Quantcast
Utah

Appeals court assigns 3 judges to hear Utah same-sex marriage case

Comments

Return To Article
  • Billy Bob Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 31, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    It is good they assigned 3 judges. That way the decision at this level won't be made by an activist judge with an agenda. I am not saying I expect it to go one way or another (although I know which way I want it to go and that is to be reversed), I am just glad that a single activist judge with an agenda can't decide it at the appeals court level.

  • Christopher B Ogden, UT
    March 31, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson and Pope Francis on this issue.

    It's nice to know I am on their side and the side of who they speak for

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 31, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    How about this? Let these judges make their ruling and we all just accept it.

    No carping about who appointed who, or that they had an agenda, or that they are activist judges.

    We just accept their ruling and accept it, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it.

    Im in.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 31, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    @ Billy Bob

    single [judge]?

    I think we're at 14 rulings and counting post-Windsor -- all in favor of equality for same-sex couples. The "single, activist judge" charge gets more difficult (and more ridiculous) to make with each successive decision.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    March 31, 2014 2:34 p.m.

    @Billy Bob

    After last June's SCOTUS Prop 8 and Windsor rulings, not a single judge has ever ruled in SSM opponents' favor, not in NJ, NM, OH, UT, IK, KY, VA, TX, MI, not in a single court room.

    guess all those judges are totally activists, not a single one is following the law, right?

    I can see that some people hope the appeal court would reverse Judge Shelby's decision, however, judging by the long unbroken winning streak of marriage equality in the past year, my advice for those wishing a reversal? don't count on it.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    March 31, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    @Billy Bob
    So an activist judge in Utah? Was it also an activist judge in Oklahoma? Kentucky? Texas? Michigan? Ohio? Pennsylvania? Virginia? (Most of these have stays pending appeal of course aside from Virginia which isn't appealing, only Utah and Michigan had the temporary active period).

    How about this, has there been any same-sex marriage case since Windsor that your side has won?

  • Radical Pragmatist Salt Lake City, UT
    March 31, 2014 2:53 p.m.

    This information is meaningless. No matter which way this panel of judges rules, their decision will be stayed until the Supreme Court makes the final ruling.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    March 31, 2014 3:07 p.m.

    It was five justices on the Supreme Court that started this ball rolling. It looks to me like every other judge has been following the Windsor ruling. Considering the arguments the State is presenting, I wouldn't expect this panel to reverse Judge Shelby. Keep in mind that one of the "conservative" judges on this panel denied Utah a stay.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    March 31, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    To: JoeBlow
    Far East USA, SC

    I can accept the Judges ruling whatever it is. However, if it is for Same Sex Marriage, I will never personally agree with it. That would bee a violation of my conscience. If that is the case then we will hope for an appeal to SCOTUS.

    This whole issue shouldn't even be taking up the time of the courts of the land. The whole concept of so-called Same Sex Marriage is non-anatomical, non- biological and counter intellectual.

    We should be talking about some sort of social tolerance for those who choose to live this deviant life style and treat them with the same type of tolerance and understanding that we treat anyone else who make poor choices in life. But for heaven sake, we don't need to change the traditional definition of marriage and it's unique role in society. You cannot legislate immorality - it is what it is.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    March 31, 2014 3:34 p.m.

    @Radical Pragmatist who said:
    "No matter which way this panel of judges rules, their decision will be stayed until the Supreme Court makes the final ruling."

    The Supremes may well choose to wait until 2 circuit courts come to opposite conclusions. In which case, they won't hear the first case decided (Utah). If they choose to wait, no stay will be forthcoming, and the decision of the 10th Circuit will stand until SCOTUS decides to hear a related case. If all the circuits decide one way, the Supremes won't have to hear any of the cases, and may just choose to let the consensus stand.

    In any case, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

    (I truly wish Utah's case would be the one to decide this nationally. But I see SCOTUS waiting for an opposing decision by another circuit court.)

  • BYU_Convert Provo, UT
    March 31, 2014 3:50 p.m.

    I will always side on the side of the Agency of Man. There must needs be opposition in all things. . . .even in marriage and types of marriage. I still believe as a Latter-Day Saint that it is unjustifiable to seek to steal the agency of others to choose for themselves what life they choose to live. I often wonder if these are the kinds of people who claim to be Christ-serving people filled with love and compassion for others but who in turn throw their gay children out on the streets when their kids come out. Google stories on that one. A recent case here in Utah is frightening. Hopefully, these judges will side with equality and by the grace of God, the hearts of the public in Utah will be softened and not strike with fierce homophobic vengeance. I would hope the 12th Article of Faith would be adhered.

  • ValiesVoter LONG BEACH, CA
    March 31, 2014 3:56 p.m.

    @koseighty
    "(I truly wish Utah's case would be the one to decide this nationally. But I see SCOTUS waiting for an opposing decision by another circuit court.)"

    Actually, there is already an opposing decision in the 8th circuit re: Nebraska's marriage equality ban, but that decision was handed down pre-Windsor. If the 10th circuit panel decides in favor of the same-sex couples (and they bypass an en banc review), a circuit split already would exist if SCOTUS wants to deal with it.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 31, 2014 3:58 p.m.

    "But for heaven sake, we don't need to change the traditional definition of marriage and it's unique role in society."

    I have a "traditional marriage". Can someone explain to me how my "traditional marriage" is affected if 2 people of the same sex say that they are also "married"?

    Does it change anything for me? Does it affect my marriages "unique role in society"?

    An analogy. In the good ole USA we have a game called football. In much of the world, football means what we refer to as Soccer.

    It is just words with different meanings to different people but I don't see how it effectively changes either sport.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    March 31, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    Judge Shelby is by no means an activist judge, to the community who continues to call this man an activist simply because he interpreted the law differently than you, are making yourselves look uniformed. Honestly, Mike Lee, Orin Hatch, and the Republican establishment gave Judge Shelby glowing recommendations during the vetting process. Also, there are continuing numbers of conservative judges overturning similar state bans across the country, this is not an activist movement. You may not like what is happening, but a simple rule remains, the constitution is the law of the land.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    March 31, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    @ Radical Pragmatist
    I don't really like what you said. But, I agree with you.

    @ Mekhofahess
    I totally disagree with what you said. But, my goodness I needed a good laugh. Thank You!

    WOW! This is getting really interesting. Who knows, may be Utah will be the landmark case that will make SSM a national option.

  • SS MiddleofNowhere, Utah
    March 31, 2014 5:15 p.m.

    @ Joe Blow,

    If everyone just accepted everything that came down from the "rulers" of this country, than this would cease to be the United States. No, I think it is okay for people not to be okay with decisions and to disagree. I wish the people in this country would quit thinking that everyone has to have the same opinion on everything.

    @ BYU_Convert,

    Yes, everyone has their agency. However, I will never vote for or support sin, even though others have the right to choose. You should look to what the current prophet is saying about this current issue. I don't think God intends for his people to just accept anything that comes along to allow for agency. Love people, absolutely; accept sin, no.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 31, 2014 6:20 p.m.

    "No, I think it is okay for people not to be okay with decisions and to disagree."

    I am not advocating that you agree with whatever decision comes out. Agreeing and accepting are two entirely different things.

    I just get sick of hearing that "that was an activist judge" or "That judge was legislating from the bench" just because you don't like the decision that is handed down.

    And I have no idea what the decision will be, but I will Accept whatever it is and move on.

    "You should look to what the current prophet is saying about this current issue."

    I am not LDS, but if I were a believing LDS, on any given issue, I would ask "the current prophet" if they got guidance from above on the issue or if they were speaking their opinion.

    Because I have opinions also. And who is to say whose opinion is more valid?

  • HENELSON lindon, UT
    March 31, 2014 6:20 p.m.

    In America laws are created by the legislative branch. Separation of power means judges interpret the laws in the tradition of the founding fathers, and current legislature. An activist judge is anyone who deviates from original intent of the founders or current legislative branch and essentially makes his own law. Legislatures (senate and house) get their power from the people.
    " ---We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;--- Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --- it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happines---"
    WE the people of Utah, have the sovereign God Given right, we chose Amendment3 for our safety and happiness.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    March 31, 2014 6:38 p.m.

    I love how some are saying allow for agency but don't accept sin. That is hilarious. That statement is tantamount to saying "allow men and women their freedom as long as they make the choice that is satisfactory to me". Nope doesn't work that way.

    If you're LDS you understand that allowing agency means allowing people to choose between sin and righteousness. It's not your place, just as it wasn't Lucifer's place to control and dictate the choices people make. As long as those choices don't disrupt your freedom or agency, it is not your place or the governments to take the choice away.

    Live and let live...and leave the judging up to the only person that earned that right...hint:it's none of us. I would ask that you follow His admonition, "as I have loved you, love one another...Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you."

  • LadyMoon Crestucky, FL
    March 31, 2014 6:47 p.m.

    I, for one, regardless of the decision of a room of judges, I am unable to reconcile or accept a same gender marriage. Period. At the same time, I recognize their right to choose to be together as adults -- perhaps I could even recognize civil unions...but never a marriage. With me, from within, it simply does not compute.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    March 31, 2014 6:49 p.m.

    SS:
    Should we take away people's right to drink too? How about their right to read or write or print lascivious material? How about their right to chew tobacco or have sex with someone they aren't married to? I mean these are all immoral according to the prophet as well, yet are allowed by law as a person's choice. Should we outlaw all of them, constitutional rights be darned? Just because you deem something as sinful doesn't give you or the government a right to make it illegal. I'm not saying you should be ok with sin either, but you can't dictate sin and righteousness to others legally...in your own life you have the right to accept or deny sin, under the constitution, you don't.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    March 31, 2014 8:02 p.m.

    @LadyMoon
    "perhaps I could even recognize civil unions...but never a marriage"

    Amendment 3 bans both civil union and SSM, even if Utah state goes your way, allows civil union, the first thing has to be striking down amendment 3.

    See, even for someone like you who will never support same sex marriage, amendment 3 still has to go.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    March 31, 2014 8:07 p.m.

    Why do we need go change marriage? There is no reason to; we did just fine 50 years ago with traditional marriage then, and we can wait 50 more years at least before changing it again. Universities are going out of business because of too few children in the pipeline; fewer children equals shrinking future.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    March 31, 2014 8:43 p.m.

    @ LadyMoon. And the beauty is that even from within, it does NOT have to compute. We must then ask ourselves what would Jesus or even another religion do or say?

    "It’s more than tragic—in fact it’s shameful—that faith communities, especially Christian ones, continue to be complicit in putting our children at risk and abetting the attitudes that oppress them, thereby encouraging the aggressors who would subject our children to pain, humiliation, and violence."

    "Young LGBT men and young women will continue to be vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and heterosexism, to the violence of hate and fear until we in the church can say to homosexuals now what it has said to heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church celebrates it and rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can do no less." - Episcopal Message.

    As we see here, some religions may be blessed with special access to moral truth for which others are not yet privy.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    March 31, 2014 9:08 p.m.

    @byu convert Is agency the freedom to do whatever you want? Dallin H Oaks said in a talk can't remember where but said not only must you be for choice, but you must be for the right choice. Talking about abortion. But agency does not mean do whatever you want. No one is free from consequences, and laws are here for our protection. As those that hope the judge's will rule to overturn the will of the people and God and accept so called same gender marriage, why couldn't they accept the will of the people at the ballot box. Do only people who think so called same gender marriage is ok have a right to enforce there morals. Or lack of them? When judges routinely overrule the will of the Elected Representatives and people that means something must be wrong with democracy. Hopefully those judges will side with the will of God and the people and So called Same gender marriage will not be allowed in most of the union. Since the Devil does not support his followers at the last day that will collapse under the weight of it's iniquity.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    March 31, 2014 9:52 p.m.

    @christoph wrote "Why do we need go change marriage? There is no reason to; we did just fine 50 years ago with traditional marriage then, and we can wait 50 more years at least before changing it again."

    50 years ago, "traditional marriage" meant marriage between two people of the same race.

    I think it was good that that tradition changed.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    March 31, 2014 10:13 p.m.

    The laws of Nature, and Nature's God, will exact their penalties no matter what the laws of man state.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    March 31, 2014 10:13 p.m.

    @higv, " When judges routinely overrule the will of the Elected Representatives and people."

    Why is it that the screaming minority gets to overrule the majority? The outcome of an election is always the best solution. Take the case of 3 starving wolves and a delicious lamb voting though the political process on what to eat for lunch.

    The Constitution does not permit either a state legislature or the state’s citizens through a referendum to enact laws that violate constitutionally protected rights. And “while the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out .. . the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.” (10th Cir. 2012).

    The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy,to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. Ones right to life, liberty, and property,to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of NO elections.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    March 31, 2014 10:17 p.m.

    @equalprotection Do you know what Jesus would do. How can people claim to speak for God without speaking to him. Jesus gave us the 10 commandments for our protection including the law of chastity. If he did not care what you did then he would not of had to suffer for the sins. Since there would be no sins to suffer for.

    Jesus was bold with sin. Drove out moneychangers, and though gentle told Women in adultery to sin more. Can't look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Many people put there own interpertations to what they think Jesus would do without speaking to Jesus.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    March 31, 2014 10:21 p.m.

    This case has nothing to do with religion. Citing your religious leaders as authorities on your religion is appropriate. However, citing your religious leaders as authorities on civil law is not.

    No religion is being asked to violate their doctrine, change their liturgy, conduct any rites, or change what is spoken from the pulpits.

    This is purely a matter of civil law, a secular decision by a secular government committed to equality and justice for all.

    In my religion, we believe that no minister has the authority to marry a man and a woman together. In our practice, marriage is a ceremony conducted by the committed couple themselves, before God, with the assembled Meeting observing as witness. Many Meetings have discerned the same loving Light, mutual bond, and spiritual commitment in the marriage of two women or two men, so we now joyously witness these equally.

    However, it's not churches but the State that licenses and records marriages in civil law, so Quakers hold the Courts in the Light, that they will order the States to do so equitably.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    March 31, 2014 10:44 p.m.

    @higv.. I suspect the following religions have a better understanding than either one of us on what Jesus would do.
    They all support marriage equality. Now may be time to catch up and gain a better understanding don't you think?

    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

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    March 31, 2014 10:52 p.m.

    "As Christians, we cannot be silent as our state’s highest laws discriminate against segments of our society based on the personal biases of those in power, particularly when a majority of Michigan’s population now supports marriage equality. To remain silent is to be complicit in the decline of our society through demonizing unprotected minorities, segregation based on sexual orientation, denial of benefits to selected groups, and fear-based prejudice. Our continued silence can lead only to further discrimination, bullying and other forms of physical, emotional and spiritual violence.

    We need to remove discriminatory policies that bar certain groups of people from enjoying the same benefits and privileges afforded other members of society.

    We need to create a Beloved Community in which all persons are equal, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sex, class, religion, disability, or sexual orientation. And we need the full opportunity to recognize faithful and covenantal relationships between any two people seeking our blessing, both within the church and within our civil society.

    We look forward in hopeful anticipation to the day when all people receive equal treatment from one another and under the law.

    May justice prevail.

    Episcopal Church in Michigan

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 31, 2014 10:55 p.m.

    re:higv
    "Jesus gave us the 10 commandments for our protection including the law of chastity."

    Right
    I believe in chastity until marriage and monogamy thereafter, which is why I support
    same-sex marriage. Why should all people not have that choice?

    "though gentle told Women in adultery to sin (no)more."

    Right
    Jesus, perfect, the Supreme example, our Savior, our Judge, refrained from judging, walked among sinners, spoke of charity and love for one another. If he refrained from pronouncing judgement on others then ever more should we refrain from judging. Serve others, love others and leave the judging up to Jesus.

  • Jeff29 Draper, UT
    March 31, 2014 11:18 p.m.

    @CougsnDawgs,

    It's interesting to me that after citing several things that are "considered immoral by the prophet" your question would be, "should we outlaw all of them?". It seems, assuming that you are LDS, that the more appropriate question would be, why have the prophets chosen this one issue, above all others, to oppose?

    Again, assuming you are LDS and you believe they are Prophets, Seers and Revelators, could it be that there is more to this issue than you understand?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    March 31, 2014 11:28 p.m.

    @Three veteran 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judges will hear arguments next week in Utah's same-sex marriage case."

    Dear judges... it's not rocket science. The law in Utah (and elsewhere) defines marriage as between a man and a woman. It's not between a man and several women, between two sub teens, between close relatives, between mom/son, or dad/daughter, etc., ad nauseum. And it's not between two (or any number of) men. And it's not between two (or any number of) women. There are alotta restrictions in marriage. You can't marry your dog or horse. If the judges rule for SSM they must also rule in favor of any other combination that can be conjured for whatever reason. The judges have to rule for one man/woman to keep sanity in marriage.

    Some say... well, denying SSM is unconstitutional (Amendment 14). Not so. Amendment 14 says: 'No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the [state] laws.'

    The one man/woman law IS equal protection. It applies to all equally regardless of personal desires, tastes, or whims... of which there myriads.

  • SS MiddleofNowhere, Utah
    April 1, 2014 12:09 a.m.

    @ Cougsndawgs,

    I never once said we should get rid of SSM or any other sin. I simply said that you should never support it. That means in any way: voting, agreeing with groups or individual arguments. If you believe in a doctrine that states that homosexuality is a sin, no matter what people have the "right" to do, you shouldn't support it or you are showing a lack of moral credibility. You can't uphold both beliefs at the same time. Just because you believe that everyone has their agency doesn't mean you should make sin as accessible as possible. If that's the case than why don't we just put a bar on every corner, lower the drinking age to 8, and support all of our friends who want to be alcoholics?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 12:27 a.m.

    @ higv

    (Ignoring the fact that this country is not a democracy) Did judges going against the will of the people and forcing an end to segregation indicate something was wrong?

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    April 1, 2014 4:22 a.m.

    Soon the Supremes will rule for Equality for all Americans like it or not.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 1, 2014 6:17 a.m.

    @HENELSON;

    WE, the people of Utah disagree with you. You don't speak for all the people of Utah. And your little quote: "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;" contradicts your entire premise. If we're endowed with the right to pursue happiness, that means you DO NOT get to vote on our right to pursue happiness through marriage.

    LadyMoon says: "I am unable to reconcile or accept a same gender marriage."

    --- That's your problem dear. It isn't your option to "accept or reconcile". You don't have the right to say how others get to live or how they define their relationships. It really is none of your business.

    @Gildas;

    Your god's laws are nothing more than man's dictates. He doesn't exist; therefore, he can't legislate.

    @higv;

    You seem to think you can speak for god. What makes your position any more valid than any other?

  • TheTrueVoice West Richland, WA
    April 1, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    It is interesting to watch some of the Faithful get even more wrapped around the axle as April 10th approaches. As A Quaker and many others have repeatedly said, all your dogma teachings have absolutely no meaning whatsoever in this matter of secular civil law. This debate actually ended last year with the Windsor Ruling.

    To those still torn over this issue, the angst you feel is the cognitive dissonance felt when you apply your dogma to secular civil law. Once you successfully separate the two, you will find peace.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 1, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    Interesting. I don't remember the paper ever making a big deal over the panel selected to hear a case out of Utah. Trying to project a decision by any particular panel is futile, and because of similar cases around the country, I suspect whatever the 10th Circuit does will ultimately go to the Suprumer Court. In the end, what is notable is that conservatives, who preach individual rights and don't want the government controlling their lives are now having to fight against the same principles on an issue with which they disagree. It's like when the ACLU gets on board with one of their issues. It must make their heads explode, unless they are confortable with silos and never connect the dots, that one is good for them is also good for others.

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    April 1, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    Regardless of the outcome, one of the posters here said that the God of Nature would exact it's penalties for allowing the deviancy of homosexuality. I gave blood the other night and one of the questions I was asked before I was allowed to donate was the question of whether or not I had engaged in risky behaviors including homosexual sex. It didn't get graphic, and it didn't ask me if I had engaged in these behaviors with a woman. The fact of the matter is, homosexual sex, especially man on man sex, is a risky, deviant behavior that poses a dire threat to the community at large. Don't believe me? Ask the CDC. Why we would grant tacit approval to this behavior is beyond me. Also, does anyone here truly believe that the men who actually penned the 14th amendment would approve of the way it is being applied in this case?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 8:21 a.m.

    To all the commentators who promote the notion of "live-and-let-live". That sounds good on the surface but the underlying idea is that we straights must go along with the gay agenda and surrender our own rights.

    So if you want to "live-and-let-live", then please allow us straigts to retain our right to not change the definition of marriage. Please allow us our right to restrict restroom and locker rooms to folks of the same gender and all the other common sense things that are self-evident.

    Some things we just never intended to totally equal, please accept our right to believe and live according to that point of view.

  • Mexican Ute mexico, 00
    April 1, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.

    Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.

    Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1999 Priesthood Session GC, "Why we do some of the things we do"

    So, LDS, we have no right to change the definition that God set out for us. And others, the Church and its members have the right to speak out on matters of doctrine that are fundamental to survival.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    "...we straights must go along with the gay agenda and surrender our own rights...".

    Surrender our own rights?

    Which rights?

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:27 a.m.

    Mexican Ute: You can speak out all you want. No one is stopping you. You may be criticized for wanting your religious beliefs embedded into our laws. You may have others point out that we live in a constitutuional republic where the constitution is the law of the land, no matter what your morals are. You may be called naive for not recognizing that, even with gay marriage banned, homosexual couples will still be creating children by artificial insemination or surrogacy and will be adopting children who are not wanted by their heterosexual parents. These families need the same benefits and privileges that heterosexual families enjoy.

    You can speak of morality and degradation, but others will show you that you may be lacking in the basic understanding of our constitution (and maybe the 11th article of faith, too).

    Can you explain to me why the children of gays must be treated differently than those of heterosexuals? Why shouldn't their families have the protections that we offer other families in this country by allowing their parents to marry? Should the will of the majority be allowed to mold the privileges of the minority without a legal, just cause?

  • brotherJonathan SLC, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    A simple compromise would end the violation of equality on one hand the violation of dictionary meaning of words on the other.
    Marriage certificates come in 2 forms, both with equal power under law.
    One is Marriage Certificate for male and female.
    One is Civil Union, Marriage Certificate for same sex.
    Both parties have the same rights and the meaning of words do not have to be changed. Changing the meaning of words violates the rights of those who belief the meaning is of religious beliefs .
    Both certifies legal marriage but shows respect and protects constitutional rights of both groups.
    Simple adding of the words civil union on what is the actual correct use of words in law.
    Sincerely, Elder Jonathan L. Peterson
    servant of the Lord Jesus Christ and defender of our Constitution for the United States of America,under God with liberty and justice for all. Equality under all laws is mandatory.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    April 1, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    RE: equal protection, They all support marriage equality. Now may be time to catch up and gain a better understanding don't you think? [They]…,

    “Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male=(Adam) and female=(Eve, not Steve).’ And he said, “‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.” Matthew 19:4-6(NLT).

    Or believe St.Paul, Honor your Father and Mother,which is the first commandment with a promise. God distinguishes father and mother”[not significant other) from all other persons on earth, chooses them and sets them next to Himself, occupying the highest place in our lives next to God.. Ephesians 6:2,3.

  • TrueChristian Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    So many of the comments here are so depressing because aren't seeing the big picture. For those of you complaining about 'the will of the people'. don't you realize that if that concept was the entire basis of our government, Mormonism wouldn't exist?

    Let me say that again. If the majority had the right to decide everything, Mormonism wouldn't exist. Mormonism was considered deviant, evil, and an attack on pure Christian principles. If people of this country voted today on whether or not Mormonism was the correct and true religion, it would fail miserably. Would that convince you that Mormonism was wrong? I didn't think so, and it shouldn't - but stop pretending that the majority knows best when it suits your cause, and ignoring it when it doesn't.

  • TrueChristian Salt Lake City, UT
    April 1, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    Mormonism believes that the Constitution was inspired by God, because it created a country where people who believe differently could be free to live according to their conscience. Including Mormons. That also means Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, everyone. Including gays. The price that we pay for our freedom means that we have to allow others the same, even when you don't agree or consider it immoral. As a Mormon, I've lived in states where gay marriage was legal, and honestly, it didn't affect me. I still went to Church, paid my tithing, went to the Temple, and experienced the peace of the gospel in my life. As members of the church we should spend more of our time in taking care of the sick and helping the poor than spending so much time and energy fighting civil laws that don't really change our lives.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    April 1, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    @brotherJonathan
    Your compromise"One is Marriage, One is Civil Union, Marriage Certificate for same sex" simply won't work, because amendment 3 bans civil union too. Even if Utah state allows civil union, first things first still has to be striking down amendment 3. Now you know how wrong amendment 3 is, right?

    @wrz
    The plaintiffs in this case ask judges to allow same sex couple to marry, not ask for polygamy or incestuous marriage. If you have a compelling argument why same sex couples should not join matrimony, speak to the point or hold your peace.
    Arguing about polygamy or incestuous marriage to the judges simply won't help attorneys hired by Utah (with big taxpayers' money, no less) to win this case.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 1, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    Note how much hatred and contempt comes through in the letters of some of the anti-SSM writers here--phrases like "so-called marriage" or just the quotes around the word "marriage", as though a same sex marriage isn't really a marriage. These folk would be well to remember that the LDS church was similarly regarded in its early days---I suspect that the good people of Kirtland, had they been into writing letters to the editor, would have referred to "that so-called religion" or worse. And you certainly don't have to go back to the 1800's to find animosity. Before he got the GOP nomination, a lot of Evangelical politicians said a whole lot of nasty things about Mitt Romney's religion. I have yet to see a pro-marriage equality writer refer to the LDS (or any other) church as a "so-called" or a quote-unquote religion.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 1, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    Coach Biff, please check out a Biology 101 textbook. The riskiness of which you speak refers to a situation where one of the persons (male or female) is infected with a virus (e.g. hepatitis, HIV, herpes) which is spread through sexual contact. If one person is infected, s/he can transmit it to the other. If neither is, the "risk" disappears. And since you are concerned for public health, you will do everything you can to encourage monogamy--and marriage--for all sexually active people. Right?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 1, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    @TrueChristian: Re:Pure democracy without protection of individual rights, you are so right!

    17th Century Massachusetts, a colony run by Puritans, brutally enforced religious orthodoxy. Blasphemy, apostasy, heresy were all punishable by terrible means. When Quakers tried to practice their religion, they were whipped, tortured, imprisoned and executed. These abuses contributed to the guarantees we now take for granted in our Constitution, guarantees made necessary by the memory of what can happen when religious zealots gain governmental power.

    @higv: Quakers speak directly to Jesus all the time. There are no middle-men our religion. He loves us all, just as the Bible says. I suggest you read Romans 14, wherein Paul explains how the New Covenant affects Old Testament law, how what's in our hearts is more important than what's on our plates, and how we're not to judge each other.

    But if you insist on putting a lot of store in the words of the OT, but not the spirit of the NT, carefully read Leviticus 15:19-30, and 20:18 and take stock of the sins in your own marital bed.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 1, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    @higv
    Dietrich, ID
    Do you know what Jesus would do. How can people claim to speak for God without speaking to him.

    Jesus was bold with sin. Drove out moneychangers, and though gentle told Women in adultery to sin more. Can't look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Many people put there own interpertations to what they think Jesus would do without speaking to Jesus.

    10:17 p.m. March 31, 2014

    ==========

    2 comments --

    1. Jesus didn't try to change ROMAN laws to fit Judaic or Christian laws.

    2. Jesus was a passifist. I don't recall him being BOLD with sinners and ordering them to be stoned -- the Law of Moses required him to stone them. That's why the Pharisee's had him crucified, remember?

    3. True - He did get BOLD with the Money Cahngers in the Temple -- because they were Capitalists. And Jesus didn't like Capitalists scalping people worshipping God.

    4. Do you know Jesus would do? I do -- He'd go to them,
    put his arms around them love them,
    break bread with them,
    listen to their worries and concerns,
    and help them.

    And then tell us to do likewise.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    April 1, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    Many believe what bishops, doctrines, and leaders tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society’s benefit. They may be confused —even angry—when a legal decision seems to question that view. Although religious beliefs are part of the fabric of society, at issue are laws that act outside religion. Once the government defines civil marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or LDS faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons. The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our individual faith’s definition of marriage while preventing the government from unlawfully treating us differently. This is hardly surprising since it was written by people who came to America to find both freedom of religion and freedom from it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates without any valid reason.

  • BYU_Convert Provo, UT
    April 1, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    @higv and SS,

    At one point in time, the LDS Church discriminated against black people and interracial marriages. I think it wasn't until 1978 when black men could hold the priesthood. And why was this? Because the Book of Mormon mentions the seed of Cain bearing "a skin of blackness?" I realize that people will oppose gay marriage for their own good conscious, and for me (even though I struggle with SSA) do not feel that a gay marriage is an option because I do wish to follow the prophet's counsel on this issue, but that's in regards to MY life and MY choice. It is not my desire to treat others as less than me because of the choices they make. Did the Savior treat the adulteress woman as a subhuman specimen because of her sexual sins? Yet, I see many "Christians" treating gay people as subhuman specimens. Many LDS parents are throwing their gay kids out on the streets. I have seen it! Is someone's struggle/decision on sexuality justifiable for withholding Christ-like love? I say unto you, "nay."

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 1, 2014 6:16 p.m.

    @brotherJonathan:

    You asked, above, for a "simple compromise" having a "Marriage Certificate for male and female" and a "Civil Union, Marriage Certificate for same sex."

    Lets see how that fits. A "simple compromise" on buses, with "Seats Up Front for male and female," and "In the Back of the Bus, Seats Up Front for same sex..."

    No... that isn't right.

    How about "Lunch Counters for male and female," and "Enter and sit in the back, Lunch Counters for same sex..." Nope. That doesn't work right, either.

    Separate-but-equal is always separate and is never, ever equal.

    How about this compromise? The only legal wedding is a civil wedding, performed by an officer of the court in a court house. Religious ceremonies have meaning to the religious who participate but it is simply a ceremony and gives no legal protection. That way, all are equal in the law, and each church can bless as they choose - because a long list of 40 or more Christian churches marry Gay and Lesbian couples, as well as other faith traditions

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    April 1, 2014 6:33 p.m.

    @BYU Convert

    I too struggle with same-sex attraction and wish to follow the prophet's counsel on this issue.

    Some say that sexual orientation, like race and gender are considered to be fundamentally immutable characteristics for most people. Abstinence is always a choice. Religious belief on the other hand, is thought to be more amenable to change efforts and produces the best long term outcome. Sexual orientation is usually considered to be fundamental to a persons identity and person-hood, and a requirement for anyone to change their sexual orientation in order to civil marry is considered unreasonable and unconstitutional. In science, it is sometimes helpful to test the logic of a reverse situation. What if another church doctrine determined that it was Gods will that a heterosexual marry a homosexual? How would that work out, or would changing ones religious belief (which people do frequently) produce a more effective and better result?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 1, 2014 7:00 p.m.

    Coach Biff, I don't think that all those southern gentlemen who signed the Declaration of Independence (with that pesky phrase about all men being created equal) really meant for it to apply to women--or to their slaves. But nonetheless, that's how it's now interpreted. Do you have a problem with that?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 1, 2014 8:11 p.m.

    @USU-Logan:
    "@wrz The plaintiffs in this case ask judges to allow same sex couple to marry, not ask for polygamy or incestuous marriage. If you have a compelling argument why same sex couples should not join matrimony, speak to the point or hold your peace."

    I think I made a compelling argument... i.e., if SSM is allowed, all other combinations should be allowed, including polygamy and incestuous relations. If the judges allow any departure from current State law (one man/women) they must also allow any and all departures from current State law. Anything else is discrimination.

    The SSM argument for marriage is that they be allowed to marry whomever they love. That same argument should be available to all who wish to marry whomever they love... including the arrangements I listed.

    "Arguing about polygamy or incestuous marriage to the judges simply won't help attorneys hired by Utah... to win this case."

    The issue is not so much about polygamy or incestuous marriages, etc. It's about equal treatment/protection under the law (see Amendment 14).

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 1, 2014 8:33 p.m.

    @Evidence Not Junk Science:
    "Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons."

    Are you saying that laws against polygamy, incestuous, sib, dad/daughter, mom/son marriages (and a host of other marriage combinations that can be conjured) are discriminatory?

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    April 1, 2014 9:08 p.m.

    @liberal Larry Jesus came here to only do the will of the Father who sent him. Did not modify it. Money changers were in the temple where they should not of been. I think he left businessmen alone in other places. I would not call Jesus a pacifist. I am not here to send peace but a sword. Did not modify message to appease people who disagreed. The Premortal Jehovah gave the law of Moses. Did what was best for Children at the time. Women taken into adultery that was trap for Jesus. How many unrepentant adulters will be in the Celestial Kingdom. 0, Since the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance and is no respecter of persons. There are those that say they don't believe in God. I know our prophets are inspired of God and choose to follow them. It don't matter what side different churches take since God is not an author of confusion can't have it both ways. Jesus never said keep on sinning. The Old and New Testament have same author too. there is harsness in NT and forgiveness in OT.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 1, 2014 10:07 p.m.

    @Meckofahess

    Your Gay and Lesbian neighbors will have legally recognized marriages that have protections and benefits straight married couples have enjoyed all along. Extending those rights does not take anything away from you.

    The definition of marriage will not change. It will still be marriage, it will still legally join two people into a couple.

    "Self-evident." I have friends who are transgender. I regularly advocate for transgender patients in healthcare settings. I have been part of presentations on transgender healthcare experience to medical students at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and, when I lived in Atlanta, nursing students at Emory University. I teach healthcare technicians and include respectful and knowledgeable care of transgender patients in every class.

    My definition of "self-evident" includes transgender people being treated as full members of society, which includes using facilities appropriate to their transition gender, proper pronouns and generally respectful treatment.

    To me, it is common sense to do unto others as I would have others do unto me, self-evident to treat others with gentle respect.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 1, 2014 11:31 p.m.

    @wrz: "Are you saying that laws against polygamy, incestuous, sib, dad/daughter, mom/son marriages (and a host of other marriage combinations that can be conjured) are discriminatory?"

    When I see a list like this I start hearing Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis and the incomparable Bill Murray in the mayor's Office in Ghostbusters:
    Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
    Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
    Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
    Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
    Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
    Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
    Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
    Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

    I can't have equal rights because something bad might happen. Mass hysteria, indeed.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    April 2, 2014 12:06 a.m.

    @ WTZ "..all other combinations should be allowed, including polygamy and incestuous relations. "

    There is simply no constitutional right to harm and abuse that the government can easily demonstrate based on the relationships you propose. Therefore a rational basis exists for legislation against polygamy and incestuous relationships. There is no harm and abuse alleged that results from Same-sex marriage. Harm and abuse is well documented in closed FLDS like communities (see Bountiful Case 2011).

    Do you have another valid argument?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 12:09 a.m.

    @ wrz

    Look up the harm principle. That will answer your question. Also, people who are related already enjoy legal benefits and privileges. They are related, so there is no reason for them to be legally recognized and related through a marriage license. The same is not true for same-sex couples.

  • Northern Utahn Northern, UT
    April 2, 2014 2:16 a.m.

    @ Evidence Not Junk Science

    When quoting someone (Heyburn, in this case), you should indicate you are doing so. I realized you tweaked it from being EXACTLY word for word, to put an LDS spin on it, but give credit where credit is due:

    "Many believe in "traditional marriage." Many believe what their ministers and scriptures tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society's benefit. They may be confused "even angry" when a decision such as this one seems to call into question that view. These concerns are understandable and deserve an answer. Our religious beliefs and societal traditions are vital to the fabric of society. Though each faith, minister, and individual can define marriage for themselves, at issue here are laws that act outside that protected sphere. Once the government defines marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons."

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    April 2, 2014 6:13 a.m.

    One thing the Bible, Constitution and Jesus's mortal ministry have in common is it is easy to use your own interpretation of them to defend any pre determined position. Was Jesus Christian with the Canaanite women? Was he wrong to tell the Israelites to wipe out the cruel Amelekites? Belief that he speaks to leaders today helps us know where he stands on moral issues. Generous for sure but for our benefit since Adam has told us what we need to do to be happier. So called same gender marriages will hurt society in the long run. People that don't believe in immortality would have no problem with immorality, after all if you are saved anyway or annihiliated just as well grab all the fun and excitement if you think there is nothing after death, or no need to keep any commandments since you think you are saved anyway.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    April 2, 2014 6:20 a.m.

    @wrz said, "I think I made a compelling argument."

    You didn't. Your argument is illogical, based on asymmetrical comparisons. Allowing unrelated, adult couples who wish to live in lifelong, committed relationships to marry, opens the door neither to incest nor polygamy. Adding those approximately 5% of our neighbors who are gay to the ranks of the legally marriageable makes no difference in this regard, either in law or in logic.

    Incest is illegal for a number of reasons, which sociologists and family services professionals could explain to you in detail. One should note, however, cousins were generally able to marry in the U.S. and Europe until the latter half of the 19th Century, when eugenic concerns began to grow about inheritance of recessive genetic faults. Not all states changed their laws. First cousins can still marry in 18 states without restriction.

    The modern marriage contract is based in equality of the partners regarding property, custody, support, inheritance and guardianship. That's easy with two partners, difficult with polygamy. Which, should it ever come, won't just be your religious notion of patriarchal polygyny.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    April 2, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    @ Stormwalker, Evidence Not Junk Science, Two For Flinching and A Quaker. Thank you for your eloquent comments and rebuttals for wrz’s claim.

  • Bleed Crimson Sandy, Utah
    April 2, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    USU-Logan

    wrz is right! If marriage is redefined to include homosexuals. Then where do you draw the line?

    If marriage is redefined, then they're should be no reason that polygamy be illegal. Mother/son, Father/daughter marriage should be legal, Brother/Sister marriages should be legal. As long as they're all consenting adults who are in love and want the same rights that the homosexuals want.

    Again I ask, where do you draw the line if marriage is redefined?

  • USU_Logan Logan, UT
    April 2, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    @Bleed Crimson

    The line will be whether there is a legitimate reason, a rational reason to ban such practice, a long unbroken losing streak of same sex marriage opponents in the court in the past year shows that those arguments against SSM do not hold water.

    For other combinations you mentioned, you can go back and read comments given by Stormwalker, Evidence Not Junk Science, Two For Flinching and A Quaker why they should not be legitimate.

  • Testimony Philadelphia, PA
    April 2, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    BleedCrimson, who asks "where to draw the line",

    Here's the crux of the matter, it comes down to who's drawing that line. Religious conservatives such as yourself envision the world from a pulpit-preacher vantagepoint. If homosexuality is immoral and society chooses to recognize marriage of homosexuals, you argue, then what is to stop society from an amoral free-for-all?

    Whereas marriage equality proponents argue from a position of secular ethics. If homosexuality is legal, which it is, and ethical, which it is, then why can't homosexuals marry? Adults have the right to pursue their own ethical and romantic relationships.

    Meanwhile, it is clear to us that there are huge ethical problems with incest, and a bad history in patriarchal polygamy as practiced by those who abuse and exploit minor girls, trapping their young wives in a life of subservience, poverty and public assistance.

    You see it as an absolutist religious morality question, we see it as a secular ethics question. Come over to our side and that line is bright and clear.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    April 2, 2014 2:49 p.m.

    @USU Logan..

    At Bleed Crimson... Is "redefinition" a logical statement?

    History shows us that marriage is NOT defined by those who are excluded. Otherwise, why would we allow opposite sex felon child and spousal abusers to civil marry?
    Interracial couples wanted to participate in the institution that traditionally did not allow them to marry.
    There are no Interracial marriage licenses.
    There are no felony marriage licenses.
    There are no non-procreative marriage licenses.
    Allowing same-sex couples to participate and/or strengthen the existing institution, means there is only ONE marriage license for all. Nothing has been re-defined.
    Look no further than "traditional voting" which was NOT "re-defined" by allowing women the right to vote (from gendered voting to genderless).
    A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is simply no right at all. The "redefinition argument" is a logical fallacy and nonsense.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 2, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    @Northen Utahan

    Even you did not quote Judge Heyburn correctly.. “Many Kentuckians believe..."

    Even that comment was edited and paraphrased to fit in the comment limitation. The fact that it was paraphrased also should have also been included. By the time the explanations and authorship were duly noted, there was no room for even the the shortened and rewritten/derived version.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    April 2, 2014 4:49 p.m.

    These three men hold the future of the families of Utah in their hand. At least until the Supreme Court rules on whether or not marriage is allowed to be redefined.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    April 2, 2014 6:24 p.m.

    @ Lovely Desert "At least until the Supreme Court rules on whether or not marriage is allowed to be redefined."

    How is marriage "redefined?" by including or excluding people?

    Please explain?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2014 6:55 p.m.

    @ LovelyDeseret

    That's true. Hopefully the many homosexual families in Utah will soon enjoy equal privileges that the rest of the families enjoy. Your family will not be effected at all, no matter what happens

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 2, 2014 8:09 p.m.

    LovelyDeseret says:

    "These three men hold the future of the families of Utah in their hand."

    --- You're right. They hold the future of our same-sex families in their hand. Your family's future won't be affected by their ruling one way or the other; not affected in the least.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    April 3, 2014 12:27 a.m.

    I find it myopic to say nuclear families won't be affect by the redefinition of marriage. Look at what is happened in Massachusetts.
    1)Less and less people are getting married, it isn't treasured or embraced.
    2)It has also become harder for religious people to adopt.
    3)HIV/AIDS has gone up 30%, and
    4) state spending has increased by $35 million for STDs.

    I consider none of that good.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 3, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    @LovelyDeseret, I don’t know if your statements are accurate or not. But let’s assume they are. You infer that these changes have come because of 10 years of marriage equality. But the figures are useless without comparison to other states. Take Missouri--like Massachusetts, a large urban core and an agrarian heartland. Is the marriage rate down there? Have HIV diagnoses gone up there? As a religious person who has adopted before and after 2004, I can tell you that the process is much harder--but that has nothing to do with religion or marriage equality; it involves tougher state and federal regulations. And you have a problem with increasing state spending for STDs? Are you saying that people are more promiscuous now that marriage equality is the law? State spending on asthma diagnoses is also higher. Is this also a result of marriage equality?

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    April 3, 2014 8:20 p.m.

    @ LovelyDesert
    Yes, lets look at what is happened in Massachusetts and Iowa, both states with SSM.

    These states have the lowest divorce rate in the country. Therefore, isn't SSM a godsend for all nuclear families by keeping stable family units together?

    Moreover, why won't answer the question of how marriage is "redefined" by excluding or including people? For example, we allow convicted spousal and drug abusers to civil marry, does this "define" marriage too? Would spousal, drug and alcohol abuse go away if we did not allow these people to civil marry? Why target only same-sex couples with animus and discrimination? In fact, why even allow opposite sex couples to marry (because they can be a source of HIV and STD's too)? HIV and STD's infection rates be reduced in part by denying them access to civil marriage?

    If you don't mind, please answer the question of how marriage is redefined by including or excluding people.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    April 3, 2014 10:56 p.m.

    @ Lovely Deseret

    I'm wiling to bet that all of the numbers in your post are not accurate....or are even close to being accurate.

  • Hank Jr Draper, UT
    April 4, 2014 3:39 p.m.

    I checked on the judges previous rulings and it strongly appears that the gays don't stand a chance. State's rights will prevail over Federal law. Amen.

  • No H8 - Celebrate Salt Lake, UT
    April 4, 2014 7:19 p.m.

    The Constitution does not permit either a state legislature or the state’s citizens through a referendum to enact laws that violate constitutionally protected rights. And “while the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out .. . the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.” Awad v. Ziriax (2012)

    It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

    Fifteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    April 4, 2014 10:03 p.m.

    @no celebrate

    There is no constitutional right to redefine marriage.

    In fact the last Supreme Court ruling stated that marriage is a State right.

    When the state of Utah appealed to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held 9-0 that there was a likelihood that Utah would win the appeal and thus they put a hold on Judge Shelby's ruling.

    They voted 9-0, they don't vote 9-0 on almost anything, yet to protect State's marriage rights in Utah the Supreme Court voted 9-0.

  • fact based Salt Lake, UT
    April 5, 2014 1:20 a.m.

    @ Lovely Desert

    You may be surprised to know that the last Supreme Court case (Windsor) was actually TWO women. Fifteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. So, according to the Supreme court, no one is "redefining" anything. They are constitutionally allowed to participate in the existing institution known as marriage.

    Could you kindly explain how marriage is "redefined" by adding or excluding people?

    Also, you missed the first sentence in the Windsor ruling. "State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967);
    but, SUBJECT to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.” In other words, the state has a right to regulate, but not discriminate.

    The Supreme court ruled on granting a stay, nothing about states rights or validity of marriages currently performed in Utah.

    Where did you get your information that it was to protect states marriage rights if I may ask? First, could you kindly explain how marriage is "redefined" by adding or excluding people?

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    April 5, 2014 10:16 a.m.

    @fact baked,

    It is ironic that you brought up Loving v. Virginia. The exact same Court that ruled in Loving v Virginia made their opinion known on gay marriage. One year later they summarily dismissed a gay marriage case with a rebuke. No honest person would think that the Court in Loving v. Virginia remotely believed that redefining marriage to gay was Constitutional.

    Once again, the only right in Windsor, is that marriage is a State right.
    Your "redefining" marriage question is rudimentary and isn't worth a response.

    Once again, the burden to grant a stay by the Supreme Court on appeal is that there is a likelihood that the State of Utah can win the case. To that question and burden the Supreme Court responded with a 9-0 vote in favor of Utah. 9-0. Since then, every ruling redefining marriage has been stayed. In spite of District Judge shopping.
    Lastly Ted Olsen in his gay California case before the Supreme Court said that gay marriage should not be forced upon Utah and that the Court shouldn't do that. He got that point correct.

  • fact based Salt Lake, UT
    April 5, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    @Lovely

    The quote on Windsor was directly from the actual decision. Please read the decision (above) the state has a right to regulate marriage, and MUST also respect constitutional guarantees.

    You cannot explain how adding people, felons, or interracial couples for example, "re-defines" marriage. Rudimentary or not, there is nothing to your redefinition claim. Otherwise, you would easily be able to support the claims you make.

    Judge Walker and the 9th decision were both stayed, and voila we now have marriage equality in California. This one example clearly shows that a stay does not mean what you think it does.

    'Lincoln said “It cannot have failed to strike you that these men ask for just the same thing, fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as in my power, they and all others shall have.” Gays and Lesbians, and their children too, whose voices are in harmony with constitutional guarantees, also ask for fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as it is this courts power, they and all others shall have." Judge Wright wrote in Bostic. (Virginia).

    Lastly, Ted Olsen is now challenging the marriage ban in Virginia. - The writing on the wall is clear is it not?

  • fact based Salt Lake, UT
    April 5, 2014 4:51 p.m.

    It is worth noting that In Windsor, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized the “equal dignity” of the “intimate relationship between TWO people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community. . . .” The government does not have a right to interfere with their rights to file taxes jointly. Same-sex couples have a right to receive benefits under the state public pension system, to adopt or serve as legal guardian of a partner’s child, to receive inheritance protections, and to make medical decisions for a partner. In light of Windsor, restrictions and disabilities of vile animus, bigotry and ignorance imposed on gay and lesbian couples simply cannot stand.

    Windsor did not then say, therefore this ruling means the states can do as they please and.constitutional guarantees can be ignored. Never in our nations history has there been any kind of states right to ignore the US Constitution due process and equal protection amendments.