Quantcast
Utah

Tangled court cases have impact on Utah's same-sex couples

Comments

Return To Article
  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 22, 2014 7:03 p.m.

    The examples listed in the article are just a few of the legal benefits that are being denied to LGBT couples. And conservatives say there's no discrimination. Yep.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    May 22, 2014 8:57 p.m.

    Every child deserves to be raised by Father and Mother they have something that other gender can't give. Do they care about well being of there children people in so called same sex marriage situations. No real such thing as same gender marriage even if government grants it.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    May 22, 2014 8:59 p.m.

    It's the helpless children who will suffer, what about their rights? Marriage is about bringing the two great halts of humanity together and providing the bond for the children they bring into this world. Every child deserves to have a know their mommy and daddy. Same-sex couples need to think for a moment, and ask themselves "Which parent could they throw away? Which one didn't they need? Which one was least important in their lives? Same-sex marriage is about permitting same-sex couples to take the rights away of others peoples children. Governor Herbert and AG Sean Reyes a fighting for the common good of humanity. What is wrong with that? Every child deserves to be loved by a real family with a mother and father.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 23, 2014 12:04 a.m.

    Same sex couples are going to raise children regardless of SSM. Once you get that through and understood then you realize that SSM in fact helps protect these children that will be raised regardless.

    Do I really think that the opponents of SSM are concerned about the children? Nope. If they were they'd support SSM, not argue a point that doesn't exist.

  • Cole Thomas Salt Lake City, UT
    May 23, 2014 12:19 a.m.

    Mormons should lecture me more about how to live my life. Feign humility, and then in the next sentence, tell me how to live my life. Or maybe this comment won't even make it through, because some Mormon sensor thinks it might be too harsh for the next Mormon in line. This is what other Mormons think of each other. "Oh gosh, this guy was critical, so lets hide the comment."

  • ToddCohen Salt Lake City, UT
    May 23, 2014 12:33 a.m.

    If, as several of the previous comments assert, every child has the right to a mother and father, then why do we allow divorce in Utah? Not to mention, why does Utah have the fourth highest divorce rate for women, and a higher-than-average divorce rate overall? Seems like people should be cleaning their own house before knocking down the walls of another home.
    Also, I suspect that if you asked the children of same-sex couples which would they prefer:
    1-Parents who loved them them, no matter what their gender...
    2-Parents who were opposite genders, but it didn't matter if they loved them...
    ...you would get the resounding answer that love is most important.
    Statements like "Every child deserves to have a know their mommy and daddy" and "Same-sex marriage is about permitting same-sex couples to take the rights away of others peoples children" can't see the love that exists in same-sex couple families.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 23, 2014 12:35 a.m.

    It is nice to care about children and to pretend that "every child deserves a mother and a father". But precisely such rhetoric hurts millions of children in single-parent homes and in homes where a same-sex couple fulfills the parental roles. Stigmatizing such families as failures is unchristian. Homes with single parents and same-sex parents are a given in our society. They deserve our full support, for the happiness of all.

  • mauister Wailuku, HI
    May 23, 2014 5:56 a.m.

    Two parents is the ideal. The gender is not as important as the number. When parents divorce, it is generally almost always in the child's best interest to have both parents significantly involved in the child's life.

    It is unfortunate that Utah voters and elected officials are having gay marriage (two parents if children are involved) shoved down their throats. It would be much better if the voters and elected officials of Utah had a change of heart and instead of fighting marriage would embrace it and also embrace their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters at the same time. Give love a chance.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    May 23, 2014 6:13 a.m.

    The constitution doesn’t guarantee people the right to marry. People who want to redefine marriage to include SSM don’t seem to realize the unintended consequences of that. Allowing people to change the definition to suit their personal desires leave states unable to define marriage at all. If the courts rule against the rights of states to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, then any group of individuals (polygamous, bigamous, or polyamorous) who say it is their right to marry base on love, or desire for acceptance, or perceived social benefits could change the definition of marriage to suit their purposes.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    May 23, 2014 6:14 a.m.

    Not only is traditional marriage deserving of our support because it is what is best for society and children, the consequences of changing the definition of marriage makes marriage meaningless. The argument that children are being hurt because they live in family groups that don’t include a married father and mother miss the point. Its not that the care givers are married. Its that they love and care for the child. That doesn’t change by forcing the state to say they caregiver are married. All other social contracts between the care givers or perceived benefits of being married can be handled through other means without forcing states to redefine marriage.

    I support the states rights to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman because that is what is best for society, including our children.

  • slcdenizen Murray, UT
    May 23, 2014 6:28 a.m.

    Strategically, now is the time for DN to embrace the inevitable outcome of SS couples being able to get married and begin publishing feel good articles about avoiding SS divorce, tips on inviting straight couples to events, etc. This braying is becoming obnoxious...

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 23, 2014 6:30 a.m.

    @higv & No-Liberty for Any;

    In that case, you are going to have to outlaw divorce, death and grandparent headed households, foster households, etc.

    Anything else is utter hypocrisy if "every child deserves to be raised by a father and mother". You simply can NOT provide that to every child.

    Besides, that argument being one of the stupidest arguments against SSM ever.

  • Bill McGee Alpine, UT
    May 23, 2014 6:55 a.m.

    Things would be so much easier if people would spend less time reading propaganda on this topic and more time looking at actual evidence. The study most commonly cited suggesting that traditional married couples are better for children than same sex couples was deeply flawed, and has been rejected by both professionals and professional organizations. The threat to families is not more families. It is poverty and abuse and divorce and children raising themselves and a failed foster care system with an abyssmal success rate. People worried about children need to address THOSE issues. Single sex parents are part of the solution, not the problem.

  • atrulson cohoes, NY
    May 23, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    @RanchHand

    I don't know what conservatives you are referring to, or even what you mean be conservatives, but as a traditional marriage supporter, I am completely clear that my position in regards to marriage law IS discriminatory in that same-sex partnerships should not be recognized as marriage.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    May 23, 2014 7:13 a.m.

    If the common good is the welfare of the children then (by that logic) same sex marriages are as equally valid as opposite sex marriages as they provide a legal basis for the family (and children) and will help to move children out of institutions into the kind of caring environment that the children deserve. Perhaps a mother and a father are ideal - but two committed people of the same sex who truly care about a child and are committed to raising that child (children) well, are infinitely better than two opposite sex people who really don't care (and unfortunately "don't care" ends up happening far more often than it should these days).

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 23, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    I wonder how many of those claiming Marriage should be left to the States support Senator Hatch when he tried to pass an amendment to the National Constitution "defining marriage as between a man and woman."

    Is this really about States Rights? Or is that a cover to push an agenda

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    May 23, 2014 7:59 a.m.

    Now that many of the old, tired arguments have been stripped away to prohibit same sex marriage, we see full display of the remaining ones.

    Two prominent arguments made here are: 1) I just want to discriminate, and 2) states rights are more important than Federal rights.

    As to #1, at least you are honest. Thank you. Let your maker judge you, but at least we know you love to discriminate. Who/what is next on your list to discriminate against?

    As to #2, not so honest. Confederates hid behind the mantel of states rights to continue the inhumanity of slavery. Almost any time a progressive law is seen as an American right as opposed to a state citizen right (voting, discrimination, etc) the ghosts of the Confederacy come out. Last time I checked my passport said citizen of the United States. No one citizen of the US should have more privileges and rights as citizens than should another. And that means if I am a free person in Utah, I ought to be free in Idaho, even if Idaho citizens would votes to enslave me. This argument is only meant to keep a group of people seen as second class citizens.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 23, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    "...can be handled by other means without forcing states to redefine marriage."

    Why? Are you hung up on a word? The fact is that SS marriage is the easiest, fairest, and least complicated way of ensuring that SS couples and their children are protected just like with OS marriage.

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 23, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    I note the relatively sympathetic tone of this news article and it encourages me. But why not include a photo of Mr. Milner and Mr. Barraza? or some of the other affected couples? By not doing so, the DN is missing an opportunity to further humanize them and thus make the inevitable arrival of marriage equality in Utah (and the U.S.) potentially more palatable to more of its readers.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 23, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    Again, the DN includes a generic photo with the article instead of actually showing the faces of the subjects. I wish they would include a photo of Tony and Matthew and their son so readers can see the family the state refuses to recognize.
    I hope we can all agree that refusing to recognize their legal marriage causes harm to this family. Utah's attorney defending Amendment 3, Gene Schaerr, agreed in oral arguments before the 10th Circuit that children of same-sex couples “would likely be better off if their guardians or parents were allowed to be married.”
    So the question is whether or not it is worth it to harm gay families and their children because of some benefit to straight families. I have not heard a single rational argument explaining how refusing to recognize and give the legal security and responsibilities of marriage to this family make it so straight people are more likely to marry or stay together. Can somebody please explain this link? There would have to be a strong argument to make me believe we should hurt gay couples and their families for the greater good.

  • Let it Go! Omaha, NE
    May 23, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    Every choice has a consequence, whether people like it or not.

    Everyone should choose to either be homosexual or heterosexual. And both have consequences.

    The reason why we, as members of the Christian faith, are opposing the SSM movement is because we know that there are more blessings in following the commandments of God than rejecting them because of both personal experience and learning from the past. We acknowledge the fact that people are imperfect, at least I certainly am. But we know that people can change their natural desires to the point where people can say to God "Not my will, but thine." It IS possible; millions of people both in the past and today can testify to that.

    God loves everyone because He is our Father. Just as a father rewards or punishes his children for their works, even so will Heavenly Father judge the world at the last day. He wants everyone to come back to him, but he cannot save those who chose to not keep the commandments.

    I testify that this is true. I stand with the Lord Jesus Christ and his prophets and I am not alone. Amen.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    May 23, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    What has the National Organization of Marriage and all who subscribe to such ideology - done to ensure that heterosexual couples don't divorce and that further, single parents don't have children?

    If we are to believe the rationale that ALL children deserve a mother and a father.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 23, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    Yes, they're tangled. Let's work to untangle them and get same sex marriage underway. It can be done. It needs to be done.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 23, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    RanchHand: "The examples listed in the article are just a few of the legal benefits that are being denied to LGBT couples."

    If these people want the benefits of marriage all they need do is get married... to a person not already married, of marriageable age, not too closely related, and of the opposite sex. It's not rocket science.

    It's kinda like if you want federal education funding for your state all you need do is... accept federal requirements such as adoption of Common core.

    "And conservatives say there's no discrimination. Yep."

    Discrimination comes in may forms. How do you think polygamists feel, and do you support their cause?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 23, 2014 9:16 a.m.

    To higv and Liberty for All: As a general rule, two parents are better than one, because the second parent can be a backup if the first parent is not available for whatever reason. I don't see anything magical about the parents being of opposite sexes, however.

    There are hundreds of thousands of children in foster care in the US alone who don't have even one committed parent, though. My husband and I were not content to speak platitudes about how much children need parents, etc. etc; instead we have adopted (so far) ten kids. How many have you adopted?

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    May 23, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    Let it Go! wrote:

    "I testify that this is true. I stand with the Lord Jesus Christ and his prophets and I am not alone. Amen."

    And I testify that you are misguided and incorrect in your interpretation of what it means to be a Christian (and bout matters of human sexuality, as well). So where does that leave us?

    Not sure, but how about this? -- I won't interfere with your understanding of your faith, especially as it relates to personal decisions you make about your own conduct, but please show enough respect for the beliefs of others to allow them the same consideration. If your understanding of your faith fulfills you, live it, love it, BE it! But don't try to compel your fellow citizens to adhere to your understandings through force of law.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 23, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    @Let It Go!
    I go to the same church as you and believe in the same God and Jesus Christ. Some of the things you preach in your comment are not true and are not helpful. They hurt faithful people living with SSA, they hurt the image of the church, and they hurt our ability to relate to our GLBT friends and family who don't share our faith.
    Our church does not teach that people can choose whether to be homosexual or heterosexual. The LDS church's website on the topic states "individuals do not choose to have such attractions."
    The church also does not teach that all people who experience SSA can change to experience OSA, it only teaches that people can choose how to respond to their attractions. When "ex-gay" people say that they have changed, they do not mean that they are now straight, they mean that they have learned tools for managing their attractions and avoiding behaviors and conscious thoughts that cause them personal distress because of conflicts with their belief system.

  • JustGordon Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 23, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    Relying on the Sutherland Institute for insightful commentary on the subject of same sex marriage is like looking in "Das Kapital" for the benefits of capitalism.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    May 23, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    @slcdenizen

    "Strategically, now is the time for DN to embrace the inevitable outcome of SS couples being able to get married and begin publishing feel good articles about avoiding SS divorce, tips on inviting straight couples to events, etc. This braying is becoming obnoxious..."

    This sounds like asking an entity or group to abandon its values as a "strategic" move. I find that particularly offensive. If something is worth defending, it’s worth defending no matter what the odds. To do otherwise is selling out.

    On another note, several things have happened in the last twenty years.

    1. Judges have taken on themselves the right to legislate from the bench to a highly inappropriate degree.

    2. The will of the majority in the form of state constitutional amendments have been ignored. This would not have happened without the first item above.

    3. The majority of people have lost enough of their moral compasses that they no longer are sure of their moral judgments or they are making immoral judgments.

    4. Federal laws to protect marriage (i.e. DOMA), promoted by both parties and signed into law by President Clinton, have been overturned or otherwise undermined by the courts. Again, highly inappropriate.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 23, 2014 9:38 a.m.

    If traditional marriage is about the children, the we should do a couple of things to reinforce that:

    1. All other benefits and preferences should be provided across the board, whether heterosexual or homosexual relationships.

    2. We should make it ridiculously easy for couples without children to divorce, or perhaps even to abolish the concept of marriage altogether where there are no children involved.

    I realize the emotional impact of this issue, but the issue of marriage equality is chugging through the courts and it will get worked out. The reality is that the trend is pretty clear and society needs to make the adjustment. As I've said before, separate the legal aspects from the sacrament, and it will be the way to best preserve religious freedom.

  • slcdenizen Murray, UT
    May 23, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    @rw123

    1. Judges have taken on themselves the right to legislate from the bench...

    If by "legislate from the bench" you mean interpret laws in response to claims of unconstitutionality, then yes, I agree.

    2. The will of the majority in the form of state constitutional amendments have been ignored...

    Many will(s?!) of the people are ignored. It stinks. In this case though, the word "ignored" should be "overturned" and you'll be on the right track.

    3. The majority of people have lost enough of their moral compasses that they no longer are sure of their moral...

    My moral compass is working fine. If an individual claims a right, I feel morally obligated to address the concern as if it were my own. SS couples have done that and I agree, they have the right to be married.

    4. Federal laws to protect marriage (i.e. DOMA), promoted by both parties and signed into law by President Clinton, have been overturned...

    We've made mistakes in the past. A sign of functioning democracy is the ability to recognize and address mistakes. That's being done. This is a positive sign for our great nation.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 23, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    @1Voice
    "Not only is traditional marriage deserving of our support because it is what is best for society and children"

    On average. You can do dangerous things with averages. Want to start applying averages to other demographics than just sexual orientation when it comes to marriage? Race? Religion? Income? State? Surely we can find more things that on average lead to better outcomes for children. So why only apply it to sexual orientation? Especially in a state that allows single people, including of course single gay people, to adopt. You argue that two parent households do better (on average) but then ban a gay adopted parent from adding a second parent. That seems inconsistent.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 23, 2014 10:22 a.m.

    @Let It Go!
    "Everyone should choose to either be homosexual or heterosexual. "

    Sexual orientation (heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual) is who you're attracted to. That isn't a choice. The choices come from what you do about those feelings.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    May 23, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    I didn't marry my precious wife 40 years ago just because I was attracted to her. I married her because I loved her. I admired those feminine qualities that made her so wonderful to me. I appreciated how I felt around her. Our natures complemented one another. We believe that the love we share is a gift of God, because He lovingly promotes marriage between men and women.

    If two men or two women really feel exactly as described above, then perhaps Same Sex Attraction should more appropriately be called Same Sex Affection.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 23, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    rw123: "Judges have taken on themselves the right to legislate from the bench to a highly inappropriate degree."

    Here's the deal... Many Judgeships are life appointments. So, if there are controversial issues, the legislators are happy to turn the decision-making over to them rather than jeopardize their reelection chances and being tossed from lucrative elected positions. For example, politicians would rather have the courts decide on controversial issues involving the 2nd Amendment rather than risk offending their gun-owning electorate by limiting some aspects of gun ownership.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 23, 2014 12:54 p.m.

    @gmlewis;

    So, you married your wife because you loved her, but as you've said before SS couples are "selfish" because we want to marry the person we love.

    Why don't you call your love for your wife "opposite sex-affection"? It makes as much sense as calling our love for one another "same-sex affection"; or don't you see the hypocrisy you're displaying?

    Your Jesus told you to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Why don't you want to obey him? Why would you want to treat others differently than you want to be treated? Why don't you go count how many times the hypocrites are condemned in your bible and then let me know how you expect to get into heaven.

    @wrz;

    Judgeships are lifetime appointments so they don't have to worry about making the majority happy and can focus on the Constitutionality of the laws they're adjudicating.

  • Let it Go! Omaha, NE
    May 23, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    @Tiago

    Thank you for letting me know about that. I am sorry for any misunderstandings I have caused. If that is what the church officially says, then I will comply.

    @Frozen Fractals
    Thanks for clarifying that. I appreciate it and am sorry for making it sound like that.
    It is so good to be corrected. Practices humbleness. I am so grateful for a religion that teaches people to deal with difficulties in Christ.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    May 23, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    I have yet to see an SSM supporter give me a decent argument as to why a judge can ignore "Equal Protection" and allow a state to make marijuana illegal, yet still use the same Amendment to make Gay Marriage legal.

    You are living on another planet if you believe that "Equal Protection" was designed to force states to legalize illegal activities simply because another state is doing it.

    The SSM supporters seem to follow the tired logic that the Constitution grants the "Right" to marriage. There is NO such verbiage in the Constitution. Amendment 10 guarantees that any law not SPECIFICALLY defined in the Constitution is granted to each state to define.

    "Equal Protection" was designed for one thing and one thing only: abolition of slavery after the Civil War. Period. Trying to pigeonhole this Amendment on whatever you see fit is an incredibly slippery slope. You could cite the same argument to say that someone carrying an AK-47 legally in Texas could walk into Chicago and be legal because of the 14th.

    The Constitution was designed to be limited and ennumerated so the States could hold it in check to prevent tyranny.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 23, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    @illuminated;

    Equal protection: The state treates EVERY citizen the same. Drugs are illegal to everyone, ergo, no violation of the equal protection clause.

    Marriage is available in some states ONLY to heterosexuals; ergo, it violates the equal protection clause in relation to homosexual couples.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 23, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    @ 1 Voice

    "The constitution doesn’t guarantee people the right to marry."

    This point has been addressed multiple times on these threads. It's also fully addressed in many of the judges' opinions issued to date. Perhaps you weren't previously aware that this statement is untrue, but now that you are, I hope you'll refrain from passing along information you know to be false.

    Re: your second comment, you concede that SS couples love and care for their children, and you express no objection to them receiving every other legal benefit afforded married couples...except the label "marriage."

    So your argument is that it is best for our children to learn that, in America, we believe not in equality, but in a two-tiered system in which a minority is treated as inferior. And the reason it is okay for them to be treated as inferior is because certain religious doctrines teach this. Not all. Just some.

    Can you see that you are arguing against the very values that protect your right to believe what you do?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 23, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    Illuminated, "Equal Protection" has nothing to do with what any other state is doing. There are laws regulating marriage, and there are laws giving benefits to married couples. It is illegal to deny these benefits (and the right to marry, itself) to anyone without a rational reason. There are solid and rational reasons to restrict marriage to non-related adults and to limit it to two people. Tradition, the "ick" factor, and religious doctrine are not deemed solid reasons to deny anyone the right to marry the person of their choice.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    May 23, 2014 2:37 p.m.

    "Equal protection: The state treates EVERY citizen the same. Drugs are illegal to everyone, ergo, no violation of the equal protection clause."

    Huh? When did you last check the news? Marijuana is legal in Washington and Colorado now, even if it's illegal in every other state. Zoning laws, smoking laws, gun laws, driving laws, and on and on and on change state by state. If Equal Protection could be applied as broadly as the SSM supporters are arguing, then every state would be required to legalize a law if another state had done it. All it would take is a few radical rabble rousers and an activist judge or two.

    That's not how the Constitution works, my friend. No, this is just an extremely convenient crutch for the SSM crowd to use as excuse to push their agenda: Trying to remove the guilt from their lifestyle choice.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    May 23, 2014 2:47 p.m.

    @Laura Bilington

    "It is illegal to deny these benefits (and the right to marry, itself) to anyone without a rational reason."

    Actually it is the other way around. It is illegal for the Federal Government to provide these benefits as RIGHTS under the Constitution since no such verbiage exists in it. Am I wrong? If so, please cite the precise place in the Constitution that describes that "Marriage" as a "right".

    If you cannot, Amendment 10 describes that States only have the power to enumerate these laws. Period. End of story. No, post-Civil-war, anti-slavery, "Equal Protection" law changes that fact.

    Finally, everyone in the United States of America can marry under currently established state laws. No laws have been taken away from gays. None. So the argument that something has been stripped from them is patently false.

    And, again, please stop with stereotypical pulling of the religious card every time SSM is opposed. If that's all you got to argue your side, please give it up. The Constitution & Federalism, the bedrock of our nation, is all that's needed to blow the SSM argument out of the water.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    May 23, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    I find it hilarious that SSM supporters argue that marriage is a RIGHT. Do you not know what a Right is? It's something that cannot be denied at all. If marriage was truly a "Right", then anyone could marry someone else even without another person's consent. The stalker could propose to a woman and if the woman said no, he could argue that the woman was denying his Right to marry and a judge could force the woman to marry him.

    Please, PLEASE education yourself and think about what you are really saying. Under our Constitution, Rights can NEVER be denied someone, never. The Right to marry would mean that the dude living in mom's basement next door could force your daughter to marry him.

    Yet people keep spouting this "Right to this" & "Right to that" nonsense. It really would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

  • rw123 Sandy, UT
    May 23, 2014 3:04 p.m.

    @slcdenizen

    As I understand it, the original intent of the constitution was for the legislative branch to make the laws, the executive branch to enforce the laws, and the judicial branch to judge cases according to the law, not judge THE law itself. This was done after great deliberations and for good reasons. From what I see, this "balance" is far OUT of balance.

    I too have considered SS couples claims on certain rights as if they were my own, and given the circumstances, I disagree. Where does that leave us? You agree. I disagree. I will admit though that my arguments ultimately trace back to my belief in God who loves His children and has a plan for them. Obedience is a critical part of that plan of happiness. I would claim my moral compass is working fine as well.

    I would also claim that the mistake was in discarding DOMA, not in enacting it. Where does that leave us? Apparently some would like us to walk away. And if we don't, they would like to nullify our votes. They revel in their apparent victories. They may win some battles but will not win the proverbial war.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    May 23, 2014 3:19 p.m.

    Tiago, The Proclamation To The World explains the link; the importance and purpose of marriage and real families. The lord has created this fundamental institution as the best environment for the rearing of children. As Sean Reyes and Governor Herbert have said over and over this has been proven over millennia as a critical foundation of society. Children matter, marriage is not about the selfish desires and choices of adults. Governor Herbert said yesterday that sexual orientation is a choice. In other words, selfish desires of adults. Given the proclamation to the world, why would the lord support any other arrangement that was not supportive of his children and the natural family? The State of Utah is trying to support the natural family in adoption law, and remind people that children matter, that a child's right to a mother and father matter; where children should be placed, with the force of Utah law if necessary. Traditional marriage simply works best and is time tested as the best way to raise children and the lord has even made this so in his doctrine. The link to healthy well adjusted children is clear and supported by the social sciences.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    May 23, 2014 3:34 p.m.

    @illuminated
    "Please education yourself." I am glad you have had a laugh today.
    Equal Protection means laws must apply equally to all people within a jurisdiction. Any variation needs to have a rational basis. For example, a law that says Utah drivers get their license at 16 years old would need to apply equally regardless of sexual orientation or race. You might however require a test that would exclude people who are blind or who cannot read traffic signs (rational basis). The fact that Idaho drivers can get a license at 15 does not require Utah (different jurisdiction) to do the same.
    Marriage is a fundamental right. Search for the Wikipedia page "Marriage as a fundamental right" to begin your study of this topic. People have the right to choose who they marry. Exclusions must have a rational basis.
    We also have the right to own property. That does not mean the government must give us property or we can take it from others, it means that everyone is allowed to purchase property they can afford and decide how that resource is used.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    May 23, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    @illuminated

    Do you not know what a Right is? It's something that cannot be denied at all.

    ===============

    False!

    We have the Right to Freedom of Religion. However, we as a society have decided to place reasonable restrictions on that right. For example, Warren Jeffs was jailed for rape; he claimed to have been doing God's will. We decided he violated a reasonable restriction and imprisoned him.

    Try yelling Bomb in an airport to test your right to free speech.

    There are no absolute rights in society. We surrendered the absolute part when we formed the social contract known as the Constitution so that the rest of our rights could be protected.

    We have decided that there are reasonable restrictions that can be placed on marriage: Harm can be shown if the two are genetically related, therefore close family members are forbidden to marry. Young people cannot legally consent to a contract, and are thus not able to consent to marry; therefore I cannot marry a 13 year old.

    At one time Race was thought to be a reasonable restriction, but that has since changed.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    May 23, 2014 4:11 p.m.

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

    Maynard v. Hill
    Meyer v. Nebraska
    Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson
    Griswold v. Connecticut
    Loving v. Virginia
    Boddie v. Connecticut
    Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
    Moore v. City of East Cleveland
    Carey v. Population Services International
    Zablocki v. Redhail
    Turner v. Safley
    Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey
    M.L.B. v. S.L.J.
    Lawrence v. Texas

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 23, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    @illuminated

    "Marijuana is legal in Washington and Colorado now, even if it's illegal in every other state."

    Possession of marijuana is a violation of Federal Law, and according to the 10th amendment Federal law trumps state law. The Fed, for now, has chosen not to enforce in Washington and Colorado (that could change at the drop of a hat), ergo, your comparison is fallacious. Further, Utah residents traveling to either Washington or Colorado will be able to buy and use marijuana regardless of residence, citizenship, skin color, religious belief, or gender while in Colorado or Wshington. Your argument is without merit.

    "I find it hilarious that SSM supporters argue that marriage is a RIGHT."

    The Supreme Court has ruled 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right. It is, therefore, a constitutionally protected right.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    May 23, 2014 5:04 p.m.

    @illuminated

    "everyone in the United States of America can marry under currently established state laws. "

    "every gay can marry, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex; every black can marry, they just have to marry someone who is black; every Mormon can marry, they just have to marry another Mormon..." Do you see how ridiculous that argument quickly becomes?

    "please stop with stereotypical pulling of the religious card every time SSM is opposed"

    Gladly, when anti-SSM can provide a legitimate and secular reason why same sex couples need to continue to be treated as second class citizens.

    "Rights can NEVER be denied someone, never."

    Yet, the anti-SSM crowd continues to do just that.

  • Demiurge San Diego, CA
    May 23, 2014 5:18 p.m.

    I don't know where illuminated got his idea about rights, but the fact is that almost any constitutional right including life can be eliminated through due process of law.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    May 23, 2014 5:42 p.m.

    To Liberty For All: I don't know about or care about your proclamation of the world, whatever it may be. Is it a legal document? If not then it has no bearing on marriage which is a secular institution.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    May 23, 2014 8:48 p.m.

    @BJMoose, You may not care about the Proclamation To The Family, but I assure you that many of Utah voters do.
    Many have have an understanding of traditional marriage that the Proclamation represents. Therefore, they were entitled to codify their understanding of the family in cvil law as expressed through the passage of Amendment 3. This is how a democracy works, through the political and legislative process as expressed by the will of the people.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 23, 2014 9:43 p.m.

    @Lib;

    It doesn't matter how many Utah voters believe in the Proclamation. It doesn't matter what your church leaders say, we are not a theocracy. Your religious views are your personal views and have absolutely no place in our civil law. We are Americans and we have a Constitution that grants us our freedom and liberty. Our religious freedom is as important as yours. You do not have the right to enshrine your religious view into civil law at the expense of other American citizens.

    You do not have that right. You have never had that right. You do not have the right to vote on the rights of others; not even if your church leaders tell you to.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    May 23, 2014 10:35 p.m.

    Ranch, I have a great deal of compassion, empathy and understanding for you misguided opinion. While you are entitled to that opinion, you are not entitled to your own set of facts. We must defer to the wisdom, experience and judgement of our great and wise leaders; Governor Gay Herbert and Sean Reyes, who understand both the Utah and US Constitutions. They represent the best interests of the will of the people and its church. They have explained the concept of federalism as outlined in the US Constitution numerous times, for those willing to listen and understand. This clearly documents and shows that States have the right to regulate and define marriage.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    May 23, 2014 10:41 p.m.

    Its time for our mormon church to show support for the lgbt community and ssm , enough harm was done by the church support of prop H8ATE in our golden state. Remember homophobia equals racism.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 24, 2014 4:11 a.m.

    @Liberty for All wrote: "This clearly documents and shows that States have the right to regulate and define marriage."

    I think that's what the Commonwealth of Virginia argued in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. Turns out, the US Supreme Court disagreed with them. They said the law was unconstitutional because it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    It is being argued that Utah's Amendment 3 (as well as similar amendments and laws from other states) are similarly unconstitutional. And the courts are agreeing with that opinion.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    May 24, 2014 10:21 a.m.

    @Liberty For All
    You may not care about the Proclamation To The Family, but I assure you that many of Utah voters do.
    Many have have an understanding of traditional marriage that the Proclamation represents. Therefore, they were entitled to codify their understanding of the family in cvil law as expressed through the passage of Amendment 3. This is how a democracy works, through the political and legislative process as expressed by the will of the people.

    NO, NO, NO! A thousand times no!

    The majority NEVER has the right to vote on the rights of a minority. The Christians in Mississippi CANNOT vote to make Mormonism illegal because of rights defined in the Constitution. And people in Utah CANNOT vote to treat LGBTs differently than heterosexuals. This has been shown again, and again, and again in the courts — by judges right and left, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama appointees.

    The Constitution exists to prevent a tyranny of the majority, not to create one.

  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    May 24, 2014 9:35 p.m.

    There is no confusion on this issue if you are an active Christian. The scriptures speak exactly and clearly to the issue of same sex relations, and shines a bright light that the tangled web of darkness does not like.

  • Danclrksvll Erin, TN
    May 24, 2014 9:47 p.m.

    I stand with LDS prophets and other church leaders in saying that the state cannot make moral what God has declared to be immoral! I suppose that if the Farmer's Almanac dedicated a whole page to so called ''farm equality'' and taught that two bulls mating is a good idea, we would accept that too? Really? It is a sad commentary on our Republic that we are being lead by the nose down a very dark path and that if we continue we shall not see the light of day.

  • Rustymommy Clovis, NM
    May 25, 2014 10:32 p.m.

    50 million people can be wrong.