One encourages fighting for and doing all one can to preserve traditional
marriages between a man and a woman, God himself ordained marriage between a man
and a woman, with a warning "let no man put asunder." If same sex
marriages become equal with traditional marriages - then the wind has been sown
and a whirl wind will be harvested.
A child's greatest chance for success in life is proven to be when reared
by a Father AND a Mother. A child reared in a step-parent relationship is 100
times more likely to be abused.Distorting the definition of marriage
reduces our children's chances for success. That's a simple fact of
life. Marriage is primarily about what is the most secure and effective way for
children to learn. If people who don't care about rearing children want to
co-habitate, then pass laws honoring their partnership, but don't distort
marriage.This isn't about hating me or you. It's about
making the best environment for children. Every child deserves a Mother and a
Father. Let's put our efforts into solidifying the known equation for
success, not diluting and distorting it.
Good decision. These couples were married in Utah at a time when there was no
effective ban in place against same sex marriage. They were legal when they
were contracted; they should be recognized now.
...and the propagandists are on the clock.
I do not understand how allowing two Utah women to marry "puts asunder"
the traditional marriage of a man and a woman.If you truly want to
preserve traditional marriages you would need to change the divorce laws. It
seems that traditional marriages are being "put asunder" by the
traditionally married man and woman when they decide they can no longer live
together. One could put effort into strengthening all marriage
relationships rather than discriminating against same sex couples.
Utah should stand up for the right to let each of us- all inclusive "We The
People"- have a voice in decisions about, and defense of, marriage. What
reason would our government ever have to legally enforce homosexual
relationships? Gays can already love, vote, work, etc. there is no reason for
tax payers to be forced to promote and enforce their sexual preferences.
A world without any limits.But, then the lefts are the King of rules.It's a strange place this thing called life.
Primary Chorister says"If you truly want to preserve traditional
marriages you would need to change the divorce laws." Just
because there are some rotten apples out there, does not mean we will disregard
the value of apples all together. The fact that so many marriages are failing is
a sign of many troubling treads in modern day society. Embracing more troubling
trends is not going to help strengthen the apple tree.
To Snapdragon,I couldn't agree more with your comment. Various
modern trends in society are leading to much disruption of individual lives and
a general coarsening of society in the wrong direction. If we hope to strengthen
society we should identify and support those values that have served America
well for over 200 years. But then I have a biased point of view having one of
those rare marriages that has endured for 37 years and going strong. Alas, we
are going to have to find ways to maintain our values in a sea of pollution of
"The fact that so many marriages are failing is a sign of many troubling
treads in modern day society."The group with the highest divorce
rate in America identifies as "Conservative Christian." Perhaps we
should start our search for causes there. The group with the lowest divorce
rate identifies as "Agnostic/Atheist." Perhaps we should start our
search for solutions there.Just an observation.
This appeal gives the term, "The agony of defeat," a special new life.
Governor Herbert and Attorney General Reyes were denied a stay, requiring Utah
to recognize 1000+ same-sex marriages. Instead they were granted a 10-day
reprieve to appeal to the Supreme Court. No surprise there. Governor Herbert and
his AG know that same-sex marriage will be recognized across the US, but just
not how or when, so it's kick the can down the road time. Something as
fundamental to the human condition as marriage is the perfect 10th vs. 14th
Amendment States' Rights vs. Equal Protection case. Loving v. Virginia
(1967) was remarkably similar in concept, where constitutional prohibitions
against interracial marriage were overturned. And that's the elephant in
the room in all of these recent decisions. What's next? The face-saving
phase, but of course! 'We gave it our all, for you dear voter! Now
here's the bill.' Governor, isn't it time to throw in the towel,
this fight doesn't get any prettier.
@RockOn: "A child's greatest chance for success in life..."If you want to allow marriage based on success, then upper-middle-class
Asian couples would be the only ones able to marry and have children.If, however, you look at the growing body of research that is finding two
stable, committed parents are actually the best indicator of success –
doesn't matter if they are two men, two women, or a man and a woman.The cries of "the children…" ignores the thousands of
children who are already being raised by same-sex couples. And, in
reality, marriage is about a host of legal protections, benefits, and rights
that are enshrined in state and federal laws. Marriage, in Utah and other
states, does not require procreation. It requires two adults, who are competent
to consent, signing paperwork at the county courthouse. Laws about children are
family law, not marriage Law.
There is nothing in Utah law which allows same-sex marriages to take place. The
only way this can happen if the law is changed. If I remember a few years ago,
the people of Utah voted down allowing same-sex marriage. This is the current
law-same sex marriage is not allowed in Utah.
I just got done reading an article on another news website about how Utah
experiences a higher amount of domestic violence than average for the United
States. Shouldn't that be something we should be focusing on to help
families and children?
@ Ken: You seem to be behind on the story, In December, a Judge declared
Utah's prohibition on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. He did not stay
his ruling, which allowed same-sex marriages to take place until the US Supreme
Court placed a hold a few days later.The 10th Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld the ruling of the lower court that Utah's prohibition on
same-sex marriage violates the Federal Constitution. They left the stay in
place pending Utah's appeal to SCOTUS. So yes, the law was
changed. Same-sex marriages were allowed. Same-sex couples were legally
married and are now petitioning the Court to require Utah to recognize their
marriages and give them benefits accordingly. The lower court ruled in favor of
the couples. Utah is appealing the decision and asked for a stay on recognizing
the relationships until all the appeals are completed. The 10th Circuit issued
a temporary stay which will expire next week. Utah will ask SCOTUS for a stay
pending completion of the appeal process. (This case is separate from the case
challenging the prohibition on same-sex marriages.)
@ Joan WatsonGod also said don't eat shell fish, yet I
don't see you petitioning Red Lobster....
@ Joan: "...let not man put asunder" is an argument against divorce,
not against same-sex marriage.@ Rock: What studies actually show is
that children do best when raised by two loving, committed parents - the genders
don't matter. Another thing studies have shown is that marriage creates
stability and encourages couples to work through the hard times and stay
together - regardless of the genders involved. Same-sex couples are
raising children. Prohibiting marriage to those couples will not suddenly put
the children in situations where they are being raised by heterosexual,
biological parents. If you truly want what is best for children, you will
encourage their parents to marry - even if those parents are of the same
gender.(And yes, I realize that the children are not biologically
related to both parents. That applies to most adoption and assistive
reproduction technology situations. No difference here.)The very
conservative Heritage Foundation puts the chance of abuse by a step-parent at 33
times the risk of biological parents, and acknowledges that the risk goes down
when the parent and step-parent are married, not just cohabiting. Not really an
argument against marriage - same-sex or otherwise.
@meckofahess wrote: "If we hope to strengthen society we should identify and
support those values that have served America well for over 200 years."200 years ago, black people could still be owned as property, Native
Americans were being cheated out of their lands, women had no rights to vote and
virtually no legal standing, and in many places there were still property-owning
requirements in order to vote.I think our values today are several
orders of magnitude better than the values of 200 years ago.
Meckofahess...As the Beatles sang in "the end" "And in the end, the love you takeIs equal to the love you
make"Your "rare" 37 year loving marriage should allow
you to celebrate the glory of love....instead your interpretation is that it
should be limited to only certain people and denied to others...as though there
is a finite amount of it and what there is must be hoarded.Where is
the enlightenment in that attitude? True love shines abundantly and infinitely
and beautifully...it is limitless and that my friend is why our perseverance
will win the day.Love wins. Love is the most powerful force in the
universe. Give a little bit...give a little bit of your love ....
What scares me is that, once same-sex marriage will be fully legal (and it
will), a part of Utah's predominantly Mormon population will continue to
abhor such marriages and predict apocalyptic outcomes. Some of the previous
comments show it all too well. How immensely tragic it could thus continue to be
for many of those same-sex couples, in particular if they have Mormon roots. Look, however, at the most advanced Western countries that have had
same-sex marriages for more than a decade: those couples, a tiny minority, just
blend in like any other couple. Their children, if they have any, are regarded
as any other child. Positive acceptance of diversity is the hallmark of a civil
and thus "civilized" society.
This will be fascinating, because Sotomayor is the Supreme Court Justice for the
10th Circuit, in charge of issuing a stay, or letting the 10th Circuit ruling
rule.Justices Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Elena Kagan issued a
blistering dissent in a very quickly ruled case last week about birth control
(not the Hobby Lobby decision). The dissent accused the majority of making a
mockery of their own decisions, and undermining societal support in the
institution of the Supreme Court.Is our Supreme Court itself
becoming so divided that Sotomayor may try to more assertively rule? I would
like to think not, and if she issues a stay, conservatives in Utah should be
very appreciative of Sotomayor.
@Rock:The welfare of the children was also the rationale used to
defend laws against interracial marriage. Though things have gotten much better
in our society over time, there may still be some negative effect for the
children of interracial marriages today.Does this mean we need to
re-institute bans on interracial marriage?There are fairly high
rates of suicide of gay teenagers in Utah. Does this mean a closer inspection
of their situations should be undertaken, and if reasonable and unbiased people
conclude perhaps their religious upbringing is a part of the problem, does this
mean government should limit some religious marriages?I would hope
What is really at issue here is not the rights of gays to marry. It is the
right for the people of Utah to set their own standards for society. If the ACLU
considers the right of gays to marry such a grave issue, then them campaign to
the people of Utah to support such an important right. They refuse to do so and
have tapped into a network of left wing judges with an agenda. Obviously, at the
time that the Constitution was written, there were few visible gay
relationships. This was not an inherent right for that document. The
Judeo-Christian tradition was seen in the approval of those that signed. Now,
we have a judicial system which tells the people of Utah that they are immature
in their view of the world. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the
Supreme Court, has made it known that gay marriage is the wave of the future.
However, the people must decide this and not a federal government. Charles
Krauthammer has concurred. King George dictated to the colonies. Rebellion
resulted. Issues such as Common Core and abortion are not far behind in the
@ Primary ChoristerYou must be aware that the Primary Theme this
year is "Families are Forever"? I assume you are singing those songs
with those kids in your ward - or are you not paying attention to what the
Primary Sharing Time Outline says? The fact is that ANYTHING that takes us away
from God's Plan for His children takes us further away from Him.When I saw the outline for 2014, I knew, as Primary President, that it was no
accident that the theme this year was chosen to solidify for us all, especially
those right here in Utah, what God's plan is for us, even amidst the
turmoil we see in the news. Abortion, Divorce, Abuse, Women in the Priesthood
and yes, SSM are all hot topics right now in Utah. We, within the church have
an obligation to lend our voices to remind others what the Lord would have us
do. I think you need to re-examine what you really believe and
align it with what you are teaching those little ones through song on Sundays.
Just a thought.
@ koseightyIs it possible the Agnostic/Atheist group reports lower
divorce rates because fewer of them actually marry? Not believing it is
necessary, I mean, because they don't believe in a God who wants it? More
Christians divorce because more of them are marrying? Please clarify the terms
of the study and it's source.
A message to the opponents of marriage equality: Wake up. Even Scalia said the
writing is on the wall. You are fighting a lost cause for bigotry and
injustice. America is progressing towards freedom and equality whether you are
willing to admit it or not.
Just think how the money that is being spent on legal costs could be used to
help children and families who are struggling. It is difficult to
understand how such intelligent and informed folks cannot see that they are
pursuing something that they simply will not win.This lengthy and
expensive court fight will be remembered, catalogued in history right beside the
other recent unfortunate decisions made by Utah's government officials.It may turn out that the State of Utah will be famous in a much different way
than it's leaders had hoped.
Utah should stand up for the right to let each of us- all inclusive "We The
People"- have a voice in decisions about, and defense of, marriage. A choice
for, and about, each one of us. Individually. The state must work toward
empowering individual freedoms wherever possible, and not let the mob rule.
That's just socialism.
Marrying to have children is no longer supported by a large percentage of
younger heterosexuals, they have children without marrying. Values based on
facts, not speculations, are in the best interests of our society. My 52 year
loving relationship with my partner and 10 year marriage is based on the facts
of who we are. Two gay men who have served their country, worked and paid
federal, state, social security, medicare, and property taxes, are now retired
and living the American dream. Fortunately we live in America which is a nation
of laws which provides us the pursuit of happiness and as its citizens continue
to learn who we are, they support equality. Love wins and will continue to win
as we move forward.
Primary Chorister: When God says to not put something "asunder, " I
pretty much think it is a good idea to not contradict Him! God is not the the
Grandpa in heaven that pats our head no matter what we do! He actually has said
that marriage is only between a man and a women? I am pretty sure he means what
He said! I am absolutely certain he doesn't look down from yonder heaven
and says, "sure, go ahead and change my definition of marriage. It is no
big deal! Life is good! just be happy!" Wow, I am not going to change Him
into the image I want Him to be. I think He is pretty secure about who He is
and what He stands for, don't you think?
To Joan Watson and all who oppose equal rights for the LBGT community. Simply
put, whatever your justification, you are completely wrong. I know this to be
true through through the faith and testimonies of those who are in favor of
equal rights for all.
The proliferation of same sex marriage is another step in the downward decline
of America. God won't punish the citizens here on earth, but he will stand
by as we destroy each other. We the people tried to do the right thing.
Hollywood, corrupt politicians and agenda driven judges put us on this path.
Marriage is between a man and woman. If a same sex loving couple want a civil
union so they can share their lifestyle, so be it. Please don't corrupt the
word marriage. That is not hateful, that is how we compromise in a just society.
At my last count (it seems to increase weekly) states with SSM bans are 0-21.
The Supreme Court struck down DOMA and let a lower court ruling striking down
California's Prop 8 stand. Is Utah's appeal that superior? What a
waste of time and taxpayer's money.
Wilf 55:would you also call legalization of polygamy the mark of a civilized
society? You call legalization of SSM a tolerate anything society, but I doubt
most folks would concur that a civilized society is one where a child can't
have both a father and a mother, or that any action, whether legal or illegal,
The end of the stay is near. This could be horrific, or no big deal whatsoever.
Marriage between a man & a woman is the only marriage that makes sense!
@omahahusker: This lawsuit concerns Utah Amendment 3. Perhaps if Utah had not
banned even civil unions in their zeal to express disapproval of homosexuality,
what you suggest would be a possibility. But, Utah went for ALL the marbles.
No marriage. No civil ceremonies. Declaring void any legal marriage performed
elsewhere.The resultant Amendment is so transparently an expression
of a desire to disadvantage and punish a minority whose "lifestyle" (and
by "lifestyle," I mean life) otherwise violates no law. It's hard,
even ex post facto, to come up with a legal theory supporting a legitimate state
interest. How would any higher court ever allow such an expression of raw
animus, devoid of any legitimate governmental interest, to stand?I
think we're in the process of finding out that they don't.
We the people of the state of Utah have the responsibility and sovereign right
to govern ourselves and pass laws that we believe to be best. We delegate a
portion of our rights to the State and a smaller portion to our Federal
government. Amendment three is the voice of the people of Utah. Although a small
portion of Utah citizen's do not agree with this law, the majority do AND
that majority have collective rights to pass this law. When judges override the
voice of the people we know that our freedom to organize is at risk of
"philosopher kings". Our founders gave us the right to pass this law and
they reserved to the state more rights than that of the feds. Do not be
confused - we have the right. We can be diverse and lead this nation even if
misunderstood by those who disagree. We still exercise our rights and defend
this core value. We the People of the State of Utah are sovereign and we make
and pass laws that we believe are best. Thank you Sean Reyes and Gary Herbert
for defending our law and the voice of the people!
@HENELSON 10:58 p.m. July 13, 2014Yes we have the right to make and
pass laws that we believe are best PROVIDED they do not violate the provisions
of the United States Constitution. with Amendment 3, the judge rightly
overturned a law that violates the United States Constitution. Thanks to the
judges for correctly doing their job.So tell me this -- if the
people of Utah passed a law that denied women in Utah the right to vote,
thinking that it was a law that we believed was best, what do you think the
judges should do with it?
JBQ says:"What is really at issue here is not the rights of gays
to marry. It is the right for the people of Utah to set their own standards for
society."Bigotry is a pretty poor standard to set for
society.The USA is a multi-cultural society, not a
"Judeo-Christian" society.@hockeymom;Bigotry and
discrimination take you further away from god; think about it.@Light
and Liberty;God didn't say anything about marriage (psst; he
doesn't exist).@omahahusker;You heterosexuals have
"corrupted" the word marriage all by yourselves. You need our help to
correct the situation.Light and Liberty says:"would
you also call legalization of polygamy the mark of a civilized society?"I hope you're not LDS; that would be just too ironic.@HENELSON;WE too are "the people"; and we are citizens,
protected by the US Constitution.
@HENELSON: Your energetic post is simply wishful thinking here in mid-2014."Amendment three is the voice of the people of Utah. Although a
small portion of Utah citizen's do not agree with this law, the majority do
AND that majority have collective rights to pass this law."So
many fails in this sentence. The state can not "vote on" the civil
rights of the minority. This is where the religious seem confused; they appear
to be of the opinion that their religion trumps individual civil rights. Wrong
answer. "Our founders gave us the right to pass this law and
they reserved to the state more rights than that of the feds. Do not be confused
- we have the right."No, you do not. You do not have the right
to discriminate based upon your moral disapproval of a group of law-abiding
people. It doesn't work that way in a constitutional republic."We the People of the State of Utah are sovereign and we make and pass
laws that we believe are best."Patently incorrect. Utah is
subordinate to the Unites States constitution. State laws MUST past
constitutional scrutiny, or they are ruled unconstitutional, as seen in
Re: "The group with the highest divorce rate in America identifies as
liberal/libertine blather that recent studies have completely debunked. Actively
churchgoing people have actually been shown to have the lowest rates of divorce.
Even the libertine left's desperate dogma of a 50% across-the-board rate is
shown to be way high.The one group that does seem to have very high,
though admittedly somewhat preliminary numbers, based on the paucity of reliable
statistics, is same-sex marriage.