Quantcast
Utah

Utah recognition of same-sex marriage in judge's hands

Comments

Return To Article
  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2014 3:40 p.m.

    I'm not LDS but I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson and Pope Francis on this. Technically I'm Catholic but don't really identify as a Catholic.

    But it is nice knowing I agree with Pope Francis and Mormon Prophet Monson, both men who according to their religions speak for God.

    Nice to know that I agree with them!

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 12, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    Remember, the whole reason there was not a stay put in place immediately after Shelby's ruling was because the Utah Attorney General's office was in disarray following the Swallow debacle. Shelby called the attorneys in and, incredibly, the Attorney General's office wasn't ready to go with a stay request, as it should have been.

  • Snapdragon Midlothian, VA
    March 12, 2014 3:58 p.m.

    Judge Robert J. Shelby is the one that disrupted our lives, not the State of Utah.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    March 12, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    I think that to have respect you have to be respectable. If you are in a position of respect doesn't mean you are respected. Respect is earned. It takes a life time to gain a good reputation i fraction of a second to loose it. Hold your standards high, your an American. Take pride in it and be proud of it.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 12, 2014 5:13 p.m.

    This case will be interesting to watch as it plays out. Here in California, once Prop. 8 was passed, same-sex couples who married during the brief window when it was legal, were ultimately granted full recognition and not stripped of their married status, even though no more marriages between same-sex couples could take place while the appeals process went forward.

    After a quick check of Judge Dale Kimball's background, I would be extremely surprised if he ruled in favor of the couples, and against the state of Utah.

  • Azazael Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2014 5:23 p.m.

    @Values Voter

    No, when the AG's office sent the stay request Shelby denied it.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2014 5:35 p.m.

    While I support same-sex marriage, I don't think they have a good case here since the stay keeps Amendment 3 in force and so the state has the authority to proceed the way they have in the interim.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    March 12, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    @Snapdragon 3:58 p.m. March 12, 2014

    Judge Robert J. Shelby is the one that disrupted our lives, not the State of Utah.

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

    Actually not. He ruled in accordance with the Constitution, the federal law and the precedents. Given the ruling in Windsor, it was clear to anyone who had a clue about how the law works that he would find for the plaintiffs. The State should have done what every attorney knows to do -- have a motion for a stay prepared in case the ruling went against it. when the State lost, it went to the 10th Circuit or a stay, even though the case hadn't been appealed yet, instead of going to Judge Shelby for the stay. The State screwed up big time, and couples were lawfully married in the weeks between the judgment being entered and the Supreme Court issuing the stay. Regardless what happens with the appeal, the couples who married during the hiatus are in fact married and their marriages should be recognized.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    March 12, 2014 6:05 p.m.

    Judge Shelby assured this big mess by not issuing an immediate stay as he should have.

    The whole SSM action in Utah was very carefully orchestrated. At one point earlier in the process Judge Shelby said he would rule sometime in January 2014. Yet the activist Judge couldn't resist the timing,with the opportunity of an Attorney General's office in chaos due to corruption, resignation and temporary leadership; issuing his ruling late on Friday and within a few days of Christmas Holiday; SSM sympathizers in authority poised and ready to issue licenses, perform marriages and go later into the evening and some even on Saturday; LGBT couples poised and ready to rush out to get married in a moments notice; etc.

    In blocking the will of the people, which came about in a fair and open election, all knew it would be challenged through the whole court system, and one mans opinion would have to be ratified by through the whole court system.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 12, 2014 6:24 p.m.

    Azazael wrote:
    "No, when the AG's office sent the stay request Shelby denied it."

    I'm not going to belabor this, but I think Judge Shelby's called it correctly at the time.

    If you'll remember, the Utah Attorney General's team failed to make a stay request in advance of Shelby's ruling, as they could have done (and as was done in the prop 8 case here in CA with judge Walker) or even in the hours immediately after the ruling on that Friday.

    In short, there were baffling procedural deficiencies on the part of the attorneys representing the state

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    March 12, 2014 6:37 p.m.

    @Furry1993

    Actually he did NOT rule in accordance with the Constitution, the federal law and original intent and precedents are just someone else's later interpretation which may wrong.

    His ruling was just his desire on how the constitution should be interpreted, completely misapplying the 14th amendment while ignoring all other aspects of the constitution (and what federal law?). Otherwise he would have ruled for the state forcing the gays to appeal. As should have been proper.

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    March 12, 2014 7:04 p.m.

    @Values Voter:
    Judge Kimball is a very highly regarded jurist. I have no idea how he will rule in this case, but I am confident that he will do so based on the law. I disagreed with those (including this paper) who criticized Judge Shelby. I also disagree with your assumption about a perceived bias on the part of Judge Kimball.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    March 12, 2014 9:12 p.m.

    Chris B.

    Religious sentiments and beliefs are great.

    However, neither the Pope nor any ecclesiastical leader has a say in a legal matter.

    Religious leaders' beliefs are contained to their own congregation.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    March 12, 2014 9:13 p.m.

    I think we'll find that the marriages contracted during those few days in December were validly contracted and the state will need to recognize them. Even if Utah prevails in its appeal to reinstate a ban on same-sex marriage, there is no way for the state to retroactively undo those 1300 couples' marriages.

    It certainly does complicate things for those opponents of same-sex marriage.

    Meanwhile, Friday evening should see Schaerr's second brief being filed. I look forward to reading it. I have no idea how he's going to rebut all the amicus briefs he claimed he wanted to address.

    Speaking of which, one I just got around to reading tonight, posted as a document on Scribd with the name, "Historians of Marriage Amicus Brief," might be very enlightening to those of you hoping to prevail on a "traditional marriage" argument. It's particularly good at detailing where the authority for marriage lies. It's signed onto by a couple dozen history professors who study the subject and I would say you've got one tough hill to climb.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2014 9:45 p.m.

    @the truth
    A bunch of other judges ruled the same way as Shelby and... honestly when was the last time a judge ruled against same-sex marriage? I really have no idea.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2014 10:10 p.m.

    Does anyone know if similar issues arose in when inter-racial couples married in the days when such was illegal. I know for a fact that bi-racial couples had a lot of problems in those days, and humiliating experiences. Anyone care to share?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 12, 2014 10:15 p.m.

    @chris B
    "When have I have supported religion using religion as a reason to impose restrictions on all Americans."

    "I'm not LDS but I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson and Pope Francis on this. Technically I'm Catholic but don't really identify as a Catholic. But it is nice knowing I agree with Pope Francis and Mormon Prophet Monson, both men who according to their religions speak for God."

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    March 12, 2014 10:26 p.m.

    @Schnee:
    "While I support same-sex marriage..."

    If so, do you also support other types of marriages such as... polygamy, incest, close relatives, mother/son, father/daughter and a whole lot more?

    If same sex marriage is allowed, the door then has to be opened for any and all other types of marriages. Denial will be discrimination.

    I don't think anyone who has concerns for the direction we are headed wants to go there. Let's hope the courts nip this thing before it gets out of hand.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    March 12, 2014 10:44 p.m.

    How will UTahns and LDS members deal with the legalization of same-sex marriage?

    It is going to happen. Sooner rather than later.

    Life will go on, and most people won't even notice a difference--except those who gain the rights they've long been denied.

  • first2third Elmo, UT
    March 12, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    Marriages begin and end every day. If the LGBT community wants marriage, get use to the disappointment that comes along with it. The fact that it could end at any moment due to a judge is something married people are well aware of>

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    March 12, 2014 10:59 p.m.

    @alt I think many judges have upheld the will of the people in so called same gender marriage legalization.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2014 11:02 p.m.

    @wrz
    I think polygamy should be decriminalized. Close relatives (I assume you mean like cousins) is already legal in around half the states so I guess it doesn't change much even if I think it's gross. I oppose marriage between immediate family members.

    I'm not going to be convinced to oppose same-sex marriage due to some fearmongering about polygamists.

    Do you oppose interracial marriage? I'm just wondering because that's the one setting the precedents for courts intervening in same-sex marriage bans.

    And no, courts aren't going to stop this whole same-sex marriage thing, they've been ruling pretty consistently in various types of cases in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, Utah, Oklahoma, Texas...

  • David Centerville, UT
    March 12, 2014 11:12 p.m.

    A stay should have been issued at the time Shelby released his ruling. The fact that the stay was not granted at that time was corrected by a higher court later. In my opinion, because the stay correction was granted, the marriages should be placed on hold until the Supreme Court decides the issue and the state should not recognize those marriages yet.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    March 12, 2014 11:43 p.m.

    @1aggie:
    "Life will go on, and most people won't even notice a difference--except those who gain the rights they've long been denied."

    What rights being denied are you talking about? If it's about marriage... all, ALL people have the right to marry... provided they marry one person of the opposite set. This means everyone. No one is excluded.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 13, 2014 1:58 a.m.

    @wrz
    Decriminalizing polygamy seems correct since sleeping around is legal (the inconsistency is confusing). Half the states already have cousin marriage legal.

    Do you oppose interracial marriage? No, of course you don't (safe assumption). The court decisions overturning those bans are what's being used as precedent for same-sex marriage, so if you're worried about me supporting something that might be used as precedent then should we have opposed interracial marriage to avoid some "what if" down the road?

    @higv
    "I think many judges have upheld the will of the people in so called same gender marriage legalization."

    Well if many have then it should be easy to name one, particularly one that has done so since the Windsor case. Same-sex marriage advocates have Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas, Kentucky, and Ohio rulings. I have no doubt that one did so long ago but now... the tide has turned on the legal front hasn't it?

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    March 13, 2014 7:33 a.m.

    1aggie,

    When our lives pass, every one of us must return to God and face judgement. It is going to happen. Sooner than anyone realizes. You may certainly choose to believe or not, but all of us know that the truth is something we cannot rewrite.

    You can either worry about how you'll reconcile yourselves with the world or with God.

    How will I deal with any of this? Well, I'd rather be right with God than any court. God will not be stayed. The courts will.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    March 13, 2014 7:49 a.m.

    "If same sex marriage is allowed, the door then has to be opened . ."

    Ah, the "slippery slope" logical fallacy. It always rears its silly head in these debates. It translates to "My religious leaders say this is wrong, but since we, unfortunately, don't live in a theocracy, I must use some other argument to impose my religious views on others." If anyone here can tell me they buy into this type of logic and doesn't also object for religious reasons, I will be surprised.

    You can apply the same "logic" to pretty much any law or ruling and it would make as much sense as it does here. Try it; I'll bet you can easily do it whether you agree with me on SSM or not. In short, the position that "If we allow A to happen, then B, C, and eventually X will happen!" is just not convincing to adults.

    But then it really doesn't matter. SSM will be legal soon across the country, and in 20 years your grandkids will wonder what all the fuss was about.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    March 13, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    Religious people and churches have as much right to speak out on moral issues as those that disagree with those morals. Hypocritical there. Can't refute so tell them to be quiet. The tide turned on Pilate and Herod when they put people to death. Was that the right side of the Tide. God will not change his laws even if man does.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 13, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    You're right, I do perceive a likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Kimball, but I would absolutely love to be proven wrong.

    After reading the opinions of Judge N. Randy Smith -- the dissenter in the 3-judge panel hearing in Perry v. Brown, (9th circuit appeal) -- and Judge Robert C. Jones, ruling against the plaintiff couples in Nevada's Sevcik v. Sandoval, I've learned to be guarded in my expectations when it comes to judges, who are also Mormons. Of course, both of those relatively recent decisions were pre-Windsor and now the legal landscape is quite different.

    In any case, which ever way Judge Kimball rules, I look forward to reading his opinion.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    March 13, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    @higv: God's laws have indeed changed. Christians live under the New Covenant. In Romans 14, Paul clearly explains to us the difference between Law of the Old Covenant and the New.

    Leviticus banned in no uncertain terms pork, clam chowder, shrimp cocktail, catfish, escargot, rabbit, and most game birds. Eating them was Abomination. Why is it now not?

    Paul explains, "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean....For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. ... For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. ... Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    March 13, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    Tolstoy,

    Interesting you didn't post my whole comment.

    Like I said before, just because I agree with something a religious group does doesn't mean my support is based on religion.

    It is not.

    Want to try again?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 13, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    Chris B: "Like I said before, just because I agree with something a religious group does doesn't mean my support is based on religion.

    It is not."

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

    What is it based on then? Can you define what your position is and support that position with facts and legal arguments that would stand up in court without any religious idea mentioned?

    I would love to hear this.

  • Embarcadero SAN FRANCISCO, CA
    March 13, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    These couples were and are legally married in the state of Utah. The arguments put forward by the state are embarrassing to anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of the law.

    Utahns, you knew when you joined the Union that your laws would be subject to federal judicial review. We told you not to pass the blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional Amendment 3. You wouldn't listen.

    Are you listening now?

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    March 13, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    "Utah recognition of same-sex marriage in judge's hands"
    -------------------------------

    Since Shelby's ruling that overturned the voter-approved Utah constitution amendment, it's clear that this has been the case all along. At least in a strictly legal sense.

    However, as I've noted previously, all REAL power lies with the people. If enough people value marriage enough to insist on defining it as they wish to, **that** is what it will be.

    The fact that the definition of marriage can be so muddied in the span of just a few years shows what power there was in the initially subtle but increasingly overt and heavy marketing campaign by the gay lobby during the last couple decades. We haven't arrived at this dismal state of marriage by accident. It's been a long time in the making and a lot of strategic planning went into this.

    If the reverence for marriage between men and women is ever going to be regained, it will only come from an equally dedicated plan of action. The forces arrayed against it are very formidable and determined.

  • Azazael Salt Lake City, UT
    March 13, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    For debate sake:

    Imagine that the Federal and State governments decided that home ownership was beneficial to communities and society. Suppose that both governments decided to grant tax deductions to homeowners. Suppose that States had the duty to define homeownership.

    Now suppose that renters declared that this was unconstitutional to grant homeowners benefits while denying them the same. Suppose that renters wanted the State’s definition of homeownership changed to include renters. Also suppose that renters were being discriminated against and other rights were being violated.

    What is the most logical solution? To address the discrimination and other rights of the renters directly? Or to redefine homeownership?

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    March 13, 2014 10:21 a.m.

    Lane,

    Lets use a very simple analogy in hopes a very simple concept can be understood.

    Imagine your mom says that eating vegetables are good.

    Then imagine that I also say eating vegetables are good.

    That does NOT prove that my belief that eating vegetables is good is based on the fact your mom said that eating vegetables are good.

    My reason for believing eating vegetables is good could be based on what my new doctor has said, what my childhood doctor said, what I read in a medical book, what I read in a study about vegetables, my personal experience of eating vegetables....

    See how simple that is?

    The fact your mom and I agree doesn't mean my support is based on your mom's statement, even if I agree with her.

    Hopefully that clears things up!

    If not, let me know. Always happy to help.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    March 13, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    "the state is disrupting their lives because it doesn't recognize their unions."

    "The fact is these people are legally married,"

    Well, no, they're not. A single person made an overreaching and misguided decision to ignore the core law of the State of Utah, and these people rushed in to exploit it. This not only makes it hard on them, but forever sours the chance of others accepting such a union in any good faith.

    If I wanted to establish a reliable and valid "marriage" with someone, that's certainly not how I'd go about it.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    March 13, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    As a secondary considering, because it has been brought up, is to note that interracial marriage has nothing to do with this. Interracial marriage isn't about marriage, it's about race.

    This is about marriage, something that is independent of race, religion, nationality, and sexual orientation.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 13, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    Hi Chris,

    I was speaking specifically about gay marriage. WHY do you believe as you do. I do not care if you agree with my mother or Pres. Monson.

    I am asking for your reasons why you believe as you do. Do you have any facts or an argument that might persuade others to your point of view, or is it merely a personal belief? Is there any logical reason for you agreeing with the Pope? Is there a legal reason (per our constitution) that makes you feel that your anti-gay marriage side should prevail?

    Thanks for your reply.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    March 13, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    @ Azazeal: You have a very interesting analogy - but it is not quite correct.

    See, most anyone can buy a home - provided they meet the basic requirement of being able to pay for it. People who rent have usually either chosen that voluntarily, or are doing it as a mid-step on their way to qualifying for homeownership.

    in your scenario, it would be more correct to compare renting to cohabiting.

    So, we have renters (cohabiting couples) and owners (married couples). Yes, there may be some inequalities in benefits (tax credits for instance) but most people consider those when making the choice to rent or own - and as time goes on they can re-evaluate that choice and make a new one.

    Now, let's add in same-sex couples. These are couples who would dearly love to buy a home and they are well able to afford it, but they have been told that they do not have the option to buy but must always rent.

    Your suggestion is that instead of allowing same-sex couples to buy, we should eliminate all differences between renting and owning.

    Why change the whole system instead of allowing them to buy?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    March 13, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    @Miss Piggie 11:43 p.m. March 12, 2014

    @1aggie:
    "Life will go on, and most people won't even notice a difference--except those who gain the rights they've long been denied."

    What rights being denied are you talking about? If it's about marriage... all, ALL people have the right to marry... provided they marry one person of the opposite set. This means everyone. No one is excluded.

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

    I've heard that argument before, in the 1960s, Only then it said "all, ALL people have the right to marry... provided they marry one person of the same race. This means everyone. No one is excluded." The US Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional in a unanimous decision -- see Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). It wasn't a valid argument then, and it isn't a valid argument now.

  • Azazael Salt Lake City, UT
    March 13, 2014 11:44 a.m.

    @Maudine
    Many people that are renting have either income or credit that makes homeownership not an option for them. Let same-sex couples be analogous to renters that cannot afford to own a home.

    I am not suggesting that we eliminate all differences. That would be redefining homeownership. That would defeat the purpose of the legislators in promoting homeownership; which they determined was for the good of communities and society.

    I am suggesting that we address the rights and discrimination issues of the renters without redefining homeownership.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 13, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    To "SlopJ30" actually the slippery slope argument is not a fallacy. The Netherlands was the first nation to recognize SSM. They are now following the same path for legalizing plural marriage. See "First Trio 'Married' in The Netherlands" in the Brussles Journal. A man married 2 bisexual women. They call is a civil union, but it didn't take that long for them to go from calling sex unions to SSM.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    March 13, 2014 11:51 a.m.

    they could be same sex domestic partners. That gives them all the legal rights of marriage.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    March 13, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    @mrjj69 11:51 a.m. March 13, 2014

    they could be same sex domestic partners. That gives them all the legal rights of marriage.

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

    Unfortunately that is not accurate. The United States Code speaks specifically of marriage as the determiner of whether benefits are available. Under Amendment 3 to the Utah Constitution (and other Utah Code), nothing even "looking" like a same-sex marriage is legal or recognized.A same-sex domestic partnership does NOT give 'all the legal rights of marriage."

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    March 13, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    This article is quite misleading when it says Utah's Amendment 3 case "could work its way to the Supreme Court in the next couple of years."

    Uh, no.... not even close.

    First of all, the Supreme Court can elect not to hear the case at all, until/unless two lower courts reach difference conclusions on marriage equality issue.

    So let's look at the chances of that happening... since the Windsor Ruling last summer, there has been a total of 36 federal courts cases involving marriage equality.

    And the courts have found 36-0 in favor of marriage equality. Not a single instance where a case against SSM has prevailed. None. Zero. Nada.

    These loathsome bans have been struck down in brutally conservative states such as Oklahoma, Texas, and Kentucky... and Utah. Given the current 36-0 win rate for marriage equality, does anyone really think it looks good for the state to prevail?

    When the 10th Appeals finds for the plaintiff next month, I'm sure the state will try to appeal. But unless a lower court finds different (remember, it's 36-0 now), SCOTUS doesn't have to hear the case.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 13, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    &chris b
    "both men who according to their religions speak for God."

    I don't feel any need to try again but thanks

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    March 13, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    Tolstoy,

    Glad I could help you understand that just because one person may support something that a religious group supports doesn't mean that person's support is based on the same reasoning as the religious group. Its quite a simple concept really.

    If you're still not clear, go read my example about Lane's mom and vegetables. If you'd like another analogy, I'm happy to provide one. Just let me know, I like to help out.

    And my belief is still not based in religion. Have a great day Toystory.

  • Bryan Syracuse, UT
    March 13, 2014 4:58 p.m.

    I don't understand the confusion. The Utah Constitution forbids recognition of same sex marriage by any name. A judge declared it unconstitutional, and people some same sex marriages were performed. The US Supreme Court issued a stay on the ruling. This means that the ruling is no longer in effect, and so the Constitutional prohibition against recognition of same sex marriage is in effect. Those 1,000 or so same sex marriages that were performed cannot be recognized, unless the US Supreme Court orders that our Constitution violates the Federal Constitution.

  • Bill McGee Alpine, UT
    March 13, 2014 5:28 p.m.

    From the 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    This hardly seems ambiguous.

    States that have banned same sex marriage continue to have their laws overturned by the various Federal courts, Texas being the latest. Smart AGs, like Kentucky's, see the writing on the wall and choose to not fight the inevitability of this movement. The overwhelming judicial opinion is that any such law, regardless of whether it is "the will of the people," violates rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment. It will be very difficult for any state to make the case that they have the legal power to deny a legal marriage contract to a particular demographic - comprised of consenting adults with legal standing - based solely on a behavior some percentage of the population doesn't like. The pathetic case put forward by Utah being a perfect example.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    March 13, 2014 6:06 p.m.

    The same U.S. government that took away from Utah women their right to vote after granting it to them is now saying rights can't be taken away? It must be nice to think you can have it both ways.

    The bottom line is either Amendment 3 is law or it isn't.

    This is a mess that Robert Shelby committed and he should be held accountable for it.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    March 13, 2014 6:06 p.m.

    @chris b
    @chrisb
    "When have I have supported religion using religion as a reason to impose restrictions on all Americans."
    sorry but this sentence very clearly states that your claim that you have never supported religions using religious reasoning, not anything to do with you how justify your reasoning.
    But it is nice knowing I agree with Pope Francis and Mormon Prophet Monson, both men who according to their religions speak for God."
    clearly supporting their religious views, again nothing to do with your personal justifications.
    twist it how you like Chris but you clearly contradicted yourself.

    but since you do keep trying to make it about your justifications, Why not answer the questions posed by others?

  • Bill McGee Alpine, UT
    March 13, 2014 6:30 p.m.

    LovelyDesert - Utah was wrong when we took away women's right to vote (that decision was repealed by the Federal Government), it was wrong when we passed an anti-mixed race marriage amendment (that decision was repealed by the Federal Government), and it is wrong now when we passed an amendment banning same-sex marriage (that decision is now being repealed by the Federal Government.)

    There seems to be a pattern here...

  • donquixote84721 Cedar City, UT
    March 13, 2014 6:41 p.m.

    GOD created Man and gave him the ability to produce Human seed. GOD created Woman, and gave her the ability to produce Human eggs, and when fertilized by the seed of Man, can produce a Human body to house the Spirit of a child of GOD. There has not been equality between the SEXES, since then. The most choice assignment, nurturing his Spirit children, within their own bodies. God gave Man the assignment of caring for the Mother of his Spirit children, and given Man the Priesthood to preform this duty. There is NO way any two members, of the same Sex can be equal to this.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    March 13, 2014 10:02 p.m.

    @ Chris B: You have stated several times on this thread that, although you agree with the Catholic and Mormon churches, your opposition to same-sex marriage is not based on religious reasons.

    And you have provided us with a very nice analogy of agreeing with Lane's mom that vegetables are good for you and that, probably much like Lane's mom, this is based on sound science.

    What you have not explained - although you have been asked at least three times - is what you do base your opposition to same-sex marriage on (since, according to you, it is not based on religion).

    Are you or are you not able to provide a non-religious reason for your opposition to same-sex marriage?

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    March 13, 2014 10:06 p.m.

    donquixote84721,

    You've adequately described mating, fertility and childbirth. Now, considering that for the last few years, at least 40% of all children are being born out of wedlock, one must wonder what your Cliff Notes sex-ed class has to do with marriage. Especially as marriage is fertility-neutral. Post-menopausal women, men with vasectomies, and people with all manner of other causes of infertility are allowed to enter into heterosexual marriage. Companionship marriage is allowed, too. No one forces a couple to sexually consummate a marriage. Couples get married for all sorts of reasons, sometimes not including wanting kids. Or sex.

    However, since you brought up God, I'd like to quote you a scripture... Gen 1:7 "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

    So, God is male and female, both, together? Let me ask you this, who is more male and female together than a gay man or a lesbian woman? (Native Americans revered their "two-spirit" tribesmen, and often made them shamans.)

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    March 13, 2014 10:22 p.m.

    @ Azazael: The only way to address/remove the inequalities same-sex couples face by being denied marriage is to eliminate all differences between cohabiting and marrying.

    Why would you want to do this? Why not just allow same-sex couples to marry?

    @ first2third: Usually when a marriage is ended by a judge it is at the request of the parties involved. Would you like a judge to just arbitrarily decide you are no longer married to the person you love?

    @ Redshirt1701: It is interesting that you bring up civil unions and how, since they are not the same as marriage, things that would not be allowed under marriage laws are being allowed under civil union laws.

    Civil union laws create very interesting slippery slopes because they are not marriage and do not have the same legal effect as marriage. The best way to prevent the situation that occurred in the Netherlands is to only have marriage and have it available to all couples.

    (As a side note, other than being open and very public, how does what this man did differ from having an affair or multiple partners - situations that occur thousands of times here in the US?)

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 14, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    To "Maudine" the point is that it took about 10 years for the Netherlands to go from civil unions for gays to SSM. If they are at civil unions for polygamists, that means we are just a few years away from legalized polygamy there. Since a lot of world leaders like to think of themselves as the "cool" leaders, they will jump on the polygamy bandwagon. My guess is that within 20 years polygamy will be legal in the US.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 14, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    I'm going to go back to school and become a divorce lawyer specializing in Homosexual marriages. I'll become rich beyond the dreams of averice.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    March 14, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    Azazael, the Supreme Court threw out this argument in 1954 in Brown vs Board of Education. They ruled that separate but equal laws were inherently unequal. And the courts have repeatedly backed this up--including the NJ Supreme Court which ruled that civil unions were not equal to marriage and restricting gay couples to civil unions violated their rights.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    March 14, 2014 9:14 a.m.

    wrz, the state is free to make laws which discriminate against certain classes of citizens if--and only if---it has a legitimate reason. Marriage law, with a few age-related exceptions, denies /discriminates against children and anyone who is a close blood relative. Marriage is a serious step; it is restricted to adults both to protect the exploitation of children and because teens are neurologically not as able to understand the significance of long-term contracts as adults. The consanguinity restriction was put in the law to prevent inherited defects in children that might be borne of the union; please note that Utah permits first cousins to marry when there is no chance of a biological child being conceived. Polygamy has been restricted because of serious concerns about exploitation of women as well as the obvious fact that unions of more than two people do not make for as stable a society as do pairs who are committed to each other.

    Legalizing marriage between people of different races did not open the door to incest or to people to demand the right to marry cocker spaniels. And neither will the legitimization of same sex marriage.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 14, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    To "Laura Bilington" but 2 gays will never be equal to the marriage of a man and a woman. What this movement does is redefine marriage. Essentially renaming an Orange and Apple so that it can be sold as an Apple. Changing the name does not fix the differences.

  • Azazael Salt Lake City, UT
    March 14, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    @Maudine
    In my mind state-recognized marriage includes benefits, rights and protections. Regarding benefits:

    If you redefine homeownership to include renters you defeat the intent of the laws that promote homeownership. The legislature created benefits to promote a behavior that they determined was for beneficial to communities and society.

    By allowing same-sex couples to marry, redefining marriage, you promote same-sex marriage on equal footing with opposite-sex marriage; essentially defeating the purpose of the legislature in promoting its ideal definition of marriage. The legislature decided that it wanted to promote its ideal definition of marriage. Imo the legislature should have the ability to define marriage to promote what it determines is beneficial to communities and society.

    I am in favor of laws granting same-sex couples rights and protections. But, I am not in favor of redefining marriage to promote same-sex marriage with the benefits that the legislature designed for opposite-sex couples.

  • Kally Salt Lake City, UT
    March 14, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    @ Redshirt: When the trio in the Netherlands entered into their agreement, a judge refused to strike it down because it was not a marriage and “contracts that settle the cohabitation of more than two persons can have a useful ordering function.”

    If legal issues such as inheritance rights, medical decision making, division of property, insurance coverage, taxes, etc., can be worked out, why shouldn't polygamy be legalized?

    Many of those who oppose same-sex marriage accuse supporters of being hypocrites for not also supporting polygamy. Many supporters of same-sex marriage would support the legalization of polygamy if there were a way to address the issues that naturally arise when discussing a union of three or more when compared to a union of two. This group solved those problems. Considering the long, storied, and continuing tradition of polygamy, why should it not be legalized?

  • Kally Salt Lake City, UT
    March 14, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    @ Redshirt:
    @ Azazael:

    You both state that same-sex marriages are not equal to heterosexual marriages.

    Other than the gender of the parties involved, how are they different from other marriages?

    Utah, Oklahoma, Texas, and other states have tried using the argument that marriage is for the rearing of children to support their prohibitions on same-sex marriage - but none of them have been able to provide a legally valid reason why old or infertile couples are allowed marriage without children while same-sex couples with or without children are denied marriage.

    The only reasoning offered by the states basically amounts to animus: we don't deny it to these other couples because we are comfortable with them but we are not comfortable with same-sex relationships so we don't want to recognize them.

    Animus is not a legally valid reason for a law, so if you can come up with a better one, do so quickly and pass it on to the lawyers - otherwise same-sex marriage is going to be legalized whether you like it or not.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    March 14, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    Meanwhile, back on the farm...

    I note with some interest that State's counsel for the appeal of the Amendment 3 decision has just filed his third expansion request for his reply brief.

    The 7,000 word brief was originally due March 4. Schaerr filed for, and was granted, an extension to March 11 and an additional 5,000 words. He then almost immediately filed for a 3-day extension to March 14 (today!), which the Court also granted. Then, on March 11, he filed a request to expand his reply to 20,000 words, citing the ways the Amicus briefs completely shredded his opening brief and their strong support of the Plaintiff's response. (I'm not sure if the Court approved his request, but they've been very accommodating thus far, so they probably did.)

    So... do you think it's maybe possible that the State is realizing it has a weak case and is desperately trying to find a way to bolster it?

    In any event, we'll all be able to read it for ourselves tonight or tomorrow. I hope DN posts a link to it, and the leading Amicus briefs, too.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    March 14, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    RedShirt, The marriage of "2 gays" can be every bit the equivalent of a "traditional" marriage. The proof is in the longevity of the relationship. Two men (or two women) happily together for over 25 years easily trumps the marriage of two unhappy "traditional" 18-year-olds who don't last five years together. Or all those Hollywood marriages we fuss over all the time. (Zsa Zsa, Liz, and Mickey Rooney were married 25 times between them.) You want to use them for a benchmark?

    Marriage is best measured in commitment, mutual support, and how the whole is greater than its parts. That is society's goal, and the reason we recognize marriage in the first place. A loving couple, committed to a life together is the only requirement. If they're gay, so what? It's no skin off my nose, doesn't affect my straight marriage, or my open and welcoming church, and our married gay neighbors are perfectly nice people.

    Learn how to live your own life well, and let your neighbors do the same, and the world will be a happier place.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 14, 2014 2:22 p.m.

    To "Testimony" if you want to go to Hollywood as examples, how about using Richard Simmons as an example of what the gay community is like. Is that a valid example?

    The problem is that marriage is not just about a relationship between 2 people. Marriage is a contract with socity, and with the statistics of the bad things that the children of gays get into, compounded with the average gay marriage lasting 2.25 years (Dutch study).

    You even admit that there is a difference, and that is just the superficial biological difference. The fact is that the studies all point to marriage between a man and woman being best for the long term of society. While it may not alter your relationship, it will alter the relationships that your children, grand children, and great grand children have will be influenced by gay marriage.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 14, 2014 3:18 p.m.

    "compounded with the average gay marriage lasting 2.25 years (Dutch study)."

    -------

    that Dutch study occurred before the Dutch allowed gay marriage, so your statement is a half truth - meaning that it studied gay relationship without marriage. Please be more careful of what you are saying.

    xxxxxxx

    "The fact is that the studies all point to marriage between a man and woman being best for the long term of society. "

    And studies show that an older Jewish couple is the very best for raising children. So? We do not legislate for the ideal. We legislate for the greater good and freedom. Gay marriage does not harm children - they will have the same children whether or not they are married, and not allow gay marriage actually DOES harm the children.

    If you can show how freedom is being abused, not just that people are being offended because a word that they assume belongs to them is being used in a way that they do not approve of, but an actual liberty taken away because of gay marriage, I will listen. No one has been able to do that so far. That is why gay marriage is becoming the law of the land.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    March 14, 2014 7:17 p.m.

    "Decriminalizing polygamy seems correct since sleeping around is legal..."

    Dang! Now you tell me.

    "Half the states already have cousin marriage legal."

    There's a whole raft of other combinations that will need to be addressed as well as cousins.

    "Do you oppose interracial marriage?"

    For me, yes. For others, they can do as the please.

    "The court decisions overturning those bans are what's being used as precedent for same-sex marriage..."

    And it could be used to legitimize any other combination of marriages.

    "...so if you're worried about me supporting something that might be used as precedent then should we have opposed interracial marriage to avoid some "what if" down the road?"

    Interracial marriage is hard, almost impossible to define, since almost everyone in the US has a variety of backgrounds.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    March 15, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    "Lawyers for the couples told U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball the state's move to undo the marriages deprives them of rights, strips them of dignity and leaves them humiliated."

    Well, I can't marry people that I have strong emotional feelings for like my sister, or my parents. I feel so humiliated and I feel so lacking in dignity. It is terrible. Why are my emotional bonds to them, less valuable to society than the emotional bonds that two unrelated people of the same gender have to one another?

    A whole new class of second class citizens will be created if this goes through.

    I can understand a heterosexual couple who have strong emotional feelings for one another. They may bear children or they may have born children. But if we expand marriage to non-procreative unions then we've fundamentally changed the meaning of the institution.

  • Avenue Vernal, UT
    March 15, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi
    I agree with your last sentence. To redefine something is to attack it's fundamental definition. To redefine marriage will inevitably redefine the family. The family is the basic unit of society, so SSM is attacking society and will eventually lead to the destruction of this great country and civilization as we know it. This WILL happen if we keep going down the path we are heading.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    March 15, 2014 7:25 p.m.

    Values Voter
    LONG BEACH, CA
    "After a quick check of Judge Dale Kimball's background, I would be extremely surprised if he ruled in favor of the couples, and against the state of Utah."

    --- Oh, goodness! This comment shows a shocking lack of faith in the judiciary!

    Judge Kimball is older, apparently a mormon. I would guess that his PERSONAL view would be against same-sex marriage. However, if we start assuming that judges will bring their religion into Constitutional cases, we are lost.

    Kimball was formerly
    Chairman of Utah State Bar Judicial Performance Evaluation Committee
    Chairman of Utah State Bar Ethics and Discipline Committee

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    March 16, 2014 10:18 a.m.

    "Other than the gender of the parties involved, how are they different from other marriages? "

    Because no union of the same gender has ever conceived a child. I am not purple and I am not a dinosaur. But other than that, how am I different than Barney the Dinosau?

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    March 16, 2014 8:07 p.m.

    @ Tekakaronatagi "Because no union of the same gender has ever conceived a child."

    Adoption and assisted reproductive law applies to both opposite sex and same-sex couples. Many homosexuals do indeed have the capacity to procreate. Are you aware that there is no procreative requirement in civil marriage law?
    Are you aware that there is no parental fitness test in civil marriage law?
    Did you know that educational and income levels are the best predictors of child outcomes?
    Did you know that people convicted of harm and abuse can legally marry and this does not re-define the institution of marriage to mean something awful?
    Did you know that traditional voting not re-defined by allowing women the right to vote, even though we now have "genderless voting?" The re-definition argument is at best a logical fallacy.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    March 16, 2014 8:53 p.m.

    Tekakaromatagi
    Because no union of the same gender has ever conceived a child.

    Marriage is a government regulated contract between two adults. It brings some 1,400 legal benefits and protections to the couple. While those laws extend legal benefits to children the couple have or legally adopt, marriage in and of itself is the relationship between two adults and has nothing to do with whether or not they have "conceived a child."

    In the case of a gay or lesbian couple who have or adopt children, marriage of the parents extends exactly the same legal benefits to those kids as the marriage of a hetero-couple extends to their conceived or adopted children.

    You are different from Barney the Dinosaur because you are a human being, not an imaginary character designed to amuse children and annoy adults. Comparing gay and lesbian relationships to something imaginary and annoying is an insult to those relationships and the people in them.