Quantcast
Utah

9th Circuit Court issues stay in Idaho gay marriage case

Comments

Return To Article
  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 15, 2014 12:25 p.m.

    The good news for Monte Stewart is that the Supreme Court has made it clear that it will decide the fate of state laws banning same sex marriage. Unfortunately, it has also made clear they will strike them down just as they struck down DOMA. Just ask Justice Scalia.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 15, 2014 1:39 p.m.

    There would not be "chaos" in Utah if the State had not decided not to recognize legal contracts.

  • slcdenizen Murray, UT
    May 15, 2014 1:43 p.m.

    Chaos? LOL, so dramatic.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    May 15, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    When are people in states like Utah and Idaho going to learn that the best way to handle this issue is to get their governments out of marriage altogether, rather than spending a fortune on a losing legal battle? Civil unions for everyone of legal age, marriage for those who wish to do so under the auspices of their chosen church, spiritual authority, or dot com pastor.

    Marriage is inherently an intensely personal and private contract between two individuals, or at most two families, and ought not merit any concern or regulation from the state. Nobody should have to seek permission from their government to be married.

    I am actively opposed to gay marriage on a personal level, but every person in this country is guaranteed the freedom of association by the United States Constitution, and that freedom of association absolutely must include marriage. That supreme law of the land does not permit any local, state, or federal government, no matter how many people support it, to deny that right to anyone on any basis.

    The only solution that has a snowball's chance in h*** to satisfy both parties is for government to exit the marriage equation altogether.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    May 15, 2014 2:11 p.m.

    What about the chaos in Massachusetts? Marriage rates in Massachusetts are the lowest in the country. Bottom line is nobody there cherishes marriage anymore. We are slowly dipping into a marriageless society. That chaos is unfathomable.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2014 2:24 p.m.

    Just ask SSM couples who were married during that brief period if chaos does not prevail in Utah - they'll give you the straight scoop.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 15, 2014 2:28 p.m.

    A SS relationship does not fit the definition of marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. A husband is a man married to a woman, a wife is a woman married to a man. No man can be a wife and no woman can be a husband. No two men or no two women in a relationship can be husband and wife and cannot provide a mother AND a father to children. States have a vested interest in successful families, the optimal family opportunity being a husband wife/mother father marriage and therefore endorse and promote that which encourages the ideal. Other relationships may be formed by persons as they see fit and the same legal rights may be extended but SS unions are not marriage despite what judges may rule.

    SSM advocates label any differing opinion as bigotry, homophobic and having vile animus. Professed rights to a SSM are newly claimed in contradiction to long held laws, and definitions. No one has been trying to take away any rights. SSM advocates are inventing new rights while shouting down, discrediting, and even threatening any who advocate for the true definition of marriage.

  • Jim Cobabe Provo, UT
    May 15, 2014 2:31 p.m.

    While they show little enough regard for democratic process, bless their hearts, the dear sensitive Federal judges profess a desire to avoid creating "chaos"? Not credible. Perhaps these judges need to elaborate on just what they mean by "chaos".

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 15, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    For all those who jump on the SSM rights band wagon by saying "well it is not for me but I can't deny someone else that right"; you need to read article The Overhauling of Straight America by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in Guide Magazine, November 1987. The overall agenda is much bigger than inventing the right to SSM.

    You will recognize these same methods, marketing strategies, and techniques outlined over 25 years ago with what is happening even right here in the discussions of comments on this and ever other related article. If that is what you are all about it is your right to go for it but make no mistake the morals of this Nation will decline further.

    Indifference on this subject is not acceptable. As soon as SSM becomes the law of the land there will be expanded efforts to indoctrinate elemtary school children as is already happening in California,and a few other states. We will be pressured to not just tolerate or accept SSM but to embrace it.

  • WRK Riverton, UT
    May 15, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    And what is interesting about us bigots and homophobs is that all we ask is for our rights to believe how we want. We are not the ones driving others out of business for not thinking the way we do.

  • ODannyBoy Sandy, Utah
    May 15, 2014 3:03 p.m.

    "Since the Supreme Court’s intervention, all but one of the district courts that ruled against man-woman marriage stayed their own decisions".
    None of the judges has ruled against man-woman marriage.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    May 15, 2014 3:06 p.m.

    @Rocket Science
    Brigham City, UT

    States have a vested interest in successful families, the optimal family opportunity being a husband wife/mother father marriage and therefore endorse and promote that which encourages the ideal.

    ======

    Then "States" should be doing a better job making sure ONE Father can provide for his family, and ONE wife can stay home and take care of the kids and home and be a Mom.

    Tell you what --
    You get that fixed, and I'll listen to the rest of your sob story about screwed up marriages and families.

    It's not Rocket Science...

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 15, 2014 3:08 p.m.

    @ Rocket Science
    "We will be pressured to not just tolerate or accept SSM but to embrace it."

    How old are you? If you believe and feel you can be pressured "to embrace SSM" may be you are not what you think you are. Just a thought! You see, we LGBT people have been pressured since we were born to be heterosexuals and marry somebody from the opposite sex, it just doesn't work for us, unless..... you know.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 15, 2014 3:11 p.m.

    WRK, believe what you want. Act like a nice person.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    May 15, 2014 3:14 p.m.

    "SS marriage doesn't hurt anyone"
    Can't tell you how many times I've heard that. Maybe someone should tell that to the ex-CEO of Mozilla (Brendan Eich). He contributed $1K to a lawful proposition that was ultimately passed by the majority of California voters, then 5 years later he got canned for it. So yes, there is a direct impact. He never tweeted anti-LGBT propaganda. He silently contributed to a cause based on his opinions. There's no freedom of expression, no right of free speech when you can do something like that and get fired for it years later. Yes, Eich resigned, but you can't honestly tell me there wasn't serious pressure to do so from both outside and inside. His views on SS marriage have nothing to do with his ability to run a company, yet somehow his right to free speech was used to harm him. SS proponents have no qualms trampling the rights of others, as outlined in the constitution, to get their way.

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    May 15, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    @LovelyDeseret - You're wrong. The great commonwealth of Massachusetts, does not in fact have the lowest rate of marriages per capita. There are numerous states with lower marriage rates than Massachusetts that do not allow SSM. Massachusetts does hold the notable distinguishment of having the lowest uninsured rate in the nation, in part due to legislation that was developed with the assistance of Mitt Romney.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 15, 2014 3:43 p.m.

    Now comes the interesting part:

    The 9th Circuit has issued a temporary halt to enforcement of the lower court's decision while it considers whether or not to extend the stay during the appeals process. But keep in mind that the 9th Circuit ruled in SmithKline v. Abbott that equal protection cases involving sexual orientation are subject to a "heightened scrutiny" standard of review.

    Unlike "rational basis," this higher standard means Idaho has a more difficult burden of proof that their law is constitutional. Few people believe same sex marriage bans can survive "heightened scrutiny." Therefore the appeal is unlikely to succeed.

    Usually when an appeal is unlikely to succeed, you don't get a stay. On the other hand, the Supreme Court issued a stay in the Utah case (without any explanation.) Which why does the 9th Circuit go?

    By the way, this is the case that is the most likely one to end up in the Supreme Court I believe.

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    May 15, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    Whoa Rocket Science, you'd better be careful... That's an awful lot of logic you're injecting into this conversation!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 15, 2014 4:31 p.m.

    WRK says:

    "And what is interesting about us bigots and homophobs is that all we ask is for our rights to believe how we want. We are not the ones driving others out of business for not thinking the way we do."

    No, you're the ones who voted to deny equality to LGBT Americans. You're the ones who are fighting against LGBT families being treated like your family by our government. You're the ones who go around calling LGBT people "perverts", "broken", "disordered", etc.

    You're not just "asking to believe how we want", you're trying to legislate your beliefs into law.

    @Blue AZ Cougar;

    It isn't SSM that "hurt" those people you mention; it was THEIR OWN actions coming back to bite them in the butt (Karma). Same sex marriages haven't hurt anybody.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    May 15, 2014 4:32 p.m.

    The complete text of the Supreme Court stay issued January 6th:
    (ORDER LIST: 571 U.S.)
    MONDAY, JANUARY 6, 2014
    ORDER IN PENDING CASE
    13A687 HERBERT, GOV. OF UT, ET AL. V. KITCHEN, DEREK, ET AL.
    The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and
    by her referred to the Court is granted. The permanent
    injunction issued by the United States District Court for the
    District of Utah, case No. 2:13-cv-217, on December 20, 2013, is
    stayed pending final disposition of the appeal by the United
    States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

    From this news story:
    Stewart said the Supreme Court made it clear when it issued the Jan. 6 stay in Utah that it will decide the marriage question and no lower court decision should allow same-sex couples to marry or have their marriages recognized.

    Ok Mr. Stewart, where in what came forth from the Supreme Court does it state "that it will decide the marriage question and no lower court decision should allow same-sex couples to marry or have their marriages recognized." All I see is a stay, nothing more.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2014 4:39 p.m.

    @WRK
    "We are not the ones driving others out of business for not thinking the way we do."

    Do you believe a business should be able to fire someone just because of their sexual orientation? If you don't, then do you support the anti-discrimination job/housing bill that keeps getting stalled in Utah's state legislature?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2014 4:46 p.m.

    @Rocket Science
    "States have a vested interest in successful families, the optimal family opportunity being a husband wife/mother father marriage and therefore endorse and promote that which encourages the ideal. "

    You live in a state where single people can adopt and based on your statistics argument, two parent households do better on average so... why are you trying to keep gay people from creating two parent households for the kids adopted by one of them? There's something in there that doesn't jive with your stated goal. By the way, the "optimal family opportunity" is a wealthier household, so should we prevent poor people from marrying?

    Basically, your argument is based on both stereotyping (by using statistical averages to determine "optimal" situations) and then completely ignoring statistical averages except when it comes to gay marriage. So really, is this a reason, or is it an excuse?

  • mcdugall Murray, UT
    May 15, 2014 5:13 p.m.

    @Rocket Science - If you truly are concerned with creating the optimal family environment derived base on optimal outcomes for children, i.e. level of education, income, etc. you should be pushing efforts to increase livable wages. Income is one of a very small set of variables that have a direct positive correlation for outcomes for raising children, one of the others being a stable household. All of the research conducted and published to this point suggesting negative impacts on children who are raised in same sex households has been scientifically disproven and essentially disallowed in the court rooms.

  • LDSareChristians Anchorage, AK
    May 15, 2014 5:16 p.m.

    ODannyBoy posted
    "Since the Supreme Court's intervention, all but one of the district courts that ruled against man-woman marriage stayed their own decisions".
    None of the judges has ruled against man-woman marriage.

    Just wait, the day will come when Gays will consider a Male-Female marriage an affront to their life style and seek to deny it to Heterosexuals.

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    May 15, 2014 5:37 p.m.

    @RanchHand
    Quit kidding yourself. When someone can't express their views civilly without threat of recourse to the extent they may be fired from their job despite the fact that their views have nothing to do with their work qualifications, there's a problem. I don't advocate firing people simply because they are SS oriented -- that would be wrong because it clearly has nothing to do with their ability to work. But it goes both ways! Boycotting an entire business and demanding the resignation of an individual because s/he decided to contribute an inconsequential amount of money to the support of Prop 8 is just as intolerant as how you perceive the religious folks in relation to the SS movement. I'm tired of being labeled "intolerant" when some SS supporters will go so far as to destroy the livelihood of individuals who oppose SS marriage. It's equality as long as you get your way, right? So much for your platform of tolerance and acceptance.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 15, 2014 5:41 p.m.

    All drama aside (Chaos?), same sex marriage will occur. That's ok.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    May 15, 2014 6:05 p.m.

    Our Judicial needs to be reformed. Judge shopping should not be allowed then to have Judge Candy Dale disagree with the Supreme Court on the stay of gay marriage is unbelievable and reeks of activism instead of judicial interpretation of the Constitution while giving all deference to the Supreme Court.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    May 15, 2014 6:25 p.m.

    @mcdugall I am not wrong, Massachusetts has the lowest marriage rate of any state in America. If you reword what I say and include children (since Massachusetts doesn't generally have large families) and include elderly widows/widowers, then yes. But if you only include people of marriage age in the calculations then Massachusetts has the lowest marriage rate. Massachusetts also has the highest abortion rate which could speak to their lack of regard for marriage and morals.

  • LovelyDeseret Gilbert, AZ
    May 15, 2014 6:30 p.m.

    @Bjmoose

    The Supreme Court voted 9-0 to stay Judge Shelby's decision. The burden for staying a decision is the likelihood that the decision will be overturned. On that the Supreme Court voted 9-0. They never agree on anything political and yet they voted 9-0 on protecting citizen's rights to decide the definition of marriage. This should be a clear message to all Judge's that there is a likelihood that the votes of citizens will be upheld and the Courts can't overturn marriage laws.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 15, 2014 6:34 p.m.

    Some people seem to think being denied the ability to oppress others is bigotry against themselves. Gays will be married. Get over it and move on.

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 15, 2014 7:09 p.m.

    LovelyDeseret:

    "What about the chaos in Massachusetts? Marriage rates in Massachusetts are the lowest in the country."

    States that allow SSM have divorce rates that average 20% lower than states that prohibit SSM, and Massachusetts leads the nation in having the lowest divorce rate.

    Utah, on the other hand, has a high rate of marriage, people marry on average 3 years younger than the national average. Utah has the highest rate in the nation for teen births. And it has the 4th highest divorce rate in the country.

    In other words, those who marry in states that allow SSM actually cherish the whole idea of marriage, and those states have recognized that gays and lesbians add to that, not detract from it. In Utah, teens get married, produce kids, then get divorced a few years later.

    Imagine the chaos if the whole country acted followed the Utah pattern.

    I mean, who cares if lots and lots of people are getting married if you also have lots and lots of people getting divorced because they don't care at all about marriage?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    May 15, 2014 7:30 p.m.

    @LovelyDeseret

    "I am not wrong, Massachusetts has the lowest marriage rate of any state in America."

    Where are you getting that data? According to Pew Research, there are eight states that have lower marriage rates than Massachusetts: California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Mississippi, Louisiana, New York, and Rhode Island.

    I am sure that the demographics of each of those states would have different reasons for the lower marriage rates. Let's take into consideration, for example, the number of colleges and states in Massachusetts, which runs well over 100, would tell us that there is a large number of young college-age adults who are more likely to put off marriage until after they finish their educational endeavors. That state also has a large Catholic population, which means there is probably a higher percentage of nuns and priests than in other states. Could this be reasons for a lower rate a marriage than, say, the legalization of same-sex marriages?

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    May 15, 2014 7:43 p.m.

    @LovelyDeseret:

    SCOTUS stayed Judge Shelby's ruling suggests justices are reluctant to allow a lower court to nudge them into answering a legal question they carefully avoided in two landmark gay rights rulings last year. Imagine if they denied the stay, they would simply open the flood gate.

    But staying a decision doesn't indicate they will overturn the ruling or uphold it.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 15, 2014 8:32 p.m.

    Well this is good news. Idaho voters have not been disenfranchised by a single judge. We are moving into a post-progressive era where the march of history is to limit rights and democracy.

    "When are people in states like Utah and Idaho going to learn that the best way to handle this issue is to get their governments out of marriage altogether, rather than spending a fortune on a losing legal battle? "

    Win or lose:
    1) Their voters have as much right to be franchised as any other voters, i.e. to choose laws that reflect their value that children have the right to be raised by a father and a mother, and
    2) The price for liberty is eternal vigilance.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 15, 2014 9:04 p.m.

    @Blue AZ Cougar;

    No amount of money put towards bigotry is "inconsequential".

    I couldn't care less what you believe, personally, about SSM. That's your business. The actions of those who PROMOTE bigotry, however, are coming back to haunt them and if you think otherwise, you're the one "kidding yourself".

    If you don't believe in SSM, don't have one; if you try to prevent others then you have to be willing to accept the consequences.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2014 9:19 p.m.

    Blue Cougar, I wonder how many LBGT people have lost their jobs, homes and apartments because they were simply "not straight" To compare them to the loss of a job by a CEO who angered his own employees and stockholders is apples and oranges. His ideas did him in. In his position with the people and company that he worked for he used bad judgment. He wasn't fired because he was gay, like so many thousands of people.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 15, 2014 10:14 p.m.

    Airnaut, Agree it would be better if the optimal family opportunity of husband wife/mother father marriage was also ability for father as sole income and mother staying home to nurture children. My church has asked if at all possible we do, I might add it is possible with sacrifice. We don't have what many others do but for 29 years it has been worth the sacrifice. I highly recommend it.

    Baccus 0902 the pressure has already been turned up. One cannot voice an opinion without threat of reprisal. In some places in CA teachers of elementary students must teach children that gay relationships are the same as heterosexual marriages now that is pressure having your children taught something you believe is wrong.

    Schnee optimal family is husband wife/mother father in the household. Sometimes divorce, illegitimacy,or death take away from optimal in which the state has an interest to see that they do OK. Neither my statistics nor your have been scientifically disproven.

    Anyone dare to read The Overhauling of Straight America by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in Guide Magazine, November 1987. If a SSM advocate you may agree with all but it really is about more that SSM.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 15, 2014 11:39 p.m.

    @Rocket Science
    Should we figure out which race has the highest test scores and limit marriage to that too while we're all about this "optimality" thing? These averages are only ever used against same-sex marriage (single people can adopt in Utah, I don't see outrage about that, but if a gay person with an adopted child wants to add a second parent...).

    "Anyone dare to read The Overhauling of Straight America by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in Guide Magazine, November 1987."

    Skimmed it. I can see why it'd concern you since the end result pretty much results in regarding those who oppose equal rights for the LGBT community as something akin to those who support segregation. Not sure why I should be concerned though.

  • daniwitz13 Kaneohe, HI
    May 16, 2014 12:35 a.m.

    Surely, everyone must realize that we would not be here for this very case, if the Formula of the opposite Genders were any different. If it was the Same Sex Formula, we would be like the Neanderthals,extinct. Everyone has the equal Right to mate with the opposite Gender. Again, if that was not true, Mankind would be not be here today. It would have died out millions of years ago. It is a no-brainer, what the Formula must be. Pity

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 16, 2014 6:41 a.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi;

    So, Idaho voters weren't "disenfranchised by a single judge", but somehow, it is okay (based on your comment) that LGBT voters, and American Citizens, were disenfranchised by Idaho voters?

    @Rocket Science;

    Why are you so afraid of your LGBT neighbors?

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    May 16, 2014 6:44 a.m.

    So, Rocket Science,

    You're basing the motivations of an entire group of people on the writings of an extreme activist?

    I don't know about you, but I'd take offense if someone based their assessment of Christianity on the teachings of the KKK.

    Look, I believe the gay marriage is wrong. I also believe it is detrimental to God's plan for the family. I also believe in the law of agency. You can't have obedience or righteousness without the ability to choose. If we go around outlawing every little thing that is wrong, we're going to end up losing our freedom to do what's right. People should have the agency to do wrong things, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of any other person, including the liberty to make righteous choices.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    May 16, 2014 6:45 a.m.

    Thus, the best option is to recognize the right to freedom of association and to focus on purging all state regulation from our personal relationships. In this way, the religious have the right to freely interpret marriage as they wish and to associate themselves accordingly, without infringing on the rights of anyone else to do the same.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 16, 2014 7:21 a.m.

    @Rocket Science: "Anyone dare to read The Overhauling of Straight America by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in Guide Magazine, November 1987. If a SSM advocate you may agree with all but it really is about more that SSM."

    I read it. It is an advertising strategy, not much different from strategies for new product categories or unknown political candidates or wars in foreign countries. In fact, it isn't much different than campaigns against SSM and gay rights. All long-term advertising campaigns are designed to introduce ideas and get people comfortable with them - who, 20 years ago, would imagine that virtually every American would have a smart-phone connected to every part of their life? Yet smart advertising campaigns took a gimmick and moved if from geek-fringe to commonplace.

    This outline is simply a codification of Harvey Milk's exhortation to "come out" because more people knowing they know gay people will move us from scary boogey-men in the shadows to regular people, take us from threat to "so what."

    Melting pot. America. We all get a place in the public square.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    May 16, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    In the article, Romboy adopts nearly word-for-word Idaho's ham-fisted mis-characterization of the decisions of all the Federal District Courts that have heard these cases: "...the district courts that ruled against man-woman marriage..."

    As a rule, legal briefs attempt to persuade by citing case-law and framing the issue with language that steers the analysis in the most favorable direction as possible, given the facts/law that might support a position.

    Readers expect similar spin in op-ed sections of newspapers.

    What readers do not expect is to see this tactic employed in the text of articles that run as "news".

    To be clear: in all the states referenced in the article, where district courts have issued rulings, men and women can and are continuing to get married. Men and women could get married before all the constitutional SSM-bans were passed in the 2003-2004 era, as well as afterwards. In other words, none of the district court decisions changed the ability of a man and woman to get married.

    DN readers are being manipulated.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 16, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    The personal attacks on "Rocket Scientist" are unconscionable. Does 2% of the population think that attacking anyone who disagrees with them advances their cause. The word that most people use for those attacks is "bullying".

    The best way to respond to those who attack is to copy their responses to everyone you know and to encourage the other 98% to get involved. Sitting on the sidelines and pretending that no one is attacking the family will ensure the destruction of the family.

    The family IS under attack. Some people think that they have the right to redefine marriage. Some people think that they have the right to tell society that we must teach our children that same-sex "marriage" is acceptable. Some people think that they have the right to mock the Supreme Law of the Land and claim "rights" based on nothing more than their "feelings".

    Others of us know that God has defined marriage to be between a man and a woman. Others of us know that sex of any kind outside of marriage is prohibited. Others of us know that redefining immutable laws will destroy society.

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    May 16, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    GZE - it is not a "legal contract" when it is against state law.

    Aggie 238 - this is not about the freedom of association. Gays can associate with whomever they like, civil union or otherwise. This is about their attempt to force society to adopt their new definition of marriage, which has historically always been between people of different genders.

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    May 16, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    Mcdugall:

    Just like a liberal to try to blame Romney for problems in Massachusetts despite years of Democratic leadership since his tenure. The same way that Obama and his cronies are still blaming the economy on Bush after years of failed leadership from the Democrats.

    By the way, the insurance situation in Massachusetts that you criticized is the model that Obama praised and touted as the prototype for his health care plan (in spite of the fact that it is much more complicated, intrusive, and expensive).

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    May 16, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    "Utah has the highest rate in the nation for teen births."

    That is true ONLY if you count Married teenage mothers in that total.
    This statistic has often been quoted by critics of Utah and of Mormons, without noting the obvious difference between married mothers and unwed mothers. When there is a mother AND a father that are married to each other, then those children have a proper family, not the same as with single moms.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 16, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    @ Aggie238
    You wrote:
    "Look, I believe the gay marriage is wrong. I also believe it is detrimental to God's plan for the family. I also believe in the law of agency. You can't have obedience or righteousness without the ability to choose. If we go around outlawing every little thing that is wrong, we're going to end up losing our freedom to do what's right. People should have the agency to do wrong things, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of any other person, including the liberty to make righteous choices."

    Aggie, I find your comment very refreshing. It seems that very few LDS understand that in Mormon Theology compulsory adherence to the commandements was promoted by Satan.

    "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

    Voltaire

  • Blue AZ Cougar Chandler, AZ
    May 16, 2014 11:16 a.m.

    @RanchHand
    Wow, your thought process is astounding. So let me get this straight -- I have to "accept the consequences" if I don't see things the way you see them? I can voice my opinions as long as they don't conflict with yours, is that it? Obviously you DO care what I think about SSM or you wouldn't be trying to ram that agenda down my throat. Who's promoting intolerance here? The person who gives a little bit of money to a moral cause they believe in, or the individuals who decide to picket a business because someone thinks differently than they do?

    @Utefan60
    Did you read my comment? I said it's wrong to fire someone solely because of their SS attraction. How did Eich anger his employees? Did he distribute an internal memo expressing his views? Did he encourage employees to contribute to the support of Prop 8? No. From the comfort of his own home he decided to contribute some of his personal money in support of something he agreed with. He was fired because he expressed a view different from other people, and did not abuse his position as CEO to do it.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    May 16, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    In addition, to those who say that anyone is "making up rights that don't exist," please let clue us in on which exhaustive list of enumerated rights you are referencing which allows you to authoritatively make such a statement. And before you invoke the U.S. Constitution or its Amendments, please read the 9th Amendment carefully. No government, even with the support of a majority, has the authority to define or limit the rights of any person, only where that person's actions curtail the right of another to lead his or her life in a manner most desirable to himself or herself.

    To prevent this from occurring on either side of the issue, we just need to get government out of marriage altogether.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 16, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    @Mike Richards: "The personal attacks on "Rocket Scientist" are unconscionable."

    Personal attacks? I just re-read the thread, noted everything RS said, and all responses.

    RS started out with a standard "SSM is not marriage" and "states must defend the family" stance, and the claim that SSM labels all opposition as animus.

    He then posted about the "Overhauling America" article, with claims on meaning.

    El Chango Supremo supported him.

    Schnee challenged claims RS made about the family, referencing Utah state law.

    RS made a personal statement about his family, claimed California requires SSM be taught in elementary school, and again referenced the article.

    Schnee asked a logical question on enforcing an "optimal home" beyond requiring opposite sex parents and dismissed the article.

    Ranchhand asked why he is afraid of his GLBT neighbors

    Angie238 agreed with him on marriage but did ask why he condemns an entire community on the basis of one article.

    Stormwalker (Hi.) challenged his interpretation of the importance of that article.

    I think I caught all the interactions.

    Is disagreement a personal attack?

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    May 16, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    @Rocket Science: “Preserving the 'traditional institution of marriage’ is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples” - Lawrence, Justice Scalia

    Moral disapproval has never been constitutional or a legitimate state interest.

    "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” - Jefferson Memorial

    The United States Constitution “neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens."

    Romer v. Evans, "There can be no circumstance under which this discriminatory classification is constitutional, as it was intended to, and on its face does, stigmatize and disadvantage same-sex couples and their families, denying only to them protected rights to recognition of their marriages andviolating the guarantee of equal protection."

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 16, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    @BlueAz;

    You, and I both, can express our opinions. Neither of us is free of the consequences of doing so. If my opinion is largely unpopular, I will probably feel some backlash. Yours is currently unpopular and you'll feel it instead. Don't you conservatives believe in "taking personal responsibility"?

    In any case, you are welcome to any opinion you desire; you're just not allowed to use that opinion to violate the rights of others. Express it all you want, but if you go a step further, and pay money to deny equality; expect consequences.

    Nobody says you can't express an opinion. Spending money to violate civil rights is not "speech" - money isn't speech.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    May 16, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    "It seems that very few LDS understand that in Mormon Theology compulsory adherence to the commandements was promoted by Satan."

    How in the world is maintaining the traditional definition of marriage compelling anyone to keep the commandments?

    A gay individual's exercise of free agency does not require societal approval. Gays are free to be with and love the person they want, and I don't know anyone who doesn't support that right. But free agency does not mean gay unions have a right to be defined by a term which has had a heterosexual meaning throughout history.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    May 16, 2014 2:29 p.m.

    @SoCal
    History and tradition are the starting point but not in all cases the ending point of a substantive due process inquiry. Lets take a closer look at the constitutional context of Loving. “The freedom to marry has long been recognized” as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause. Loving (1967). See Turner (1987) “The decision to marry is a fundamental right ; Moore (1977) “The Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”; Griswold (1965) intrusions into the “sacred precincts of marital bedrooms” offend rights “older than the Bill of Rights." The law “Disrupts the traditional relation of the family – a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization”. While courts use history and tradition to identify the interests that due process protects, they DO NOT carry forward historical limitations, either traditional or arising by operation of prior law, on which Americans may exercise a right, once that right is recognized as one that due process protects.

    While states have a legitimate interest in regulating and promoting marriage, the fundamental right to marry BELONGS to the individual.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 16, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    @SoCal
    You wrote:
    " How in the world is maintaining the traditional definition of marriage compelling anyone to keep the commandments?"

    So many implications and loose ends in that question.

    What is the traditional definition of marriage? I don't know, there have been so many throughout history and a variety according to the diversity of cultures.
    However, I can give you a modern,Western 20,21Century, definition of: Marriage is the union of two unrelated adults in a consensual and cotractual relationship recognized by law.

    Regarding the "compelling part" of your question.

    You and people who believe like you have prevented a whole segment of society to obtain the benefit of marriage. Basing your objections mostly on your religious beliefs. You have given money, spread fears and fallacies in order to prevent SSM. You have attempted (with great success) that your religious perception of the world be established as the law of the land, despite the fact that our system of govern is secular.

    Your claims that SSM is immoral, that God will do something horrible to this nation, that our country is a Judeo-Christian nation, etc. etc, are forces to force society to be "righteous". Do you deny that?

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 16, 2014 8:42 p.m.

    To those who are not LDS this does not apply. Those who do believe and sustain The LDS President and Prophet, First Presidency and 12 Apostles, are obligated to know their words reflect the words of the Lord Himself. That is what is intended, that is what is meant by signing the The Family: A Proclamation to the World. The first part of March this year they also published a letter to leaders of the Church across the world. In part it read: Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We urge you to review; the doctrine contained in; The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

    LDS persons cannot support SSM and sustain and support their Prophet, First Presidency and Apostles. The Proclamation is an affirmation of the Church's doctrine of Family.

  • 5th Amendment Salt Lake, UT
    May 18, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    @ It ain't Rocket Science. In 1967 N. Eldon Tanner spoke in General Conference and said: "The Church has no intention of changing its doctrine on the Negro. Throughout the history of the original Christian church, the Negro never held the Priesthood. There's really nothing we can do to change this. It's a law of God."

    Eleven years later, in 1978, Bruce R. McConkie also spoke in General Conference. He said: "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world..."

    Someday the faithful might be told: "Forget everything that was done or said in the past. Excommunicating civil married same-sex couples or harming their children by giving higher priority to politics and animus was based on our limited understanding without the light and knowledge we refused to see for so many years.... Make no mistake, we are not apologizing for the harm done to these couples or their families..."

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    May 19, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    @Rocketscientist...Continue the legal strategy of using "God" and "Prophet" during any legal argument. Those of us that continue to support equality for all will be grateful that you believe that there is a correlation between the two.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 19, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    ... and now, Oregon. (This one won't be appealed by the state).

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2014 9:53 a.m.

    @SoCal
    " How in the world is maintaining the traditional definition of marriage compelling anyone to keep the commandments?"

    In some states it's a crime to perform symbolic only (since in the state same-sex marriage is banned) same-sex marriages in churches.