Quantcast
Utah

Utah plans to appeal appellate court's ruling on same-sex marriage to U.S. Supreme Court

Comments

Return To Article
  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    Orrin was right and all the self proclaimed constitionalist were wrong. Let freedom ring.

  • SharpHooks Sandy, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:39 a.m.

    Sanity, fairness, inclusion, acceptance, tolerance and --oh YEAH! The LAW-- prevail.
    Now we can quit wasting tax money to fight an unwinnable battle.
    God Bless the Court for making the correct decision.

  • Brad J West Jordan, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    Sad Day!

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 25, 2014 10:41 a.m.

    This is a responsible decision by reasonable judges. Such good news!

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:41 a.m.

    Great news!

    Freedom rides again!!

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    Great news for Utahans!

    But I predict people like RedShirt or wrz are going to cry foul, claiming active judges again.

  • Go Utes Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:44 a.m.

    Too bad. One nation, under a few judges, with liberty and justice for a few special interests.

    Looks like we have another made up constitutional right. I love how they just keep popping out of thin air. The integrity of the legal system takes another hit.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 25, 2014 10:45 a.m.

    My congratulations to my Gay and Lesbian friends in Utah. It was almost exactly a year ago to the day that the decision of the Supreme Court allowed marriage equality to resume in California. That day will be coming soon as well.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

  • Equality 4 all west Jordan, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:48 a.m.

    Great day for equality! The endless streak of victories for the LGBT community continues. All rulings so far have been for have been in favor equal rights. This is just another major step.

    Someday soon we will look back and wonder why anyone was ever against two adults in love wanting to establish a permanent committed relationship in marriage regardless of the gender.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    And so it begins...

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    Annnnd, start up the wailing and gnashing of teeth. But seriously, i'm really excited for my gay friends out there who want to get married. For years you've been subjected to religious bigotry towards who they are. While we can't force people to change their minds, finally the courts are recognizing that these religious views should not be wielded against gay people by the government. If your religion or personal views make you hate gay people, go ahead and hate. But your hate should not be the law.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:51 a.m.

    What a great day, lets celebrate!

    Time to end the hate..

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    Sanity, decency & equality- 1
    Fear, bigotry, & hate - 0

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:52 a.m.

    Indiana's ban was also struck down today. That makes 16 federal judges in a row, with zero ruling against.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    Its too bad that this courts decision seems to allow adoption of children who otherwise would have had a mother and a father.

  • netsrik Draper, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:57 a.m.

    Yes!

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    June 25, 2014 10:59 a.m.

    And this is a surprise ruling because?

    Sorry folks but the days of discrimination ended long ago.

    Happy to see the New Day!

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    Well, I knew this was coming. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will overturn it. I was just reading Isaiah last night. Bad news for any immorality. Of course, I know many people on this board aren't religious so quoting scripture won't help convince them that gay marriage is wrong. I guess I'll do what I always do when something is made acceptable by law which I believe violates the Laws of God. Ignore it. Very sad day for our country. Blue had a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. Interesting, but I sincerely doubt he would approve of gay marriage.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    For those who believe 14th Amendment has nothing to do with marriage equality, read the decision:

    "We hold that the 14th Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws," according to the decision posted on the court's website. "A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    Dawn of a whole new and more equitable era.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 25, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    I can hear the collective gasp of surprise and from the "traditional marriage MUST be preserved" crowd all the way up here in the Northwest. Congratulations to those who fought and continue to fight the good fight.

  • nycut New York, NY
    June 25, 2014 11:04 a.m.

    If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands!

    Our neighbors' marriages have never been any of our business anyway.

    Utahns can handle it.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    Who's up for a little bingo? So far we've had a post about how sad it is, one about how the country is being run by judges (I believe this will count for the activist judge spot as well), and one about how gays are taking babies away from a mother and father. We also got the god post. Soon I'm sure we'll hear about how it won't be long before people can marry their pets or siblings. We also need the post about how gay marriage will destroy America because it has always destroyed societies in the past. What other posts can we expect?

    This is great news, not just for our gay brothers and sisters but for America. Our society is moving forward to one that treats people with dignity and respect and that's never a bad thing.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    Great news!!

  • SolarMan Albuquerque, NM
    June 25, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated: "Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and in 'obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.' But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral. Commitment to our highest priority—to love and serve God—requires that we look to His law for our standard of behavior. For example, we remain under divine command not to commit adultery or fornication even when those acts are no longer crimes under the laws of the states or countries where we reside. Similarly, laws legalizing so-called 'same-gender marriage' do not change God’s law of marriage or His commandments and our standards concerning it. We remain under covenant to love God and keep His commandments and to refrain from serving other gods and priorities—even those becoming popular in our particular time and place."

  • trueblue75 USA, NC
    June 25, 2014 11:11 a.m.

    How low can a civilization stoop??? and what ever happened to the 'voice of the people'??? How on earth can one judge or two judges have this kind of power over the people??? What ever happened to common sense....

  • Reasonable Person Layton, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    NOW cjb, tell the class why it's OK in Utah for a SINGLE PARENT to adopt but not a same-sex couple.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    @cjb
    "Its too bad that this courts decision seems to allow adoption of children who otherwise would have had a mother and a father."

    If that was Utah's primary concern, we wouldn't have single parent adoptions in this state.

    @FatherOfFour
    "That makes 16 federal judges in a row, with zero ruling against."

    Technically this one did have a 2-1 decision though so I suppose it's 17-1 for federal judges and 16-0 in cases.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    @GoUtes

    I too hate the expansion of liberty and freedom. Whom now can we oppress? First they take away women, then racial minorities, and now gays. To whom now can I feel superior?

    @cjb
    The reason these kids are up for adoption is because they don't have a mother and father. Would you rather they remain in Foster care? Because they have an excellent record.

  • Starry starry night Palm Springs , CA
    June 25, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    CONGRATULATIONS!!!! to the amazingly beautiful great state of Utah!
    History is being made and I for one am glad to be alive to witness it!

  • wzagieboylo Nofolk, MA
    June 25, 2014 11:14 a.m.

    It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

    But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    June 25, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    Wonderful news! And I'm wondering if the Gov and AG are having cold feet about appealing this to SCOTUS?

    After all, if this does go to the Supreme Court and ends up bringing marriage equality to the entire country... does Gov. Herbert want that ruling to have his name on it?

    @cjb wrote: "Its too bad that this courts decision seems to allow adoption of children who otherwise would have had a mother and a father."

    You realize that single adults can adopt in Utah, don't you?

  • goosehuntr Tooele, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    Hate had nothing to do with the religions that opposed this. While, there may have been people in those religions that hated, that was the people not the religion. Also, were there any supporters of gay marriage that expressed hate and bigotry against anothers religious beliefs? Yes. Let's not forget hate went both ways. Bigotry runs deep on both sides of this issue. So, on we go... the ramifications of this and other decisions like it will find its way into society in the years and decades to come. We will see then whether the fruit is bitter or sweet.

  • rondonaghe Mesilla/USA, NM
    June 25, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    CJB from Bountiful says, "Its too bad that this courts decision seems to allow adoption of children who otherwise would have had a mother and a father."

    Children who have a mother and a father are not the children who are adopted. The children who are adopted don't have a mother and a father. Maybe you have another factor to add in to your argument that would make it clearer what you mean and how you arrived at your conclusion.

    Aside from the fact that many SS couples just want to get married and don't want to adopt children, those couples who do adopt children mainly get them from biological parents who apparently don't want them. It allows a place for unwanted children to find loving homes.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    To Brad J, yes it is a sad day! A sad day for bigotry and hatred! It is being shown for what it really is. I'm proud that families of any kind will be able to move forward. It is in the best interest of the children too!

  • deserthound Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:20 a.m.

    Happy Day!! If I was one of the 1300 couples who have been dragged through this emotional roller coaster in the last six months by the state of Utah, I would demand nothing less than a formal written apology from Gary Herbert. That's the very least he could do.

  • infoman Cedar Hills, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    "Tomsic argued that the state has failed to show that same-sex parents aren't as good as heterosexual parents."

    The term 'same-sex parents' is an oxymoron. Only heterosexual couples can bring forth offspring, and that is something no judge can change. This nation is making a great mistake, and I fear for my posterity who will inherit it.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    Yawn! As expected. The ruling will be appealed but SCOTUS will likely uphold the ban there too. Our country and morals continue to degenerate as predicted and prophesied by God's holy prophets both ancient and modern. We will also continue to see the calamities which have been prophesied. God fearing people will continue to hold to the iron rod, others will mock those that do. The fulfillment of these prophesies is a great testament to the veracity and reliability of the holy scriptures and God's living prophets!

  • Values Voter LONG BEACH, CA
    June 25, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    Wonderful, WONDERFUL news!

    If you've been paying attention, this decision is no surprise, but still --- Wonderful*

  • Visitor from California Berkeley, CA
    June 25, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    Another step forward toward Utah becoming a more welcoming state, and another leap forward toward the country extending equality to all.

  • BoringGuy Holladay, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    Congratulations to our gay brothers and sisters in Utah.

    Yeah freedom & equal rights!

  • Virginia Reader Ashburn, VA
    June 25, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    "The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother..."

    "...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

  • ImABeliever Provo, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    I never thought I would see the day where the Society that I live in makes
    Sodom and Gomorrah look like Disneyland. Sad, just, sad.

  • Taking a Stand Provo, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:34 a.m.

    No matter what your political opinion regarding marriage, it is a sad day when the government of the people is put in the hands of a few judges to change the definition of a fundamental institution such as marriage.

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    RE Go Ute's:

    I'm baffled at this statement:

    "Too bad. One nation, under a few judges, with liberty and justice for a few special interests."

    Are you upset your "special interest" lost? If you haven't figured it out yet it was the side who opposed equal Marriage rights that were the Special Interest groups. The Gay's and their supporters are the citizens fighting for their rights.

    By the way, the saying goes ONE Nation under God with Liberty and Justice for ALL! The "ALL" part would include Gays and the people they love.

    Today the Sun shines on Utah. God is smiling!

    Let Freedom Ring!

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    Clarissa: "Blue had a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. Interesting, but I sincerely doubt he would approve of gay marriage."

    -----------

    Oh please...his right hand man, Bayard Rustin, was a gay man and did not hide it.

    This is what MLK's wife said:

    "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," Coretta Scott King. - Reuters, March 31, 1998.

  • Gail L. Fitches Layton, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:37 a.m.

    I am sorry, but I cannot go along with this. God's laws are higher than our corrupt government's laws. You can sure tell these are the last days. The morale fabric of our country is gone, and we will fall as nation, not only because of this, but because of all the the corruption that is taking place. I am not against a person if they are gay, but it is wrong for the same sex to get married. Biologically, two men and two women cannot have a child together. This leaves the door open to gay couples adopting children, when I am sure the mother giving up her child for adoption is hoping that a Mother and Father will adopt their child. I remember when abortion became legal, then euthanasia became legal in several states. Those who are trying to destroy our country are deliberately trying to destroy the morale fabric of our country. :'(

  • BU52 Provo, ut
    June 25, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    That dang 4th article of the Constitution.

  • Bruce A. Frank San Jose, CA
    June 25, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    Reminds me of the event on the old KALL radio station when Fred Wicks married a duck! Fred had no idea how close he was coming to predicting the absurdity of the interpretation of "marriage" in the next century!

  • Virginia Reader Ashburn, VA
    June 25, 2014 11:40 a.m.

    There will be no happy day when God's judgements will be upon us. It's a shame our country is going down this road. God will not be mocked. I stand for the family and for a mother and a father in the home.

  • n8erg slc, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    Kelly, the dissenting justice, is the only one who got it right. Marriage is about far more than two consenting adults who love each other. Biology and God, not the 10th circuit, has dictated that marriage is about a heterosexual relationship with the intent on bringing children into the world. No matter what activist judges rule, it will forever be that way.

    It's a sad day for families and traditional marriage.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    infoman: "
    The term 'same-sex parents' is an oxymoron. Only heterosexual couples can bring forth offspring, and that is something no judge can change."

    ---------

    So, a parent is only the persons who begot or bore the child? I'll tell that to my niece and nephew who, along with their temple-married partners, have adopted children. They are not "parents."

  • shaneloveland Highland, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    - "Tomsic argued that the state has failed to show that same-sex parents aren't as good as heterosexual parents."There isn't a single social science study they've cited that is on point," she said." -

    Studies of children raised within marriages between a man and a woman have been shown to be beneficial. That is undeniable. There aren't studies of same-sex marriages because there are few cases to study and because it wasn't legal. Call it what it is, this is an experiment with children. In that case then why can't we just wait and see with states that have made it legal? The ironic part of that statement is down the road even if studies prove that traditional marriage helps children it won't change this ruling.

  • pickemright FREDERICK, MD
    June 25, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    I agree. Forward---forward to the second coming. Hang on for the ride. After which we will see who is left standing as families.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    Taking a Stand

    Provo, UT

    No matter what your political opinion regarding marriage, it is a sad day when the government of the people is put in the hands of a few judges to change the definition of a fundamental institution such as marriage.

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

    What is the constitution for? What is the judicial branch of the government for? Why did our founding fathers not allow the judiciary to be voted into office on the federal level? Can you give me a reason why we would allow the majority to vote on the rights of an individual?

    Waiting for your answer.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:53 a.m.

    @ Taking a Stand

    The majority cannot vote to take away the rights of the minority. The judges are doing their job by making sure we ALL have equal protection under the law.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    June 25, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    I ask you fellow Amerikans do we have a great country or not?

  • JDL Magna, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    @ The Wraith,

    "Soon I'm sure we'll hear about how it won't be long before people can marry their pets or siblings."

    There is already a significant contingent of men and women in the US and world wide who are calling for the reduction of the legal age of consensual sex to 12 years old. History has many examples of perverse sexual behavior that resulted in the fall and destruction of the societies that allowed and in fact encouraged such deviancy.

    There is a program on one of the cable channels called "Flowers in the Attic" with the exact theme of what you posted regarding siblings having sexual relations and falling in love with each other and the sequel is the continuation of that relationship in adult life.

    What you posted is past the "soon" phase, it's already upon us. The vortex of moral degeneracy is fast and steep and virtually impossible to stop. You may enjoy the rush of the spinning ride but it gives me intense nausea.

    The prophets have sounded the alarm for centuries and millennia the perils that await the disobedient but they also testify that many will curse God and die.

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    @Meckofahess, @DN News Subscriber, @Vanceone, @Chris B and the rest of the sheep...Let religious scripture quoting and "activist judges" excuses begin in 3-2-1. Gentleman, I hope you all have a wonderful day!

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    @Taking a Stand
    No it's not a sad day. The United States has a check and balance system, and it's the judiciaries job to determine if laws are constitutional. They looked at the law, and decided it violates the 14th amendment. What gives you the idea that we live in a pure 100% majority rule democracy? We don't elect presidents this way(electorial college) Laws are overturned as unconstitutional all the time. Your anger about this is nothing but sour grapes, because your religious view are no longer being forced on the general population as law.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    @Vanceone
    "2) that you are explicitly saying homosexuals are more important to America that its religious heritage. "

    Actually what we're saying is that the Constitution should be the foundation for American law.

    @Meckofahess
    "We will also continue to see the calamities which have been prophesied. "
    @Virginia Reader
    "...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

    I don't understand people who believe the only anthropogenic climate change is a result of gay people marrying.

    @ImABeliever
    "I never thought I would see the day where the Society that I live in makes
    Sodom and Gomorrah look like Disneyland."

    I also don't understand how people can't tell the difference between consenting same-sex relationships between adults and attempted sexual assault of angels (in a story where the allegedly "good guy" offered his daughter to them).

    @Gail L. Fitches
    "You can sure tell these are the last days. The morale fabric of our country is gone"

    These days we have the most opportunity for women, least violent, least slavery, most educated, best healthcare... we're worse than ever? Nope.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    I am absolutely ecstatic.
    What a great day for humanity.
    What a great day for equality.

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    @Gail L Fitches...Sorry to hear since you apparently had a conversation with God recently that he is angry with this decision. What else did he say Gail? My God happens to be ok with this decision. Possibly they both should have confirmed with you first!

  • StGeorgeBeacon SAINT GEORGE, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    Taken directly from the 10th Circuit Ruling, which can be found at the Court's website.

    "We emphatically agree with the numerous cases decided since Windsor that it is wholly illogical to believe that state recognition of the love and commitment between same-sex couples will alter the most intimate and personal decisions of opposite-sex couples. As the district court held, "there is no reason to believe that Amendment 3 has any effect on the choices of couples to have or raise children, whether they are opposite sex couples or same-sex couples."

    It's good to see that the justices are guided by logic and reason, since many here seem to be driven by ignorance, fear, and irrational prejudice. The world is not going to end just because Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered folks are treated equal, with respect and dignity, and not as second-class citizens.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    June 25, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    As was pointed out.
    {For those who believe 14th Amendment has nothing to do with marriage equality, read the decision:

    "We hold that the 14th Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws," according to the decision posted on the court's website. "A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.}

    In a few more years this will apply to Polyandry and Polygamy. The right of several adults to be in love and raise a family together is basically the same as same-sex couples.

  • HENELSON lindon, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    Today activist judges interpret the founding constitution to over-rule moral decency and the voice of the people. We the people of the State of Utah have sovereign rights. Our forefathers established government declaring independence to choose laws they considered most likely to affect their safety and happiness.
    “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …. it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”
    What is next? What if others legalize their belief in marriage between parent/child or brother/sister. What if others claim belief saying its ok to steal, murder – do we legalize this too? My fellow citizens – this is a slippery slope.
    WE the people, choose Amendment3 for our safety and happiness.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    RedShirtCalTech

    Pasedena, CA

    As for those that support this move, are you prepared for what this ruling means? This means that when the group of gay and bisexual people decide that they love eachother they too should be granted a marriage.

    ********

    Oh Redshirt,

    You didn't read the ruling, did you? It explains why this statement is totally false.

    Please read it and then report to us your findings...

    Thanks.

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

    "Based on that, it sure seems like MLK thought homosexuality was a mental disorder that could be treated and eliminated."

    *******

    As did about everyone in the 1960's. Thank goodness psychiatrists, psychologists, etc. have been studying this since then and all the reputable associations have reversed that idea. They now accept it as an immutable trait, not to be labeled as a disorder and definately not to be treated and eliminated for the harm that it does the individual. Once again, a little study will prove this to be true.

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:20 p.m.

    So obviously it doesn't matter what the people vote on and how that vote comes out. . . the courts get to decide what the people have to do. I guess we don't need to vote on anything anymore, just let the court judges tell us what we have to do.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    June 25, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    @Shaneloveland:
    "Studies of children raised within marriages between a man and a woman have been shown to be beneficial. That is undeniable. There aren't studies of same-sex marriages because there are few cases to study and because it wasn't legal. Call it what it is, this is an experiment with children."

    Actually there was a study done by a researcher named Regnerus and he found that children raised by same gender parents experienced more negative outcomes then children raised by straight parents.

    Many people point out, however, the children in the study raised by gay parents were also the product of broken homes. Of course, since two adults of the same gender cannot bear children, children raised by gay parents will always be deprived on at least one parent.

    Children have a right to a father and a mother. It is unfortunate that the court feels that right is less important.

    I take hope, however, in the words of Martin Luther King: "The arc of history is long, but it does bend towards justice."

  • genetics Canada, 00
    June 25, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    What an embarrassment for the legal system! What about biology, anatomy and genetics? Lawyers and many others appear to have failed these subjects. This issue has nothing to do with religion- it's pure biology, and that cannot be redefined by any legal interpretation. This legal contradiction is anti-biology, anti-Darwin, etc.

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    How many more tax dollars is the State of Utah going to continue pouring into what is clearly a lost cause? It's time to let go and appreciate that there will be that many more stable families here.

  • Call2Action Thatcher, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    Appeal this decision. Don't cave in to those who wish to force immorality onto us. This decision should be resisted no matter what. The same thing needs to happen in every other state where judicial tyrants have ruled against the laws of God.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    To Bob A. Bohey of Marlborough, MA
    I couldn't have expressed it better if I tried.
    To Henelson
    At some point you are going to realize that these are not activist judges but rather judges fulfilling their constitutional duties. You are also going to realize that the tired slippery slope arguments that have been put forth since December describing all sorts of strange marital combinations are nothing more than a figment of one's imagination. Hopefully the realization comes sooner rather than later.

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    Maybe this will take Kate Kelly out of the news for a day or two. My question is why vote anymore. It doesn't matter, courts make the final decision so it is a waste of time and money to put stuff like this on a ballot. Each side should just represent in court and the judges chose. So much for a system that let's the people speak and then takes that right away from us

  • Mexican Ute mexico, 00
    June 25, 2014 12:29 p.m.

    The 14th Amendment says the following:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The other sections detail apportionment of representation, the oaths of officers who had previously been in insurrection (the Civil War), the debts raised up in the USA to fight the Civil War, and Congress's power of enforcing the amendment.

    Nothing in there about marriage. Just an invented right by judges and case law. Nowhere in the Constitution.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    So many prophets here today.
    Speaking for your God must make you feel powerful.
    Too bad for you that your losing that power to logic and equality.

    "WE the people, choose Amendment3 for our safety and happiness."

    Nope, you chose it out of animosity towards a group of folks.
    Fact is, there was no argument for safety (the courts checked) and if it makes you happy to deprive others of happiness, perhaps your right to worship a vengeful, angry, jealous God.
    I'll worship a loving God.

  • cstott Lehi, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:41 p.m.

    Cool... I am going to bring polygamy back. What other options are there now? Let's keep broadening the definition so that absolutely anything you can imagine is allowed. How cool would that be!!!!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    It was a great day on these pages when the right to pray before a public meeting was upheld. It's a great day today, too.

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:42 p.m.

    Further, look at all the gays celebrating their victory over "religion." Well, I suppose if open rebellion against God makes you happy, go for it. That kind of thing tends to prove rather.... disastrous.

    Remember,every major religion--Every. Single. One. -- Declares homosexual activity a sin or forbids it. Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and the vast majority of Christian sects all forbid it. The ones that don't have no revelation, no scripture that shows God has changed His mind.

    The above mentioned sects disagree about lots... but on this they are united. So in order to celebrate this, you are openly rebelling against God. Most of you don't care, though. You LIKE the idea of rebelling against God, right?

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:45 p.m.

    @techpubs
    "In a few more years this will apply to Polyandry and Polygamy. The right of several adults to be in love and raise a family together is basically the same as same-sex couples."

    If your previous interpretation, that 14th Amendment has nothing to do with same sex marriage, was wrong, what makes your polygamy interpretation trustworthy this time?

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    So, the LGBT Propoganda machine worked out.

    Resorting to childish name-calling, biased and unscientific "studies" to show homosexuality is natural, and shaming politicians into agreement is the new and improved way to get things done in the USA.

    God's law does not change. Neither does nature. How will these judges order biology to allow a same-sex couple the right to procreate?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    Miss me?

    So that makes, I believe, 16 or 17 states that have struck down the constitutional 'amendments' to deny gay marriage.

    Zero in favor, of denying marriage to LGBT Americans.

    Many on here will claim we are ignoring the 'will of the people.' Let me be clear, Amendment 3 passed in Utah back in 2004. The same time MA was the 1st state to allow gay marriage.

    How convenient.

    You want the will of the people? Fine. Put it back up for vote.

    'Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans support gay marriage' - By Elizabeth Stuart - DSNews - 05/20/2011

    'For the first time since Gallup started studying the issue in 1996, the polling organization found a majority of Americans favor legalizing same-sex marriage.
    Fifty-three percent of Americans answered yes to the question...'

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    June 25, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    It doesn't matter how the verdict was reached or who is saying it. It is wrong, wrong and wrong. Marriage should not be taken lightly and gender is very important as defined by the Proclamation to the World, the Family. These judges and many like them will have to stand before the Lord Jesus Christ and say why they refused to listen to the Prophets as they stated in this proclamation. Many Church members will also be required to do the same. How do you feel it is going to be when each member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are standing there waiting for your answer.

    We are closer to the second coming than ever before and with the calamaties already approaching our shores in dreadful droughts, storms and all else. Are any of you really paying attention. The Lord is giving you time to repent before he puts forth his judgment that will destroy the wicked before that great and wonderful day the Savior returns. Just as the Lord is hastening his work before his coming so is Satan and his followers.

    Thank you for speeding up his Second Coming.

  • JonathanPDX Portland, Oregon
    June 25, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    It's good to see that people will be allowed to choose their companions and be seen as equals under the law. For those who worry about the sanctity of civil marriage, let's face it, aside from the few who really work hard to make a go of things, the straight community hasn't demonstrated that their ideal of one-man-one-woman concept of civil marriage is worth defending.

    In a civil society, all members should have the same rights to share their lives with whomever they choose and be held accountable for their choices.

  • Jeff in NC CASTLE HAYNE, NC
    June 25, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    Oh, dang! "If not for the stay, the ruling would become law in the six states of the 10th Circuit's jurisdiction." I wonder if Utah knew they would be bringing marriage equality to those other 5 states by bombing their appeal. I see your ulteriour motives. Way to go Utah!

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 25, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    This is a joyous day!!! Let's celebrate equality,families and marriage.

    I see a lot of anger in some of the comments here:

    "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks ". Acts 26:14

    Why are you in such despair? Your duty is to be the best person you can be. That is our challenge as well. SSM is not, at least it shouldn't be in the way of YOUR progress or relationship with God.

    You talk about God and are afraid of him. We talk about God and we love him and because we love him we are able to forgive you and more than that, love you as our brothers and sisters. Lets go of your anger, it is poisoning your souls.

    remember 1 John4:20
    "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?".

    Congratulations to Utah!

  • Happy Liberal Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    Hooray! Love it. Now hopefully the state will wise up and quit spending our tax dollars on fighting this inevitable right.

  • SEC Rules Seminole, FL
    June 25, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    Marriage is a word that defines a union between a man and a woman. A union formed by any other should be called something else. Anything, but not the word "marriage". The issue was never about inequality of protection or rights. It was about definition. The lawyers and judges twisted it and turned into an issue about equal rights and equal protection.

    By another definition or name should they be entitled to rights and protection, equal to that as marriage? Yes.

  • nycut New York, NY
    June 25, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    This recurring response: "sad day! – a few activist judges! – will of the people!" continues to baffle.

    It's now 17 judges, multiple cases, multiple jurisdictions-- can we just go with "many" judges? Or better yet: ALL judges who've heard a "but-not-the-gays" case?

    Looking at actual national polling, can we just admit "the will of the people" supports marriage equality?

    Keep your beliefs, God's laws, moral fabric, slippery slope, end days – they're yours! And your right to your beliefs is protected by the Constitution!

    Support your opposite-sex marriages! Everyone does. It's great when people fall in love and marry and (sometimes) raise kids and stay together and enjoy equal protection of the laws that reward and strengthen loving relationships-- it makes the world a better place for everyone.

    Activist, er, several, er, ALL judges agree: You, -- here's the key point-- AND *everyone else* can practice religion as you wish, marry who you love, raise kids (or not) as you see fit-- right up to the point any of that harms someone else or runs counter to the notion that we ALL share the public square. Nothing new there.

    Really. Have some flexibility.

  • intervention slc, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    I am content to let those that oppose equality have their pity party without challenge and simply say what a great day for freedom. Have fun.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    Lane Myer:

    The APA took homosexuality out of the DSM IV based on pressure from a group of gay activists who showed up at their convention demanding it. This is the only time the DSM IV has been altered bypopular vote of the membership and without scientific evidence to support the change.

    The next year, busloads of formerly gay men showed up, much to the dismay of the APA leadership.

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    @RedShirt(s)...Possibly this decision will motivate you to earn a law degree? Therefore when you post regarding amendments and constitutional law in the future you will actually posses knowledge of subject matter.

  • mpo South Jordan, UT
    June 25, 2014 12:58 p.m.

    This is a tragic ruling.

    No matter what side of the issue you are on, you should be very alarmed that a few federal officers can overturn the will of 66% of the people of this state and dismiss us as being irrational. This is not a government by the people, it is a government ruled by the Church of Same-Sex Marriage.

  • Loud Loiterer Sandy, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:00 p.m.

    The nay-Sayers have been silenced! Freedom prevails! Your straight neighbors' marriage doesn't affect your own, so why would your gay neighbors' marriage affect YOU?? Perhaps the bible defines marriage between a man and a woman but AMERICA defines it differently. Don't confuse scripture and other religious text with the constitution. Some regions in the world (The Middle East) try to govern society with religious precepts. These regions are almost always experiencing civil unrest and I fully believe that religion dictating civil law plays a large role in that. Tolerance and Peace go hand-in-hand.

  • Seldom Seen Smith Orcutt, CA
    June 25, 2014 1:00 p.m.

    Homosexuality, like androgyny, might be an instinctive racial response to overpopulation, crowding, and stress. Both flourish when empire reaches its apogee. - Edward Abbey

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:03 p.m.

    Congratulations to thre Plaintiffs/Appellees, and to Justices Lucero and Holmes for a sound and well-argued and decided appellate opinion. Good job, Justices Lucero and Holmes -- you got it right. Interesting that Utah is putting itself in the position of being the state that will cause the recognition of same-sex marriage across the United states.

    And another interesting question -- since there is no dissention among the various federal courts concerning this issue, I am wondering whether the US Supreme Court will even take the appeal. Hopefully they will show some common sense and deny cert.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    @Frozen Fractals

    Best healthcare? Wow, where have you been, the American Healthcare system is a sham. Compared to other advanced nations we are anywhere from 20th to 40th on a number of quality and outcome matrices. America spends a higher % of our Gross Domestic Product than other nations yet the quality is lower. If you don't have insurance and you get really sick - the "best healthcare" system will own everything you've got. Best healthcare system? I don't think so!

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    I join in celebrating the good news of what one responder described as “a responsible decision by reasonable judges.” However, mocking dissenters and belittling their beliefs is equally counter to the cause of fairness, respect and equality.

  • Starry starry night Palm Springs , CA
    June 25, 2014 1:11 p.m.

    I'm stunned by the "sky is falling because my gay neighbors are getting married" comment that I find here. In every state where marriage equality has been instituted there have been no societal earthquakes, no moral floods, no family shattering upheavals. Life has gone on, just like it does everyday and the just like it did the day before these equalities have been afforded others. We are a panoramic society and a great nation because of our differences, not in spite of them. When are we going to all realize that we should mind our own business, celebrate our differences and come together where we find common ground? We have to stop hating each other for god's sake! My gay neighbor's marriage does nothing to harm my straight marriage. I wish happiness to all those couples in Utah and the rest of the country who are celebrating their unions. Love wins.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:11 p.m.

    "This isn't the will of the people." Anyone saying this needs to go back to high school and retake their US Civics class. The United States is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. That means that the bottom line isn't the people, it isn't the legislator, it isn't the president and it isn't the judiciary. It's the constitution. We have a multi tiered system of judges that determine if laws the other two branches pass are constitutional. It appears that court after court after court has decided that gay marriage bans violate the 14th amendment. If the people disagree with this, pass a constitutional amendment. The problem of course, is that you want to force a view that less than 1/2 of the population agrees with, so you'll never see a constitutional amendment. You live in a country where there are 350 million people, what makes you think that 100% of the laws should fit with your world view. That seems like a very self centered view to me.

  • forget-me-not West Valley City, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    A day of rejoicing for all who believe we were created with equal, inalienable rights!

    For others, a day to revise the 12th Article of Faith which used to read "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." Some obviously would make the following amendment, " . . . in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law unless I disagree with it."

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:12 p.m.

    "The issue was never about inequality of protection or rights. It was about definition. The lawyers and judges twisted it and turned into an issue about equal rights and equal protection.

    By another definition or name should they be entitled to rights and protection, equal to that as marriage? Yes."

    Ha! What a flat out lie. That's quite the revisionist history considering that the very language of Amendment 3 says "No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

    No, it wasn't about a definition. It was about keeping substantial legal rights, protections, and privileges from gay and lesbian couples

  • elgreco grand junction, CO
    June 25, 2014 1:14 p.m.

    So the question remains: will Utah legislators continue to waste millions of dollars of tax payer money fighting this thing or will they just get down to the business of doing some substantive legislating?

  • ReadMineFirst Ft. Collins, CO
    June 25, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    "And in another place they were heard to cry and mourn, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and had not killed and stoned the prophets, and cast them out; then would our mothers and our fair daughters, and our children have been spared, and not have been buried up in that great city Moronihah. And thus were the howlings of the people great and terrible."

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    RedWings: "The APA took homosexuality out of the DSM IV based on pressure from a group of gay activists who showed up at their convention demanding it."

    ---------

    What year was that? 1973? And they haven't voted to change it since then?

    "The full APA would go on to ratify the policy statement on April 9, 1974. But attempts to cure homosexuality would continue under a new illness inserted into the DSM as a compromise in 1974. Sexual Orientation Disturbance (SOD) defined homosexuality as an illness if an individual with same sex attractions found those attractions distressing and wanted to change. The new diagnosis served the purpose of legitimizing the practice of sexual conversion therapies, even if homosexuality per se was no longer considered an illness. The SOD diagnosis also allowed for the unlikely possibility that a person unhappy about a heterosexual orientation could seek treatment to become gay. Reflecting the realities of clinical practice, 1980′s DSM-III changed SOD to “Ego Dystonic Homosexuality” (EDH). That diagnosis was finally removed in 1987."

    27 years ago, the APA realized that being gay is not a disorder to be changed. That has not changed.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    TheWraith, 6/25 11:08 am: "Who's up for a little bingo?"

    Filled my card by noon. Didn't even need the free square. Do I get a prize?

    FrozenFractals, 6/25 12:10 pm:

    Best itemized response to silliness ever. Loved the AGW line.

    Tekakaromatagi, 6/25 12:21 pm: "Actually there was a study done by a researcher named Regnerus..."

    People are still citing the Regnerus study? So flawed even Utah tried to back away from it in its case.

    Vanceone, 6/25 12:42: "You LIKE the idea of rebelling against God, right?"

    How does one rebel against the nonexistent?

    RedWings, 6/25 12:46 pm: "How will these judges order biology to allow a same-sex couple the right to procreate?"

    Maybe in the same ways biology allows infertile hetero couples to procreate?

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

    Call2Action says:

    "The same thing needs to happen in every other state where judicial tyrants have ruled against the laws of God."

    I guess you've never read the Constitution, have you. The USA is not a theocracy.

    @Tekakaromatagi;

    Quoting the Regnerus study? You've lost any credibility now. That study has been fully debunked.

    @Hey It's Me;

    Do I get to vote on your rights? No? Then you don't get to vote on mine.

    @Mexican Ute;

    What part of "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" didn't you understand?

    @Vanceone;

    All major sects united on the issue? Nope.

    @bj-hp;

    We don't take marriage lightly; why do you think we're working so hard to be allowed to marry?

    @SEC Rules;

    Marriage also defines the union between Wine and Cheese. How many other definitions did you get wrong?

    @mpo;

    You should be thankful that a few judges can over-rule the will of 66% of the population. Mormons are about 3%.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:40 p.m.

    I'm a little confused by some of the gloating and celebration taking place in the gay community today. It is reminiscent of the celebrations by the supporters of the Roe v Wade ruling. History reminds us that hundreds of millions of Americans have never accepted abortion even though it is legal. Abortion continues to divide America and there is evidence suggesting the division is growing. Same-sex marriage will continue to divide families, churches and American society in general. A legal battle may have been won today, but I find it puzzling that anyone will find much satisfaction in celebrating something so controversial and divisive in nature. I believe we will yet need to find common ground and discover ways to recognize the rights and needs of each side in this on-going debate.

  • oragami St. George, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:41 p.m.

    @Meckofahess

    You keep suffering and holding that "iron rod". When you die and none of the promises you suffered for are forthcoming, you won't even know it! Your life will be have wasted in pursuit of an impossible dream and you won't even know it........ Man that's depressing.

  • 1 Voice orem, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:49 p.m.

    Sad day for society and their democratic rights to determine what is best for society, what is worth protecting and what is not. This was not only predicted by Senator Hatch but also scripture. We have an epidemic of minority groups forcing society to call right wrong and wrong right. Sin is sin because it goes against Gods purposes for us here on earth. His plan involves the traditional family unit (even though not perfect), it should be supported and endorsed.

    Great day for polygamous families who, based on this ruling, can claim they are discriminated against and have right to marry who they want.

  • Bruce A. Frank San Jose, CA
    June 25, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    Lane Myer, you have legitimate question. There is movement proceeding called "Convention of the States." A process outlined in the 5th Article of the Constitution and discussed in Mark Levin's book, "The Liberty Amendment" One of the suggestions is an amendment to allow a 3/5 majority of the states to negate a Supreme Court ruling. Currently we the people have no way to challenge bad decisions, that bind us by law and may not have been the intention of the congress, by the court.

  • Macfarren Dallas, TX
    June 25, 2014 1:56 p.m.

    "the 14th Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children and enjoy full protection of a state's marital laws."

    It is ironic that the Court cites the right to establish a family and raise children, while it remains an unalterable fact that two same-sex partners can not naturally establish a family between themselves.

    "A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely on the sex of the persons in the marriage union."

    So is the court saying that the state may deny a marriage license based on the sex of the partners AND other factors? What would those other factors be, particularly since the court has already state that it is a "fundamental right to marry?"

    This wording of this decision is self-contradictory.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    1 Voice: "Great day for polygamous families who, based on this ruling, can claim they are discriminated against and have right to marry who they want."

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

    Go read the decision. This idea is totally debunked (by reason and law) in it. No more slippery slope arguments. The judges blew these out of the water with their ruling.

    Go find out for yourself why polygamy, incest, child marriages, etc will not be considered with this decision.

  • Nom de plume Sugar House, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    @ Clarissa: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

    Does this ring a bell?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    @Bruce A. Frank

    One of the suggestions is an amendment to allow a 3/5 majority of the states to negate a Supreme Court ruling. Currently we the people have no way to challenge bad decisions, that bind us by law and may not have been the intention of the congress, by the court.

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

    Sure we do, it's called the Amendment Process as outlined in Article V of the Constitution. We the People have done it. Look at Amendments 13,14, and 15 for example.

    The Supreme Court cannot and should not be beholden to public opinion. Their job is to ensure the law is equally and fairly applied. To protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. As someone so beautifully said "Democracy is 3 wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner"

    You dislike a Supreme Court ruling, change the Constitution.

    Kind of funny the Conservative Champion Mark Levin using "States" rather than people. There are more states that are Red, but most of the biggest States are Blue. So why not combine the best of both worlds and amend the Constitution as amended.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:08 p.m.

    @Meckofahess
    "Best healthcare? "

    I meant in terms of things like global life expectancy, not as a statement about American healthcare which technically I would still consider better than it was 100 years ago but would agree with you that it could be much better. Sorry for being unclear, I was running into the word limit.

    "I find it puzzling that anyone will find much satisfaction in celebrating something so controversial and divisive in nature."

    Divisive and the result I want is preferred to divisive and against the way I want. Unlike abortion, same-sex marriage is increasing significantly in support and is more likely to follow a similar trend to interracial marriage (albeit it not quite as high a level) than it is to abortion.

    @Macfarren
    "the right to establish a family and raise children, while it remains an unalterable fact that two same-sex partners can not naturally establish a family between themselves."

    Hasn't kept elderly/infertile couples from marrying, so why should it prevent same-sex couples?

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:13 p.m.

    Bruce A. Frank: "Currently we the people have no way to challenge bad decisions, that bind us by law and may not have been the intention of the congress, by the court."

    -------

    Of course we do. It is called an amendment to the constitution. We call a convention (or the congress votes for an amendment) and the states pass said amendment, adding it to the constitution. It has happened before and it will happen again. It has a very high threshold to reach before this can happen, but we do not want every disputed decision to become an amendment, do we? Over 200 years we have had our constituion and we have only added 17 amendments after the bill of right (the first ten).

    The SCOTUS rules per the constitution. If we add an amendment that states that we do not want gay marriage, after the SCOTUS rules in favor, they too must obey the will of the people.

    I think you would have a hard time doing so, though, because it looks like the younger generation has very few problems with SSM and they would reverse this amendment when we older, more biased citizens die.

    SSM is coming.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    June 25, 2014 2:22 p.m.

    Pickemright says – “Forward---forward to the second coming. Hang on for the ride. After which we will see who is left standing as families.”

    I always find this hilarious. You’re banking on something happening at an undetermined time to make your case, supported by nothing but words. You’ll pass on from this life and it still won’t have happened. Your opportunity to smugly tell me “I told you so!” (just like Jesus!) will never arrive. What a shame.

    Vanceone says – “You LIKE the idea of rebelling against God, right?”

    I absolutely LOVE the idea of rebelling against the easily-manipulated, rigidly religious mindset that plagues church pews across the country, but especially in Utah.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    June 25, 2014 2:23 p.m.

    RedWings says – “God's law does not change. Neither does nature. How will these judges order biology to allow a same-sex couple the right to procreate?”

    The same way they ordered biology to allow my sterile parents to procreate . . the magic of adoption! Crazy what they can do nowadays with technology and whatnot!

    Mpo says – “This is a tragic ruling.”

    I’m thinking the word “tragic” is best reserved for use in cases where a ruling adversely affects anyone. No straight people will turn gay, and no hetero will be denied the right to marry because of this ruling. To whom is it “tragic”? Will your life be any different than it was a year ago?

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    June 25, 2014 2:24 p.m.

    Mexican Ute
    12:29 p.m. June 25, 2014,

    The drafters and ratifiers of the Constitutional language didn't realize SSM was there either -- and in fact neither did the Supreme Court in 1971 (after Loving) in Baker v Nelson.

    It's much easier nowadays to get PC judges to discover something in the Constitution rather than go through the messy process of amending it the way it's historically been done, as with the ERA and 19th Amendment.

    I'm waiting for brave judges to stand up like the little boy did in the Emperor's New Clothes and make decisions based on the actual intent of the Constitution and not the Leftist view of what it should be. Unfortunately it's much easier to go with the herd.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:25 p.m.

    Gay people are and always will be a part of the family unit! I am so tired of people bringing up the issues of families and treating us as if we don't belong! My parents, sisters, brothers , cousins, aunts, uncles and many more, all give me support. They may not agree with everything, but they allow myself and my partner to be a part of our wonderful family! We are not a threat to any of their marriages or to our family unit and it is extremely insulting to hear people say that we are somehow destroying or hurting the family unit! Our constitution does give us freedom of religion. That freedom also belongs to gay people and our relationships , to us, are as sacred as any Mormon marriage. Because we are a minority does not make our beliefs any less important! We are not attacking the beliefs of anyone, but we certainly don't have to accept beliefs that degrade and demean us! I think some people should have the pleasure of being on our side of it. My partner and I have been together 15 years. It does mean something! He has made my life so much better!

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    What is missing here is a look back at the 17 judges who have now come to the same conclusion about the Constitutionality of States blocking SSM. Who appointed these jurists? I have no idea but reason would tell us they would be a mix of Republican and Democratic appointments. If that is correct then it isn't just "activist" judges who are responsible.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    June 25, 2014 2:32 p.m.

    "While many governments and well-meaning individuals have redefined marriage, the Lord has not." Elder Neil L. Andersen, 'Spiritual Whirlwinds'

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 25, 2014 2:36 p.m.

    I see lots of confusion in these posts that can be cleared up if we all follow a standard set of definitions. To assist in the dialog I am willing to define some of these contentious terms:

    Activist Judge = You didn't rule they way I thought you should have.
    Strict Constitutionalist = You DID rule they way I thought you should have.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    @Frozen Fractals:

    Thank you for clarifying your comments about healthcare. I concur with your latest assessment. I also think you make a valid assertion in your second point. While I am not in favor of changing the legal definition of marriage, I do believe all Americans in a legal committed relationship deserve equal treatment under the law in all essential benefits (inheritance, hospital visitation, taxation, etc). I believe it would be in society's best interest to find solutions that decrease divisiveness and promote good will. I personally think something like a legalized same-sex partnership makes more sense for gay couples - but then that is controversial in the eyes of many too. I think we may just have to agree to disagree agreeably on some things but treat our fellow beings the way God teaches us to do - on both sides.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:52 p.m.

    I issue this challenge AGAIN to those who oppose SSM.

    Find ONE SSM couple who does NOT support traditional marriage. Show me ONE SSM couple who wishes to force heterosexuals to be in a SSM. Show me ONE SSM couple who is actively trying to tear down your traditional marriage.

    Go ahead - get back to me when you find any of the above.

  • skeptic Phoenix, AZ
    June 25, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    It is dastardly to mix god in man's petty politics. This all has nothing to do with god and everything todo with godless politics and corporate management.

  • greg14952 Provo, UT
    June 25, 2014 2:58 p.m.

    In less than a year, every Federal District Court to consider the issue has reached the same conclusion in thoughtful and thorough opinions – laws prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages are unconstitutional! I don't know what more the State of Utah needs to see before it gives up on this issue and stops wasting millions of dollars in a fight it's sure to lose. Where's the fiscal sanity when it comes to issues like this?

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    June 25, 2014 3:09 p.m.

    Macfarren asks "What would those other factors be?"

    If one or both of them were already married to other people or were underage, or mentally incompetent to enter into any contract. But I think you knew that already.

  • Nelson D Garland, UT
    June 25, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    What we have here is a war of beliefs. Both sides believe they are right, and both sides seek to exercise dominion over the other. The simple truth is, and many are just too darn daft to see it, is that no one person, or a thousand, or a million, or even billions, have the right to tell any one person or group of persons what they should believe, and how they should live, if that person or persons are in no way infringing upon, or in any way denying the the rights of another. No majority has the right to rule over a minority, and no minority has the right to rule of a majority by means of the law, which is nothing more nor less than collective force. If you chose to believe a certain way, and live according to that belief you are within your Constitutional and God given rights to do so, but as soon as you begin to exercise dominion over your fellow beings by use of the law, you have exceeded your rights and breached your contract with God, and reduced your fellow beings to be the slaves of your will.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 25, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    USU-Logan
    "But I predict people like... wrz are going to cry foul, claiming active judges again."

    Not active judges... stupid judges.

    The 14th Amendment simply says: '...states are not to deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.' This means, once a law is passed by a state, the law is to apply to all equally. In Utah the marriage law is one man/woman. That applies to all. If someone wants to marry they must choose only one person, of the opposite sex... not several persons, not a sibling, not one of their children, not a close relative, etc. That's equal protection of the law. The judge has no authority to decide whether a state's law is good or bad based on opinion.

    @USU-Logan"

    "A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons..."

    There you have it... you can now marry your son, your daughter, a close relative, and perhaps even a sub-teen. Thankfully the judge didn't include marriage to your favorite pet.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    June 25, 2014 3:15 p.m.

    the US Supreme Court is going to have to settle this - the lower courts are nothing but activist courts.

  • Bruce A. Frank San Jose, CA
    June 25, 2014 3:30 p.m.

    MtnDewer, you missed my point. It is not likely that congress would put themselves on the line to attempt a controversial amendment to the Constitution. They are all contaminated by the "inside the beltway" syndrome. And as a whole, there is little difference between parties in DC. Both now embrace the "more power larger government" philosophy. Article 5 is the method for the states to accomplish amendments. The Founding Fathers realized that congress, if corrupt, was not likely to amend the constitution to bring their corruption into line. This is a convention of states that write proposals that are submitted to the state legislatures for vote. Three fourths of the states ratification is a high hurtle, as it should be. We cannot be dependent on who or which party is in control of the congress and the courts. Such a suggestion to amend the constitution to allow states to nullify a Supreme Court Ruling would put the power where it should be, in the hands of the states. The problem has become the court rewriting law (in general) rather than referring unconstitutional ones back to Congress.

  • Rusty Saint George, UT
    June 25, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    The real answer to this question is to get the Government out of the Marriage business. It's just another way of controlling "The People". Let's fight for religious freedom and allow people to worship how they want. This effort to force people of faith to believe and worship another way will not stop until special groups have every religion teaching and preaching in a way contrary to their beliefs. The solution is easy and constitutional, get the government out of the marriage contracting business. When did the Federal Government start mandating a written contract of marriage, outside of ones own religion? HMMMMMMM!

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 25, 2014 3:41 p.m.

    Redwings say's: "God's law does not change. Neither does nature. "
    Yet religions especially those with someone directly speaking for God be it pope or prophet change it occasionally?

    Nature by it's very existence changes to survive, some animals even as high as mammal's change sexes when the opposite isn't available or at other times in their lives.

    The cursing of those with whom you disagree was one of the top ten unlike being gay which is barely mentioned, so why are the pious devotee's out there so quick to curse others?

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    June 25, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    Very similar "arguments" were used by Utah during polygamy trials in the late 1800s.

    God said - neither has seemed to work out very well for Utah - just sayin'.

  • well informed Salt Lake, UT
    June 25, 2014 3:53 p.m.

    Can the Federal Appeals Court rule against mother nature?

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:01 p.m.

    @wrz
    "14th Amendment simply....The judge has no authority to decide whether a state's law is good or bad based on opinion. "
    "you can now marry your son, your daughter, a close relative, and perhaps even a sub-teen. Thankfully the judge didn't include marriage to your favorite pet."

    Apparently you believe highly regarded judges with extraordinary credentials are wrong about 14th Amendment, while you, with no legal credential, are right about constitution. I wonder what are the odds?

    If your argument is so compelling, I wonder why the defendants of DOMA and Prop 8 did not use it in court. I also wonder why state attorneys of NJ, NM, OH, UT, OK, KY, VA, IL, TX, TN, MI, IN, AR, ID, OR, PA, WI did not use such argument to persuade the judges. I also wonder why the opponents of SSM have not even won a single time in court since Windsor. It is now 22-0 and the SSM winning number just keeps going up by the month.

    Is it because your so-called "argument" is only a sensational claim, but can not stand the scrutiny in the court of law and can not win?

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:07 p.m.

    I am ashamed to admit that I was among the 66% who voted for Amendment 3. I have regretted it ever since, but as I look back on the events of my life, I can see how I was emotionally manipulated to vote the way I did.

    You see, I voted for the law even though I knew that I was gay. I was in love with a wonderful man, but we both told ourselves that we loved our church more. We did everything together--even attending church, but we remained celibate because it was important for us to be obedient. We believed in obedience over happiness.

    We both remained silent whenever anyone brought up the topic of same-sex marriage or anything relating to gay rights. We didn't want to let anyone know our secret. We even took that secret with us to the ballots and allowed it to influence our votes. Another reason I voted for Amendment 3 was because I knew the majority of people at work and church were voting the same way; I was a sheep.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:14 p.m.

    Shortly after the vote, my life spiraled downward in many ways. I was laid off at work. My boss actually told me to not take it personally, but the company needed to downsize, and I was chosen because I was the only single male in the company; everyone else needed their jobs to support their families.

    My best friend--the man I loved--was soon diagnosed with cancer. We fought hard and racked up incredible medical bills to fight the illness, but we lost him within the year. I really didn't have anyone to properly comfort me because we had kept our love a secret. I was lost, and I convinced myself that I was being punished for voting away my own rights.

    Well, ten years later, life is much better. I am finally honest about who I am. I still love my church, but I realize that God does not want me to be alone or love somebody in secret. If the vote were today, I would definitely make a different choice. I know many others who would do the same.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:15 p.m.

    wrz: " "states are not to deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.' This means, once a law is passed by a state, the law is to apply to all equally."

    No it doesn't. It means that ALL laws (federal and state) must treat ALL citizens equally. Somewhere in the constitution it also states that the fed. constitution is the supreme law of the land. The judges talk about "simularily situated" citizens and how you cannot allow heterosexuals who are simularily situated to homosexuals to marry and then ban homosexuals from marrying for the same reasons. That is equality under the law.

    If you had read the ruling, you would understand that they plainly stated why you cannot marry your son, daughter, etc. That slippery slope has been closed for the season. Reason and law won out per their decision, so you can drop that illogical argument any time now.

    Take time to read it. It is about 65 pages, but it will be worth your time and education.

  • Abinadis friend Boise, Idaho
    June 25, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    They may have won this battle. They will not win the final one. It will take place in the next life. Respect from the rest of the human race will never be won.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    June 25, 2014 4:18 p.m.

    @wrz wrote "'A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons...'

    There you have it... you can now marry your son, your daughter, a close relative, and perhaps even a sub-teen. Thankfully the judge didn't include marriage to your favorite pet."

    The key word is "solely".

    Are laws against marrying the underage, the already-married, and one's close relatives still in force? Of course they are. Do those laws have rational bases? Of course they do. And it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

  • MaxxFordham OREM, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:19 p.m.

    Well then 49 other states had better be treated this same way! It looks like this is going supreme now.

    Apparently the "it takes both sexes to best raise a family" argument doesn't hold water legally. I understand why it does for religious reasoning, but as much as I wanted the state to not have to deal with gay marriages, this logic doesn't quite work, because it's not like if we win then gay people will have to go marry someone of the opposite sex just so that their family would be raised better. Right? So I get why that argument doesn't fly legally.

    Gay people probably won't do that in churches either. If their church (such as the LDS in much of this state's case) says they just can't act on their gay tendencies, and if they actually try to stay clean accordingly, they'd probably sooner be celibate than marry straightly. And a straight person won't marry a gay one. Right?

    What if we had just not had any sort of amendment, etc., but had just been quietly denying anyway, so that there was nothing for a judge to rule against?

  • sid 6.7 Holladay, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    @ Meckofahess:

    The only reason Abortion sill attempts to divide our Country is because of people like you and your ilk still let it. If you don't agree with abortion then don't have an abortion. If you don't think two people of the same sex should get married then don't marry someone of your sex. Why do you people waste so much time worrying about somebody else's life? Take care of your own house and let others worry about theirs. It's not up to you or your counterparts to be Judge, Jury and Executioner for God. I'm pretty sure he/she has things under control. Only God will judge not you or anybody else.

    I choose a God who want's all of his children to be happy, I choose the God who loves us all, I choose a God who wants all in this world to feel love, joy, companionship and peace. I choose the God who says Judge ye not lest ye be judged. I will fight for the rights of all of my brothers and sisters.

    I choose God.

    P.S. I did miss you Pegan.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:22 p.m.

    @Patriot
    "the US Supreme Court is going to have to settle this - the lower courts are nothing but activist courts."
    This SC is one of the most activist, unfounded SC in history. Look no further than Citzens United or Bush v Gore. Both rulings stood on shaky grounds as per constituional experts. Most of the courts to rule on SSM are conservative placed appointments.

  • kranny utah, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    I'd like to hear from the children who have been raised by same-gender parents their entire childhood. How has it impacted your lives?

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    Patriot, there is no reason for the Supreme Court to hear the case. The lower courts are unanimous in their interpretation.

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    Marriage by definition is a union between a man and a woman. This is the way it has been from the beginning. The man comes along and applies something to the 14th amendment which was never the intention of the authors. Then the people said it must be so, so let's make it so and make a "marriage" between two people, sexuality not withstanding, and call it good, call freedom, and call it sexual equality. I wonder if the 14th amendment can be clarified and taken back to its original meaning before this madness goes any further.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:32 p.m.

    No one 'Believes' that LGBT Americans exist.

    Simply put, we do.

    As such, the crux of the issue will come down to what can you support? What can you prove?

    That a 'God' that some believe (not even the same ones, on the same topic, from some people) will bring the '2nd coming' over gay marriage? Which, has NOT happened in 2014 years so far.

    Or, that gays exist? And the denial of legal protections of marriage, causes them factual harm. Like denying them Hospital visitation, etc. Which, has factually happened over the years.

    Now I don't pretend to be a religious scholar but I am pretty sure which one wins out in 'Belief Vs. Reality'.

    You have God.

    We, have Ellen.

    And I can prove, that Ellen exists.

  • Aggie5 Kuna, ID
    June 25, 2014 4:34 p.m.

    A circuit court judge is one thing. But god is a whole different type of judge.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:38 p.m.

    @Meckofahess;

    Your last comment seems fairly reasonable; except that Amendment 3 prohibited ANY such recognition. Marriage is such an easy word to use for everybody; it doesn't hurt any straight couples if gay couples use it too.

    @Nelson D;

    We don't want "dominion" over you or your religions, we just want to be treated equally. Thats all. We are using the law to ensure that we will be. The fact of the matter is you're using your "contract with god" to violate the rights of others.

    @wrz;

    I'll bet those judges are all way, way smarter than either you or I.

    "...based solely upon the sex of the persons..." - there are other, good reasons not to marry your brother, sister, mother or father. Note the word "solely" in that decision? Do you know what "solely" means?

    @well informed;

    Does "mother nature" even have marriage?

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 25, 2014 4:42 p.m.

    @Rusty,

    "This effort to force people of faith to believe and worship another way "

    Can you provide one verifiable example of any effort to force people of faith to believe and worship another way within these United States? Just One?

    "When did the Federal Government start mandating a written contract of marriage, outside of ones own religion?"

    Can you provide one verifiable example of the Federal Government requiring anyone to marry outside of their own religion once the state has issued the marriage license? Just One?

  • cougs108 South Jordan, UT
    June 25, 2014 4:48 p.m.

    1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

    2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

    3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

    4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

    5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

    6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

    7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 5:01 p.m.

    cougs108, I think all 7 of those apply to the Tea Party. Those hardly apply to citizens trying to raise families and do the best they can.

    Still have yet to see the perfect family.

    People do the best they can and deserve the rights afforded all citizens.

  • Oh, please! Saint George, UT
    June 25, 2014 5:09 p.m.

    Amen to cougs108. This is a sad, awful day for Utah.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 25, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    I am so not looking forward to Utah taking it place along side Virginia in the history books as the states on the wrong side of history.

  • djofraleigh raleigh, NC
    June 25, 2014 5:49 p.m.

    The government has changed the definition of marriage in the USA under pressure from special interest groups who have successfully swayed the popular opinion of the young via media and media personalities. The mantra is: you should be able to marry anyone you want.

    There's an irony in this considering marriage is on the decline as couples co-habitat.

    There's a greater historical irony in that strongly Mormon Utah was forced by the government and popular pressure to forego polygamy. (is the government still trying to mess with the LDS church? LOL)

    So, let me ask, will polygamy make a return via the same route gay marriage did? I'm not just talking about Mormons, but is that next. Face it, in the world, which is about half Muslim, polygamy is, and has been allowed for over a thousand years.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 25, 2014 6:08 p.m.

    @ Aggie5
    " A circuit court judge is one thing. But god is a whole different type of judge."

    Let me answer you with Matthew 7:11:
    "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?"

    Many of you who oppose SSM do so based on "your interpretation' of what you perceive as God's intentions. Yet, others (straight) support SSM because they see it as a vindication long overdue to all children of God.

    Have you thought how many children of God have been made escape goats because of this type of attitude?

    Have you thought that may be "you" are being tested in your capacity to love?

    Personally, I am a gay man who loves God and feel his presence in my life every day. And his presence is beautifully loving and NOT scary as some portrait it.

    (Pagan, I have thought of you many times. Welcome back)

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 25, 2014 6:28 p.m.

    To anyone worried about this leading to polygamy, marrying animals and children and all other sorts of combinations---please read the court briefs. Your concerns are addressed there. Short answer: It won't.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 6:36 p.m.

    Djo: Your last sentence answers your own question. Islam has been around for "a thousand years" (considerably more, really) and the world is "about half Muslim" (not quite, really). All of that and the world is still spinning and it hasn't hurt you or me. If we get gay marriage and polygamy, what business is it of mine (or yours) anyway??

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    June 25, 2014 6:37 p.m.

    @kranny
    There is plenty of studies and research out there on that subject if you care to know its not hard to find.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 25, 2014 7:07 p.m.

    @USU-Logan:
    "Apparently you believe highly regarded judges with extraordinary credentials are wrong about 14th Amendment..."

    SCOTUS has reversed itself several times over the years. Are they highly regarded judges?

    @Understands Math:
    "The key word is 'solely.' Are laws against marrying the underage, the already-married, and one's close relatives still in force? Of course they are."

    If a state can make a law against underage, already married, close relative, etc., marriages, it should be able to make a law against SSM. Else we have (gasp) discrimination! Court ordered discrimination. The judge erred in not thinking through what he decided re the 14th Amendment and/or used personal opinion.

    @GZE:
    "... there is no reason for the Supreme Court to hear the case. The lower courts are unanimous in their interpretation."

    The Supreme Court will likely not hear the case... because the judges don't want to be accused of causing the death of marriage and our society.

    @Ranch
    "Do you know what 'solely' means?"

    It means the judge has taken upon himself the authority to decide who can marry whom. The judge erred. That authority rests with the State.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    June 25, 2014 7:15 p.m.

    @Tiago:
    "To anyone worried about this leading to polygamy, marrying animals and children and all other sorts of combinations---please read the court briefs. Your concerns are addressed there. Short answer: It won't."

    The courts can't approve one aberration of marriage (SSM) and not also, by the same logic, authorize any and all other types of marriages. The judge in this case has made a huge error in introducing discrimination in his judgement.

    And I don't even have to read the ruling.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 25, 2014 7:24 p.m.

    @Really???;

    I'm am so sorry for your loss, but I just can't understand how you could have possibly voted for Amendment 3.

    @kranny;

    Google: Zach Wahls. He was raised by gay parents.

    @Serenity;

    I guess it was wrong for man to define as marriage the union of wine and cheese too.

    What "original meaning" could "Equality" have other than "Equality"?

    @Aggie5;

    God is a whole different type of judge because he's fictional.

    @wrz;

    The judge did his job, as he is supposed to do.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    June 25, 2014 8:10 p.m.

    @ wrz: Unlike with same-sex marriage, there are legally valid reasons to limit marriage involving minors (who are developmentally immature and therefore unable to enter into any kind of contract, including marriage), close relatives (which increases the risk of birth defects), and polygamy (promoting monogamy - which is based on tradition and may be challenged in court, and could possibly be found to be a right providing it is possible to find legal work-arounds for issues such as inheritance rights, medical decision making, taxation, custody issues in cases of divorce, etc.).

    Finding that there is not a legally valid reason to prohibit same-sex marriage does not automatically mean there are no legally valid reasons for prohibiting other relationships.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 8:14 p.m.

    The tea party freedom applied by courts.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    June 25, 2014 8:14 p.m.

    the federal courts and federal governments are currently on a path against states rights as well as anti-consumer. (See Aereo ruling). it is shameful the feds dictate everything to the states against voters wishes.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    June 25, 2014 8:28 p.m.

    Two judges living outside the state overturn an election from 2004; I voted for Mr. Obama in 2008, and I regret that today. Yes, it is true that the stock market has nearly tripled since he has been in office, and other good things are going on, yet this blurs the line between right and wrong. Next, we will say that polgamy has to be legal because you can't favor the number 2 in a marriage and deny a marriage of 10 persons their constitional right. In other words, chaos is the future. Law suit is the future. The Bible is a better book to follow than the Constitution, the former asks for obedience and going the extra mile and being one with community. Now we see people living by the law suit and growing their cause by judges. God allows us all to choose, and there can be no neutrals, you either follow Prophets Peter and Paul and the Apostle Joseph Smith, or not.

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    June 25, 2014 8:40 p.m.

    This is not a game for either the pros and the cons. Gov Herbert's reference to this issue "is like a game" is ridiculous.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 25, 2014 8:56 p.m.

    A great day for equality and marriage. Congratulations, America, on continuing to grow!

    @ well informed

    "Can the Federal Appeals Court rule against mother nature?"

    That’s religion’s specialty.

    @ Meckofahess

    A few days ago I was reviewing the comments to a Nov. 2008 story about Prop 8 passing. Like today, there was "much satisfaction in celebrating something so controversial and divisive in nature."

    @ Rusty

    "This effort to force people of faith to believe and worship another way will not stop until special groups have every religion teaching and preaching in a way contrary to their beliefs."

    Your fears are unfounded. In fact, today’s opinion and several of the district court opinions specifically address this mistaken notion to reassure believers. See p. 60 of today’s opinion for an example.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 25, 2014 8:56 p.m.

    @Rusty: "The real answer to this question is to get the Government out of the Marriage business."

    Fine and good. You get married by your minister or priest. But you get no government benefits or protections. Wife wants husbands last name? File a name change petition in court. Mutual Power of Attorney? See a lawyer to get the forms drawn up. Family health coverage? Nope, no legal relationship, no family coverage. Inheritance at death? Nope, that is gone, too. And on and on and on.

    Meanwhile, next door at the Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarian Church, the United Church of Christ, the Liberal and Conservative Jewish congregations and about 70 more church groups, gays and lesbians are busy getting married because those religious groups recognize gay marriage already.

    @Redwings: "God's law does not change. Neither does nature."

    Nature did not get that memo. Scientists have documented same-sex courtship, mating, pair-bonding and even parenting in about 1,500 species of animals, and have studied it extensively in about 500.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    June 25, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    @Really. I'm sorry you lost someone you loved. But his cancer had nothing to do with the way you voted. If that we're so, many other peoples lives would have spiraled out of control in a similar way. Be kind to yourself. Hang onto what you know to be true deep in your heart.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    June 25, 2014 9:02 p.m.

    "To be on the wrong side of history", let's see, religious people live longer, so we may be the ones doing the writing and restoring order and beauty and art. And does anyone really care what a historian writes when we follow the Bible and God? There is a reason why no candidate ran on same gender marriage in 1992, 1892, nor in 1792. Are we going to now say that all history is bad? Don't say "wrong side of history" say you want to re-write history to your preference. It is almost as though we have now reached the point Dostoevsky foresaw when he said the secular elite would say, "There is no crime. There is no sin. There is only hunger." And to continue from Elder Maxwell, "Indeed, there is hunger, but there is also crime, and there is surely sin, and we cannot really treat one effectively and ignore the other two. " (A Time to Choose, page 67)

  • MaxxFordham OREM, UT
    June 25, 2014 9:03 p.m.

    @ Ranch:

    Actually, no, not true. God is NOT fictional.

  • MaxxFordham OREM, UT
    June 25, 2014 9:10 p.m.

    Pagan, you guys do exist, certainly. But that doesn't mean that people "don't believe you do." If someone knows something, that includes lesser levels of acceptance like believing. (I mean it like this: if you're 40 years old now, then you've still lived for 20 years and 30 years and 39 years, as well as the 40 years.)

    Even if people did not know you existed, they could still *just* believe it.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    June 25, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    To the majority of the voters of Utah who believe that God established marriage as a covenant relationship between Himself, a man and a woman, this inane ruling makes absolutely no sense. Unfortunately we are victims of unconstitutional judicial malfeasance. If same sex couples choose to create a legal relationship, please don't call it marriage. It's a sad day when America's legal system is reduced to a farce by a very small minority and corrupt judges. This is no victory for anyone. God cannot look on sin with any allowance, there are no favors being granted here.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    June 25, 2014 9:58 p.m.

    Jesus shed tears of sadness today. How can he forgive them, for they no not what they are doing to his sacred covenant of marriage.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    June 25, 2014 9:58 p.m.

    I guess it is a good attribute to never quit fighting, and to never give up.
    However, what in the world is going to happen here in Utah when the appeal process has finally been exhausted, and SSM is proclaimed to be the law of the land in America?
    It is not sounding as though many will turn to kindness, does it?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 25, 2014 10:06 p.m.

    @PLM:

    This ruling has absolutely nothing to do with your religious beliefs and doctrines and has everything to do with legal protections afforded couples under state and federal law.

    Utah voters made legal relationships not called marriage illegal when they passed Amendment 3 a decade ago. The plaintiffs in this case were not left with the option of an alternative relationship. And the voters of Utah where hoist on their own petard.

    Two questions:

    1. How large does a minority have to be before they are allowed to have full civil rights? The GLBT population is about 2% of the US population. Does that not qualify? Before you answer, take a quick look at some demographics, where you might find that Mormons are also 2% of the US population.

    2. You claim all the judges involved in this case were "corrupt." Do you have documentation on this claim? They are a diverse bunch, appointed by Reagan, both Bush I and Bush II, as well as Clinton and Obama. If they are actually corrupt it would be good if you could detail the information.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:12 p.m.

    How come the same comments about how great this news is (and it is...) are still in place now that the headline has been changed to read "Utah plans to appeal..". That move is not a great thing; it is a petty, vindictive waste of state resources. Was the headline and story change with the same comments a mistake? Or what?

  • ThinksIThink SEATTLE, WA
    June 25, 2014 10:14 p.m.

    I'm encouraged that our society continues to make advance morally. In the 1960's America acknowledged the immoral treatment of blacks. Over the past few years Americans have shown a deeper morality by supporting equality for gay individuals. As if often the case, those pounding the pulpit proclaiming God's will the loudest are the furthest from truth and justice.

    I'm hoping that we continue to move away from our immoral past, our misguided values, and our proven false ideas about what God wants us to do, and that we continue our march towards being a more moral country.

  • Clarissa Layton, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:19 p.m.

    I'm so proud of our Governor and all our other representatives for continuing the good fight! I am happy to see them use my tax money in a worthy cause. If the Supreme Court condones gay marriage after all that can be and has been done, we will at least know we did our best to protect traditional marriage.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:20 p.m.

    Those who compare gay marriage to interracial marriage merely prove they are not smart enough to distinguish between melanin and genitals.

    Its a sad day when not-smart people set national policy.

  • Spellman789 Syracuse, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:37 p.m.

    It is sad how people are so excited about the further promoting and legalization of immorality. It sadly will not end there, it will only get worse.

  • snowman Provo, UT
    June 25, 2014 10:39 p.m.

    Don't get me wrong, I have both friends and family who are gay, but what makes them thing that they deserve special rights?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 25, 2014 11:03 p.m.

    @snowman:

    Couples who are married get about 1,300 rights, benefits, and protections provided by law simply by purchasing a marriage license.

    Couples who are not married get none of those rights automatically, and can only get a handful of them if they spend money on lawyers for things like mutual power of attorney and such.

    Hetero couples can marry or not.

    Gay couples, many of whom have long-standing committed relationships, cannot under any circumstances enter into marriage and have those 1,300 rights, benefits, and protections.

    Who has special rights here? The Federal Government refused to recognize the marriage of Edith Windsor and Thea Spayer. When Spayer passed away, her estate passed to her wife, Edith, but the taxes were over $300,000. When their marriage was recognized last year in the Supreme Court ruling that overturned DOMA, Edith Windsor got the same tax benefit as any surviving spouse.

    Not special benefits. The same benefits.

    This is about special rights. And now same-sex couples can have the exact same special rights as their straight neighbors.

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    June 25, 2014 11:18 p.m.

    I am thrilled and happy about today's decision. I can now proudly say that Salt Lake City is my home town and Utah is my home state. This is a great day and it keeps getting better. Soon love will win over in ALL the states. A big shout out to Indiana as well.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    June 25, 2014 11:27 p.m.

    Good, Utah should appeal. Gays can love, visit, live etc already, and I have nothing against gays marrying in those places where tax payers etc. (We the People) have bowed to powerful Special Interest groups and believe misinforming propaganda, but it's sad that oppressive etc. judges are refusing the rights of clear thinking Americans who don't wish to legally promote (legally enforce)marriages and lifestyles that are not crucial for humanity and are harmful. It's also sad that those pushing a dishonest homosexual agenda are also employed to misinform about homosexual agendas and to promote hate against others (especially religious minorities, as they have done in past centuries). I hope Utah dares stand and help encourage other free voices.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 26, 2014 12:52 a.m.

    Nothing less than equality, because the wording of Amendment 3 banned any kind of legal relationship between same gender couples.

    There can be no negotiation if "defenders of traditional marriage" fail to meet halfway.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:11 a.m.

    @ Clarissa

    Traditional marriage isn't going anywhere. Same-sex couple being married does nothing to harm or diminish anybody else's traditional marriage and therefore it does not need protecting. The appeals are a disturbing waste of money.

  • Two For Flinching Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:13 a.m.

    @ snowman

    What special rights are they getting? Heterosexual people already enjoy the right to marry the love of their life. Same-sex couples are being rewarded what everybody else already has...

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 26, 2014 4:30 a.m.

    Should the Governor decide to appeal, the cost of that travesty of justice should not come from the State's budget. If he wants to "do the deed" (and try to deny Utah citizens their Constitutional rights) then get like-followers to fund it. Set up a separate fund that people can contribute to (without otherwise reducing their true tax liability) and let them bear the cost. Don't waste the State's money on it and don't make Utah's citizens pay the price of the perfidy.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    June 26, 2014 5:27 a.m.

    You know... If you're going to flip a story on its head and completely change the headline of it, you should just create a new story. This story already had numerous comments from when the original story was, "Utah Cannot Deny Right To Marry Based On Gender -- Appeals Court Rules."

    Now, looking at it after you've changed the slant to be about the pending appeal, without knowing about the previous version one wonders why all the celebratory comments about the Court's ruling are at top. I realize that journalistic integrity, consistency, and page layout are not your primary missions, Deseret News, but really.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 26, 2014 5:35 a.m.

    The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in 14 cases over the years that marriage is a fundamental right. In all these recent cases regarding same sex marriage, evidence of harm to opponents is lacking, whereas evidence of harm to gay families is substantial.

    Re:CounterIntell

    "“I fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up and speak up against discrimination against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, I see the right to marriage as a civil rights issue. You cannot have rights for one segment of the population, or one group of people, and not for everybody. Civil rights and equal rights must be for all of God's children.”
    I'm pretty sure Congressman John Lewis, who marched alongside MLK can tell the difference.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    June 26, 2014 5:45 a.m.

    With male-male marriage, the sex-partner per year count is not expected to be reduced by the title "marriage". Apparently this word will hence forth not mean anything.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    June 26, 2014 5:50 a.m.

    @ snowman

    What special rights are those?

    @ Hutterite

    The DN seems to have had a strategy in place for this event - one designed to diffuse and distract the celebration with a peppering of articles - and a headline change - all in effect saying, "Not so fast!" And yet I woke up with a big smile on my face this morning.

    One step closer...

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    June 26, 2014 6:43 a.m.

    It is a sad day to see the immorality perpetrated by those who oppose same sex marriage. They bear false witness, which seems to me one of the more egregious sins pointed out repeated in the Christian Bible.

    And the current state of heterosexual marriage, in which so many marriages fail, has nothing whatsoever to do with same sex marriage. We may argue endlessly about why this occurs, but just look to the states in which divorce is rampant and the cause may be discovered (hint: most are in the deep South). Same sex marriage has nothing to do with the current state of marriage, nor the procreation of the human species.

    Lastly, as pointed out repeatedly, we happen to live in a representative, constitutional republic. A vote of the people may not forever forbid legitimate rights to a minority due to the majority's animus or irrational belief. That is what the documents and the law stand for, a touch stone for us all.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 26, 2014 6:57 a.m.

    @MaxxFordham;

    Prove it.

    PLM says:

    "If same sex couples choose to create a legal relationship, please don't call it marriage."

    Why not? Because it hurts your feelings to have LGBT people use the same words you use?

    This is a victory for equality (i.e., everyone). Your god is irrelevant and non-existent so stop using it to deny others the benefits you enjoy.

    @LFA;

    Jesus doesn't care one way or the other.

    Clarissa says:

    "I'm so proud of our Governor and all our other representatives ..."

    You know, so am I. They're going to be the cause of marriage equality to the entire country!! The irony of this is just too sweet.

    @CI;

    Wrong again. When are you going to accept yourself for yourself?

    @snowman;

    Equal rights are not "special" rights. Look up the word "equal"; it means "same" not "special".

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 26, 2014 7:20 a.m.

    Throughout history different religious organizations have ruled or influenced how society operates. For thousands of years we have heard "the end is near", "this are the worse of times", and so on. Yet, the world keeps on turning and society keeps evolving in awareness and into a better and more equitable society.

    2014 is not different! Our society continuous searching for social justice for all. However, we still hear doomsayers telling us that "the end is near" and that God opposes equal protection for all his children.

    The KKK and other religiously motivated people fought "for" slavery, segregation, discrimination and the devaluation of people based on their race or religious beliefs.

    If I were to believe that our Heavenly Father is a vindictive God, I would be afraid to be to curtail peoples social fairness using his name as the excuse. Being against SSM doesn't make you a better person. You are hurting families, children and people who have done nothing to you. I don't think that attitude and behavior reflects the teachings of Christ.

    "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots." Luke 23:34

  • MilliesMom Heber, UT
    June 26, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    This is great news. It is time for individual Christian's to start meditating on the inclusiveness of Jesus' message and note his frequent dismissal of the official church dogma of his day based in meaningless rituals and rules and missing the substance of the Word. Blind obedience to dogma in many of the world's religions is at the heart of so much of the "justified" hate and exclusion that we see around us. It is hard to imagine that anyone who truly contemplates the message in the New Testament can continue to self justify what has been manipulated by politicians and church hierarchy as "family values".

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    June 26, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    Deseret News online headline: "Utah plans to appeal appellate court's ruling on same-sex marriage to U.S. Supreme Court"

    Deseret News print edition headline: "State to appeal marriage ruling"

    Isn't the news, first and foremost, that the appeals court's much-anticipated ruling supported same-sex marriage? It appears you're more interested in shaping the news than in reporting it.

  • Spas Ivins, UT
    June 26, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    The State of Utah should stop wasting taxpayers' money to fight this losing battle. Get over your narrow mindedness and begin rejoicing in the fact that people want to make a serious commitment to each other by marrying. Expend your energies on mentally moving into the 21st Century.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    June 26, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    @ Pete1215
    You wrote:
    "With male-male marriage, the sex-partner per year count is not expected to be reduced by the title "marriage". Apparently this word will hence forth not mean anything."

    Pete, this is my last entry, but I think you raised a very important point. The meaning of marriage. Would you mind clarifying what the word marriage means to you?.

    I sincerely would like to understand your conception of marriage. You see, making a distinction between "traditional Marriage" and Same Sex Marriage is incomprehensible to me . But You may help me to understand.

    I will be looking for your answer. Thank you!

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    June 26, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    Counter Intelligence says: "Those who compare gay marriage to interracial marriage merely prove they are not smart enough to distinguish between melanin and genitals."

    Those who think that the concept of marriage can be boiled down to the compatibility of genitals merely prove they think far too much about genitals. When I was considering proposing to my wife, "Genitals Compatible?" was nowhere the checklist.

    Spellman789 says: "It is sad how people are so excited about the further promoting and legalization of immorality. It sadly will not end there, it will only get worse."

    Interesting. And here I was thinking that the people affected by this decision were already gay, and most likely already sexually active. The "immorality" you speak of has been going on, legally, for a long, long time, antiquated and unenforceable sodomy laws notwithstanding. Your dire, murky, and impossible to justify prediction about The Future is duly noted. Oooooh . . scary!

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    June 26, 2014 8:05 a.m.

    Snowman says: "Don't get me wrong, I have both friends and family who are gay, but what makes them thing that they deserve special rights?"

    **SIGH** Come on, man; really?? Well, OK; others have asked, yet you haven't answered. What right is being demanded that you and I don't already enjoy?

    Pete1215 says: "With male-male marriage, the sex-partner per year count is not expected to be reduced by the title "marriage"

    Is "not expected" to be reduced? By whom? And is that the legal argument you would've trotted out in court? I'm spitballing here, but imma guess you've never seen the inside of a law school.

  • brightness Taylorsville, UT
    June 26, 2014 8:22 a.m.

    The US Constitution says "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL", it does not matter whether you are black, red ,white, or yellow. It seems that this means nothing or very little at all for some folks. A gay person is born to be gay, no one can change him/her before, during, or after birth. You can try to change them, but this would be difficult just like you can't change anyone to be a gay.

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    June 26, 2014 8:23 a.m.

    This is sad really. The people of each state should be able to decide the laws of that state. Referendums decide the law. The judicial branch has interfered. Prop 8 in California was already denied review by the Supreme Court. The same will happen with Utah. Justice Anthony Kennedy along with the conservative Charles Krauthammer have made it plain that they support state's rights. They even feel that every state will eventually accept gay marriage. However, the enforced acceptance by in many cases one judge is just not acceptable under the U.S. Constitution.

  • JNA Layton, UT
    June 26, 2014 8:28 a.m.

    Equal Protection posted:

    "What a great day, lets celebrate!

    Time to end the hate..

    I agree and lets start with the gay and lesbian community to stop hating me because I believe that marriage is ordained of God and is between a man and a woman.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 26, 2014 8:30 a.m.

    To "SlopJ30" you are right, that analogy is wrong. CI should not have said "Those who compare gay marriage to interracial marriage merely prove they are not smart enough to distinguish between melanin and genitals." He should have said that those who compare gay marriage to interracial marriage prove that they are nto smart enough to distinguish between a genetic trait and a chemical imbalance in a persons brain.

    What many people forget is that there is not a "gay" gene. Since it is not a genetic trait, that means it is an invetro development problem or is the result of a chemical imbalance. Scientists have proven that gays have a brain chemistry that is abnormal, and have been able to make mice exhibit gay behaviors by altering their brain chemistry. What we don't know is what causes the change in brain chemistry.

    So, do we make laws to permit people to act out on their urges caused by an altered brain chemistry or do we look for ways to fix the altered brain chemistry?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 26, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    @Pete1215;

    Are you saying that heterosexuals don't cheat? Are you saying that gays can't commit? And again, why do you immediately think about SEX when you think of same-sex couples getting married? And why do you focus only on male/male sex?

    @JNA;

    I don't hate you, but I am pretty darn tired of having you interfere in my right to equal protection of the law and my right to marry the person I love. You don't believe in same-sex marriage, don't have one. You don't have the right to interfere in the lives of others.

    @Redshirt1701;

    Prove there is no "gay gene". We haven't yet identified what every gene in the genome does, nor exactly how they act in combination.

    Can I "fix" your altered brain chemestry relating to your religious beliefs? They're certainly not "natural" and there is absolutely no "religious gene" either.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    The people who boarded the Titanic were thrilled to be on it as it sailed away from shore. The people on shore waved goodbye, and once news hit that it had sunk, were grateful they did not get on board.

    When the fallout of gay marriage on society becomes more apparent, I'll be glad I stayed on shore.

  • PLM Kaysville, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:12 a.m.

    “Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never-in nothing, great or small, large or petty-never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”
    Winston Churchill.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    'When the fallout of gay marriage on society becomes more apparent'

    Right. Lets have that conversation.

    MA was the 1st state to allow gay marriage in 2004.

    5 years after gay marriage.

    'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

    Line:
    'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

    10 years after gay marriage.

    'TEN YEARS later, 85 Percent of Massachusetts voters say NO HARM from Marriage Equality' – 09/27/13

    'But marriage equality has not turned society inside out, nor has the promised parade of horribles has not come to pass. Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, same-sex families now enjoy full legal protections, and the Boston Red Sox have the best record in Major League Baseball.'

    I don't pretend to be Mormon, but WHAT did someone say about 'False Witness'?

    If you have to lie, to be 'Moral', then you should really examine, your morality.

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    June 26, 2014 9:45 a.m.

    Does anyone else recall being taught never to combine stories in such a way as we are seeing here?
    This very important issue deserves several different stories as it progresses.
    Are there numerous reporters and writers vacationing and unavailable this week?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 26, 2014 10:03 a.m.

    To "Pagan" you also know that Massachussetts has one of the LOWEST marriage rates. However, if you assume a stagnant population, they still have an average divorce rate of approximately 50% of all marriages there resulting in divorce. That is a nice attempt at justification, but is easily proven to be a lie.

    However, the marriage rates do show one thing about SSM. You don't get SSM until a population had devalued marriage to the point that they don't care about forming stable families.

    There is harm from SSM because it further devalues marriage more than the people had been able to do on their own without it.

  • YBH Sugarland, TX
    June 26, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    @RedShirt1701
    He should have said that those who compare gay marriage to interracial marriage prove that they are nto smart enough to distinguish between a genetic trait and a chemical imbalance in a persons brain.

    ******

    If someone wants to marry another person of different race, is it a genetic trait or a chemical imbalance in a persons brain?

  • StandUpNow orem, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    The LGBT fight for gay marriage is not about marriage at all. If we just listen to their own statements, their agenda is in plain sight. Gay marriage advocate Masha Gessen states that the institution of marriage should not even exist.

    Masha Gessen transcript (google Masha Gessen and the audio is on YouTube)
    “I agree, it’s a no brainer that we should have the right to marry. But I also think equally that it’s a no brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. So, uh, that causes my brain some trouble. Part of why it causes me trouble is because fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there. You know, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change. And that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change and it should change. Um, and again, I don’t think that it should exist.”

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    @hockeymom 9:00 a.m. June 26, 2014

    The people who boarded the Titanic were thrilled to be on it as it sailed away from shore. The people on shore waved goodbye, and once news hit that it had sunk, were grateful they did not get on board.

    When the fallout of gay marriage on society becomes more apparent, I'll be glad I stayed on shore.

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

    The same thing was said about inter-racial marriage. Didn't happen. Given the long-term, loving and committed relationships I see among my gay/lesbian friends (one lasting over 50 years), I see little chance that your doom-saying will come to pass.

  • hockeymom Highland, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    @ Pagan - I don't think 15 years is long enough to judge the success or failure of this issue. Let's look at where we are when this becomes "mainstream" and all the stuff that goes along with it have an impact on all of us. When all the SSM advocates who scoff at the "slippery slopes" the rest of us can readily see, we will all have slid right to the bottom of the hill. If this is OK, then lots of otherwise not OK things we see today will become OK. Look at abortion. Billions of babies a year are slaughtered and it's perfectly "OK". Statistics are showing a decline in population, so soon there won't be any babies for couples gay or otherwise TO adopt. This will have an impact on us all.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    'To "Pagan" you also know that Massachussetts has one of the LOWEST marriage rates. '

    Redshit1701 or 14231098139 or whatever you are calling yourself now to have unlimited responses on the Deseret news board.

    1) If MA has the lowest divorce rate and gay marriage causes 'harm' shouldn't the divorce rate CHANGE since the onset of gay marriage?

    Yes.

    Has it?

    No.

    'After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09

    'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'

    That gives the author, date, and those numbers are from the National Center For Vital Statistics.

    What is your source again?

    I thought as much.

    This my last post, so I always try to leave with some facts. MA continues, to have the lowest divorce rate in the country, with the advent of gay marriage for over a decade now.

    While the opponents of gay marriage, continue to bear false witness & claim to be moral.

    No Harm?

    No foul.

    Have a good day.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 26, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    @hockeymom

    Look at abortion. Billions of babies a year are slaughtered and it's perfectly "OK". Statistics are showing a decline in population, so soon there won't be any babies for couples gay or otherwise TO adopt.

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

    While I find abortion completely abhorrent (I do support a woman's right to chose however, different discussion) statistics show abortion rates are declining. That is indeed good news. Plenty of work to do in education, but progress is good. Billions a year is hyperbole (otherwise literally we would be adding billions of people a year to the planet).

    Statistics do not show a shrinking population, however a shrink in the rate of growth, which is entirely different.

    If we could check hyperbole at the door, and listen to reason a little bit we could actually have a rational discussion and reach understanding.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:01 a.m.

    hockeymom says:

    "When all the SSM advocates who scoff at the "slippery slopes" the rest of us can readily see, ..."

    Pshaw! Readily see? Give me a break!

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    I express my love to those who are rejoicing and to those who are sad. Some perspective:
    I remember reading of the rejoicing when “prohibition” ended—people were now “free” to openly produce and consume alcoholic drinks.
    With freedom comes responsibility.
    Micro view: I had a wonderful brother-in-law whose marriage and life were ended by his alcoholism.
    Macro view: We now have in the U.S. approximately 20 million “problem drinkers”—assuming that each of those adversely affects five people, one in three Americans are now adversely affected by a problem drinker. Have we exercised that freedom wisely?
    So, now those with same-sex attraction are gaining the freedom to have their unions recognized as “marriage”.
    With freedom comes responsibility.
    I suggest that we very soberly consider all of the ramifications.

  • Fleurette Canada, 00
    June 26, 2014 11:04 a.m.

    "And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has histherto visited this land."
    God did not change the marriage definition; humans did.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:08 a.m.

    @StandUpNow
    "Gay marriage advocate Masha Gessen states that the institution of marriage should not even exist."

    And Masha Gessen will just not marry. Who cares?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    @ StandUpNow: Your statement is based on the claim that one person's personal view is the view shared by an entire group of people - even though many in that group have actively disavowed that view.

    Using your logic, should we assume that the Westboro Baptist Church speaks for all Christians?

    Some people, both gay and straight, do not think marriage should exist as an institution - numerous posters on various threads in this paper think marriage should be nothing more than a religious rite and there should be no limits placed on it by society, including no limits on age, number of partners, biological relationship between partners, etc.

    Many posters who propose making marriage just a religious rite - and thereby removing societal oversight - claim to be Christian. You're a Christian - does this mean you support child marriages?

    Are you beginning to see the fault of your "logic"? One person's personal claims are that person's personal claims - that person is not speaking for anyone other than themselves. Extrapolating the statements of one person to every person who shares one or more characteristics with that person may make great headlines, but it proves to be a story with no substance.

  • Born in Bountiful Provo, Utah
    June 26, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    The majority of Utah is not happy. But oppression by the minority and a lack of federal government protection of our State's rights in the Utah norm.

  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:33 a.m.

    @RedShirts...So what do you think of my idea of acquiring a law degree prior to any more nonsensical posting regarding amendments and constitutional law? Have to admit your posts are definitely entertainment for those of us that actually posses Ivy League Law Degrees!

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 26, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    @StandUpNow
    "Gay marriage advocate Masha Gessen states that the institution of marriage should not even exist."

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

    That is contradictory... How can she be a "Gay Marriage Advocate" and oppose "Marriage"???

    Is she maybe a "Gay Rights Activist" instead? Your argument loses all credibility otherwise.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 26, 2014 11:41 a.m.

    @StandUpNow
    Let me be one more gay person who can reassure you that the ideas in the quote from Masha Gessen are not accepted by most LGBT people.
    Marriage and family are fundamental to society. Gay or straight people who reject commitment, marriage and family and prefer "free love" are not the majority.
    Now, instead of looking for extremists to confirm your worldview, please learn about the gay and lesbian people who live in Utah and want to get married. Read the court brief with its details about the plaintiffs. Do some searching online to read their blogs and facebook posts. It is very easy to see thousands of examples of gay and lesbian people with values very much like your own about family and commitment. They get married because they want monogamy and faithfulness and to protect their children in a stable environment.
    If you are set on making their marriages illegal, please allow yourself to see the real people involved. It is much easier to imagine you are fighting an anti-family, anti-religion extremists but that is not the reality.

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    In the old Testament, there were condemnations for the gays, sometimes women, and there was slavery. But in the New Testament those things passed away with Jesus. He taught love one another and forgiveness. It has been a hard road for those that can't do away with the old and bring the new in. But like it or not, we are now bringing in the new!

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    June 26, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    Gay marriage will lead to legalization of other strange relationships.Multiple partner "families" with three or more adults of the same of mixed sexes will become part of our society.It's frightening to imagine the social chaos that will follow but we can be sure that children will be the greatest victims.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:28 p.m.

    @JSB

    Multiple partner "families" with three or more adults of the same of mixed sexes will become part of our society.

    =====

    You mean like our Church did in the 1800's?

  • Kimber Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    To CJB:
    Most of the children that gay people adopt were parentless and they are giving them a homes. The ones that come from a previous relationship, now have a two parent home, rather than a single parent home. This is progress for children!

  • Seldom Seen Smith Orcutt, CA
    June 26, 2014 2:04 p.m.

    Some people compare homosexual "marriage" to black and white marriage, I compare it to "marriage" between my two sisters.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    June 26, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    many comments say appealing is a waste of tax money. i disagree. i feel utah is doing the correct thing by not allowing 6 people to over rule the thousands who voted against SSM.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 26, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    SolarMan
    Albuquerque, NM
    Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated: "Our twelfth article of faith states our belief in being subject to civil authority and in 'obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.' But man’s laws cannot make moral what God has declared immoral."

    ======

    Agreed,
    but Coffee, Tea, Tobacco, alcohol, and gambling are considered "immoral" to some, but perfectly legal.

    So then the question begins to devolve into "Who's God"?

    Unless you are trying to establish a Theocracy based on scripture - or even who's interpretation of the same scriptures,
    ala the Taliban, Al Queda, or Iran.

    BTW -- Don't forget that commandment to "Obey, honor and sustaining the law of the land".

    I'm at peace with the ruliing.
    Because it doesn't effect my standards or Freedom.

    As should you.

  • Pendergast Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 6:29 p.m.

    re: Karen R. pg 9

    [@ well informed

    "Can the Federal Appeals Court rule against mother nature?"

    That’s religion’s specialty.]

    Bazinga!

  • GK Willington Salt Lake City, UT
    June 26, 2014 6:30 p.m.

    to snowman

    "Don't get me wrong, I have both friends and family who are gay, but what makes them thing that they deserve special rights?"

    And you deserve special rights, because?

  • Bill Fitz LAKE BLUFF, IL
    June 26, 2014 6:40 p.m.

    What are politicians doing legislating morality? This is a religious issue, Get out of the churches business. Separation of church and state, remember that one?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    June 26, 2014 8:34 p.m.

    @Bill Fitz: "What are politicians doing legislating morality? This is a religious issue, Get out of the churches business. Separation of church and state, remember that one?"

    To marry you buy a license from the state at the local court house. When you return the license you and your spouse qualify for about 1,300 legal benefits and protections from state and federal government.

    You can be married by anyone the state has approved to perform a marriage - in many states that simply requires filling out a form to register.

    You can be married at the courthouse, on the beach, in a back yard, in a hotel ballroom, in a church, or in the frozen food section of your local Walmart.

    State controls and gives benefits through marriage. Church is simply one of many facilities where a couple can get married.

    So the separation of Church and State would require churches to stay out of the state business of marriage other than, in some cases, providing a place for the legal contract to be witnessed by friends and family.

  • 4Freedom Columbus, OH
    June 26, 2014 8:43 p.m.

    This is a matter for the people to decide. And they decided. They have decided all over this country. No where has "same-sex marriage" passed into law where it was on the ballot. The people have rejected it. But here we go again with activist judges legislating from the bench, seeking to redefine what is not theirs to redefine. Marriage consists of a man and a woman. Always has and always will. Children need a mother and a father. Not two dads and not two moms just because some people want it that way. And even if there are no children, marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexual couples have all the rights that married couples do in many places. Let's call those unions something else because they are not marriage. If the people of this country want to try to redefine marriage then let the people legitimately do it and live with the consequences. But it is not right for these judges to impose their anti-religious views on a religious establishment. Marriage was created by God.

  • rik-nell San Mateo, CA
    June 26, 2014 10:32 p.m.

    It's interesting that Utah is pressing this to the nation's Supreme Court - their role in making SSM legal nation-wide is quite ironic - thank you Utah!

  • Good-Heavens Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 26, 2014 11:09 p.m.

    The dominant religion in Utah lecturing the rest of us on "traditional" marriage. Now that's rich!

  • joeyslaptop VANCOUVER, WA
    June 27, 2014 1:04 a.m.

    Exactly how Lawrence V Texas was decided - not based on marriage at all, but on gender. How do judges lose sight of the context for their rulings? Even if it's about gender - nobody has ever been excluded from marriage based on gender. Marriage itself isn't a right as much as it is societal recognition of natural law, and a restriction placed on procreative relationships.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 27, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    @joeyslaptop

    and a restriction placed on procreative relationships.

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

    So fertility tests should be issued before a marriage license is granted right? And if the couple after marriage is found to not be making kids, we dissolve the marriage right? Because that is clearly what you are advocating.

  • Tiago Seattle, WA
    June 27, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    @4Freedom
    "No where has "same-sex marriage" passed into law where it was on the ballot."

    I don't think that is true. Same-sex marriage (no scare quotes needed), has been approved by voters in Maine, Maryland, and Washington and several foreign countries.

  • Mormonmama0106 Phoenix, AZ
    June 27, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    So when will polygamy and polyandry be made legal? How about being able to marry close relatives. The courts are essentially saying a person can marry whomever they want, so why are other forms of marriage still illegal?

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    June 27, 2014 4:50 p.m.

    To Maudine, Max Power, Tiago: If Ms Gessen's goal IS to eliminate marriage (and I have read her statement and that is her view), which will you support, marriage, or her goal?

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 27, 2014 6:05 p.m.

    @cindyacre

    I have no reason to try and destroy marriage. I myself am a happily married man, with three wonderful young children.

    My point is marriage is about love and commitment, of which children MAY arise. But procreation is NOT the point of marriage. Otherwise we would need fertility tests before marriage.

    Her views are probably largely unique to her and maybe a very, very almost infinitesimal minority that one could almost say is non-existent. To be honest, the first and only time I had heard of her, or her opposition was in these forums.

    However, if we are going to give legal benefits to those who are married, unless the State can show a compelling legal reason or harm that will be done to either themselves, or society in general, under the 14th amendment, we have to recognize ALL marriages, or NO marriages.

    I am LDS, I believe in Marriage as revealed by God to his prophets. That is my choice, and my privilege. However, we live in a secular society, and the only way our rights are protected are by secular laws. This is not a theocracy.

  • James Whistler Chicago, IL
    June 27, 2014 11:21 p.m.

    Gary Herbert is playing games with people's families and lives. Read it:

    >>Halting the state's defense of the voter-approved Amendment 3 to Utah's Constitution, passed by 66 percent of voters in 2004, would be "like stopping a game in the middle of the contest," he said.

    >>"This was a 2-1 decision, so at least a judge agrees with the state's decision. And you can't stop in the middle. You've got to play until the final buzzer," Herbert said following the release of the opinion.

  • Captain Green Heber City, UT
    June 29, 2014 12:10 a.m.

    Utah can to do whatever it chooses in regard to social matters such as this. It falls clearly within State's Rights... and the federal government has no jurisdiction whatsoever in this issue. It's high time for the States to start telling Washington, DC to leave us alone. Thank you very much anyway.