Quantcast
Utah

Utah same-sex marriage debate shifts to appeals court Thursday

Comments

Return To Article
  • Snapdragon Midlothian, VA
    April 7, 2014 7:11 p.m.

    I hope that whatever happens can be done peacefully.

  • BlackDiamond Provo, UT
    April 7, 2014 7:22 p.m.

    Gay marriage should not be allowed.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    April 7, 2014 7:46 p.m.

    @ BlackDiamond

    Compelling argument. Allow me to counter: Same-sex marriage should be allowed.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    April 7, 2014 8:21 p.m.

    I think 'healthy-thin' women are attractive.
    I think blonde hair is attractive.
    I think women can be attractive in tight and revealing clothes, jeans, workout clothes, pretty much anything.

    Have I struggled with this? Of course! Hollywood's 'picture perfect starlet actress' is popular for a reason. Satan knows how to tempt all men.

    However:

    I don't need legal recognition or public acceptance of that attraction.
    While I fought that attraction for years, it is possible to overcome it (with help).
    Help and happiness are available- through the Savior.

    Are we a people who's laws represent our sexual appetite? Can laws not cherish what's good, reprove what's wrong, etc? Does such a legal system not respect the rights of us to choose and learn from our mistakes?

    We can't understand what rights are, what happiness is, or what's fair or equal when the author of those beliefs is the same man tempting us to feed appetite of the same nature. The only way to happiness is through repentance, not social validation.

    /////

    "Defend your beliefs with courtesy and with compassion, but defend them." - Jeffrey R. Holland (Apr 2014, General Conference of the LDS Church)

  • The Reader Layton, UT
    April 7, 2014 8:42 p.m.

    Red Corvette - victory and justice are two different concepts. Depends on ones View. My belief system would say victory is no gay marriage. Justice would be the courts agreeing with me. Depends on ones point of view. Either way we need to be courteous to each another even if we disagree.

    Lighting the Way - Do not be so sure of that. Gay marriage and marriage between a man and a women are not equal and never will be. Again my point of view.

  • BoringGuy Holladay, UT
    April 7, 2014 8:44 p.m.

    Utah should quit embarrassing itself and drop this sham appeal. We all know how this story will end. The Supreme Court will do what's right and uphold equality per the Constitution. In the name of freedom and liberty, two adults have the God-given right to enter in a legal relationship and marry if they so choose.

    Talk about a waste of my hard-eatned tax dollars...

  • CDM1525 West Point, UT
    April 7, 2014 8:46 p.m.

    Whatever happened to free agency? I hear the local congregations talking about that quite often, but don't seem to live by it. I can understand laws for drugs because they not only hurt the user but also society as a whole, but gay marriage? How does that hurt anyone? Give them the free agency to do what they want and let God be the judge. Who are we to try and dictate how others live as long as it does not hurt us? My personal belief is that it would make society better as a whole.

    One other question, why do people cherry pick the bible? The bible says a lot of things that most people today do not live by. For instance, adultery is a sin, in fact it made the top 10, but there is no push to make it illegal. Why is that?

  • intervention slc, UT
    April 7, 2014 8:48 p.m.

    @I know it
    So then you are going to stop seeking social validation for your social prejudices against a group of people that are no threat to you or society? That is what you are talking about right?

  • Mexican Ute mexico, 00
    April 7, 2014 9:20 p.m.

    CDM1525:

    Did you not hear what Elder Holland said in the last GC, about, oh, 60 hours ago?

    Once again you start to have people forget the words of the Apostles and Prophets. You do so at your own peril.

    Free agency has nothing to do with legalizing that which is repugnant in God's eyes.

    As for the others, I have no doubt that the courts will legalize SSM, only to make a what was once simple institution, even more complicated.

    Something that Elder Perry said in conference: In this world of increasing complexities, we need to remain in the simplicity of the gosepl...

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    April 7, 2014 9:38 p.m.

    @Lightning in the way a letter from the church specifically said that leaders will not use there ecclesiastical authority to perform so called same gender marriages, nor will building be used for receptions or other things associated with so called same gender marriage. Nevertheless visitors are welcome as long as they behave and we should not persecute those who avail themselves of so called same gender marriage. So no the Joseph Smith Memorial building will never host a reception for a same sex couple.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    April 7, 2014 9:49 p.m.

    @Boring Guy The State of Utah did not start this. 1st I don't think anyone even thought of marriage of anything other than between a Man and Women for a long time. And the Voters passed law to define marriage between Man and Women. I see no where in the 14th amendment where there is a right to marry someone of the same gender. 9th and 10th amendment give Utah right to define marriage. Why are the plantiff's suing to overturn the will of the people then criticizing Utah for defending what they have a prerogrotive to do. @cdfm Agency is not doing what you want, But being for right choice. Like Drug laws Marriage laws are here because they benefit and effect society one way or the other not just a few individuals.

  • CDM1525 West Point, UT
    April 7, 2014 9:59 p.m.

    Mexican Ute, with all due respect, I don't take their words as the words of God so what they say really has no meaning whatsoever to me. Also, just recently it has been established by leaders of your church that they are indeed fallible and have been known to be wrong from time to time. Maybe, just maybe, this is one of those times. Only time will tell. God bless.

  • BlackDiamond Provo, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:04 p.m.

    @Two
    Homosexuality is a sin so therefore it should not be allowed. It is a commandment from God whether you believe in him or not he created all of us and has given guidelines on how we should live our lives, and being gay isn't part of his plan.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    April 7, 2014 10:08 p.m.

    @Two For Flinching:
    "Allow me to counter: Same-sex marriage should be allowed."

    But what about polygamy, incest, mother/son, father/daughter marriages? Should they be allowed? And if not, why not?

    It's very discriminatory that I might soon be able to marry my sister but not my dad or brother.

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:11 p.m.

    The LDS Church would close the Joseph Smith Memorial Building to all marriages if they were required to allow gay marriage there. There are plenty of other places for gays to marry, if that is what they want to call it.

  • The Scientist Provo, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:21 p.m.

    "Defend your beliefs with courtesy and with compassion, but defend them." - Jeffrey R. Holland (Apr 2014, General Conference of the LDS Church)

    Elder Holland is exactly right!

    Keep in mind, then, that the majority of Americans ARE defending their belief that marriage equality is right, good, and Constitutional.

    Mormons comprise less than 1.7% of the US population. "Nones" comprise over 12%. We will defend our beliefs, as well.

    61% of Republican leaning voters aged 18-29 support allowing same-sex couples to marry, while only 27% of Republican leaning voters over 50 years of age are supportive. The Youth of America will also defend their beliefs against the aged.

    71% of those with post graduate degrees support marriage equality. The Educated of America will defend our beliefs against the uneducated.

    Over 71% of households with incomes over $100,000 support marriage equality. The more wealthy will also defend their beliefs.

    63% of women support same sex marriage. Women will also defend their beliefs.

    Those who oppose marriage equality will lose, and be an embarassing footnote on the scrap heap of history.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:29 p.m.

    BlackDiamond "Homosexuality is a sin so therefore it should not be allowed."
    The type of government you seek is called Theocracy.
    That is the form of government in Iran, not the United States.

  • TheReason SLC, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:39 p.m.

    @BlackDiamond
    Affairs are a sin so therefore it should not be allowed. It is a commandment from God whether you believe in him or not he created all of us and has given guidelines on how we should live our lives, and being having affairs isn't part of his plan.

    I guess we should put government restrictions on extramarital affairs, yeah?

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    April 7, 2014 10:57 p.m.

    @ BlackDiamond

    It's a sin to YOU. If you want to follow his commandments and live your life that way, that's perfectly fine. It's your right to do so. However, this country is not a theocracy, and our laws do not come from the Bible. They come from the Constitution. You don't get a say in how anybody else chooses to live their life, nor do you have the right to vote on who people can, and can't, marry.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    April 7, 2014 11:13 p.m.

    @higv:
    "So no the Joseph Smith Memorial building will never host a reception for a same sex couple."

    I think you need to review a New Mexico case which the US Supreme Court just refused to hear, which means a lesser court's ruling holds. The case involved a photographer who refused to photograph a gay wedding. The bottom line is that it's illegal to refuse the service. So, it would also be illegal to refuse use of the Joseph Smith Memorial building for a gay wedding reception.

    From a news source: 'The case would have posed an important constitutional question with potentially sweeping implications: whether merchants whose products are inherently expressive must serve customers even when it conflicts with their beliefs.

    That could include marketers, advertisers, publicists, website designers, writers, videographers and photographers — and perhaps others.'

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    April 7, 2014 11:20 p.m.

    This is clearly no fundamental right to redefine marriage. Where or not there is a rational basis for Amendment 3 is completely depending on your point of reference. If you value marriage and come from a society that values marriage and the family there is a rational basis. However, if you, like the State of Massachusetts, have among the lowest marriage rates in the country, you do not value marriage and based also on your high abortion rates you do not value family, then to you like the state of Massachusett, you believe there is absolutely no rational basis.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    April 7, 2014 11:22 p.m.

    @ Miss Piggie

    Because polygamous and incestuous relationships have been proven to violate the harm principle. It also has been proven to be a serious risk to children by way of serious genetic defects. Also, people who share a parent/offspring relationship have no legal reason to be married since they already enjoy the legal benefits that accompany being related and recognized as a family. Same-sex couples are not legally recognized as related until they have a signed marriage certificate.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 7, 2014 11:33 p.m.

    No state has done more than Utah to advance the cause of same sex marriage. I'm not gay. Nor do I even know someone who is. But I congratulate us all on our progressive attitude.

  • I know it. I Live it. I Love it. Provo, UT
    April 7, 2014 11:34 p.m.

    intervention,

    Protecting the family does nothing to give me social recognition or status. I already have it. What the world thinks of me and my personal beliefs doesn't matter. What the world thinks about marriage, women & children does. Children have rights. Social recognition at the cost of their rights is something I don't accept.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    April 8, 2014 6:28 a.m.

    CDM1525,

    It is interesting how you try and twist a set of beliefs to match your own argument. Agency is the ability to choose. God has given us the ability to choose. He says in the Old Testament choose you this day..God or Mammon.

    We are not compelling anyone to violence against homosexuals but you are trying to confuse less intelligent people by twisting beliefs.

    I say again agency is the ability to choose. We are not taking anyone's agency away from them. Those in Utah that are against SSM are acting upon their agency to say that they don't believe marriage should be defined in the way others are defining it.

    SSM proponents are saying the opposite. There has been no intimidation or anything that would negate anyones agency. They are exercising their agency by taking it to court.

    Read up on some history and stop comparing this to the civil rights movement. There are no lynching, intimidation, etc. regarding homosexuality marriage equality.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 8, 2014 6:52 a.m.

    I so enjoy articles written by Dennis Romboy. True reporting: Here are the facts. Here is the context. This is what some of the viewpoints are. No slant. No bias. A neutral, informing voice.

    Thank you, Mr. Romboy.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:02 a.m.

    @higv:

    The question of whether the Joseph Smith building would be available for gay wedding receptions would depend largely on its current policies. If it's available to the general public for wedding receptions that include other marriages which the church would not perform or approve of, then it's likely that they would have to host gay receptions as well. When you make a business a place of public accommodation (a well-defined legal category), you lose the right to be as picky about who can use is.

    And, again, for those who offer religious arguments against gay marriage, it's worth remembering that courts do not base their decisions on the religious beliefs of majorities within a jurisdiction. If they did, polygamy would be legal within FLDS-dominated counties, it would be illegal to sell pork in much of New York City, and parts of West Virginia might require everyone to handle snakes as part of worship regardless of denomination. Keep in mind that the entire issue is about civil marriage, not what churches do within their buildings and what doctrines they hold to for religious marriage.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:12 a.m.

    @Iknow It, live it "What the world thinks about marriage, women & children does. Children have rights. Social recognition at the cost of their rights is something I don't accept."

    I'm checking Federal and state constitutional, adoptive, family and reproductive law regarding social recognition and children's rights.

    Where are these specific rights described or documented, to help me understand better what is in the law, and what may be garden variety rhetoric?

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:13 a.m.

    @BlackDiamond "Homosexuality is a sin so therefore it should not be allowed."

    Let's look at your bible and see what other things it lists as sins so we can enact laws against them as well. Let's see ... gluttony, lusting in your heart, extramarital affairs, eating pork and shellfish, lighting a fire on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed linen and wool, charging interest for loans, convicting a person on the testimony of a single witness, coveting, and much, much more. If you disagree, please explain why the civil government should outlaw some sins while leaving the far-more-common ones perfectly legal. And please come up with a better argument than "it is icky" while justifying the rest because "everyone does it". This is an example of why the government has no business passing laws solely because something offends the religious beliefs of a majority. We need far more compelling reasons if we are to restrict the rights of minorities.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    April 8, 2014 7:27 a.m.

    @cdfm and others that find places where church leaders appeared to be wrong, Do those that disagree with the Lord's stand on same gender marriage ever admit to being wrong themselves. And that is one problem of so called same gender marriage, why should the church be required to use the JSM for those type's of receptions. Isn't there other places that will allow them. You can't please God without offending Devil, That is why he that is only interested in misery will holler every time good people defend traditional marriage. People that don't think God lives or make him after there image of course will defend there views that are different from Gods. And people have a right to influence morality in there legislature. Someone's view of morality will always be there. What are you supposed to do say I believe this but should not promote this because it is a moral issue? Good way for other side to win.

  • Equality 4 all west Jordan, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:49 a.m.

    One argument I don't understand is "My God and religious beliefs say that it is wrong" That's great. But you can't make laws based on just a religious belief. Who is to say what religion to base laws off of? If there is a state or city with a majority Islamic population could they make Sharia law the law of their area? If they held a vote and said that all women were required to wear a Burka and 60% of the people voted for it would this be acceptable? No because this is America and we have freedoms to live as we choose and our laws are not based on and one religious sect.

    Many Christian religions such as the Episcopal Church now recognize and perform Same Sex Marriage and full equality. It is their religion that says it is acceptable. So it would be infringing on their beliefs not to allow SSM.

    I would defend anyone the right to believe anything that they want. But you can't make laws based on beliefs because everyone's beliefs are different.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    Whatever happens at the 10th Circuit won't neccesarily be the last word. Courts all over the country have reached the same conclusion as the District COurt in Utah. I would expect the matter to be resolved before the U.S. Supreme Court. The whole issue of full faith and credit makes this a federal issue, not a local issue.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:58 a.m.

    First of all I would like to echo Karen R's comments on Dennis Romboy. He is truly an outstanding reporter. Definitely the best one the D-News has, at least in my opinion.
    When Amendment 3 was debated, politicized, and passed in 2004 I described it at the time as nothing more than legalizing hatred toward a specific segment of the population. My opinion of it hasn't changed one iota. I fervently hope that Tomsic and the plaintiffs prevail and that Amendment 3 is relegated to history.

  • CDM1525 West Point, UT
    April 8, 2014 8:05 a.m.

    Greatbam22,

    Can you please let me know where I referenced the civil rights movement because I wasn't even thinking of that let alone referring to it. It seems when people start to get chips on their shoulders they tend to make stuff up. God bless

  • BlackDiamond Provo, UT
    April 8, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    @The Reason
    That is a good one. Everyone is going to make a mistake, some will have affairs, some will steal or cheat. But does that mean we should change the law so that everyone can have an affair and steal and do what ever they want. Rules and Laws are given so that we can have freedom. That is why this country is a free country, it is because of the law that is established. Some people take the meaning of being FREE the wrong way. We are free by following the rules and laws given.

  • Pavalova Surfers Paradise, AU
    April 8, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    Just wondering where in the NT did the Savior say that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave unto his "husband" and none else. The OT is the OT, and all was fulfilled with the Savior.

    If he was in support of SSM, shouldn't that have been referenced in the NT as he was talking about marriage? All the references in the NT are in reference to marriage between a man and a woman. Not a scholar here just wondering.

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 8, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    A perfect example of judicial tyranny! This is not about equality its about changing the definition of one of the foundational institutions of human civilization and our arrogant narcissistic, self righteous judiciary has neither the Constitutional right nor the competence to do this on their own!

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    April 8, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    It is ironic and sad that the argument against SSM relies so much on bad/dated/irrelevant research to justify its case against same sex marriage. After all, most of the religionists against SSM are of the fundamentalist mindset, and there is a rather high correlation between fundamentalist religious belief and and anti- science attitude (don't care much for evolution).

    Now we have have those against SSM selectively using statistics to "prove" their case. To which I refer to a previous poster attempting to conflate the move to legalize SSM with a drop in heterosexual marriage rates. The specific example I will cite is that Massachusetts has a lower marriage rate than do other states. Its marriage rate (which admitted lower than the national average) is unchanged from pre SSM days (therefore, no correlation). In fact, the divorce rate in MA fell. Oh, and remember SSM has been legal for 10 years.

    Facts are stubborn things. When you misuse them, you ruin your case. No wonder thinking people see the absence of serious thought reflected in most who make the argument against SSM.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    April 8, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    @Equality 4 all:
    "But you can't make laws based on just a religious belief."
    Yes, but when I look at these editorials I keep seeing someone bringing in unfounded beliefs in favor of redefining marriage.

    I constantly see cultural assumptions: the CEO of Mozilla was a homophobe, the wedding photographer who did not support the gay wedding was a bigot, laws to protect religious expression are excuses for bigotry. Have you heard of "Prop H8", we should not tolerate people with views that we consider to odious -- in that instance the person defined odious as being they believe that marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman.

    A lot of people are stumbling badly over their stereotypes. They have as much credibility as the man who thinks the Earth is only 6000 years old because the Bible says it is.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 8, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    @Charlamange " This is not about equality its about changing the definition ....."

    How so?

    Did the definition of marriage change to something less than it was, when convicted spousal, child, drug and alcohol abusers were allowed to marry?

    How so?

    Did the definition of marriage change when interracial couples were allowed to marry?

    How so?

    Did the definition of marriage change when non procreative couples were allowed to marry?

    How so?

    To my knowledge there are no abuse or felony marriage licenses, nor are there interracial marriage licenses, nor are there non-procreative marriages. There is only one certificate of marriage which means the same for everyone.

    Did the traditional institution and definition of voting change when women were granted the right to vote? It was a gendered institution, and became genderless, but for most folks, like marriage, voting remains the same as it always has. Allowing folks to participate or Including them seems to strengthen the traditional institutions of voting and marriage.

    So again I ask, How so? How is marriage redefined?

    Please explain.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    April 8, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    Because the Joseph Smith building is a tribute to the man it seems that he would be honored to.host all wedding since he was very diverse in his concept of marriage, family and sealings.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    April 8, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    It looks like the track record of the Supreme Court shows that they will refuse to consider this case and leave the lower court ruling intact at the Appeals level. This is an extremely important issue of "the will of the people" versus a stretched interpretation of civil rights. This also has considerations in regard to abortion. The Obama Administration has extended the meaning of "contraception" to include abortiofactants. Is this also a civil right? Meghan Kelly of Fox News stated that "Hobby Lobby" supported 21 of 22 interpretations of birth control in regard to the health mandate. The only one that they opposed was in regard to abortiofactants. This case is shaping up as similar to Prop 8 in California where the referendum was passed by the people and denied by the courts. Therefore, this case has long range implications.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    April 8, 2014 9:34 a.m.

    @ Equal Protection

    Marriage has always, always, always, always been defined as between man and woman. It started between a man and woman.

    Only until recently has it been questioned.

    It is interesting how you call upon failing of society to emphasize your point. Well...if these bad people get to marry then these people should get to marry.

    I think it is interesting how it seems like the world has for probably most of my lifetime defined marriage as "just another relationship." It seems like that is their main push and goal.

    It negates their greatest failure and allows them to ignore it better.

    “No other success can compensate for failure in the home.” - David O. Mckay

  • Charlemagne Salt Lake City, Utah
    April 8, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    equal protection,

    You are throwing out more red herrings than a fish monger.

    Marriage has always been an institution involving a union between a man and a woman the "variations" you speak of do not alter that fact.

    Perfection has never been required of individuals marrying and so it should come as no surprise that some people turn out to be abusers.

    Interracial marriage is real marriage and has been around for millennia. Just look at some of the various peoples of the world. I have a friend who is block and has dated white women. He finds it highly offensive that some people would compare interracial unions to homosexual unions!

    Likewise infertile couples have been marrying for ages. The only time infertility makes any difference legally in terms of the validity of a marriage is if one of the spouses claims they can have or father children knowing that they cannot.

    The issue of women voting is totally irrelevant. But for the sake of argument women got the right to vote due to a decision by the voters not some unelected judge!

  • EstoPerpetua Holden, MA
    April 8, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    How can homosexuality be a sin when God created homosexuality as he created heterosexuality. It does not make sense that God would create homosexuals and doom them at birth. Of course you must believe that God is a loving God and not an evil God.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    April 8, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    @El Chango Supremo
    "It really seems every time an article of this nature appears any pro gay marriage argument receives an abnormally large number of likes"

    That is exactly why we are now living in 2014, not 2004, the tide has turned and there is no way back.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    April 8, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    @Mexican Ute: "Something that Elder Perry said in conference: In this world of increasing complexities, we need to remain in the simplicity of the gosepl..."

    Based on what I've read and heard from opponents of SSM, I have no choice but to conclude: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!! Simplicity and simplistic may be the understatements of all time with regards to the views put forth by opponents od SSM.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    @Charlemagne
    "He finds it highly offensive that some people would compare interracial unions to homosexual unions!"

    The only people who find the comparison offensive are people who aren't racist but hate homosexuals.

  • birdbath SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 8, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    It's one thing for an individual to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and it is another thing entirely for the state/government to support the notion when there is no rational basis for doing so. Belief in God is not rational - it's by definition irrational (faith is to believe in things that are not known). I believe in God and I believe my marriage (between a man and woman) is good in God's eyes. But there is no rational reason for opposing same-sex marriage from being recognized by the state/government -- end of discussion. It all comes down to that word rational and as long as that word dictates, there is no reason to debate this.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    April 8, 2014 11:04 a.m.

    @greatbam22 Charlemagne "Marriage has always, always...."

    It's always been that way is NOT the answer to the redefinition question. Try again?

    This is because traditional discrimination for whatever reason, has NEVER been a valid constitutional reason to continue the past practice (segregation, interracial marriage etc.).

    Marriage is NOT defined by adding or excluding people based on your detailed answer. You did not provide one reason of how marriage will be redefined by including same-sex couples.

    Again, we know how its always been.

    My question was about how will same-sex couples "redefine" marriage. Including couples does NOT "redefine" or tarnish marriage.

    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. 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.

  • intervention slc, UT
    April 8, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    @i know it
    So you don't accept the arguments of the state since there is no credible evidance of harm to children raised in two parent same sex households and having two loving parents that can care for the child is the child's right? Nice to hear.

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    April 8, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    equal protection -

    Like I said before Marriage is between a Man and a Women. A + B = C Man = A Woman = B Marriage = C. That is how it was defined in the beginning.

    You can say all you want that you aren't trying to redefine it but it was already defined as between a man and a woman. If you put something in there that is different than a man and a woman how is that not redefining it?

    If you have a motorcycle and add a 3rd wheel to it is it still a motorcycle? No it isn't because motorcycles by definition have two wheels.

    You are move than welcome to keep your redefinition of marriage and I will keep the original definition of marriage.

    "...some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth."

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    April 8, 2014 11:55 a.m.

    Interesting article. I think the State faces a real uphill battle though. Trying to convince the Tenth Circuit Court that Judge Shelby "read too much into the Windsor decision" is going to be tough. In his dissenting opinion in Windsor, Justice Scalia pretty much eliminated any doubt about what the majority opinion was designed to do. He writes:

    "In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow,
    is DOMA is motivated by "bare ... desire to harm" couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status." (U. S. v Windsor, 22.)

  • empathic heart West Jordan, UT
    April 8, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    Thank you, The Scientist.
    As I was taught as a young member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, "We claim the privilege of worshiping the almighty God according to the dictates of OUR OWN CONSCIENCE, and allow all men (women probably implied) the same privilege, let them worship HOW, where or what they may". I think this should be as true today in West Jordan, Utah where the Church has vast majority membership as it was when the Church was struggling to survive.

    I have the right, no, the responsibility, as conference recently pointed out, to speak up for my moral beliefs (even if I stand against the tidal wave), which support marriage equality as a family value. There isn't much substance to the argument that LGBTQ folks are immoral, anti-family, anti- values dangerous people. Particularly those who value marriage and family so much they are bucking the anti-marriage trend among heterosexual people. Isn't the importance of marriage and family a conservative value?
    I hope for a heaven full of mixed race, same and other gender and gender identity marriages and families. Without that, it won't be heaven to me.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    April 8, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    Greatbam22,, define the word always . Mormonism is dynamic, there is no always.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    April 8, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    I don't see the point of piling on BlackDiamond. This is someone who actually typed the words "it is a commandment from God whether you believe in him or not he created all of us." Ok, then. Something I don't believe in created me. You may buy into this, but why in the world would you think it's a compelling argument?

    The alarmists make me chuckle. The non-existent threat to your previous hetero marriages; how exactly will it manifest itself? Well loads of people who were not gay before suddenly become gay and get married? Will husbands start ditching their families once it's legal for them to marry the boy-toy they've had their eye on?

    The people you are so suspicious and frightened of already exist and are already doing all sorts of nasty things you disapprove of. If that fact hasn't already shaken your straight marriage to its core, why will allowing them to marry?

  • empathic heart West Jordan, UT
    April 8, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    Also, with the religious based argument, it disappears when one doesn't believe in god at all, or the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or in a specific interpretation of any of the sects from the 3 Abrahamic religions. I submit that there are Billions who see no validity whatsoever in a religious based prohibition of anything.
    I think in the discussion we need to keep in mind there are very many ways to understand and incorporate moral, religious and spiritual matters. As I read the constitution, one view cannot be given precedence over another. So even in Utah, the predominant faith can't have it's position promoted or supported above the views of the American Catholics, Unitarians or others in support of LGBTQ inclusion, or Agnostic citizens or Atheists or Buddhists, Hindus and all others.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 8, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    @greatbam22: "If you have a motorcycle and add a 3rd wheel to it is it still a motorcycle? No it isn't because motorcycles by definition have two wheels."

    My father put about 130,000 miles on several motorcycles over the last 15 years of his life. He went all over the country on his bike. The last one he had was a gold wing. When he started having leg problems he bought a kit, removed the rear wheel and added two back wheels to give greater stability. Some people referred to it as a "trike" instead of a "bike." This state of Georgia, where he lived, required it to be registered, and licensed, as a motorcycle. They also required that he have a motorcycle operators permit to drive it.

    In multiple states a couple who buy a marriage license from the state and enter into an agreement with each other are married in the eyes of the state. Does not matter if it is a man and a woman, two men, or two women. They meet the definition of "married."

  • greatbam22 andrews afb, MD
    April 8, 2014 1:46 p.m.

    @ Stormwalker

    Ok so the state of Georgia decided to streamline their vehicle registration process and lump all vehicles that are not cars into another category. Doesn't make my argument that motorcycles have two wheels invalid.

    Ok so some states redefined marriage as you define it.

    Just because some states have redefined marriage in a certain way doesn't mean all states have to redefine it in those ways as well.

    If something was one way before and then it was changed then it has been redefined.

    Why don't we just get it over with and have people that are married and people who are merried? I mean that is all a lot of you care about anyways right? Not so much right and wrong but happy or unhappy.

    I mean gay merriage goes together wonderfully.

  • jazzlover Highland, UT
    April 8, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    I'm pretty sure there are some organized and/or paid supporters of SSM that come in and comment on these boards. By all means, everyone is free to comment.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    April 8, 2014 2:10 p.m.

    Okay, so those arguing back and forth about the Joseph Smith, Lion House, etc. Allay your fears. The closest example of a case which involved a church-affiliated venue was the Ocean Grove NJ pavilion case. But that case was very specific in that it had a ruling from 1908 with the city that it had to be open to everyone in exchange for special tax benefits. The Joseph Smith Building and the Lion House are church-owned, on church-owned property and serve a religious purpose. So, whatever fears you may have, they're not justified.

  • Northern Utahn Northern, UT
    April 8, 2014 2:25 p.m.

    @jazzlover

    I think it's funny that you really still believe that you're in the majority opinion against marriage equality. Far and away, (depending on the poll, it's nearly 2-1) Americans support SSM. People against equality are NOT in the "silent majority." They're in the very vocal, MINORITY. Try reading:

    "Gay marriage opponents don't know they're on the wrong side of public opinion: What happens when a vocal minority thinks it's a silent majority?"

    It's hilarious that so many people ignorantly believe there's some "organized/paid supporters of SSM" essentially stampeding to comment on this board. In reality, you're just in the very loud, ever-shrinking minority opinion (like people against interracial marriage in the 1960's and 1970's). No one's out to get you, just their rights, or the rights of their loved ones and fellow citizens. And they're growing in number each and every day. They passed the numbers on "the other side" years ago, and just keep right on growing. I suspect people are reading the news, because there's a newsworthy appeal this week and commenting about it. No boogeyman needed.

  • Top of UT Patriot Cache, UT
    April 8, 2014 2:29 p.m.

    One only need look to Utah History to determine what happens to a religious people who have a different definition of marriage than their fellow countrymen.

    Utah Statehood was delayed for 4 decades, LDS Church Leaders were jailed, and under threat of disenfranchisement (loss of all property including the SL Temple) President Wilford Woodruff approached the Lord about how to handle this situation. The result was the Manifesto of 1890, ending the practice of polygamy in the LDS Church.

    The only solution to this with out violating religious rights is to get the state out of the business of issuing marriage licenses.

    The definition of marriage would then belong in the purview of the Churches. If the SS couples want to marry they could in a church that would do it. The state would not be in the business of defining marriage. Everyone who wished to could be "Married" according to their own definition.

  • GoCougazz Seattle, WA
    April 8, 2014 2:33 p.m.

    Why do we want to deprive other people that which we get to enjoy? Does it somehow lessen our blessing if we allow others to also have blessings? Isn't the cake big enough for all to have a piece?

    I am married to the woman I love. But my brother is gay and he deserved the same happiness and rights/responsibilities under the law that I have. In no way does his marriage threaten my traditional marriage. Quite the opposite. It enables him to have a stable, happy home life with the person he loves.

    As a church, we can make the rules we want to have for our church. I'm good with that. But when it comes to our country we need to allow all citizens to have the same rights and responsibilities.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    April 8, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    @greatbam22:

    It started as a motorcycle and stayed a motorcycle, two wheels or three. It didn't turn into a truck or a car or an airplane because a wheel was added, it meant it was a three-wheeled motorcycle. Marriage is marriage, doesn't matter if it is same-sex or opposite-sex.

    @jazzlover: "I'm pretty sure there are some organized and/or paid supporters of SSM that come in and comment on these boards."

    Really? Who's paying? How do you get signed up? I could really use the money.

    I comment because I'm a writer and a bit compulsive and DNews has a lot of articles and they actually run a fairly polite board. No name calling, and both sides tend to be thoughtful.

    If I can get paid, though...

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    April 8, 2014 3:57 p.m.

    Top of UT Patriot, your "solution" is unnecessary since churches don't have to marry anyone they don't want to. Catholic churches restrict the use of their cathedrals to worthy Catholics. The LDS Church restricts the use of the temples to worthy Mormons. The Supreme Court has upheld time and time again that churches can run their churches and their religious organizations as they wish. This was most recently upheld in a unanimous decision in Hosana Tabor v. EEOC. There have been many people who use fear tactics claiming that this is not the case, but there is plenty of evidence that they are wrong.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    April 8, 2014 5:27 p.m.

    A redefinition of marriage will hurt all people's marriage's by undermining the correct understanding of marriage, and blurring the line between marriage and friendship in ways that will be detrimental to all interpersonal relations. It will also undermine the notion of sexual exclusivity in marriage, by obscuring the reasons for this.

  • pbunny Salt Lake, UT
    April 8, 2014 6:00 p.m.

    Godspeed to Peggy Tomsic and her team as they head to Denver to fight the good fight and make Utah better for all of us!

  • fact based Salt Lake, UT
    April 8, 2014 6:35 p.m.

    @John Pack

    Historical understanding is not undermined.

    From the founding of the colonies through the early years of the republic, civil authorities regulated marriage to foster stable households, legitimate children and designate providers to care for dependents who otherwise would become wards of the state. During the twentieth century, the state and federal governments furthered these goals by granting many benefits to married couples. For instance, Social Security survivor benefits and government sponsored healthcare benefits are available to legally married couples, but not unmarried partners. Foreclosing same-sex couples from obtaining these benefits undermines the very aim of one of the central historical bases for civil marriage, namely, family stability.

    Relationships are more than friendships. Sexual orientation has been determined to be fundamental to a persons identity and person-hood. A requirement to change someones (heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual) sexual orientation in order to civil marry is not only unreasonable, but un-constitutional. A right to marry someone for which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is no right at all.

    Sky will fall arguments were used before: "Interracial marriage undermines children's cultural heritage."
    Did not pass constitutional muster then, and they won't now.

  • fact based Salt Lake, UT
    April 8, 2014 6:57 p.m.

    @GreatBam22 "If something was one way before and then it was changed then it has been redefined."

    How does excluding people define marriage? Otherwise, why don't we exclude spousal, child, drug and alcohol abusers? Wouldn't marriages free of abuse be a better definition?

    Moreover, excluding people for what most consider immutable characteristics (race, gender, eye color, sexual orientation) does not define marriage either.

    Sky will fall, marriage will be redefined argumentation is honestly nonsense. Allowing people to participate or strengthen the institution of marriage is not "redefinition." Traditional voting was not "redefined" by giving women the right to vote. Voting is still voting, no?

    How many folks in any state where same-sex marriage is now legal, thinks their marriage has been refined because someone else can legally civil marry? Nada, not a one.

    Redefinition is such a silly unsupported claim to make, no?

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    April 8, 2014 7:30 p.m.

    One reason that hopefully the will of the voters will be upheld will be so buildings like the Joseph Smith building and Lion House won't have to host those ceremonies. Like the New Mexico photographer can't they find someone else. Gay rights advocates for the most part are not tolerant of people that oppose them. The Devil is not tolerant of anything Good since all he is interested in is your misery.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:40 p.m.

    greatbam22 says;

    "Just because some states have redefined marriage in a certain way doesn't mean all states have to redefine it in those ways as well."

    Are you married when you cross state lines? Why shouldn't the LGBT couple married in MA or CA be married when they cross state lines? There's also the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution.

  • fact based Salt Lake, UT
    April 8, 2014 7:47 p.m.

    @ higv "One reason that hopefully the will of the voters .."

    You issue is with public accommodations, not civil marriage law. Rosa Parks could have found another bus, and African Americans could have found another lunch counter.

    No church has ever been required to perform marriages that are against their belief and tradition (temple sealing's of another faith, or Catholics marrying divorcees).

    The will of the voters?
    3 wolves and a delicious lamb voting through the political process on what to eat for lunch... comes to mind.

    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 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012). Could this be any more clear?

    "State's rights" and "Will of the People" was the justification used by Southern racists to defend Jim Crow laws, including school segregation and bans on interracial marriage. "Should the states, for example Utah, decide whether black Americans can marry white Americans?”

  • gwtchd Mountain Village, AK
    April 8, 2014 8:05 p.m.

    The constitution protects that which is natural, not unnatural. Homosexuality is unnatural. Two of the same sex can not produce a child. A man's and a woman's body was created differently for a reason.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    April 8, 2014 8:44 p.m.

    @ gwtchd "The constitution protects that which is natural, not unnatural. Homosexuality is unnatural. Two of the same sex can not produce a child...."

    Actually, no...

    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 the last case of two women, 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.”

    Did you know:

    There has never been a procreative requirement in civil marriage law?

    Same-sex couples can legally utilize adoption and modern assisted reproduction, just like opposite sex couples?

    Constitutional law provides a tradition of changing as long standing legal principals no longer meet the needs of society. Neither the antiquity nor the steadfast advancement to that tradition insulates it from change. Fairness demands access to the stability of marriage for same-sex couples.

  • Evidence Not Junk Science Iron, UT
    April 8, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice. Since 1888, the Supreme Court has consistently held that marriage is a constitutionally protected fundamental right of every citizen. The last case being two women (Windsor).

    Because marriage is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, marriage discrimination by race or sexual orientation is a prohibited action for Congress, state legislatures, and public referendums.

    While there are those who have opinions that oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, those opinions have NO rational or scientific or legal basis. While the expression of those opinions is protected by the 1st Amendment, such opinions have no validity and no weight and deserve no consideration.

    Specifically, the Supreme Court has never excluded same-sex marriage. Instead, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the universal nature of this fundamental right. There is no constitutional, no rational, no objective basis for any person, because of their sexual orientation, to be rejected, excluded, stigmatized, discriminated against, or in any way have their constitutional rights denied or restricted.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 9, 2014 7:24 a.m.

    @John Pack Lambert of Michigan 5:27 p.m. April 8, 2014

    A redefinition of marriage will hurt all people's marriage's by undermining the correct understanding of marriage, and blurring the line between marriage and friendship in ways that will be detrimental to all interpersonal relations. It will also undermine the notion of sexual exclusivity in marriage, by obscuring the reasons for this.

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

    I am a woman in her 60s. My husband and I have been married for over 44 years. Our marriage is strong because we make it that way, not because of any "correct" understanding of what marriage is or should be. SSM will not, in any way, hurt our marriage. The only marrige it might hurt is one where a gay person is trying to pretend to be straight to be a partner in a marriage, but then cannot lie any longer about what s/he really is. The line between marriage and friendship is exactly the same in SSM and OSM; no blurring whatsoever. The idea of sexual exclusivity will be enhanced if gays can marry (one of the benefits of marriage). Your comment is not correct.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    April 9, 2014 7:45 a.m.

    When I read the posts of the likes of John Packs, higv and gwtchd, I inevitably start to respond . . but then I think better of it. Why? Because the reality is, the more I see that the anti-SSM side is filled with people like this, the better I feel that within a few short years this will not be an issue and adults across the country will be able to marry who they want to marry. This fight is all but over, folks.

    "But . . but . . Satan!" is not a reasonable legal argument.

    "But . . but . . the prophet and Heavenly Father!" is not a reasonable legal argument.

    "But two men/women can't make a baby!" is completely irrelevant.

    "But tradition dictates that men and women marry each other!" is completely irrelevant.

    "But hetero marriage is threatened by gay marriage!" is just absurd.

    "But the Joseph Smith building will have to host gay weddings!" is a detail for the church to deal with, not basis for a legal decision that will profoundly affect thousands of Utahns.

  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    April 9, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    We had rather dismantle the Joseph Smith Memorial building than perform a wicked same sex marriage or reception in it. It is time to call sin exactly what it is, and stand firm and say the word ''no'' to those who would force us to compromise our stand on this issue.We may have to become like the leaders of the first century church and refuse the request of our modern Emperors, who would like us to abandon our first loyalty who is Christ, and replace such an unspeakable treasure with a third rate idol, and that we will NOT do, under any circumstance!

  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    April 9, 2014 10:01 a.m.

    What a shame. We have cast off our first love which should be moral virtue, and have played the role of the harlot thinking that the perfume of political correctness will hide the stench of our unlawful deeds. Not nation can mock the moral order of Heaven and enjoy peace.

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2014 9:52 a.m.

    @Black Diamond...What a highly intellectual point you make by quoting the bible and inferring that we should base the law of the land on it...What about the millions of citizens who do not believe in your particular chosen Christian God or any other for that matter? Since you obviously have not partaken in modern society let me inform you that these citizens (which vote, pay taxes, have mortgages and believe it or not raise families) are called Atheists. You know like many of our founding fathers. The ones that drafted and signed this paper called The Declaration of Independence. They left their own countries in search of complete and total religious freedom. My suggestion is to read up on it prior to any more highly well thought out posts or comments.

  • Tony1957 Yuba City, CA
    April 11, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    What two people do in the privacy of the home is their business, and what kind of sex a person likes to have does not belong in the public domain. It is their business if they are gay. And if this is a case of “equality for everyone,” then should heterosexuals be allowed to share with their employer and everyone else in society what kind of sex they like to have, and do so without expecting repercussions for openly sharing the kind of sex they like to have?

    The logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd would dictate that 3 heterosexual couples who get together for orgies should be able to be married as a group with each man being married to all three women and with each woman being married to all three men. It is about group sex couples having “rights as humans to be able to equally marry” as single partner couples do, and “it’s about benefits and adoption rights.” They just “want equal rights” and “equal protection.” This is the same logic of the pro-gay marriage crowd, and those quotes are the words they use.

  • Candied Ginger Brooklyn, OH
    April 12, 2014 7:40 a.m.

    @Tony1957

    Lesbian/Gay couples don't "share with their employer and everyone else in society what kind of sex they like to have." We share exactly the same information straight couples share: the gender of the person we are attracted to.

    My partner and I have a family, we adopted a child and are adopting another. We have two cars and a nice apartment, we pay taxes, go to church, I'm a room mom for my daughter's class. We have friends and family. She plays sports, I like science-fiction books and movies with my dad.

    We have a relationship, not just getting together for sex, like you imply.

    I do know people who are casual about sex. Some are gay, some are straight. We are not part of that, we hang out with a group of gay and lesbian parents who are monogamous.

    I used to think that all Mormons practiced polygamy. I did some learning and now I know there a bunch of Mormon groups and they are all different. It might help if you learned about real gay people, not just stereotypes.