Quantcast
U.S. & World

Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage struck down by U.S. judge

Comments

Return To Article
  • Elms OGDEN, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 6:18 p.m.

    This is great news! And yet another state is dragged (albeit kicking and screaming) from 19th century bigotry into 21st century freedom and enlightenment. Gay people exist. Get over it and let them be happy.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Jan. 14, 2014 6:44 p.m.

    From the looks of things, there are two options:

    1) America is filled with "activist" judges.

    2) Banning same-sex marriage is just inherently unconstitutional.

    Sadly, I already know what a lot of people here are going to believe...

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Jan. 14, 2014 6:52 p.m.

    The decision by U.S. District Judge Terence Kern is stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not take place immediately in Oklahoma. Why couldn't judge Shelby be that smart when he overthrew Utah's constitution?

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    Jan. 14, 2014 6:55 p.m.

    @Elms
    I respectfully disagree with your comment. Why is it that when someone has a different opinion on the issue, they're labeled a 'bigot'? Nobody is contending that gay people don't exist, or that they shouldn't be happy. But telling me that your happiness depends on me labeling your relationship something it is not seems a little weird to me. How come your happiness is so dependent on the social acceptance of your actions? Are you somehow precluded from having a relationship with someone of the same gender? Or living with them? Is it solely the monetary aspect of tax breaks that precludes you from being truly happy?

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:07 p.m.

    Bad things like this are now happening across the country.

  • A Run South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:13 p.m.

    Constitutionally speaking, same sex marriage doesn't have to be legal. If there were civil unions that offered the exact same benefits as marriage, but under a different name, then religions could be satisfied, while also satisfying the Constitution. I.E. the 14th amendment

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:16 p.m.

    LDS do you now see which way the wind is blowing?

  • digitalcamotim Council Bluffs, IA
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:18 p.m.

    Nothing is stopping homosexuals from being gay.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:22 p.m.

    truth in all forms wonders "Why couldn't judge Shelby be that smart when he overthrew Utah's constitution?"

    Utah didn't ask Shelby for a stay, so he didn't give one. Kern wasn't "that smart" in issuing a stay in the Oklahoma case. According to the story, "Kern decided to issue the stay after the Supreme Court granted a stay in the recent case on Utah’s same-sex marriage ban."

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:26 p.m.

    truth in all its forms, we already know the answer to that question. The judge in Oklahoma had the precedent of Utah's action being stayed by the US Supreme Court. They will eventually decide the issue anyway. Get ready for the funeral for State's Rights and following the US Constitution which states that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States because of the judges interpretations of being treated equally. Everyone was allowed to marry a person of opposite gender...no gays or lesbians were denied this right. State are now denied the right to define marriage as they see fit. The mess in Utah was made worse because the Utah judge couldn't see the forest for the trees with regards to a stay of the order until it could legally be sorted out; that's why he is an "activist judge" and the LGBT community will probably give him an honorary something or other.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:31 p.m.

    If American is full of activist judges... why of these landmark cases would you go without?

    Brown v. Board of Education

    Loving v. Virginia --- ended ban on interracial marriage

    Griswold v. Connecticut --- the right of adults to use birth control

    Miranda v. Arizona --- the case that entitled suspects to now called Miranda rights

    and also...

    District of Columbia v. Heller --- which guarantees the right to bear arms, independent of a militia.

    yep - those activist judges alright.

    There are many others. Simply put, we don't get to pick and choose which judgments we like and declare that sovereignty rests with the people. When the Supreme Court rules it become the law of the land.

  • A Run South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:39 p.m.

    @Willem,are you mad at our church because of Proposition 8 in California a few years ago? There were other factors that influenced that vote. It is not only the LDS's Fault like you make it sound like it is. By the way, I am LDS, and I think that gay people deserve the same benefits as other people. I just think that there are ways other than marriage to give them these benefits.

  • digitalcamotim Council Bluffs, IA
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:42 p.m.

    willem, so people of faith are now supposed to believe based on what a number of federal judges say?

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:44 p.m.

    Willem, much of why Christ established His Church both anciently and today is so we might not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph 4)

    The winds of the gullible public will blow according to the cunning craftiness of the self-deceived, but those who are founded on a rock will not be moved to abandon truth.

    A Run, those who advocate homosexual behavior are not satisfied with civil unions, because what they are after is to establish a false moral equivalency in the minds of the public. A distinction in name, even with no distinction in legal benefits, hints too much at a possible moral distinction. Theirs is an Orwellian attempt to control opinion by controlling language.

    Further, there is no good reason, if one grants benefits to civil unions or homosexual "marriages," that one can justify not simply granting the same benefits to any arbitrary relation between people, in which case it is better to abolish all such benefits and legal recognitions and reform the law to only recognize these as private contracts.

  • digitalcamotim Council Bluffs, IA
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:45 p.m.

    Vince here, Heller conformed to what a maority of people thought the 2nd Amendment said. As to homouality is concerned at the time the 14th Amendment was raified its practice carried serious prison time in all states. At the time the original constitution was ratified its practice was a hanging offense.

  • Chilidog Somewhere, IL
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:57 p.m.

    @ digitalcamotim wrote: "At the time the original constitution was ratified its practice was a hanging offense."
    ----

    And slavery was real and blacks only counted as 3/5ths of a person.

    And your point is?

  • Utefan34 Seattle, WA
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:00 p.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar

    “Nobody is contending that gay people don't exist, or that they shouldn't be happy.”

    By constantly telling LGBT individuals that who they are as a person is a sin, people are not contending that they don’t exist, but in a way you are telling them they shouldn’t exist. This makes it very hard to be happy.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:00 p.m.

    @truth in all its forms - Judge Shelby cannot issue a stay unless one is requested. The Utah AG office is the one who should have requested a stay properly, but did not.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:06 p.m.

    "...freedom of conscience by religions and business owners. He referred to a baker in Colorado threatened with the ability to continue his line if work if declining to make cakes for same-sex couples in contravention of his Christian beliefs."

    Do you serve adulterers getting re-married? Do you serve fornicators? Do you server Sabbath Breakers? If you serve these groups in your business, then claiming "religious conscience" as a reason to refuse service to LGBT couples is simply an excuse to not serve LGBT couples. If you aren't going to screen all your customers to ensure they're not violating your beliefs, then it really isn't about your religious beliefs.

  • funny_guy Vacaville, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:09 p.m.

    States grant marriage licenses to receive the fee and then make money when more than half of all marriages end in divorce.

    Suppose... states got out of the marriage business altogether and simply rename it a civil union. Everyone intent on living together (whether straight or gay) would be required to pay a registration fee prior to living together. Cohabitating without a license would be subject to a fine. A couple could turn in their license at any time and go their separate ways.

    Marriage would then be strictly a religious ceremony. Derived from scripture, the concept of marriage traditionally required union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation and raising offspring in a God-fearing home. Those not accepting God's plan could still live as husband and wife through civil union and could later marry.

    Therefore... any couple, straight or gay, could be married if the church they attend chooses to do so. Churches decide whom they marry, not the government. Marriage would not be deemed a civil right or needing equal protection. Get government out of the marriage business, once and for all!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:13 p.m.

    truth in all its forms says:

    "Why couldn't judge Shelby be that smart when he overthrew Utah's constitution?"

    ---Because Utah's AG didn't follow the correct procedures to requiest one.

    Blue AZ Cougar says:

    "But telling me that your happiness depends on me labeling your relationship something it is not seems a little weird to me."

    ---Who are you to say what someone else's relationship is or is not? Butting into other people's lives like that seems a little weird to me.

    @A Run;

    Separate is not equal. Your comment is like telling Rosa Park that the back of the bus arrives at the same time as the front of the bus.

    @toosmartforyou;

    The 10th Amendment prohibits states from violating the rights of US citizens. This isn't a state's rights issue, it is a federal issue.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:17 p.m.

    @Elms:
    "Gay people exist. Get over it and let them be happy."

    What's your opinion on polygamists , incests, brother/sister, children, geezer/child marriages?

    @truth in all its forms:
    "Why couldn't judge Shelby be that smart when he overthrew Utah's constitution?"

    Looks like Shelby had an agenda.

    @A Run:
    "Constitutionally speaking, same sex marriage doesn't have to be legal."

    Here's all they need do... go down the stationary store, get a nice piece of paper with serifs on the edges, write on it in a careful hand 'marriage license,' then each partner sign it. You're married.

    @Willem:
    "LDS do you now see which way the wind is blowing?"

    Wind for sure... called an 'ill wind.'

    @digitalcamotim:
    "Nothing is stopping homosexuals from being gay."

    What they want is to be not only gay but happy as well.

    @Vince here:
    "There are many others."

    True... like Edmonds-Tucker Act - Outlawed polygamy; disincorporated the LDS Church; required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials.

  • Utefan34 Seattle, WA
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:17 p.m.

    @RanchHand

    That is fantastic point.

  • Bingham High School Student South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:17 p.m.

    @ Vince Here, How many of the cases you listed were from the same judges that are in now?

    Anyways, that was not my purpose of wanting to comment. To all of you who think that us Mormons are Bigots, as well as all of you Mormons who are getting angry that this is happening...I might direct you to another article which the quotes partially the LEADERS of our church. http://www.deseretnews.com /article/865593905/ LDS-Church-issues-instructions- to-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage.html.

    That article is great. One more point that I would like to make is that the First Amendment guaruntees separation of church and state, so no matter what the legal standards are, it doesn't change the churches standards or right to only marry couples of different genders.

  • OHBU Columbus, OH
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:21 p.m.

    Produces,
    There is no Orwellian conspiracy here. Granting Civil Unions to gay people and Marriages to straight people is a pretty clear case of separate but equal...a clear violation of previous Supreme Court rulings. The problem is that the word marriage is the default language in everything from loan contracts to insurance benefits. Either everyone gets civil unions or everyone gets marriages, that's how equality works.

  • ImaUteFan West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:23 p.m.

    Willem - this may come as a shock to you but the LDS people are not the only religion or group of people in the country who oppose gay marriage.

    Some of us have our beliefs built on a solid foundation and it doesn't matter which way the wind is blowing, our beliefs cannot and will not be swayed.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:25 p.m.

    It's interesting to note that the State of Virginia, in seeking to uphold their ban on interracial marriage, used many of the same arguments the State of Utah (and others) apparently intend to use to justify bans on gay marriage.

    -Interracial marriages were considered inherently less stable.

    -Interracial marriages were much more difficult for the children involved.

    -It was argued that genetic defects from interracial parenting were a distinct possibility. (OK, that argument is not going to be used today.)

    Fortunately, the Supreme Court looked beyond those flimsy excuses, and it's really curious that the same objections are being recycled today.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:34 p.m.

    Utefan34, no one claims that "who someone is as a person" is a sin, but rather that a certain set of actions is sinful.

    Some people have tendencies towards alcoholism, kleptomania, or pyromania; the research that claims these tendencies are genetically caused is just as solid as the research that claims the same for the tendency towards same sex attraction. The requirement of equal protection under the law does not mean that society has to condone drunk driving, theft, or arson. Nor does hoping that people with genetic predispositions towards these disorders can nonetheless lead happy lives entail condoning such behaviors.

    No matter what you think about the causes of attractions, tendencies, or disorders, the actions described as sinful are always the result of a choice, and are just as subject to moral scrutiny as any other choices. Papering over the distinction between the attraction and the action has been a longstanding tactic of the homosexual movement.

  • A Run South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:36 p.m.

    @funny_guy... I Agree Completely

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    Jan. 14, 2014 8:56 p.m.

    @RanchHand
    Well let me ask you, are they the same? Is same-sex marriage the same as heterosexual marriage? It's a rhetorical question, I know what your response will be. My point is that the LGBT community is so bent on labeling their relationship so as to identify with heterosexual couples, when in reality they are not the same thing. I'm not as much hung up on the labeling of it as I am about how we are required to teach our children that it is the same. That defies logic and spiritual understanding in terms of what a marriage can and should be.

    Look, if two people of the same gender want to shack up together, I have no problem with that -- they have the right to live their life how they want. But you must understand that there are a whole host of issues that come along with this territory, not the least of which is how children are impacted when we start teaching them the false idea that two women or two men is the same as a man and a woman. It is not - that is a lie.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:05 p.m.

    Here's an interesting factoid from the Oklahoma decision: this case has been going on for 9 years. It was originally filed in 2006.

    The case has previously been appealed to the 10th Circuit, and at one point the district judge declared the couple did not have standing, so they re-filed specifying different defendants.

    It's hard to argue this case was a spur-of-the-moment, "pile on" type of decision based on other recent decisions. This litigation has been going on a long, long time.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:23 p.m.

    I think that it is odd that someone would refer to something that was considered dark, demeaning, and gross for centuries by all of humanity would now refer to it as "enlightened"and that every human that lived before the last thirty years as the anomaly of history! I welcome the discussion about the Unconstitutional stripping of the rights of the people, however, something that only came about because enough people were humbled enough to start thinking about the constitution. Cruise control puts people to sleep!

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 9:50 p.m.

    IIf you have a gay friend (or sister or coworker or…) but still think that queer people should not be able to get married, then you are anti-gay.
    If you’re fine with queer people as long as you don’t have to see them kissing or holding hands, then you are anti-gay.
    If you don’t have anything against queer people but wouldn’t want a gay man leading your son’s scout troop, then you are anti-gay.
    If you think that inside queer people there is anything lurking — however small — that causes us to have any less integrity or humanity than straight people have, then you are anti-gay.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:02 p.m.

    "when we start teaching them the false idea that two women or two men is the same as a man and a woman." What?

    Same sex marriage is simply allowing two people, regardless of genders the opportunity to make that special commitment of marriage and at the same time enjoy any and all legal ramifications. Marriage at it's core is a personal, social, and legal commitment, that's it.

    It has nothing to do with physical differences. Having or raising families or sexual activities. Those activities or choices may come with marriage but are not marriage. So not allowing two people regardless of gender to make that commitment is discrimination and brings with it a by definition a certain bigotry.

    You may justify your discrimination in anyway you chose. God said, I believe etc. the result is the same.

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:06 p.m.

    @Prodicus

    Its sad and unfortunate how you believe that so many GLBT people are just acting out on a "choice." By the same hand, you must be clearly acting out as a result of your choice to be heterosexual? I would like the information of the studies you have cited that conclusively decide that homosexuality is a tendency, if that is possible?

    I can understand that there are people out there who are not educated about homosexuality, but to reduce the life-altering attraction and love that two of the same sex feel towards each other as less than the attraction that you feel toward the opposite sex is just ignorant. The way that homosexuality is so carelessly equated arson, theft, and other CRIMES clearly says a lot about your feelings towards the GLBT community.

    Is it not possible that those homosexuals feel as strongly about marriage as you do? Is it not reasonable that two people of the same sex, would feel just as normal being attracted to each other as you feel towards your spouse?

    GLBT want EQUAL treatment. Its always been about "equality" not "superiority".

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:19 p.m.

    Prodicus,

    Relatively few people today consider homosexuality a disorder. This is the first problem with your argument. You are free to believe what you want, but it's a hopeless proposition to expect much credence be given to your way of thinking.

    Blue AZ Cougar,

    You worry about what to teach the children. Me too! They are not growing up in the same world you and I did. Few kids born today will ever understand old prejudices. Let's stop trying to fill their minds with religious dogma that is out of sync with new realities.

    Oh, I know. "The word of The Lord is pure and true forever, and it cannot be compromised!" - Well, like it or not, not even the LDS Church calls homosexuality (by itself, as a natural orientation) a sin. Moreover, love can't be sliced into good and bad types. Our kids are coming into a better world, and old prejudices are just old - and more and more difficult.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:21 p.m.

    @ Pragmatist...

    So what's to stop any combination of people whether they are romantically involved or not from getting a marriage license and getting those same benefits? A couple of roommates who hate each other but want the tax benefits for a couple years before they "divorce"? Two brothers?
    An uncle and his nephew? A 95 yr. old lady and her 18 yr. old female renter? There is no requirement that they love each other. No one even asks that at the license office.

    See how this is diluting and destroying the very definition of marriage? Your description of marriage makes no sense at all. It could simply be called a joint contract for all intents and purposes.

    The very word "marriage" implies an intimate relationship. You just can't get around that. And due to the obvious fact that two of the same gender have to make some serious accommodations in that area, it really doesn't deserve the term marriage. Pretend all you want, shack up, throw a party, wear matching tuxes or dresses, but be honest about the fact that it's different than a hetero marriage.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 14, 2014 10:55 p.m.

    @funny_guy:
    "States grant marriage licenses to receive the fee and then make money when more than half of all marriages end in divorce."

    Sounds like a 'win/win'... for thew state.

    "Suppose... states got out of the marriage business altogether and simply rename it a civil union."

    Why not just draw up your own marriage license, sign it, and send a copy to the state government to record? This way anyone can marry whomever they please... and as many as they please? And if they get a divorce just send another notice to the state government of the dissolution.

    @RanchHand:
    "The 10th Amendment prohibits states from violating the rights of US citizens."

    Oops Did you mean the 14th?

    "This isn't a state's rights issue, it is a federal issue."

    Oops again. SCOTUS ruling on DOMA clearly turned marriage determinations over the states. And it will also eventually rule that Utah's marriage laws are Constitutional.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:01 p.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar

    "Look, if two people of the same gender want to shack up together, I have no problem with that -- they have the right to live their life how they want. But you must understand that there are a whole host of issues that come along with this territory, not the least of which is how children are impacted when we start teaching them"

    When we start teaching them that gay people should ditch this marriage thing and just shack up together as the better alternative. Yeah, I can't see how that teaching could lead to problems...

  • Starry starry night Palm Springs , CA
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:06 p.m.

    Blue Az says: "But telling me that your happiness depends on me labeling your relationship something it is not seems a little weird to me. Is it solely the monetary aspect of tax breaks that precludes you from being truly happy?"
    Actually, it is not "soley" the monetary aspect...but it sure matters! In fact, it is the more than 1100 federal and statutory benefits that make a huge difference in people's lives that matter. We actually don't care what other people, at this point think...we actually don't care whether others think we are moral or not...we actually are not concerned if others are put off, or perplexed, or confused or even grossed out by the lives we live. We are so way past that. We don't concern ourselves with the privacy of heterosexual bedrooms...visa versa is the least that can be offered. What we do care about is that we are equal under the law and that in our country we honor the Constitution by helping it live up to its full potential. And that includes our right to all the protections under the law that are obviously take for granted by others.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:12 p.m.

    So interesting that as soon as I throw the religion card in there, I get hammered by pragmatist and EDM. You may not understand where my religious convictions come from, or why I have them, but don't start pointing the finger and telling me how bigoted I am for not seeing things the way you do. That's hypocrisy at its finest.

    We really do live in a day when people call good evil, and evil good, just as Isaiah prophesied. A day when people condone sin with the expectation that "God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God." A day that Timothy described as "perilous times [...] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:22 p.m.

    So many "activist judges" so little time. I suppose virtually ever every judge in the US is now a so-called "activist" because they... oh decide to defend the Constitution? I seem to recall a famous Supreme Court Justice describing an activist judge as a judge who wakes up in the morning. And isn't that the truth? If we like the ruling of a judge, well they made the right decision. If we don't like it we revert to the o'l ad hominem about the judge being an "activist" - yea, typical.

  • Mr. Bean Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:40 p.m.

    @EDM: "Relatively few people today consider homosexuality a disorder."

    Would you be saying the same thing about polygamy, incestuous feelings, love between sibs, old geezer/young girl desires?

    And if 'yes,' would you be in favor of these marriage combinations?

    @Blue AZ Cougar: "Few kids born today will ever understand old prejudices."

    And you can count on more seeing homosexuality as normal (which it isn't) and move in that direction.

  • LiberalJimmy Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 12:33 a.m.

    Wow! These "activist" Judges seem to be everywhere. So what's the excuse now? Time to wake up people. It's 2014. Discrimination is unconstitutional. Period! All the whining and complaining will not change this.

  • Clark W. Griswold Sandy, Utah
    Jan. 15, 2014 1:04 a.m.

    @ pragmatistferlife

    "Marriage at it's core is a personal, social, and legal commitment, that's it"

    Not quite, marriage is more than just a personal, social, and legal commitment. Marriage for thousands of years has always been about the joining together of man and woman for the purpose of creating children and establishing a family unit. Only a man and a woman can create their own biological children together and taking on roles as fathers and mothers in raising them. Two men and two women cannot.

  • Chilidog Somewhere, IL
    Jan. 15, 2014 4:16 a.m.

    @wrz, you wrote: "Oops again. SCOTUS ruling on DOMA clearly turned marriage determinations over the states. And it will also eventually rule that Utah's marriage laws are Constitutional."
    -------
    The state can stil make marriage determinations, BUT, and this is a vitally important point, those determinations must follow the US Constitution.

    In Utah, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, the courts have determined that the state SSM banns violate the 14th amendment. (Which trumps the 10th amendment, BTW).

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 15, 2014 4:53 a.m.

    On one hand you want government out of peoples lives, "the marriage business" on the other hand you want the government to be very involved with people lives. Fees to live together and fines if they don't pay the fees. With all due respect this sounds like more nonsense from people trying to force their religious values on people who don't believe what they do and is possibly the absolute worst idea I've seen on this issue. That position relegates all who do not believe in the definition of marriage as you do as somehow second class citizens. The solution is clear both to reasonable people and the constitution. Same sex marriages, yes MARRIAGES, with all of the protections and benefits afforded to heterosexual marriages should be legal across the entirety of the United States. Like it or not, religions do not have the monopoly on the definition of what marriage is. Period.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Jan. 15, 2014 5:33 a.m.

    I am LDS. I have been criticized for supporting equal rights for the LGBT community by my fellow Church members. I also believe in the (among other things) in the 12th Article of Faith (and by definition the Constitution of the United States of America).

  • formerteacher Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 5:55 a.m.

    I applaud the Oklahoma Judge's decision. Even though it was fettered with a stay, pending the Utah decision. This seems to be a similar situation with the federal courts in the 60's to finally approve mixed marriages between blacks and whites. No harm has come from that decision. It has only validated the children raised in those mixed marriages. This ruling along with the Utah ruling will only do the same. It does not threaten any traditional marriage and those who have religious beliefs that are otherwise should not feel threatened. They are welcome to think the way that they do. This is more about bringing our constitution of equal treatment to all in fruition. I don't see how a gay couples decision to want to be married or raise children should in any way affect those who want a traditional marriage. All these decisions do is give every US citizen the same rights. Whether that be raising children, hospital visitations or death benefits. This has only become the latest threat to our constitution that states that ALL citizens should have equal rights!

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    Jan. 15, 2014 5:57 a.m.

    Apparently gay people want IRS backing to extract money from my wallet. And I am supposed to be happy about this?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 15, 2014 5:59 a.m.

    @ImaUteFan

    "Some of us have our beliefs built on a solid foundation and it doesn't matter which way the wind is blowing, our beliefs cannot and will not be swayed."

    If religious leaders were to announce tomorrow that they'd been mistaken; that God had revealed to them that homosexuality is not in fact sinful, I believe that many WOULD be swayed. This I find deeply disturbing. And deeply telling.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 6:39 a.m.

    @ Blue AZ:

    "Look, if two people of the same gender want to shack up together, I have no problem with that -- they have the right to live their life how they want."

    I don't suppose you see how this sentence contradicts everything you are saying about gay marriage. The point is, Gay people want to label their relationship as a marriage. They want to enjoy the same rights and obligations under the law, as heterosexual couples who ask for legal recognition of their relationships. When you say they have the right to live how they want but say marriage is not part of that right (as it is the right of any heterosexual couple) you are contradicting the very essence of how rights are defined.

    By labeling their relationship a marriage, Gay people are not saying your marriage, or the marriage of any heterosexual couple, is somehow now less, but rather that their relationship, between two consenting adult citizens, is entitled to the same legal considerations and subject to the same obligations under the law.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:08 a.m.

    Blue AZ Cougar said: "How come your happiness is so dependent on the social acceptance of your actions? Are you somehow precluded from having a relationship with someone of the same gender? Or living with them? Is it solely the monetary aspect of tax breaks that precludes you from being truly happy?"

    Brilliant!

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:17 a.m.

    Hopefully the American electorate realize that
    elections have consequences. Obama's win
    has set in motion his radical agenda to fundamentally
    transform our country ,SSM is just one area
    where activist judges rule against the will of
    the people.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    Willem said: "LDS do you now see which way the wind is blowing?"

    Yes, the LDS do.

    And no matter how the wind continues to blow, no matter what happens, no matter how many states are forced to upend their majority vote and SSM is declared the law, even if the Supreme Court decides to cave and declares it law in all 50 states...

    No matter what---there will ALWAYS be an LDS position that will NOT cave and and that will not be able to be 'worn down, won over and convinced' --- that will remain unconquerable by those who insist same-sex become socially and morally acceptable.

    The 'irresistible force' will find they run right into the 'immovable object'.

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:22 a.m.

    Everybody knows that behind the scenes the Church is cringing at these"activist federal judges" (16 now total nationwide). If we are only arguing about the word "marriage " why not rewrite Amendment 3 which simply states: that all citizens have the right(s) to form legal state sanctioned partnerships and that all religious institutions have the right to perform quasi-legal marriages. All people who want to be legally "married" MUST be "partnered/married" by the State as "partnerships".They can then elect to get "married" in the Church of their faith. Quite simple. Make Church marriage SPECIAL, retain they name but not the official "blessing" of the state. The church doesn't need the official blessing of the State to bestow the blessing of marriage. Eliminate Church personnel from the statutes as authorized to perform state sanctioned partnerships.The Church would retain their right to perform their "blessings" on their own members as they saw fit. So very simple.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    @ Bob A Bohey:

    When did religion give up its "monopoly" on marriage definition? It was a religious institution long before government stepped in. Was it when states started charging for marriage licenses? When states started performing blood tests?

    Marriage existed long before government. It is a religious institution. Revising history to fit personal beliefs and opinions is tricky business....

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    Prodicus said: "The winds of the gullible public will blow according to the cunning craftiness of the self-deceived....those who advocate homosexual behavior are not satisfied with civil unions, because what they are after is to establish a false moral equivalency in the minds of the public.

    Really love your turns of phrase.

    Well said.

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    Everybody knows that behind the scenes the Church is cringing at these"activist federal judges" (16 now total nationwide). If we are only arguing about the word "marriage " why not rewrite Amendment 3 which simply states: that all citizens have the right(s) to form legal state sanctioned partnerships and that all religious institutions have the right to perform quasi-legal marriages. All people who want to be legally "married" MUST be "partnered/married" by the State as "partnerships".They can then elect to get "married" in the Church of their faith. Quite simple. Make Church marriage SPECIAL, retain they name but not the official "blessing" of the state. The church doesn't need the official blessing of the State to bestow the blessing of marriage. Eliminate Church personnel from the statutes as authorized to perform state sanctioned partnerships.The Church would retain their right to perform their "blessings" on their own members as they saw fit. So very simple.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    BTRP, what I'm saying is that when someone has sex, either they made a free choice to do so, a choice which is subject to moral scrutiny, or they were raped. That is equally true regardless of what direction their attractions tend and regardless of how those attractions developed.

    Neither genes nor upbringing nor anything about attractions and inclinations force our actions on any particular occasion. This is equally true of all our feelings and desires, sexual or not.

    That people have inclinations, attractions, etc towards particular immoral behaviors does not eo ipso make them bad people. Everyone has some such inclinations; this is part of being human.

    Treating people with justice and compassion never requires approving of whatever immoral actions they have tendencies towards.

    Treating people as though they were ruled by their attractions and had no choice in their actions isn't compassionate, it's treating them as inferior animals rather than equals. Even if people would feel intense gratification doing some immoral deed, they will be better off in the long run if they avoid it.

    EDM, whether homosexuality is classified as a disorder or not is utterly irrelevant to anything I said.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:44 a.m.

    I resent the writer of the article stating that Utah now accepts gay marriage. Utah does not accept gay marriage; one tyrannicaljudge unconstitutionally imposed it against the will of the people of Utah. The Constitution gives states the right to define marriage not the federal government.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    @RedWings:"When did religion give up its "monopoly" on marriage definition? It was a religious institution long before government stepped in."

    Your statement is absolutely false. Presenting statements such as you did as a fact is just one reason those that wish to deny equal rights to all undermine their argument. Marriage defined as a civil arrangement pre-dates the religious definition of marriage by almost 100,000 years. It never ceases to amaze me how little proponents of "traditional marriage" actually know about "traditional marriage". SMH

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:59 a.m.

    Blue AZ Cougar,

    The only problem I have with your position is the assumption that your religious beliefs can be (or should be) imposed on others. Those beliefs have no place in how other lives are determined. They're yours to own, but I don't accept them as mine. The courts don't accept them as an argument either. I completely understand that might be upsetting.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    Listen to the gay supporters: All we want is to love and be loved! It can't possibly hurt anyone else! You are a bigot for not giving in and giving us everything we want! Religion is wrong! Homosexual behavior is not a sin!

    Blah, blah. Tell me, who here thinks that the gay lobby will be satisfied with state recognition of SSM? They swore up and down that civil unions would make them happy. They lied. They swear that governmental recognition of marriage is all they want and they will never force churches to marry them. They are lying now. Look at groups like GLAAD. Do you honestly think they will be satisfied until you either praise them or are in jail? Look at how bent out of shape the got over Phil Robertson--they did their best to get him fired.

    And THAT is why we should fight the gay lobby at every turn, because it is their open goal to criminalize any kind of opposition--moral or otherwise--to the gay lobby and its desires.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 15, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    "So what's to stop any combination of people whether they are romantically involved or not from getting a marriage license and getting those same benefits". Absolutely nothing and it happens everyday.

    BTW that is a core characteristic of arranged "marriages" that historically have been the normal mode of marriage for centuries. The general acceptance of marriage for romantic love is actually a very new concept. It really is less than a couple of hundred years old. Lots of books and scholarly work on this.

    Blue Cougar, No it's not hypocrisy. You are allowed your opinion regardless of it's origin. It's simply my opinion that when marriage at it's core is a personal, social, and legal commitment, it's bigoted and discriminatory to not allow anyone to marry regardless of sexual orientation who meets that standard. You apply a different standard. You're entitled to your opinion, but by my definition of marriage your standard is..well you know.

    Hypocrisy would be if I didn't allow you your opinion but expressed one myself.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    Utah will lose.

    I am disappointed at the little shot at Judge Shelby. The OK judge had a clear precedent and instruction from the U.S. Supreme Court on the stay issue. Judge Shelby did not. In addition, the State of Utah did not ask for a stay. It's time for this paper to stop its attacks on the judge and his well reasoned decision. Stay on the message and stop attacking the messenger. You are violating the very same principles stated in the letter on the issue read in LDS congregations.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 8:52 a.m.

    Next question, that gay rights supports refuse to answer:

    The 14th Amendment provided absolutely no protections to Mormons when they were being jailed, their property confiscated, and their rights to vote stripped back in the 1800s. Both the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, and the 14th amendments gave zero protection to the Mormons against the Federal Government.

    Yet NOW, the 14th amendment insists that government must marry gays. So Mormons can be jailed legally and lose all their constitutional rights for their views on marriage, yet the government must marry gays by order of the same Constitution.

    How does that work? Why are gays so much better than Mormons? What makes their rights so special, and privileged? Because the gay rights lobby holds that polygamy should still be illegal, so obviously they agree with Reynolds and its progeny. I.E. Gays are more equal than the rest of us.

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    Prodicus, I agree that humans have certain tendencies and inclinations, that are both positive and negative. I agree that when someone engages in sexual activity, it is a conscious choice to do so, just like every other decision that people make in the course of a day.

    I hope that you also see that your decisions to engage in sexual activity with someone of the opposite sex is also a conscious decision, that I'm sure you don't view as immoral. You must recognize that gays probably don't view their sexual activity as immoral. Everyone has a different upbringing and while you can certainly advocate your religious/moral views, people who don't share those views cannot be held accountable to them.

  • Gone fishin Seattle, WA
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    This movement is a huge hit to a moral society.

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    Prodicus, I agree you can treat people with compassion without approving of how they live their lives. However, I firmly believe that gays lead their lives to the best of their abilities, like you, but according to their own background and morals.

    Being gay myself, I can unequivocally say that its not a choice to be immoral, but to be physically connected to the one I love is why I engage in sex. I bet you feel similarly.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    @Mayfair:

    "No matter what---there will ALWAYS be an LDS position that will NOT cave and and that will not be able to be 'worn down, won over and convinced' --- that will remain unconquerable by those who insist same-sex become socially and morally acceptable."

    Nobody I know is asking you to cave on your personal beliefs, and that includes my gay and lesbian friends. What is being asked for is an acknowledgement that your personal beliefs have no weight when deciding the rights of the citizenry according to the standard set by the U.S. Constitution, which sets the legal standard for state constitutions.

    You are not a bigot if you disagree with homosexuality, but you cannot cry foul if you are asking that your religious beliefs interfere with my rights as a citizen and I call you out on your behavior.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    @EDM
    If it's a matter of tax breaks, equal housing or employment opportunities, I get it -- your sexual orientation should not matter when it comes to those things. Our country is in need of tax reform anyway, so why not change how the tax rules work rather than changing the institution of marriage? In addition to legal acceptance, a lot (not all) of same-sex couples want there to be social acceptance, which is something that cannot be legislated. I completely understand that might be upsetting for you. Rather than trying to turn traditional marriage on its head to gain access to federal benefits, why not change the way federal benefits are proscribed?

    Obviously this is one of those issues where there is no middle ground -- either you're for it or against it (and both sides have a myriad of reasons to support their opinion).

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    Here is the point that most people are missing with this issue and any other issue pertaining to moral and/or religious beliefs: People in a society set moral standards.

    The Constitution was designed so that each individual community, or state, could define their moral rights and wrongs. New York decided that you cannot drink too much soda, Colorado decided you can smoke pot, San Francisco decided that putting anything other than a car in your garage is illegal, and Oklahoma decided that putting the 10 Commandments on state property is okay. I could go on and on, but you get the point.

    If the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection) was truly designed as Judge Shelby said it was, then the Federal Government could take any one of these local laws and force it upon every other state. That's not happening though, and never should, otherwise the entire point of Federalism and our Constitution would be pointless.

    ...continued in another post.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    ...continued from above

    States should have the right, as a community of voters, to decide what their moral standards are in their places of living. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? If gay marriage is legalized because moral beliefs are not allowed to dictate law, then why not polygamy? Why not marriage to animals? Why not marriage to trees, or the stars?

    And before you say, "you have to have consent", explain to me why your line in the sand is any more valid than my line in the sand? Do you get what I'm saying? I mean, if your moral version of right and wrong is, "you must be able to consent", then why is that stronger or more important than mine which is found in the Bible.

    continued...

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    An atheist will claim that prayer shouldn't be allowed in school or on state property because it offends him, that a "moment of silence" should be used instead. Well guess what, my new religion dictates that "moments of silence" is phony and it offends ME. Also, handshakes offend me - they represent signs of the Cthulhlu, lord of the sea, so I want that removed as well from state property. And before you say, "you're being ridiculous", remember that any group of people, in the name of activism can come up with any sort of phony organization they want to forward their cause in the name of "equality". It's being done right now in Oklahoma on state property with the Satan statue.

    You see how the removal of morals in society leads to complete ridiculousness? The framers never thought that people would abandon their inner conscience of right and wrong, they never intended our laws to work properly without it. Without the key ingredient of "goodness" in society, that inner light that each of us have that comes from God, there is no functioning society, we will become endlessly locked in pointless debates over Constitutional interpretation.

  • Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:47 a.m.

    I'm confused about comments suggesting that the LDS Church never changes its teachings? Has anyone ever heard about polygamy and the prohibition of inter-racial marriage? Can anyone dispute that the LDS Church changed its teachings with respect to marriage in two obvious ways?

  • tim_the_tool_man_taylor Dallas, TX
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    The real issue at stake here is that of a false right.

    (the right to recognize their relationship and stop others from discriminating against them.)

    This has nothing to with the sociological issue that many are claiming.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    Most of the detractors in this thread still fail to grasp that this marriage equality issue has absolutely nothing to do with personal beliefs resulting from dogmatic indoctrination.

    It is a civil rights matter.

    Failure to understand this concept is the origin of the angst many religious people feel regarding marriage equality.

    Last year SCOTUS indicated thru the DOMA/Prop8 decisions that states do indeed have a say in their approach to marriage - as long as all state laws pertaining to marriage comport with constitutional law. Utah's Amendment 3 utterly failed constitutional scrutiny, and that's why it (and every similar law throughout the land) is being properly dismantled before us. Similar to the way we now allow women and minorities to vote, America has finally evolved to an enlightened state where free citizens no longer tolerate legal bigotry and state-sponsored discrimination.

  • windsor City, Ut
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    "....we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net.

    "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
    John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.

  • Embarcadero SAN FRANCISCO, CA
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    With the country's two reddest states being dragged - albeit kicking and screaming - into the civilized world, we can all breathe and sleep a little easier. This story even managed to omit the obligatory "activist judge" thing, though they did squeeze in a comment from the FRC, a certified hate group. Maybe there's hope for the DN.

  • Happyinlife PROVO, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    It's always comforting to me that no matter how the "winds blow" in this world that God's laws do not blow with it.
    Good can be called evil and evil good by the worlds standards, but it doesn't change reality.
    I believe sexual behavior outside of marriage between a man and a woman is a sin. Are these my religious beliefs? Absolutely.
    However, having these beliefs does not give me the right to ever be unkind or disrespectful to anyone, but it does not mean that I have to believe the same way they do.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:05 a.m.

    BTRP, at least you'll admit the action is a choice. But someone with pyromania may not view their inflammatory activity as immoral. They might might say "unequivocally, it is not a choice to be immoral, but self-expression is why I engage in arson." People who don't share the moral views of others are nonetheless held accountable to those moral views all the time. There is no other way to have a civil society in the face of any kind of disagreement at all. One person's supposed "right" to do whatever they feel self-justified in doing cannot override a hundred other people's right to participate in determining what kind of community they want to live in.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    @TheTrueVoice

    "Most of the detractors in this thread still fail to grasp that this marriage equality issue has absolutely nothing to do with personal beliefs resulting from dogmatic indoctrination.

    It is a civil rights matter."

    And I say marrying a donkey is a civil rights matter. Go find a state that agrees with you and feel free to make gay marriage a right all you want, but don't force me and my state to agree with your version of moral right and wrong.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    It would be good if all the contrarians would write down their verbose opinions to read back to themselves twenty years from now to hear how foolish they sound. And of course by then there will be a new president of the Mormon church and things will be different as current presidents supersede past thinking.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    Clearly Satan has a strong foothold in our judiciary. I fear the battle for righteousness has been lost and evil will be the law of the land.

  • Jeffsfla Glendale, CA
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    I am really sorry this is becoming so hard for certain people. Unfortunately, the days of pushing religious beliefs on this topic onto others is coming to an end. I hope you can come to terms with this and accept your fellow citizens. Please I urge you to do this before the courts force you to do so.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    @ illuminated:

    "An atheist will claim that prayer shouldn't be allowed in school or on state property because it offends him . . ."

    An atheist (which I am not) will 'insist' prayer should not be 'mandated' in school.

    * * *

    "Otherwise, where do we draw the line? If gay marriage is legalized because moral beliefs are not allowed to dictate law, then why not polygamy? Why not marriage to animals? Why not marriage to trees, or the stars?"

    Are you honestly trying to use the slippery-slope fallacy of equating the relationship between two consenting adults to bestiality?

    * * *

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:54 a.m.

    @ Red Wings:

    "When did religion give up its "monopoly" on marriage definition?"

    When the First Amendment to the Constitution was ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    Why does everyone keep repeating the talking point that the AG didn't request a stay? You can go online and read the transcript of Judge Shelby denying the stay. A stay wasn't requested prior to his decision. But a stay was certainly requested.

    I'm shocked the judge didn't stay his own order sua sponte. Arrogant and irresponsible IMO.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    "Otherwise, where do we draw the line? If gay marriage is legalized because moral beliefs are not allowed to dictate law, then why not polygamy? Why not marriage to animals? Why not marriage to trees, or the stars?"

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

    Maybe it has been a while since you received a marriage license. You must both go in person before the county and show identification that you are who you say you are and then both sign the license.

    Why not animals? Trees? Stars? Children?

    Can they physically or legally sign a contract?

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Jan. 15, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    I has to be killing conservatives to see Americans have freedom.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    Vanceone

    Provo, UT

    Next question, that gay rights supports refuse to answer:

    The 14th Amendment provided absolutely no protections to Mormons when they were being jailed, their property confiscated, and their rights to vote stripped back in the 1800s. Both the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, and the 14th amendments gave zero protection to the Mormons against the Federal Government.

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

    Let's see...the saints came in Utah in 1847. The civil war started in 1860. The 14th amendment was passed after the civil war.

    Oh, there WAS no 14th amendment when the saints were being pursecuted, was there. States rights were still allowed to rule, but then we fought a war and killed 600 thousand of our citizens to prove that the federal government must be supreme.

    Now we know better.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 15, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    @illuminated: "And I say marrying a donkey is a civil rights matter."

    This type of False Equivalency argument does not lend credence to your position on the issue. Donkeys, pets, minors, inanimate objects all lack recognized legal capacity under the law to consent to a contract.

    You then say: "don't force me and my state to agree with your version of moral right and wrong."

    Hopefully you will grasp the concept that no one is "forcing" you to agree to anything, or to be gay, or have gay friends, or like the gay lifestyle. You are free to continue to harbor any ill will and demeaning thoughts about them as you see fit. An easy cure if you don't like something, is simply not pay attention to it.

    Peace will come to you when you understand that not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to be, isn't an infringement on your freedoms.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 15, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    @ Pragmatist You said "BTW that is a core characteristic of arranged "marriages" that historically have been the normal mode of marriage for centuries." Yes and the primary reason for those arranged marriages was so that a man and a woman would reproduce and perpetuate the species. Obviously, not all marriages are able to reproduce. That's an exception. For many that is a sensitive and heart breaking thing. DON'T even try to bring that argument into your pro-gay marriage argument. Some never intend to have children- that's a decision- a perk of being married and it's their choice. Some are too old to conceive. Don't we owe it to them as a society to allow them companionship and legal benefits in their elderly years?

    If it were up to me, I'd say yes to gay marriage as long as there were no children involved. No adoptions, none of this make a baby because we want one business.

    Will gay marriage affect my own marriage? NO!! But in the long run it will affect the next generation by confusing them and harming them psychologically. Mark my words.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 15, 2014 12:05 p.m.

    @ImaUteFan: This may come as a shock to YOU, but not every religion opposes same sex marriage, either as a civil institution or a religious one.

    In any event, I don't hear anyone telling you that you can't keep your beliefs regarding either gay people or the institution of marriage, or that you can't speak your beliefs. What you can't do, no matter how many like-minded people you band together with, is to use the force of government to restrict that minority's right to live an equivalent peaceful and civic existence. Our Constitution places limits on that. Nor can you restrict the rights of others to speak in criticism of you and your beliefs. Like it or not, that's the very nature of a free society.

    @BlueAZCougar: Have a look at Romans 14. It's not just about food and drink. It's about the very nature of sin and judging your fellow man.

    @ClarkWGriswold: Then, by your measure, heterosexual marriage is a failure with 41% of births out of wedlock.

    @Pete1215: Many gay couples have two high-income earners. They actually pay MORE in taxes if they marry.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 15, 2014 12:09 p.m.

    To "skeptic" I don't think you understand the LDS church very well. They have been preaching against homosexuality, adultery, fornication, drug abuse, etc. for 60 years. There have been several different leaders, but they all have said the same thing. Don't count on things changing ever when it comes to doctrine in the LDS church.

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    Prodicus, you probably can't see it, but there seems to be a plank in your eye. Yes, very much like a railroad tie...wow.
    But thank you for pointing out the mote in my eye, I am eternally grateful.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 15, 2014 12:19 p.m.

    @ Bandersen

    You wrote:

    "I think that it is odd that someone would refer to something that was considered dark, demeaning, and gross for centuries by all of humanity would now refer to it as "enlightened"and that every human that lived before the last thirty years as the anomaly of history!"

    I think you bring up an interesting point.

    Native Americans, Indians, Greeks, Romans, and actually many more cultures accepted same sex relationships with no problem. The oldest religion in the world Hinduism, includes stories of homosexual nature among certain gods.

    What happened then? Paul happened.

    The gospels never mentioned Jesus against homosexuality, on the contrary, there is evidence that he supported same sex relationship i.e.Centurion asking healing for his servant, (debatable linguistic manipulation in the translation). Jesus taught that some Eunuchs were born that way (natural).

    Paul introduced to Christianity some mores from his Jewish up-bringing and they were spread with Christianity.

    Same sex relationships were "considered dark, gross and demeaning" in most cultures 'only after' so called Christian values were imposed by the invading conquerors.

    Jesus, BOM, D&C, Joseph Smith, never said anything against Homosexuality.

  • BTRP Orem, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    Prodicus, I hope that you recognize the choice is just the same as the choice you make between you and your spouse. As far as the arsonists who enjoy setting things aflame, they certainly can be judged by society but they are also held to a standard called the law. The risk of jail keeps most arsonists at bay, however, homosexuals marrying doesn't carry the same negative connotation to most society nor the law.
    The "morals of society" are subjective to the individual, but as you mentioned, many are agreed upon by a significant number of people (not all). You talk about the "right to do whatever they feel self-justified in doing" Do you feel self-justified when you make love with your spouse? Don't you feel that its "right" to be physically intimate with the one you love? Why is your feeling of "right" the standard by which others must live their lives as compared to the feeling of what is "right" for a gay person? Do you sincerely not believe that someone could feel the same way about a person of the same sex as you do with your spouse?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 15, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    @James Whistler:
    "...could we (or the moderators of this forum) put a moratorium on comparing gay relationships to incest and bestiality?"

    Generally if someone is losing an argument they usually try to get the other person's argument cut off.

    "It's off topic and obnoxious."

    I'll tell ya what's obnoxious... two guys making out.

    "If a person or group is barred by law from certain benefits or responsibilities that other people freely enjoy, and the government can offer no compelling reason for that distinction, then the law is unjust and must be thrown out."

    Did you mean laws barring persons from polygamous, incestuous, close relative, sib marriages? Is that your point? Inquiring minds wanna know.

    @LiberalJimmy:
    "Discrimination is unconstitutional."

    Are you making the point that polygamists should be able to marry?

    @Chilidog:
    "The state can still make marriage determinations, BUT, and this is a vitally important point, those determinations must follow the US Constitution."

    The US Constitution says nothing about marriage. You can't say authority to define marriage resides with the state but the US Constitution says which marriages states can and cannot authorize. This is just circuitous arguing.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 2:01 p.m.

    @Vanceone
    "The 14th Amendment provided absolutely no protections to Mormons when they were being jailed, their property confiscated, and their rights to vote stripped back in the 1800s. "

    The 14th Amendment was after the Civil War and after most of that conflict in Missouri and other areas. (Not to say it was all rainbows and sunshine in the Utah territory of course). Though it would've been nice to have an "activist judge" around to strike down some of that nonsense that was going on...

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 15, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    Redshirt, if you look at church history you will see the same can be said about polygamy, Blacks, ERA. Jews, etc. So perhaps an outsider looking in knows more about the Mormon church than an insider looking out. Sometimes one is too close to the issue to see the issue; don't you think.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 15, 2014 3:05 p.m.

    @
    @ Vanceone

    You wrote: " Next question, that gay rights supports refuse to answer:

    The 14th Amendment provided absolutely no protections to Mormons when they were being jailed, their property confiscated, and their rights to vote stripped back in the 1800s. Both the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, and the 14th amendments gave zero protection to the Mormons against the Federal Government. "

    I just learned from Lane Myer and Schnee that the 14th Amendment was made after the Civil War. Thank you guys!!

    But what call to my attention is that you defend "Christian principles", yet, you seem to be saying if Mormons didn't received support from the Federal Government, then no one should get their support. At least LGBT shouldn't.

    I doubt the LDS church would agree with that attitude. I know that Christ taught us something very different.

    Vanceone, the LGBT is gaining victory after victory in the United States and around the world. No because we are persecuting anyone. But because finally society has evolved to the point that is questioning all those practices that "harm" other individuals.

    LGBT treatment is only one of many other wrongs that need to be corrected

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 4:06 p.m.

    To "skeptic" yes, you can say that the LDS church doctrine does not change.

    Polygamy was part of the church doctrine in Joseph Smith's time, and it remains so today.

    ERA was opposed when it was first proposed, and much of what the church said would happen has happened. The LDS church still opposes all of the bad things that have resulted from the ERA. See "The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Moral Issue" on the LDS web site.

    As for Blacks and the Priesthood, the doctrine has been that we don't understand why they were denied the Priesthood and that has always been the case. The only thing that chanes have been people's guess as to why. See "Race and the Priesthood" on the LDS web site.

    Again, when you get past the rumors and guesses, the doctrine has remained the same since the church was founded.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 15, 2014 5:06 p.m.

    O'really, not quite sure what your point was up to your final paragraph,"Will gay marriage affect my own marriage? NO!! But in the long run it will affect the next generation by confusing them and harming them psychologically. Mark my words."

    Actually I'm more than happy to "mark your words" because I think you are absolutely wrong and I'll be happy to remind you of that in five years.

  • DRay Roy, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:02 p.m.

    Is there not some collusion of these District Judges to move one after the other to actively attack the majority will of the people? Inasmuch as same-sex marriage is but an imitation of the real thing, marriage between one man and one woman, there are no grounds for inequality here...sad, so sad am I as I see foundational American values being shredded by people who openly mock the commandments of God.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 15, 2014 11:14 p.m.

    @ Pragmatist...a generation is longer than 5 yrs. It's at least 20. I have no doubt there will be a huge chunk of kids growing up with this in their faces who will be messed up because of it. Look what divorce has done to kids. Look what fatherless families has done to kids. Children growing up in these homes will be confused. I guarantee it. It can't help but affect them negatively. Will they be loved? Oh yes, but love isn't enough. They need to be taught by example. Two women can't teach a boy how to be a father. Two men can't teach a girl how to be a mother.

    "Mom and Mom, who is my dad and how did I get here if you two can't make a baby together?" "Well, son we don't know who your father is." That's going to go over well.

    "Dad and Dad, Which one of you gave birth to me? I want a mommy. Where is she? " " Well, daughter, uh, well, neither of us did and that's not exactly possible." I'm sure that little girl is going to love that conversation.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 16, 2014 6:39 a.m.

    DRay, History has thousands of gods. From what one are you getting your information and to who is it applicable and how do you know it is as you say. Please explain.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 16, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    To "pragmatistferlife" since you are in disbelief, how about we look at the effects of instituting the "no fault" divorces. Back then we were warned that this was a bad idea, and that it would alter the way people look at marriage in the future.

    Now, we have more divorces and fewer marriages. Seemingly simple things will change the next generation's attitude towards marriage. Gay marriage will further the damage that started with previous generations.

  • Mugabe ACWORTH, GA
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    I tend to agree with "Ranchhand." I use to be an event specialists, and many Christian weddings and parties usually featured alcohol as part of their menu. I never heard one vendor complain that it violated their belief system. Just by providing a service to a same sex couple does not mean that one agrees with their life style, it is about being in business. I think that we have beat this "Dead horse" and there is no part of it left to be beaten.

    No one can take away our right to believe in a principle, and if our faith is so fragile that it can be shadowed by the unrighteousness of some one else, then, maybe we need to evaluate our faith because that's where the problem lies.

  • praxis Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    To all those that use Christ as the basis for their opposition of marriage equality, I have a simple request: Please provide the chapter and verse from the New Testament where Christ specifically speaks/taught about homosexuality.

    The Apostles documented the direct teachings of Christ - such as the Sermon on the Mount where he is given direct attribution for many things, including the "Blessed are..." statements or when Christ directly teaches how to pray in what is termed, "The Lord's Prayer."

    And yet, he is not recorded as saying anything on the subject of homosexuality. There's not one direct, first-person teaching by Christ on the subject.

    If it was so important - and he abhorred it as much as so many Christians claim - wouldn't he have directly spoken about it? Wouldn't the Apostles have documented the very words, just as they did with his other teachings?

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 9:48 p.m.

    Baccus: the BOM, D&C, Jesus, and Joseph Smith never said anything about incest either? Justification for any sin isn't a reason for doing it! A conscience can only strive with man for so long! Time to check it again. But don't trust me, ask God!

  • SLCWatch Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 1:58 p.m.

    @Praxis
    Read Matt. 28:19-20. Read John 21:25 We also don't have what he said specifically about pedophilia, methanphetamines, beastiality, insider trading or a hundred other different sins but he will hold us accountable none the less. He has spoken throughout the history of the world. It all applies. What was the first thing he taught in person? "Repent." Pretty clear message. He will judge the world. What was the last thing he told the adultress? It wasn't "neither do I condemn thee". It was "go they way and sin no more." I have to worry about me. I will have nothing to do with judging anyone else. But he will. Rather than asking people in the comments about Christ, I suggest you make all of his words and works a life's study. You will find there is a lot more to consider than what you presently comprehend.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 11:58 p.m.

    Clark W. Griswold
    "Not quite, marriage is more than just a personal, social, and legal commitment. Marriage for thousands of years has always been about the joining together of man and woman for the purpose of creating children and establishing a family unit. Only a man and a woman can create their own biological children together and taking on roles as fathers and mothers in raising them. Two men and two women cannot."

    You don't have to be married to have kids. Likewise, you don't have to have kids when you're married. Otherwise infertile and elderly couples would not be allowed to get married either. The ability to have children is a moot and irrelevant point in this debate.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 12:05 a.m.

    @ Sal

    You don't have the right to vote on who gets rights or not. State's make their own laws, but they can't conflict with the U.S. Constitution, which Amendment 3 obviously does.