Quantcast
Utah

Herbert criticizes states that don't follow 'will of the people' on same-sex marriage

Comments

Return To Article
  • get her done Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 8:36 p.m.

    Other states see the handwriting on the wall concerning gay marriage. Utah is out of step with what is going on outside their borders.

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:14 p.m.

    Utah is out of step with what is going on outside of her borders. Another reason to be thankful.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    Spending millions to futilely enforce the religious will on the majority.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:37 p.m.

    Something wrong here ,Its pretty sad that an attorney, trained in constitutional principles, cannot comprehend the place of equality in our (secular) country.He accepted this case and accepted a reduced fee knowing this case was lost long ago.

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:50 p.m.

    Utah is in step with God. He is showing his displeasure with the growing majority, as manifested in bizarre weather patterns not seen in a century throughout the nation. It will only increase as more and more people abandon His commandments.

  • Gibster San Antonio, TX
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:55 p.m.

    Mr Gov: What is it about Equal Protection under Law that you fail to understand?

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:58 p.m.

    If Utah is out of step with what is going on outside it's borders, that's a good thing.

    And I don't see this as a religious issue. It's not LDS imposing their will on gays. It's a matter of tradition and biology and plenty outside the LDS church are just as against same sex marriage and any within.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 9:59 p.m.

    @ Brave Sir Robin: Was that law actually ever officially removed from the books? If not, does that mean Gov. Herbert thinks it should still be being enforced?

  • Bubble SLC, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:03 p.m.

    @ Sal: Of course, because you know same-sex marriage is the only commandment God cares if you violate. He is certainly not showing displeasure over the violation of the First and Great Commandment nor the second which is like unto it, nor the enumerated 10 which are based on the first two.

    And of course there are no explanations based on anything other than your specific religion.

    Nope, this is all due to same-sex marriage.

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:03 p.m.

    Taking away someones right to love who they want sounds like a dictatorship to me.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 23, 2014 10:32 p.m.

    Truth in all forms...No one is taking away anyone's right to love whomever they want. We say Go ahead! Love em up! Have a party with cake, throw rice, celebrate like there's no tomorrow. Just don't try to convince the rest of us that a man now has a "husband" or a woman now has a "wife". That's just nonsense. Yes, they have a lover, a companion, a lifelong devoted partner. NO one can take that away from them. Nor would we want to. Just don't confuse my children with this relationship by calling it marriage. Don't commandeer the education system to make them teach that it's normal and perfectly acceptable. And DON'T take away the rights of innocent children to have both a mother and a father, female and male in their homes to raise them.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:04 p.m.

    A dictator would ignore the civil rights of everyone in favor of religious dogma. The 'will' of a religious group doesn't take precedence over civil rights. If you want to live in that society, move to Saudi Arabia.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Jan. 23, 2014 11:25 p.m.

    Thank you, Gov. Herbert. But tell us, please, who isn't being civil?

    Furthermore, if there are gay couples in Utah who, in fact, are providing nurturing family environments, then why defend Amendment 3 that strictly forbids recognition of these arrangements? I understand that you have to appeal to your voters. But I'm sad to infer from your statements that you "get it", but you won't stand up for it.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:06 a.m.

    I am grateful this issue isn't as bad as it could be. It's easy to look at the worse side of things, especially on an issue where it seems no one is happy. But all in all, I know that there is a bright side. For me, whether this issue will "inevitably" go one way or the other... it will inevitably end the right way. Laws can pass, lies can be told & accepted, and people can justify themselves until the sun goes down. But in the morning, the truth rises. You can't rewrite something you didn't author. The things we author die with us. The things God authors will continue forever.

    It's good to know our future is in good hands!

  • RichLussier Columbia, SC
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:28 a.m.

    I think we can see that the people of your state are determined to impose their religious values upon an unwilling minority. As with the persecutions unjustly visited upon Mormons in the 19th century, they shall not prevail.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:30 a.m.

    O'really, that is all that needs to be said.

    Just don't confuse my children with this relationship.
    This is where our society is sick now, by calling things out of the Blue and then next blaming the rest for persecutions.
    I don't think Gov. H's words are far enough to defend the law and the definition.
    We are stuck in politeness and after tomorrow there will be more lies and changing of definitions. Just wait and see.Not that we should'nt be polite, but also correct.
    Let the LGBT come up with a definition of marriage, that would be difficult, would it not ?
    Emotional, biological, legal, religious, social ...define it so a lawful fit will do !

    Define it, so you could defend it in court.

  • Brave heart Springville , UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:47 a.m.

    @O'really

    Oh really? So children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home? That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children. (Sarcasm)

  • Grammy3 SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 1:04 a.m.

    I totally have compassion for those who are gay and lesbian. I do not care if they live together or even get a civil union. But please do not call it a Marriage. To me a Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is God's law not man's. This is how the Bible says it is. When God created the world he placed in the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve and commanded them to Multiply and Replenish the Earth.You want rights but what about all of us who feel our rights are being taken away because you want to create a new law that goes against what I believe in. It is a religious union a marriage between a Man and a Woman. You can have your civil unions and call it something else. No one is trying to take away your rights as far as having those rights in sharing a bond between someone you love. Just do not call it a MARRIAGE PLEASE.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 1:09 a.m.

    @Sal
    "Utah is in step with God. He is showing his displeasure with the growing majority, as manifested in bizarre weather patterns not seen in a century throughout the nation."

    Other than California's current drought I really can't think of anything that qualifies as a 1 in 100 year event. Incidentally, Utah's headed for another bad water year at this rate.

    @Maudine
    "Was that law actually ever officially removed from the books?"

    Gov. Kit Bond rescinded it in 1976.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    Jan. 24, 2014 5:32 a.m.

    If the Governor feels that other states do not follow the will of the people - why not put same sex marriage up to a vote of the people - today - wherever - and then abide by the will of the people - I think you would find the results rather startling and different than he expects.The Governor may want to choose a different topic for his next speech.

  • ChuckGG Gaithersburg, MD
    Jan. 24, 2014 5:37 a.m.

    I am reminded of the "will of the people" in the South in the 1960's. Had that prevailed, segregation would remain the law of the land in the South. Sometimes, our duly elected representatives have to drag the electorate into the next century, albeit kicking and screaming all the way. Remember, we elect officials to represent us, not to act necessarily on the majority opinion. If the latter were the case, we could electronically vote and simply eliminate the middle-man. We would have the latest and greatest roads and infrastructure but majority vote would never raise the taxes to pay for it all.

    No, "the will of the people" is not always the way the elected should vote. They are there to do what is best for us, even if we don't like it sometimes.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 24, 2014 6:13 a.m.

    I am pleased to read that Governor Herbert recognizes the love and mutual care in the lives of same-sex couples, that he calls them families, and that he urges Utahns to treat them with respect. I'm pretty sure that this is all that same-sex couples, and those of us who support equality, are asking.

    However, the only way to actually fulfill that call is to extend to them the protections that would be available to a family joined together by marriage. Amendment 3 not only disallows every possible fulfillment of Governor Herbert's kind words, but makes contempt for same-sex couples a matter of State policy, setting them far outside the civil norm.

    I don't see how his words are in accord with his actions.

    Also, I fear he's confusing "will of the people" with American Democracy. What makes us American is our Constitution and Bill of Rights, documents that emphatically say that individuals can live unmolested within protected bounds of civility, protected from the government. Without those documents, and a strong Judiciary to interpret and apply it, we'd be a totalitarian state.

    Amendment3 is clearly unconstitutional.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 6:16 a.m.

    Because if SSM becomes legal, the next step is to pass a law saying children are no longer allowed to live in a home with both a mother and a farther, male and female. That's going to happen. Sigh.

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    Jan. 24, 2014 6:18 a.m.

    I become frustrated when someone saus "will of the people". Who are you talking about? Do you have a scientific poll, asking the members of one church or just yourself.
    The people you want to refuse a basic right of any Citizen is wrong.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    Jan. 24, 2014 6:29 a.m.

    Really? Will of the majority over constitutional rights?

    What would Herbert say if the majority of Utah wants to allow gay marriage as the majority of US citizens do?

    If your principals only work on one foot, you have no principals.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 24, 2014 6:36 a.m.

    Every day the children of Houston, Texas wake up to a city run by a lesbian mayor. She was openly lesbian during her first run for the office and it simply wasn't an issue. It wasn't an issue in the two elections she won after that. This happened in Texas - a state equally proud to be out of step with human progress.

    O'Really, unless you keep your children locked in their rooms or church, they're going to be exposed to messages that contradict what you believe. What they get taught at school on this subject may be the least of your worries.

    BTW, Mayor Parker and her longtime partner recently traveled to another state to get married. I'm pretty sure this is why we're getting freezing rain in Houston this morning.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 24, 2014 6:49 a.m.

    @O'Really: Are you really concerned about this "right" of children to have their natural mother and father living together as a married couple in their homes? How are you planning to enforce that right?

    After all, nationally 41% of children are born out of wedlock. Not conceived, born. Nationally, the divorce rate is 50%. (Utah has a lower out-of-wedlock number, but a higher divorce rate.) The number of children affected by these two societal problems completely dwarfs, easily by hundreds of times, the number of children being raised by same-sex couples. Yet, you only seem concerned by that one handful.

    What are you proposing?

    Shall we implement laws against out-of-wedlock births? Criminalize not just girls/women, but the boys/men involved? Mandatory abortion? Mandatory birth control? Sterilization?

    Shall we outlaw divorce? State-enforce shotgun marriage?

    Shall we outlaw orphanages, fostering, and adoption?

    Which fertility treatments should we outlaw?

    Or, is the only thing that is important to you, something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the "rights" of children? You're just parroting focus-group-tested excuses for discriminating against gay people.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Jan. 24, 2014 6:56 a.m.

    There's nothing to gain in enforcing changes to marriage if it can only be done, as apparently the case, by ignoring, bending, or forcefully altering fundamental law. It doesn't draw the people's support, leading to discrimination.

    I wouldn't have anything at all against those who identify as homosexual and would in no way discriminate against them if not for the bullying, hypocrisies, and tyrannies people have exercized to distort marriage, personally noting that they've only been able to do so at a point when people have been treating the institution with grave disrespect and selfishness.

    It also leads to flimsy laws supporting it; if the people say "No", but a single maverick judge says "Yes", then who's to stop anyone from continuing to say "No"? Even if people changed their minds and supported it, what's to stop another maverick judge, a decade down the line, from bringing it all down? They would have every right to, if that's how it came about in the first place. On top of it you have, as mentioned, the confusion and anxiety following those "couples" now in legal limbo for using shady legal rulings.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 6:59 a.m.

    "He is showing his displeasure with the growing majority, as manifested in bizarre weather patterns not seen in a century throughout the nation."

    I will agree that those crazy weather patterns are partly caused by human actions. Of course, so many of us are in denial of those causes. It's because we have stopped being responsible stewards of our precious land. We complain about government involvement in providing better public transit systems. We think it's our God-given right to burn, burn, and burn without accepting the consequences of those choices.

    That's the real issue our governor needs to focus on right now--not this tiring exercise in legalized bigotry. It's time we stop fighting one another and work on fixing the serious problems we have created in our communities--especially along the Wasatch Front.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:09 a.m.

    Sal
    Provo, UT
    Utah is in step with God. He is showing his displeasure with the growing majority, as manifested in bizarre weather patterns not seen in a century throughout the nation. It will only increase as more and more people abandon His commandments.

    9:50 p.m. Jan. 23, 2014

    =========

    Al'Queda is in step with Allah. He is showing his displeasure with the growing majority, as manifested in bizarre weather patterns not seen in a century throughout the nation. It will only increase as more and more people abandon His commandments.

    [Do see anything different between what you believe,
    and what the Taliban belives?]

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:13 a.m.

    @truth in all its forms:
    "Taking away someones right to love who they want sounds like a dictatorship to me."

    I love my sister but I can't marry her. Does that mean that it is a dictatorship? If not, why not?

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:15 a.m.

    Robin: Certainly you know that what took place in Missouri was by Missouri Executive Order 44 in 1838, not by will of the people. Very similar to the things talked about in this article. Executives trying to dictate to the masses, rather than letting the masses, the legislative and/or legal systems do their proper jobs. But I have a sneaking suspicion you already knew that. Nice try, though.

    And Maudine: In 1976, citing the unconstitutional nature of Governor Lilburn Boggs' directive, Missouri Governor Kit Bond formally rescinded the order. Took them a while to wake up, but they came around. I'm pretty sure you knew that, too, but I guess it was it was worth the try....

    What is currently taking place in Utah, and the courts, is the proper order of things. The people vote or a legislative body acts, someone disagrees and requests that the courts rule, the appeals take place and the highest courts make the final determination. Patience, and a little civility please, while the sausage is completely cooked. Then we can proceed with what is right.

    And one side or the other will need to buck up and learn to get along.

  • heavyhitter Lehi, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:25 a.m.

    Just because other states are caving in to the politically correct world and don't have the stomach to stand up for states' rights to decide these things and fight for morality in society, doesn't mean Utah shouldn't. Just like the United States used to be a beacon of standing up for right in the world, Utah can continue to be that for the other states and freedom-loving people.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    Be careful governor, you choose which laws to follow in your state so do not cast stones. The will of the people on immigration law does not make it through your doorways let alone be enforced in your state.

  • My house was stolen Roy , UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    "The Will of the People" Big statement. Where do you begin? Violationg the Constitution because you are the majority? The Constitution protects minority.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:37 a.m.

    @Bubble

    You wrote: "Of course, because you know same-sex marriage is the only commandment God cares if you violate. He is certainly not showing displeasure over the violation of the First and Great Commandment nor the second which is like unto it... And of course there are no explanations based on anything other than your specific religion".

    To your assertion I would reply: "The model for a Christian response to homosexuals may be the story of the woman caught in adultery. When the crowd responded with violence, by gathering to stone her, Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Knowing that they were all sinners, the crowd melted away. But Jesus' words to the woman he saved were crucial. He did not say, "Go, for you have not sinned." Instead, he said, "Go and sin no more."

    There is no contradiction between Christian compassion and a call for holy living. But the life which is holy (from a spiritual perspective) or even healthy (from a secular perspective) requires abstinence from homosexual conduct. We would do no one a favor if we ceased to proclaim that truth". Tony Perkins (a non-Mormon)

  • rightascension Provo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:39 a.m.

    I suspect Sutherland will make it worth the attorney's while for being so generous to Utah.

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    @A Quaker: excellent observations.

    I would add that I would be thoroughly embarrassed if my governor displayed such egregious lack of knowledge regarding how the American form of government works. The "will of the people" does not enter into the equation when it comes to civil rights and equal protection under the law.

    He is about to be taught what he evidently missed in civics class.

    Among the lessons that will be taught include: the 10th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Establishment Clause, the Supremacy Clause under Article VI, and perhaps the biggest eye-opener: the process of how a constitutional republic actually works.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    This truly has to be the funniest thread on this issue so far.

    confused children, schools commandeered, gods wrath, the garden of Eden.

    A quick perusal of the supporters looks like they're not even trying to make a civil or constitutional argument anymore, it's all religious.

    What an odd place.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:53 a.m.

    I support LGBT marriage, equal protection and rights under the constitution. Unlike, a lot of posters here I do have empathy and for the most part agreement with Herbert on this issue. The people of Utah passed an unconstitutional amendment to our State constituion but the Govenor took an oath to defend that constitution. His only out is to say it's unconstitutional and will be overturned by the SCOTUS and take his case to the Utah legislature and the people. In other words, publically put his political neck on the line. What's the odds of that happening?

  • Cj50 Provo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:54 a.m.

    @Brave Sir Robin
    " Remember, there was a time when the will of the people of Missouri was that all LDS church members be exterminated."

    Will of the people? It was an "EXECUTIVE order"

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    I thought we had a representative government not a democracy.

  • girl.in.slc Salt Lake , UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    @Sal
    "Utah is in step with God. He is showing his displeasure with the growing majority, as manifested in bizarre weather patterns not seen in a century throughout the nation. It will only increase as more and more people abandon His commandments."

    Remember, when God's commandments are broken, he will act like a 5 year old, throw a tantrum and cause severe weather patterns until he gets his way...

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    Jan. 24, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    Gov. Herbert's comments are perverse in nature and insulting to those who have served to uphold the Constitution of the United States to provide equality for all regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, physical or psychological disorders. Comments like his make him appear unfit for public service.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 24, 2014 9:02 a.m.

    Thew "will of the people" was decided by a vote of the people of Utah to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. People have the right to make their laws. Minorities do not have special rights as minorities. Everyone, minority and majority has individual rights. People have the right to vote for their laws. If the rights of citizens to vote on their laws are taken away then they are being disenfranchised. Think apartheid. Think violations of human rights.

    No one is being discriminated against. The laws do not prevent gay people from getting married. Everyone has to marry someone of the opposite gender, straight or gay. If two bisexuals of the opposite gender want to marry, I don't think anyone would object and most would wish them a happy life and throw rice (which is based on a wish for fertility), so where is the discrimination?

    I read about a delusional woman who got married to a bridge in France. People like that are called Objectophiles. If we are not going to allow Objectophiles to marry who (what?) they love then isn't that discriminatory and therefore against the 14th amendment?

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    As long as government controls marriage via regulation, we will have differences of opinion, strife, and contention. It seems to me the best solution to to remove government from regulation of marriage and let the bureaucrats focus on civil liberties. Let marriage be defined however they will by social groups, and let people join what ever social groups they wish.

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    He is right to defend the will of the people. He is also right to say that we should be respectful of homosexual people. Same sex marriage is not a constitutional right, however, unless you use very creative liberal activist interpretation of the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court will hear this and ultimately decide on this not very clear issue. If they uphold Shelby's ruling, then of course Herbert will go along with that. Hopefully they will overturn it though, as that would be a great victory for State's rights. For me this case is more about state's rights and defending the will of the people in a state when it comes to issues that the federal government constitutionally has no power over than it is about same sex marriage.

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 9:28 a.m.

    So, Governor Herbert admits that he was caught by surprise by Judge Shelby’s decision. The day the federal judge handed down his decision the governor and his staff looked and acted like a bunch of Keystone Cops running around the police station while it was burning down. It didn't have to be this way. This case has been in federal court for more than a year. If the governor didn't trust the AG's office under the direction of now former AG John Swallow to give him good advice then he should have hired outside counsel months ago which is what Utah is belatedly doing now. All of this could have and should have been anticipated. Herbert and his staff should have laid out the options long before the federal judge ruled. Case in history from a real leader: During the Battle of the Bulge in WW II when the 101st Airborne was surrounded at Bastogne and needed rescue, Eisenhower summoned all the allied commanders to a meeting including General Patton. Continued...

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 9:29 a.m.

    Continued.....Patton, being the remarkable leader that he was, anticipated what the meeting was about and what Eisenhower would want so Patton had his staff draw up three contingency plans for the rescue of the 101st at Bastogne. When the meeting of the Allied commanders convened, Eisenhower explained the dire situation of the 101st and asked for ideas. Patton offered that he could swing his Third Army around from their position in the south and go on an unprecedented military march in one of the worst European winters in decades and be at Bastogne within 48 hours. All jaws dropped including Eisenhower's. When asked how that was possible Patton simply said that he had already ordered his staff to develop plans and they had already commenced swinging the Third Army into position. Patton was given the go ahead. When he left the meeting he simply got on the phone and told his Chief of Staff, "Play ball". This maneuver and the rescue of the 101st is considered one of the greatest military achievements of WW II of which there were many. It is too bad Herbert does not possess these leadership skills.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    "Next to dictatorship"? Nice hyperbole. Where did he pick that up, glenn beck? Anyway, the reality is closer to what the Virginia attorney general said yesterday. He pointed out that that state wouldn't enforce any anti same sex marriage laws because the state needed to be on the correct side of the law. Good for him. The dictatorship I fear is a Utah legislature and majority.

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    Jan. 24, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    Governor Herbert is out of step with common sense and should be making decisions based on civil rights, not religious rules. Freedom of religion is an inalienable right, not an alienable one, some people seem to forget that. People of many faiths can practice the rules within their religion as long as they don't force them on others outside their religion. Not all of Utah citizens are Mormon and should not be forced to adhere to the Mormon faith.

  • IsaacsTM Huntingtown, MD
    Jan. 24, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    This is an important fight for religious freedom too. The SSM issue is being used right now to bash conservatives in politics. It is fundamentally based on the lie that those that support traditional marriage hate gay people. That is not true. Those that support traditional marriage and conservative principles believe that engaging in homosexual activity is immoral and that people will be happier if they are humble and live the commandments. It is not taught and promoted because we hate gay people. The Savior doesn't hate anybody but he also set forth his moral standards and commandments.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    "Herbert needs to be careful with his 'will of the people' doctrine. Remember, there was a time when the will of the people of Missouri was that all LDS church members be exterminated."

    That wasn't the will of the people of Missouri. It was the will of just one person, Boggs.

    "Something wrong here ,Its pretty sad that an attorney, trained in constitutional principles, cannot comprehend the place of equality in our (secular) country."

    Utah has equality re marriage. All people can marry i.e., one man/one woman. Applies equally to all citizens. Allowing SSM would introduce inequality in state law. There are many other loving relationships that would not be included such as polygamy, mother/son, father/daughter, and you name it.

    "Mr Gov: What is it about Equal Protection under Law that you fail to understand?"

    See above comment.

    "Was that law actually ever officially removed from the books?"

    No. The law is still on the books. The Gov should never have allowed those gay marriages because they are against state law.

    "If not, does that mean Gov. Herbert thinks it should still be being enforced?"

    Let's hope he understands that...

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    What Herbert calls a "next step to dictatorship" in California is and always has been common practice in Utah, and is not a step to dictatorship. States always "pick and choose" which laws to enforce, as does every prosecutor. An obvious example is Utah's forceful anti-polygamy statutes, which haven't been enforced for decades. Why doesn't Herbert "enforce" that law of Utah? (This is called "irony.")

  • slow down Provo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    I think the governor is right to see something unsettling going on when officials make a decision on their own authority to simply ignore or even combat democratically approved laws. It demonstrates how much more important opinion is than law in our society. Of course opinion should be able to change law, but only through due process and not at the whim of the elite few!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:19 a.m.

    @GZE
    "the next step is to pass a law saying children are no longer allowed to live in a home with both a mother and a farther, male and female."

    That doesn't make any sense at all.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    Would he have made the same comment about needing to support the "will of the people" if it were the '50s and he were defending segregation or miscegenation laws? "The people" don't have carte blanc to do as they like regardless of constitutional strictures.

  • Thinkman Provo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    The citizens of Utah decided at the ballot box to define what marriage is and the Supreme Court upheld that States can decide on the definition of marriage.

    The citizens of Utah can change the definition of marriage to include SSM and other forms of marriage. That is the beauty of a Representative Republic! Those who want SSM to be included in the State of Utah's definition of marriage can gather the required number of signatures to bring another Amendment proposal on the definition of marriage to the ballot box.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    The codification of religious notions into civil law when the notions do not affect the rights and freedoms of American citizens, is a precursor of dictatorship of a sort not desired by the general population of America.

    Despite the fact that most Americans dislike the Gay lifestyle, those same Americans, religious or non, would not want a theocratic government. The reason for fearing religious encroachment into civil government is the extreme motivation that religious people have to bring people into their fold. If I was a religious person, I'm sure that I would want to spread the word to every other person in the world.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    "I think the governor is right to see something unsettling going on when officials make a decision on their own authority to simply ignore or even combat democratically approved laws. It demonstrates how much more important opinion is than law in our society. "

    ----------

    Actually, it really demonstrates how much more important the constitution is than any law that goes against it.

    Read the 14th Amendment. Read the 9th Amendment. Read the Supremacy Clause. Read the Full Faith and Credit Clause---oh just read the whole thing. Then read the Federalist Papers. Then Loving v. Virginia. Followed by the Prop 8 trial transcripts.

    Anyone who has done so understands that the constitution insures that the majority cannot vote to take away rights or privileges of the minority that they themselves are enjoying. The constitution rules over the states and the laws that the states pass must comply with the constitution. The states are required to give full faith and credit to the acts, records and judicial proceeding of the other states. Not all rights are listed in the contitution, but the people still have them. And finally, the law cannot treat simularily situated citizens differently. Equality under the law.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    There has never been a free, and prosperous nation with half, or more of its people engaging in gay behavior as the norm. Never!

    Lets follow the will of the people, not the few.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    Thank you, Governor Herbert.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    What would you propose to replace the right of the people to get together and decide who will govern them and what their laws will be? Why do we hold elections?

    Oh wait. Certainly we can all come to an agreement of a single person or judge that we can give that simple and all encompassing power to, right? That person can then make the laws and decide what is good and right, and we'll all just sit back and enjoy the beauties of life in his or her loving care.... Because we all know we could trust the assigned person to decide everything for us, right?

    Sarcasm aside, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the concept of "will of the people". However, remember that is why we have more than one branch of government, allowing for a correction when the "will of the people" moves in a direction contrary to the established constitution of the people, or removes constitutionally granted rights.

    Can we knock off the rock throwing, name calling and innuendo and let this thing play out now that it is on track to be decided as the system was built to decide it?

  • Allen Salt Lake valley, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    This is an interesting thread. Usually, liberals are clamoring for democracy and conservatives are clamoring for representative government. In this thread, things are reversed. Conservatives are clamoring for democracy and liberals are clamoring for representative government. Looks like each group has its own agenda and chooses the type of government that supports its preconceived views.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 11:34 a.m.

    Thinkman

    Provo, UT

    The citizens of Utah decided at the ballot box to define what marriage is and the Supreme Court upheld that States can decide on the definition of marriage.

    -----------

    They did not decide that the states could decide on the defination of marriage. They stated that the states control marriage - meaning that they can regulate it. They still cannot go against the constitution. If, in regulating marriage, you treat a group differently than others who are simularly situated, you have made an unconstitutional law. It is brought before judges and they decide whether or not it passes. If you do not like their decisions, take it to the Supremes. This is what we are in the midst of doing.

    The constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Period. You cannot expect a law that treats law abiding, tax paying citizens differently than other citizens to pass muster with those who hold the constitution in one hand and our Amendment 3 in the other.

  • Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    @Sal: You wrote, "Utah is in step with God. He is showing his displeasure with the growing majority, as manifested in bizarre weather patterns not seen in a century throughout the nation."

    No, the bizarre weather patterns has nothing to do with a supernatural being showing his displeasure with the growing majority. Even if this were true, why would such a deity create such large scale collateral damage to his supposed followers.

    At any rate, science, not superstition, provides the answer regarding bizarre weather patterns.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 24, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    Some on this forum think that children's rights don't matter or that commandeering the educational system is "funny"? Look at what's happened in CA and MA. Participating in Gay Celebration Week isn't optional for public school kids. Not only do kids in CA have to hear from their teachers that homosexuality is healthy and normal, they also need to learn the sexual orientations of great people in the past. It's all just wrong.

    Yes! Children should have rights, but selfish adults who engage in sex before marriage, have extramarital affairs, who physically and psychologically abuse the child or one of his parents, and who feel their attraction to the same gender is more important that raising kids with a mother and father, have destroyed those rights. And not only do children suffer, but future generations will also suffer the consequences. Nothing to be giggling about.

  • Mr. Smitty Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    @Grammy3: I am an Atheist, and I am happily married. I had no problem having my marriage license issued to me by the state. It's not any state's business to define marriage as something to do with God. It would be unconstitutional to do so.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    @
    @ worf

    You wrote: "There has never been a free, and prosperous nation with half, or more of its people engaging in gay behavior as the norm. Never!"

    Dear Worf,

    There has never been a nation with half, or more of its people engaging in gay behavior as the norm. Never!

    My question to you is, What is your point?

    The regular rate of Homosexuality in society ranges between 4% and 10% . Since homosexuality is "NOT" a choice and is not contagious, the percentages should remain very much the same. Unless, we underestimated the people who are in the closet.

    Regardless, your statement would still be correct, no nation (free, wealthy, poor, democracy, empire, colony, etc. ) have had more than 50% of homosexuals in its population.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    worf, of
    Mcallen, TX says:
    "There has never been a free, and prosperous nation with half, or more of its people engaging in gay behavior as the norm. Never!"

    It would be nice if people who wanted to comment here had at least some grounding in reality and were prepared to make sensible arguments.

    Out of every 20 people, about 1 is gay. How do you calculate that to be "more than half"?

    Nobody who's straight is hankering to be gay. What a ridiculous notion! By the time we're adults, everyone knows who rings their chimes, so to speak.

    Gay people are a small and disadvantaged minority, with a much smaller dating pool and a largely hostile society. They're constant targets of violence and discrimination and outright acts of hatred. Messages like yours, for instance.

    It's time that people grew up, stopped worrying about other people's love lives and learned to treat their neighbors with respect.

    Other than that, your statement is factual, and will still be true after we allow gay people to marry each other. There will still only be about 5% gay people in the population.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    .....and codifying discrimination into law based on religious morality is a step toward theocracy. Utah, the Mormon equivalent of Saudi Arabia.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    Tekakaromatag

    So there is no discrimination in current law because gay people are not forbidden to marry.....they just have to marry someone of the opposite gender?

    Does that mean that you believe inter-racial marriage bans were not discriminatory either? After all, no one was forbidding black people from marrying, as long as they married another black person. Is that the "logic" you want to stick with?

  • Thinkman Provo, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:31 p.m.

    Lane Meyer,

    The Supreme Court, by deciding to put a temporary stay on Judge Shelby's ruling that strikes down Amendment 3, has effectively, ruled that States get to decide on the definition of marriage which Amendement 3 does.

    I'm not saying I agree with the ruling, but what I will defend is the States to exercise their 10th Amendment (US Bill of Rights) rights. The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment doesn't list nor should it be interpreted to mean that marriage is defined by the US Constitution.

    Again, as I stated earlier, that is the beauty of our Representative Republic - to allow the citizens of the States to decide matters that aren't covered, nor would or should be covered by the US Consitution or by Federal Law.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    So if the will of the people was to re-institute slavery, the Governor would support that? Come on Governor. Lead or get out of the way!!

  • Liddle Bruda Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    "No one is being discriminated against. The laws do not prevent gay people from getting married. Everyone has to marry someone of the opposite gender, straight or gay. If two bisexuals of the opposite gender want to marry, I don't think anyone would object and most would wish them a happy life and throw rice (which is based on a wish for fertility), so where is the discrimination?"

    This statement shows that you truly do not understand this argument. Marriage is a right pursuant to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Telling a person that they have to marry someone they do not love nor is attracted to, is contradictory to this pursuit. The only legitimate reason to deny a right afforded by the Constitution, there has to be proof that this discrimination is in the bests interests of the State. Any argument using religion automatically is disqualified because although people can state their beliefs, they cannot create laws on those religious beliefs if they are in contridiction to the Constitution. Outside of that, there hasn't been any compelling argument to deny marriage to gay couples, and likely never will be as there is no compelling reason.

  • praxis Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    To those that use Christ as the basis for their opposition to same-sex marriage equality, 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?

    Gandhi said it best:
    "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
    Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

  • praxis Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:48 p.m.

    @Worf - From your post, I gather you are referring to the often perpetuated myth regarding the Roman Empire. No modern scholar cites homosexuality as one of the causes of the Empire's fall.

    Homosexuality was not something that was embraced or "accepted" by the Empire when it fell. In fact, the first law against homosexuality was passed by the Roman Empire in the year 342 AD by the Emperors Constantius and Chlorus, who ruled jointly in the 4th century AD.

    Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and subsequent emperors began to crack down on homosexuals in general. In 390 AD homosexuality was made illegal, with the penalty for engaging in such acts being burned alive in a public execution. Interestingly, one of the same penalties previously used for those that converted to Christianity.

    Later emperors would use gays as a convenient scapegoat for all kinds of problems. Emperor Justinian blamed homosexuals for things ranging from famines to earthquakes and gays have been used as scapegoats for all of societies ills ever since.

    What was embraced and accepted by the Roman Empire leading up to the time of its fall was Christianity.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    @Karen R. in Houston

    Our children are well aware of the difference between families that have a regular mother and father compared to those who have two "mothers or fathers". They recognize the distinct advantages of the complimentary influences by having a mom and a dad. They harbor no ill will toward folks that are different, they simply want to continue with the heritage they have experienced in their own families.

    We don't need to keep them locked up in their rooms or at Church. In fact our Church teaches our children to be compassionate and understanding of others with differences and to be respectful toward them. They also want to honor those principles they know to be true, positive and healthy. If anything they would freely share their knowledge of what has brought them and their families so much peace and happiness.

    If others choose not to want to live like our children do, that is their choice. We simply request that you respect our differences and accept that we can never agree with you on everything and we don't expect you to agree with us either.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 1:09 p.m.

    Thinkman: I totally disagree with your interpretation of the stay. To me, it was a "wait a minute," let's see what more than one judge says. It has absolutely no other meaning.

    I do agree that a state can define marriage as long as they do not treat one segment of the population differently than a simularly situated group. In other words, they may pass laws that agree with the constitution.

    To quote the Supremacy Clause, "This Constitution...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    That is pretty plain. All laws (whether or not they are rights enumerated in the constitution) MUST abide by the rules set forth in the constitution. In other words, they must treat everyone Equally Under the Law. Amendment 3 does not do that.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    We are beginning to see that irrational same-sex marriage bans based on vile animus, hate and prejudice do not pass constitutional muster. Much like the historical demand of folks to "value and respect the will of the people" who held strong beliefs about where African Americans should sit on public transportation, who they should marry, their use of separate drinking fountains and educational institutions. Like the opposing "opinions" on same-sex marriage today, they were eventually shown to be undeserving of any value, respect or tolerance whatsoever in civil marriage and public accommodations law.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Jan. 24, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    Praxis I thought we are not discussing religion on here ?

    But well you ask for a quote of Christ, here it is plain and simple :

    But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
    For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

    And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
    What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.

    And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.

    And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
    (MARK 10)

    Just use common sense what the girl is supposed to do, that you did never marry ?

  • Liddle Bruda Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 1:15 p.m.

    @IsaacsTM

    I don't believe all religious people hate gay people at all. But your opinion is just that, your opinion. It might be based in religious history, or context but our Marriage laws are based on secular history and the government hands out benefits for those that are married. The problem is you are trying to require people to live by your morals, you find homosexual activity immoral, but other people do not. Why should your morals have precedance over my morals. We live in a secular society run by a secular government and unless there is a legitimate reason for denying a right to a minority, it cannot be denied.

  • Liddle Bruda Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    @ WRZ

    "Was that law actually ever officially removed from the books?"

    "No. The law is still on the books. The Gov should never have allowed those gay marriages because they are against state law."

    An invalidated law is not a law any longer. Judge Shelby ruled that the law is Unconstitutional and had no good argument from the State to stay his decision, therefor for 2 weeks, the law was removed from the books. Those marriages, regardless of what happens next, will be declared valid as they were entered in good faith under a federal court order.

  • brotherJonathan SLC, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 1:18 p.m.

    Is a civil union a biblical marriage? Not in my opinion. To allow other citizens the right to chose for themselves what lifestyle they would embrace is not the same as teaching their choice as a recommended way of life to your children. So we walk a delicate path of protecting individual rights of choice and defending our own right of choice in our schools and other places of gathering.
    Tolerance for others rights with respect for our choice when it comes to teaching our own children the principles of a happy fulfilled life, obeying the commands of our conscience. Because of the fact that children are impressionable and do not have founded psychological beliefs in experience and outcomes, we who have the responsibility to nurture and guide belief structure have the ultimate say in what should be and not be taught as a viable lifestyle for them until they are adults. Homosexual partnerships without science intervention cannot produce offspring, this is the facts. So nature has female and male as a parent structure and is the natural means of raising young humans to adulthood. Beyond those facts this is fairly new territory, protecting freedom of choice for both.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 1:24 p.m.

    What about the religious liberty of those churches who want to honor and perform same sex marriage? Shouldn't they have the same religious liberty to decide for themselves, just like the LDS church to perform same-sex marriages or not?
    Affirming Pentecostal Church International
    Alliance of Christian Churches
    Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
    The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
    Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
    Community of Christ
    Conservative Judaism
    Ecumenical Catholic Church
    Ecumenical Catholic Communion
    The Episcopal Church
    Evangelical Anglican Church In America
    Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
    Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
    Inclusive Orthodox Church
    Metropolitan Community Church
    Old Catholic Church
    Progressive Christian Alliance
    Reconciling Pentecostals International
    Reconstructionist Judaism
    Reform Judaism
    Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
    Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
    Unitarian Universalist Church
    United Church of Christ
    Unity Church

  • Liddle Bruda Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 1:50 p.m.

    @Thinkman

    "The Supreme Court, by deciding to put a temporary stay on Judge Shelby's ruling that strikes down Amendment 3, has effectively, ruled that States get to decide on the definition of marriage which Amendement 3 does."

    Actually it doesn't mean any such thing. It means that the Supreme Court believes that there needs to be further evaluation than anything. Two courts have already said they don't believe the State will win this argument which is why they didn't stay the decision. There was no explination as to why the Supreme court ruled as it did, therefore you cannot claim the Supreme Court has already ruled.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    VST

    Of course 10 applies. But the states must STILL pass laws (under Amendment 10) that conform to the rest of the constitution. It isn't hard.

    Look at Loving v. Virginia. Virginia had a law that stated that blacks were to marry blacks and whites could only marry whites. Nothing in the constitution says anything about marriage, so one would think they could do what they wanted per Amendment 10...

    Nope. Virginia's law was declared unconstitutional. The 14th amendment was violated. They now are still defining marriage, but without harming a segment of the population, and are treating all citizens equally. They actually will NOT be defending their SSM ban, btw.

    Marriage was declared (not for the first time, btw) a right. So now marriage is looked at under Amendment 9, and 10 - it has been reserved to the people---All people, not just the ones that some people think are worthy. If you want to deny some people marriage, you better have a good reason - not just a religious belief. This is where all cases have been lacking.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Jan. 24, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    @Lane Myer:
    "In other words, they must treat everyone Equally Under the Law."

    Utah's marriage laws treat everyone equally... That marriage is to be one man/one woman. Applies to all citizens of the state equally. Any divergence from that law will introduce inequality. For example a polygamist having feelings for several women cannot marry all of them. And there are many other loving combinations that would have to be dealt with.

    @Liddle Bruda:
    "An invalidated law is not a law any longer. Judge Shelby ruled that the law is Unconstitutional..."

    Shelby did not rule on Utah's marriage law... He ruled on a State Constitutional Amendment. The state's marriage laws are still on the books.

    "Those marriages, regardless of what happens next, will be declared valid as they were entered in good faith under a federal court order."

    They were against state law, thus invalid.

    @Lane Myer:
    "Of course 10 applies. But the states must STILL pass laws (under Amendment 10) that conform to the rest of the constitution."

    The state's law do conform. One man/one woman marriages... Apply to all citizens equally. If you have feeling for a frog... sorry that won't pass muster.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 24, 2014 3:18 p.m.

    @ O'Really

    You wrote:" Not only do kids in CA have to hear from their teachers that homosexuality is healthy and normal, they also need to learn the sexual orientations of great people in the past. It's all just wrong."

    Children around the world, already "know" that homosexuality is healthy and normal.

    How wonderful that children can learn that our society needs all kind of people. The LGBT child can have great role model for them, Leonardo Da Vinci, Socrates, Michael Angelo, Etc. etc.

    It's all just wonderful!

    O'Really and Brother Jonathan,

    You as a parent have the right to teach your children your own principles. If you feel that Homosexuality and/or SSM is wrong you have the freedom to teach them that at home and church or any other private place.

    The role of society however, is to treat all members with respect and equality. Schools in all nations work as a socializing agent to unite the nation under certain common threads we call culture. In the U.S.A. for centuries we have claimed to believe in diversity, now we are trying to live by those words. That is wonderful!

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 24, 2014 3:38 p.m.

    @ Desert:
    I think Jesus would reply to you with what he said in Matthew 23:23
    "
    Matthew 23:23

    “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former"

    Jesus taught against divorce and made heterosexual marriage sacred. But that is not the same as saying that Jesus "spoke against" homosexuality, which was Praxis point.

    I brought up Matthew 23:23 because may be religious people are focusing their energy in the wrong fight. There are several examples in the New Testament that we can use to make an argument of Christ supporting homosexuals and homosexual relationships. But this is not the place or time.

    The point as mentioned in Matthew as well as in Ezekiel 16:49"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

    Social Justice seems to be very important!

  • Commodore West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 3:57 p.m.

    The Constitution cares not whether the majority support a particular viewpoint. The Constitution will overthrown the will of the majority time and time again, until the majority get their particular belief enshrined into the federal constitution itself through the amendment process. Herbert is pushing a position that is currently unconstitutional and he is doing so for political points with his constituents. He knows his position is untenable....at least I hope he does.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    "There has never been a free, and prosperous nation with half, or more of its people engaging in gay behavior as the norm. Never!"

    Simple reason: there has never been a nation where more than half of its people engaged in gay behavior. Never!

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 24, 2014 5:19 p.m.

    @Baccus0902--By legalizing gay marriage, spewing equality, and calling non-gays haters, it signals the want of having our population to except the behavior.--That's why I stated what I did. It's never worked in a society.

    @praxis-- many leaders of the Roman Empire were gay.

    Disagreeing with gay rights is not hatred. I've have gay friends who understand my position.

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 5:20 p.m.

    Governor Herbert's point should be considered carefully. In this system of government, those who govern derive their power and authority from the people. In other words, the people are the ultimate source of authority which they lend to those who govern.

    Governor Herbert and AG Reyes can legitimately do nothing else but defend the will of the people as already expressed by amendment three. Those who govern in other states should act the same. They should not fight to overthrow (or otherwise ignore) the will of their own people. Defending the people's will is their job, their commission, and their duty, whether they agree with the issues involved or not.

    Conversely, if the will of the people had spoken in favor of SSM, then it would be the duty of those who govern to defend that instead. That, I believe, is the way our government is supposed to run.

    In today's environment, the Supreme Court will likely have the final say. I personally think the legislatures (federal, state, and local) should have the say as to what is law and what isn't, but for a long time that prerogative has been taken by the judiciary.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Jan. 24, 2014 6:49 p.m.

    Baccus, Homosexuality isn't healthy. I suggest you research some of the many health issues associated directly with the gay lifestyle if you aren't familiar with them already. The problems cannot be denied. This lifestyle has been glorified of late but no one, especially in the MSM will talk honestly about all the dangers to the body and mind. Little kids don't need gay education in their curriculum. It's private choice that should be left up the families only. And what difference does it make if Napoleon was gay or straight? Lets find something else a little more uplifting besides ones sexual proclivities to focus on and learn about.

    About homosexuality being normal...once you can show me a child conceived and born by two men or two women, I might agree with you. But that is and always will be impossible.

  • FREDISDEAD Layton, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 7:37 p.m.

    @Baccus0902

    Being gay has ALWAYS been a CHOICE. God has never "made" someone gay. They CHOOSE to act that way.

    End of story.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 9:07 p.m.

    What is so bad about not calling same sex unions marriages? Is a another name really so bad? Is changing the name to respect the religious rights and rites of others too much to ask?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 24, 2014 9:21 p.m.

    @Meckofahess

    Are you sure you speak for ALL of your children? Polls are suggesting otherwise. Even the young people here in Evangelical-rich Texas are pushing back against their church doctrine on this subject. I think they have a different definition of "respect" than some of their elders.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:08 p.m.

    @Karen B.

    Yes, I am sure I speak for all of my children. As for polls, I know many unelected politicians who found comfort in the polls.

    Moreover, even if the courts decide to legalize same-sex marriage, there will be a huge moral outrage from a large percentage of the heterosexual population who will feel that it was forced upon them and they will forever hold resentment. I'm sorry to say it won't be like racial integration laws where discrimination was based on race. That was a very different thing and after some time we did accept those laws because they were based on moral truths and had broad religious support. The same cannot be said for homosexual conduct.

  • SuziQ Springville, UT
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:19 p.m.

    I would have to agree that although I think that everyone in our society has a right to live and love whoever they want to, I don't think that you should ever use the word marriage for same sex unions. Marriage has always been about a man and woman and their offspring. It defines a relationship rooted in biology that is not possible for same gender couples. I also have a problem with a same gender union invalidating the term mother and father because it would not be fair to have some families have mother and father and other families have two mothers (maybe only one biologically) or two fathers. In order to make things fair, we must only have "parents". Must the majority redefine everything so the minority is not offended? Seems more unfair.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    Jan. 25, 2014 3:08 a.m.

    Badgerbadger
    Murray, UT

    --- Thanks for asking!

    "What is so bad about not calling same sex unions marriages? Is a another name really so bad?"

    --- Kindly suggest a name that folks will recognize as equal to marriage, in the supermarket, when kids say it about their parents at school, at work, etc.
    --- Do you see the point, that nothing else seems like marriage and does not cause folks to start asking nosy questions?
    Suppose you have 4 mormon children, and 3 get to be married, while one either needs to lie to people and to God or accept some cruddy alternative that no one "gets".

    "Is changing the name to respect the religious rights and rites of others too much to ask?"

    --- Why yes, it is. For instance, nearly all non-mormon Christians think that you calling yourselves "saints" is totally rude and pretentious, as well as degrading the original saints, the Apostles. Are we telling you not to?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Jan. 25, 2014 6:39 a.m.

    @Meckofahess

    You and yours are being met with a huge moral outrage now, also from the hetero population (as well as their LGBT fellow citizens). In your misguided certainty that your view holds the moral high ground, your side has codified a particular religious belief into law. A religious belief not held by all religions. This is where you lose. If you are really concerned about your religious liberty, you will want these laws struck down.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Jan. 25, 2014 7:47 a.m.

    @FREDISDEAD: I'm not sure, but I think I'm starting to see where your understanding is failing you.

    Apparently, your definition of "gay" is a person who has sex with another person of the same sex. Therefore, if that person never has sex with another person of the same sex, they're not gay. And, if they "make a choice" to never have sex, then they're not gay.

    Except, that's the wrong definition entirely. A celibate gay person is still gay. They can choose to be celibate. But, they can't "choose" to not be gay.

    Because, the correct definition of homosexuality is a person who is innately attracted, romantically, to persons of their own sex. That, my friend, is not a choice. Those of us who are heterosexual are innately attracted to the opposite sex, and we're the majority by far. Our brothers and sisters who are homosexual are about 5% of the population, and their sexuality is no more a choice than ours is. Unless a person is bisexual and can be romantically attracted to either sex, there are no choices in any of this.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Jan. 25, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    Gov Herbert is completely correct in criticizing Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring. Herring
    has betrayed the people of Virginia and in fact lied during his campaign that he would support the Virginia constitution. Hopefully the wise people of Virginia will either recall or impeach him. Herbert is fulfilling his oath of office and we should support his actions.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Jan. 25, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    Using the term "marriage" connotates respect for same gender marriage. What we need to do is support heterosexual marriage. A legal union can be done for gays.

  • dan76 san antonio, TX
    Jan. 25, 2014 11:29 a.m.

    During a recent time frame in our country's history, the "Will of the people" allowed Jim Crow and "Separate but equal" legislation.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 25, 2014 2:19 p.m.

    @Mechfaess "I'm sorry to say it won't be like racial integration laws where discrimination was based on race. That was a very different thing and after some time we did accept those laws because they were based on moral truths and had broad religious support. The same cannot be said for homosexual conduct."

    Race, sex and sexual orientation (unlike religious belief) are considered for the most part to be immutable characteristics. In fact, just like race and sex, the 9th circuit court of appeals, just ruled that sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny. So no, they are not a "very different thing" regarding civil marriage law. Everyone needs to operate from the same set of facts regarding constitutional law. Do you understand better now?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    Jan. 25, 2014 2:29 p.m.

    @ Grammy, "You want rights but what about all of us who feel our rights are being taken away because you want to create a new law that goes against what I believe in. It is a religious union a marriage between a Man and a Woman."

    Do the following religions that honor or perform same-sex marriages have religious rights? Should your religious view be the only one codified into civil law? You will find that these religions are blessed with special access to moral truth, where others are not:
    Affirming Pentecostal Church International
    Alliance of Christian Churches
    Anointed Affirming Independent Ministries
    The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
    Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
    Community of Christ
    Conservative Judaism
    Ecumenical Catholic Church
    Ecumenical Catholic Communion
    The Episcopal Church
    Evangelical Anglican Church In America
    Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
    Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals
    Inclusive Orthodox Church
    Metropolitan Community Church
    Old Catholic Church
    Progressive Christian Alliance
    Reconciling Pentecostals International
    Reconstructionist Judaism
    Reform Judaism
    Reformed Anglican Catholic Church
    Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
    Unitarian Universalist Church
    United Church of Christ
    Unity Church

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Jan. 27, 2014 5:05 a.m.

    Karen R said to opponents of SSM "You and yours are being met with a huge moral outrage now."

    And you don't think you side is also being met with huge moral outrage??

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 27, 2014 8:26 p.m.

    wrz
    Utah has equality re marriage. All people can marry i.e., one man/one woman. Applies equally to all citizens.
    LDS4
    The pro-miscegenationists said something similar saying, "All people can marry i.e., White/White or Black/Black. Applies equally to all citizens."
    Is it equality to allow child molesters, child pornographers and those who sell drugs to kids to marry and raise kids, but the gay couple who are excellent parents aren't allowed to?
    Is it equality to deny gays marriage under the excuse of them not being able to have kids while allowing marriage to senior couples equally unable to reproduce?

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    Well if it makes you happy then OK. I will call the government tomorrow.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Jan. 28, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    @ Quaker: Actually, being attracted to the same sex but not acting on it is called "same-sex attration". Acting on it is called "gay". To act on an impulse or attraction is always a choice.

    @equal protection: So, are you only favoring religious freedom for churches who you agree with? I would argue that your list of churches do not have special access to moral truth, but rather have been corrupted by the "philosophies of men"....

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    Jan. 28, 2014 7:14 p.m.

    In a democracy, "We the People" should always triumph. "I the Judge" or "I the President" should never have the final say.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Jan. 28, 2014 8:23 p.m.

    @ New to Utah

    "Gov Herbert is completely correct in criticizing Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring. Herring
    has betrayed the people of Virginia and in fact lied during his campaign that he would support the Virginia constitution. Hopefully the wise people of Virginia will either recall or impeach him. Herbert is fulfilling his oath of office and we should support his actions."

    My dear New to Utah,
    In Virginia we are proud of AG General Herring who put first the citizens of VA than the "emotional outburst" of a bad moment in history. He and the Governor of VA were elected on this platform.