a heterosexual male that can't have a belief system without being called a bigot."

    If you were a person with a belief system who was not using that belief system to violate the rights of your neighbors, you would not be called a bigot. But, if you're using your belief system against others, then that is bigotry.

    Do you see how that works?

  • speed66 Heber City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    @Jaar van kwaad - You can have your belief system. As for whether you are a bigot, history will decide. Were those who opposed interracial marriage bigots or just wrong? Were those who precluded blacks from participating fully in their organizations bigots or just wrong? Slavery? Women's voting rights?

    As with most social issues, there is an overwhelming movement (55%-40% support for SSM) and the minority has to get dragged into the future.

    Can you think of a single time in human history where giving more freedom and more equality has turned out to be the wrong decision?

    Those who oppose gay marriage are on the wrong side of history. They can either evolve their thinking or bitterly cling to a belief whose days are numbered. Either way, equality is coming.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    The American Constitution: Godly or Godless?

    "Despite ... intermittent controversies implicating the Constitution, the more usual
    response of religious people to the nation’s founding document has been unqualified
    support. Given the successful history of the Constitution in action, this fact should come
    as little surprise. By crafting a document that took seriously the fallibility of human
    nature, the Founders created a government that has withstood the political passions that have destroyed so many other regimes throughout human history. By refusing to sanction even the hint of an official state religion in their new Constitution, the Founders encouraged the conditions necessary for religion to flourish free from government regulation.

    Finally, by recognizing the need for civic virtue in order to make their constitutional system work in practice, the Founders opened the door for religion to act as a vibrant moral force in American public life". From - Religion and the Constitution by John G. West

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    @ Jaar van kwaad:

    You being opposed to gay-marriage based upon your religious convictions doesn't make you a bigot. However, you crying foul because you think gay marriage limits your religious freedoms in any way certainly takes you a few yards closer to that designation.

    War on Religion? Give me a break.

    78.4% of all American Adults identify themselves as Christian.
    There are 350,000 religious congregations in the U.S.
    Approximately 40% of Americans report going to church services weekly.

    The chances of gay marriage destroying religious freedoms in this nation, acknowledged as the most Puritanical of all Industrialized countries, is insignificant.

  • wazzup Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    That's funny. The feds don't recognize Utah's constitution and the will of the people. Well, I don't recognize the feds. For some reason Holder can't investigate the IRS, NSA, etc but can immediately weigh in on a case that is headed to the Supreme Court. Talk about going after political enemies.

    I see Utah's case being the case that upholds the states' rights to determine legality of gay marriage. Isn't that what the gays wanted just a few years back. Not a federal law against gay marriage but let states decide. Well states have decided ..... this latest ruling by ONE judge on a Friday afternoon at 4:30 (coincidence?) speaks for the 'court'? Laughable.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 11, 2014 8:40 a.m.

    For all those who feel they should have the rights and conform to the seventeenth century constitution should be reminded that it was legal for only white male property owners to vote, all others had no vote. or say. So how many posters here would have a voice in denying others equal rights under yesterday's constitution. It is anew morning; wake up.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Jan. 11, 2014 8:42 a.m.

    As upsetting it is to conservative they have to learn that this is America the land of the free. Even gay people have rights.

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    You may think it's 'icky' but there is no rational argument to fight it. It's over let it go and spend the 2 mil somewhere useful

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    "It's very clear we cannot recognize those marriages under the plain language of Amendment 3," Reyes said when he released the opinion Wednesday." Under the plain language of Amendment 3? Amendment 3 has been declared unconstitutional!! What kind of legal double speak is this?
    Governor Herbert ordered the county clerks to issue the marriage applications and AG Reyes ordered the county clerks to issue the certificates. If you want "plain language read the order from Governor Herbert, the ruling from Judge Shelby and US Attorney General Eric Holder. Utah is confused. It's leaders are trying so hard to mix their morality with the law and to mix their salvation with the legal rulings of our courts. A religion that needs man made laws to survive is not of God and Faith.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    Yesterday, the LDS Church made an official declaration where stands on the SSM issue. It has declared that no LDS building can be used nor LDS officers will participate in SSM ceremonies.

    AG Holder has declared that all SSM made in Utah will be recognized for the federal government.

    I think the clouds of uncertainty has been lifted. The LDS church may continue with their position against SSM on religious grounds. But the secular government will provide equality to all citizens of the United States.

    Now, it is time to wait for the final resolution of the SCOTUS.

    LDS against SSM may relax believes and church property "will not be violated". SSM marriage supporters can relax because the Constitution of the United States, the Federal Government and our check and balance system is alive and well.

    CONGRATULATIONS to all the 1,300 couples who got married. For all the others who were not able to marry on time. Well, the struggle continues! But know that you made history in Utah and perhaps you made positive changes in the dynamic of this process for all of us in the United States of America.

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:17 a.m.

    When the subject of marriage is updated in history, the State of Utah may deserve an even longer, more detailed, and much more interesting, section than it already occupies!

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    "Today more than 1000 people tried to protest Governor Herbert and Attorney General Reyes out of defending Utah's laws."

    I would dare say it's more like 55,000 people. While the numbers of people in attendance are close to what you mentioned, a petition from tens of thousands of people was delivered to the governor's office. The people of Utah are evolving on this issue.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    Look at all the wonderful gay families. I don't understand how anyone would want to deny these families the rights that hetero families enjoy. At least when the case gets to the Supreme Court all 50 states will have equal rights.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    We chose this mortal existence for ourselves, to learn how to chose and continue in what is good or otherwise.

    On my right we see the path to the temple. When traveled we receive blessings, including an eternal bond no earthly power can veto, a sealing recognized by God. The happiness found by following God has no end.

    On the left, we see a political dispute. This conflict is full of contention and hatred, men will recognize what they will but the conflict will swelter with religious ceremonies, children being adopted, and other avenues of legal dispute. The dispute seem endless.

    But it does end. The dispute will end. The marriages will end.

    "All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."

    Why would anyone who knows about eternal families choose one that isn't?

  • Copy Cat Murray, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    LOU Montana

    As upsetting it is to homosexuals they have to learn that this is America the land of the free. Even religious people have rights.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Jan. 11, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    State's rights? Here's an example.

    Jane and John, married, file jointly, state and federal income taxes. Each earns $35,000 or $70,000 combined. Neither qualifies for a subsidy under the Affordable Care Act.

    Joe and Jim, married - same situation - only Utah says they are not married and must file separately. If they do, each of them qualifies for a subsidy under the Affordable Care Act. But it's a Federal benefit, so they will not qualify for subsidies.

    Who should tell the couples, if they are married and how to file their taxes? Shouldn't they file the same way for the state as the federal government?

    There are over 1,300 situations where marital status applies to couples under Federal law, hundreds of situations where Utah laws do too. Some are benefits, some are obligations.

    Don't you want the same laws - benefits and obligations - to apply the same way to all citizens of Utah?

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    Jan. 11, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    The churches did not create marriage. Marriages existed for property rights, survivorship, and inheritance long before any church appropriated it.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    What's wrong with choice?

    What's wrong with freedom?

    Why don't we let folks have the option for gay marriage?

    As I remember, satan was all about taking away choice and freedom.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    What an awkward situation. Same sex marriages performed in Utah are not recognized in Utah, but are recognized in other States and by the Federal Government. Meanwhile, same sex marriages from other States may have some validity in some cases in Utah, especially for Federal employees, some State employees (such as Weber State University), and a number of private companies, healthcare providers, etc.

    Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", was explicitly designed to smooth out such a mess. And I am confident the District Courts as well as the SCOTUS will apply it again to smooth out this marriage equality mess Utah has stubbornly participated in creating.

    What a wonderful country we live in! Freedom, equality and justice for all! God bless America!

  • Mig SLC, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    An excellent example of the vocal, litigious minority forcing their will onto the majority who have already voted and spoken. The fed needs to realize that marriage is not a right but a regulatory issue, just likes some states now regulating and LICENSING pot. Its no difference.There isn't a right to be married.

  • D-56 Riverton, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 11:03 a.m.

    Eric Holder would recognize anything that would keep the votes flowing towards progressive liberalism.. Being Gay is not a Constitutional Right, nor is it a Religious right. With the separation of Church and State at every juncture these days, it becomes a civil Right,,one that was ratified by the voting majority of Utah, 2004..

    Perhaps the Polygamist community should be acknowledged and all of these families should be able to come out from behind the walls they live in...... Perhaps Utah did not need to abolish this to become a State and Johnson's Army could have stayed back at the Fort and not be sent out here by the mormophobic.

    Every Gay lives out in the open,, has the right to marry in one of 17 states,, they can live wherever they please but if they choose a state that does not recognize the union,, they should not expect the majority to role with the minority or the Gang back in Washington.... Holder,, Mr. Fast and Furious....,,

    22 months to go,,

  • Ghost Writer GILBERT, AZ
    Jan. 11, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    To each his own label, but if I say that "marriage should be a union between a man and a woman" I'm certainly not a bigot. If same-sex couples want to form permanent unions with all the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples, that's their right . . . go for it . . . but why do we have to call it marriage? (Shall we vote on it? I guess not according to some of you). It's ludicrous to insist that gay marriage should suddenly be called a "Constitutional Right". The voters in the individual states should be allowed the right to define marriage as they see fit.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    'There isn't a right to be married.'

    So why does all 50 states recognize marriage of heterosexuals?

    Pick a standard.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    Mr. Holder needs to keep his personal opinions to himself, and not abuse his power by overriding the u.s. supreme court and legislative functions. The process will work, (rather he likes it or not), if left to the way our forefathers intended/.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 11, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    @Mig
    You wrote :
    "An excellent example of the vocal, litigious minority forcing their will onto the majority who have already voted and spoken".

    Mig, how you and many others can sleep at night knowing you are discriminating against millions of people?

    Just as the article states; Is my family less than your family? What have our children than against you or society that you decided you can take benefits away from them?

    We respect your disagreement with SSM. But as you can see "this minority" is saying "enough is enough" and we are not taking it anymore.

    You are welcome to your beliefs, but you will not be allowed to perpetuate legislation based on bigotry.

  • Grandma 20 Allen, TX
    Jan. 11, 2014 12:55 p.m.

    I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
    Provo, UT

    Thank you for your wonderful, positive post. It's the best one I've read yet on this whole matter.

    As has been stated many of the posters, we have all been given agency by our Creator and can choose whatever in this life. We have that power. What we have no power over are the consequences of our decisions.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 1:36 p.m.

    I know it. I Live it. I Love it.

    "Why would anyone who knows about eternal families choose one that isn't?"

    My family and marriage are just as "eternal" as anyone else's.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    @Mig

    "There isn't a right to be married."

    The Supreme Court would disagree with you, and I am inclined to trust their judgment over yours. "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,""

    - Loving V. Virginia, 1967

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 3:11 p.m.

    Yeah Mig, how dare they vocalize their opinion. What kind of country do they think this is? A free one?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 3:42 p.m.

    Here's a test of your consistency...

    For those who are saying, "You must accept whatever the court decides"... would you say the same thing IF a State voted to OK same-sex-marriage and a judge stepped in and said "no way" and ended it with his opinion?

    We should be consistent. If you must accept whatever the court says... then that goes regardless of the way the court decides.

    I remember when California passed their constitutional amendment on marriage, and the first California judge upheld it... there was outrage, protests, vandalism, and all kinds of unseemly behavior from the GLBT community (even here in Utah... when Californians were the ones voting)!

    I hope we can be consistent. The Supreme Court is going to decide this. We need to accept the decision (even IF it doesn't go the way the GLBT people want it to go).

    I promise I will accept whatever they decide. Can the GLBT community commit to do the same?

  • esodije ALBUQUERQUE, NM
    Jan. 11, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    When the courts instigate social change, it only invites ongoing controversy. (For example, except for Roe v. Wade, we probably would have reached some political stasis on the abortion question in the years since 1973. Most of the people who want to make all abortions illegal probably would have conceded a right to early-term abortion, and those people who abhor all regulation of abortions probably would have conceded a ban on late-term abortion.) The best strategy for promoting same-sex marriage would have been simply to get as many state legislatures as possible to pass bills approving it, and then to attack on the "full faith and credit" question. That ultimately would require Congress to preempt all state laws/constitutions by passing legislation requiring all states to recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Once that happened, there would no longer be any reason to bar same-sex marriage--in Utah or elsewhere. Public opinion has changed so much since the enactment of DOMA that there's little question that same-sex marriage is inevitable at this point.

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 4:20 p.m.

    Mig, the United States Supreme Court has decided that there is a fundamental right to marriage in the United States.
    "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." —Chief Justice Earl Warren, Loving v. Virginia

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 5:30 p.m.

    @ Copy Cat

    Which rights of yours are being violated again?

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 5:49 p.m.

    @ scientist.

    I guess you'll find out sooner or later.

  • BAKC Litchfield Park, AZ
    Jan. 11, 2014 6:51 p.m.

    It's sad when the majority voice is drowned out by a few in the minority. Since when does the moral compass of society belong to the few who choose to ignore the laws and just raise their voice.

    As for those 60,000 names on that petition, clearly the millions who oppose this decision are left to wonder where their voice has a place. Those names were probably taken off of some graveyard census and don't actually represent a fraction of those "names"

    It's sad to see the great state of Utah follow in the steps of Sodom and Gommorah.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 7:09 p.m.

    Grandma 20,

    Thanks! It's easy to get into a heated debate. I don't think any of us are exempt from that, including myself. But our goal is to remember who we are, who others are, and how we can contribute something worth while into a conversation. I tend to feel like I'm talking into the endless void of nothingness (both online and in person) and no one will find value in it. Thanks!

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 8:04 p.m.

    CHS 85,

    In Loving v Virginia the court said it's a right, but they also said between a man and a woman. In the part of the quote you cut off... they also said the reason it was a right was because it's necessary for our survival as a species.

    I don't believe it's fair to only quote part of the court ruling to suggest something different than what the court actually ruled. Yet everyone still does it. These days, fairness in equality only seem to matter as long as it's in agreement with one side. You may have not known this, so I have no quarrel with you. I don't want to quarrel either way. I just want the facts to be clear for other readers. The court has never set a precedent for the definition of marriage and the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court has even said so themselves long after Loving v Virginia.

    Reading a document to suit your needs isn't a search for truth nor is it honest or fair. We are better than this.

  • Marco Luxe Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:05 p.m.

    Is the governor really spouting the "states' rights" canard? That specious understanding of the US Constitution and American ideals shows how desperately weak his position is. It's akin to "might makes right", which surely isn't a church doctrine, is it? Has anything good and right ever come out of a states' rights argument? [Slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation, secession threat of 1812, Strom Thurmond's pro-segregation Dixiecrats?]

  • Ximena Provo, UT
    Jan. 11, 2014 9:44 p.m.

    Federal A.G. Holder had to set Utah straight to be in compliance with the law - allow those that legally had licenses to continue the paper process with all agencies. Utah A.G. Reyes has recanted his pervious remarks to not comply with paperwork - hopefully he will not be asked to resign, but this may be the only logical and lawful outcome for both A.G. Reyes and Utah Governor. If only they had listened to Judge Cassell whose advice was printed in an earlier article in the Deseret News. Utah has supported polygamist marriages for decades, and has not prosecuted for bigamy. Now they have pushed SSM to the federal level. Utah is a progressive state indeed!

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 3:37 a.m.

    Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 3:38 a.m.

    Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 3:40 a.m.

    Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 12, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    Saguaro, above, impugns the lgbt community, seeing a conspiratorial, orchestrated application for marriage licenses, entirely for political purposes.

    I see no conspiracy. This was nothing more than honest, pent-up demand, and for those committed couples, a chance of a lifetime. Think of it as a gold rush. A gold RING rush!

    The Amendment 3 lawsuit was very closely followed by the lgbt community. Many couples must have asked themselves, "What if they legalize us getting married?" So, when the ruling came down, hundreds who wanted to marry dropped everything and raced to the clerks' offices with a sense of urgency. No conspiracy, anymore than the "Black Friday" sales are a conspiracy, except without all the pushing and shoving.

  • Dan Maloy Enid, OK
    Jan. 14, 2014 4:32 p.m.

    @ Jaar van kwaad - Salem, UT "@Karen, I used to consider myself a "person." Now I'm forced to acknowledge that I'm a heterosexual male that can't have a belief system without being called a bigot."

    Man, if I could give you a thousand 'likes', I would....

    A white, American male....America's newest minority and responsible (supposedly) for everything that's bad.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:07 p.m.

    Strom Thurmond, Orval Faubus, Ross Barnett, George Wallace, Gary Herbert....

  • IMAN Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 15, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    @Dan Maloy: "A white, American male....America's newest minority and responsible (supposedly) for everything that's bad." Nice try but it appears as though you have a guilty conscience. White males who respect all individuals rights to equal protection under the constitution will never get lumped into that "newest minority" group you made up. Only the ones who do not respect all peoples rights will get lumped into the "some white males" minority group and in that case cry me river cause they're bigots and deserve what they get.