Quantcast
Utah

Poll: Utahns willing to fight for Amendment 3, believe victory unlikely

Comments

Return To Article
  • play by the rules SOUTH JORDAN, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 10:45 p.m.

    Absoulutely believe we should fight for states rights and have resolved myself to the fact that Man will make legal what God has called immoral.

  • Adalaide OREM, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 11:05 p.m.

    The problem with this poll is the percentage of people who were Mormon. While 88 percent identified as very active, only 62% of the population of the state is LDS and not all of those would identify as very active. A more accurate representation of the population would be needed to accurately reflect how the voters actually feel, rather than finding out how the Mormons feel.

  • Manzanita Las Vegas, NV
    Aug. 18, 2014 11:57 p.m.

    I suppose if an organization is ultimately going to lose on an issue, might as well commission a poll to help manage the expectations of those who have followed it into defeat.

    Equality for all is inevitable.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 6:55 a.m.

    @Play by the rules
    Um, there are tons of things that are legal, but the LDS church doesn't consider moral. Let me list some of them. Drinking, cigarettes, pornography, adultery, coffee, tea and many more I didn't list. It's not like this is a shock to the LDS system, the concept of the state legalizing something they don't believe in. I don't see protests at the Starbucks, so why couldn't LDS people just, ya know, not get gay married?

  • YoungPuppy west Jordan, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 6:59 a.m.

    This is a bad issue for Democrats simply because there aren't enough Democrats to elect Democrats on their own to public offices."

    I disagree with this statement. I think it is a bad issue for Republicans to oppose. I think that they are alienating yet another group of people for fighting this. It is similar to African Americans, with the civil rights movement, and Hispanic people, in the recent border issues, and women as well. Many of the people in these groups are turned off by the stance of Republicans on their issues. They cling to their "conservative values" and ignore progressive values that much of the population is for.

    When this country is founded only white males could vote. White males are the base and core of the Republican party. Unfortunately for Republicans White males are becoming less and less of the voting population.

    I think that Republicans need to pivot and start to embrace the inevitable before they loose more potential voters on this issue.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Aug. 19, 2014 7:19 a.m.

    Why is a bank doing a poll on gay marriage?

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    Aug. 19, 2014 7:23 a.m.

    The Pope does not sanction divorce, yet most civilized western democracies (even those with majority Catholic populations) allow divorce.

    If the Pope can learn to live with other denominations sanctioning divorce, and it being legal in most countries, surely the L.D.S. elders can learn to live with gay marriage.

  • Lyn52 Saint George, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 7:29 a.m.

    Not a very accurate poll as those called have landlines, older, white and most likely mormon.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    And what about the age factor in the poll? Surveys confirm young people are much more accepting of diversity and of their gay and lesbian friends. Here is the future.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 8:05 a.m.

    I should have invested in a polling company a few years back. The stuff they get commissioned for can be so ridiculous, meaningless and obvious. It's not like we all don't know Mormons believe a marriage can only be between a man and a woman and that Mitt Romney would be our President if the election were held again. Seems like polling companies are making a great living in satisfying societies craving for fantasies.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    Given that Amendment 3 passed 66/34, the current poll shows that opposition to same-sex marriage may have slipped by 5% in the last decade (margins of error were not reported), or nearly a 10% erosion of support among Amendment 3 voters. At that rate, opposition to SSM could be a minority viewpoint in a dozen years. But then, attrition of aging traditionalists and greater acceptance of SSM by younger generations make that a foregone conclusion.

  • illuminated St George, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    I support equality: Regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation, any person should be able marry someone of the opposite gender any time they want.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    I don't need to do a poll to find out that marriage is as much about raising kids and nurturing families then it is about pleasing the desires of adult in love.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 9:29 a.m.

    USAlover

    Salt Lake City, UT

    I don't need to do a poll to find out that marriage is as much about raising kids and nurturing families then it is about pleasing the desires of adult in love.

    ----------------
    Except--

    When older couples marry or when a young couple marries and is infertile or when they just decide that they do not want to have children.

    Then--

    That must not be a marriage, right?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    @Adalaide
    It didn't say 88% identified as active Mormon, it said that 88% of the active Mormons surveyed said they opposed same-sex marriage. It doesn't say what percentage of respondents were active Mormons.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Aug. 19, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    Every person called in a telephone poll knows that the caller has his number. How many of them answer publicly the same way they would if they knew no one would know--i.e. at the ballot box? And how many of them would have voted "yes" on this issue last December, right after Kitchen vs. Herbert?

    "The state has allocated $500,000 for attorney fees and costs to appeal this decision so that we may once again deny gay citizens the right to marry the person of their choice. We will either spend this money on appeals or we can spend it on K-3 education. Check which box you want your tax money spent on."

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 9:40 a.m.

    @illuminated

    any person should be able marry someone of the opposite gender any time they want.

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

    I agree, if I have a wife already, I should be able to get another, and another!

    Also, if we were to use the standard that equality = "anyone can marry anyone of the other gender" as an argument in court, wouldn't it be just as valid to say "we need to change marriage so that anyone can marry anyone of the same gender, because a guy and a girl together...kissing...is just icky?" (ask any 5 year old)

    Freedom of Religion...you can pick any religion...as long as it's Mormon.
    Civil Rights...A black person can pick ANYWHERE to sit on the back row of the bus.
    Right to vote...you can pick ANY Republican you want to vote for.

    See how easily this can get out of hand?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Aug. 19, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    Telephone polls are a relic of the past and far from representative. Most younger people do not have land lines. It's time for Dan Jones to find another way to do polling.

  • shabam Ogden, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    Religion has Effected how the Mainstream in Utah Believe, feel and think without the consideration of what the People think, believe and feel, or how they want to choose how to live their lives and think for themselves.
    I believe those who are Religious of any religion, should keep their ways to themselves and let the rest of society choose to live their lives the way to choose to live theirs.
    Although, it is a moral obligation to help others, there are ways other than force of policy or law to eliminate those unwanted choices and opinions of others.
    Does not matter if they are Liberal or Conservative, people will choose their sexual behaviors, and freedoms as they see fit, including their religion.
    Their are many Churches which impose and oppress people to side with them based on political and religious value than allowing the people to make their choices private and to stand by them.
    Not that it is neither good or bad, it is not up to the choice of a group, it is up the the individual as a group. Although it is my personal opinion

  • Trouble Lehi, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 10:42 a.m.

    Max shows how easily things can get out of hand, especially when you take things out of context and cite extreme examples. illuminated is on the right track though: let's apply the man and woman marriage requirement equally across all races, religions and sexual orientations. That will satisfy those clamoring for equality AND keep the definition of marriage sustained in Amendment 3.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 10:53 a.m.

    @Trouble

    let's apply the man and woman marriage requirement equally across all races, religions and sexual orientations.

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

    Would you want YOUR daughter to marry a gay man? Or if she were a lesbian, to be pretend she wasn't and marry a man?

    That is far more likely to end in disaster for her and whatever children she may have.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    Trouble,

    I don't think Max's examples are extreme. As soon as we allow citizens to vote on civil rights, we open ourselves up to allowing the majority to vote on our own rights.

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

    Can you explain why allowing gays to only marry someone that they are not attracted to is any different than allowing a person to only go to any Catholic church that they want to? I think that is pretty much a perfect metaphor. Gays are about 2-5% of the population of the US and LDS are about 2% of the population. If the majority of one state can vote on who you are allowed to marry, why can't they vote on what kind of church you must attend?

    Be careful! What you are asking for is allowing the state (majority of voters) to be able to veto an individual's rights to the freedom to pursue happiness in any way that they desire - as long as it does not harm another. Do you really want to be able to place that into our law books?

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    Victory is unlikely because we are fighting the wrong battle. Government should have no authority to regulate and tax marriage in the first place.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    "I believe those who are Religious of any religion, should keep their ways to themselves and let the rest of society choose to live their lives the way to choose to live theirs."

    So, you're ok with everyone living their lives the way they want...except religious people...

    Sorry, I had to play "Twist It" like so many often love to do...

  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 11:48 a.m.

    Not surprising, given the mainstream media’s constant drumbeat that this is all inevitable. There are some very astute observers of our current US Supreme Court who are also legal scholars who believe that the Court may very well sustain Amendment 3. I won't go into the boring justifications for that, but they are very real, and have to do with precedent and consistency regarding states' rights vs. federal issues. Bottom line, there is a chance (pick your odds) that Amendment 3 gets sustained on the basis that the definition of marriage should be determined at the state level by voters.
    So, the very interesting conversation now is: if it is, what are the implications? First of all, in any state where voters have already reaffirmed traditional marriage those laws/amendments will once again stand. Secondly, any state that has not yet added a traditional marriage amendment will have the right to do so. It's unclear what the implications will be for those same-sex couples who married in the interim--that will be a complicated scenario to resolve.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 11:54 a.m.

    @Ned Grimley
    I am a happy active Mormon. How will Same Sex Marriage change how I chose to live my life?

    Will I be forced to stop church attendance? Stop praying? Forced to consume tobacco? Enter into a same-sex marriage?

    How does the Live and Let Live mentality affect a religious person in anyway negatively?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    @NedGrimley;

    People on these comment boards are always complaining about LGBT "shoving it in their faces".

    Well, we're pretty tired of having your religion "shoved in our faces".

    How's that for equal?

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 19, 2014 12:23 p.m.

    @aceroinox wrote: "Bottom line, there is a chance (pick your odds) that Amendment 3 gets sustained on the basis that the definition of marriage should be determined at the state level by voters."

    Presumably, with that same decision, they'll also overturn Loving v. Virginia.

    "First of all, in any state where voters have already reaffirmed traditional marriage those laws/amendments will once again stand. Secondly, any state that has not yet added a traditional marriage amendment will have the right to do so."

    And by "any state", you mean Indiana, because that's the only state without an amendment banning same sex marriage (note: that is what you mean when you say 'reaffirming traditional marriage', right?) that has even a vague chance of passing one. And Indiana has only a vague chance.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 12:33 p.m.

    Society: Gays are abominations, Gays are destroying society, Gays go against nature.

    LGBT: Hey guys, we are people too.

    Society: Whoa! Where is your tolerance?!?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    I repeatedly wonder how someone else's gay marriage affects me in any way. I guess knowing that gay marriage exists violates my right to have everything my own way. That's the only thing I can think of. It's a bummer to sometimes not get everything you want, but when the choice is: 1. you get your feelings hurt that someone is doing something you don't like that doesn't affect you in any way, or 2. two people don't get to be married to who they want to marry, I'll go with #1. Yeah, yeah, next they will be marrying their cats, blah, blah, blah. Tell me that when cats, trees, frogs, cars, etc. can enter into contracts. And if you really think that thousands of people are going to suddenly want to marry their mother or their sister, you are disturbed.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    Clearly states should be able to stop people of different races and religions from marrying. They should also be able to ban contraceptive use by married couples. Because some religions teach that these things are wrong. And God will punish us if states do not enact these laws. Also, unless people belong to the majority religion in each state they should not be allowed to marry, at least if that's what a majority of the people in the state say.

  • Trouble Lehi, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 1:23 p.m.

    No one is suggesting that a gay person should marry someone that he or she is not attracted to. That would be destructive to society and the individuals involved. If you don't find someone of the opposite sex that you are attracted to, then you have the right to NOT marry.

    Understandably, our gay and lesbian friends are not likely to find someone of the opposite sex to marry. However they are not required to marry. Celibacy is an acceptable alternative for anyone, gay or straight, who does not find a suitable marriage candidate of the opposite sex.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 1:25 p.m.

    If states have no right to define marriage then what is the definition of marriage according to the liberal judges?

    Are there any restrictions that can be allowed?

    Can two men and three women form a marriage?

    Can a 60 year man and a 7 year old girl form a marriage?

    Can a brother and a sister form a marriage?

    From a legal standpoint I am geniunely interested in knowing where this could lead. If the 14th ammendment is being used to strike down traditional marriage ammendments then no group of people should be restricted in forming a marriage if they so chose right?

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 1:46 p.m.

    1978, that is an interesting moniker. Those same exact arguments were used in Loving v Virginia in 1967. People stood outside their courthouses holding up signs that if the blacks (not the word they used back then) were allowed to marry the whites we would see brothers and sisters married, young and old, and polygamous marriages. And yet interracial marriage did not bring about polygamy, incest, or pedophilia as you suggest. Neither will gay marriage.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 1:53 p.m.

    @Trouble

    Celibacy is an acceptable alternative for anyone, gay or straight, who does not find a suitable marriage candidate of the opposite sex.

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

    By the standards of our Church, you are 100% correct; and we invite all people everywhere to live by such a standard. On a religious ground I agree with you fully.

    However, by what legal basis grounded in the Constitution can be used to enforce such a standard on a secular society? If we have a religiously free society it must be secular, otherwise it must have an official State religion (which is completely contrary to the First Amendment)

    Unless your rights can be shown to be infringed (and I don't see how they are, no in is forcing you to change your beliefs, opinions or enter into such a marriage) or harm can be shown to society (again on a secular level, because not all religions believe homosexuality is a sin condemned by God) we have no business to prohibit such activity.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    1978:

    You do realize that polygamy is still illegal. So is marrying a child or a brother and sister marrying. There is harm to others that can be shown in each one of these cases.

    Homosexuality is legal in all 50 states. To be able to prevent gays from marrying, you need to be able to show harm. This is what the state of Utah is having a very hard time doing with their protection of Amendment 3. They are not able to show the harm that allowing gays to marry would cause others. Anyone and anything can get married? Just not happening in countries/states that have allowed gay marriages for over a decade...Children? They seem to be thriving in gay households... Tradition? Too many times the SCOTUS has ruled against tradition when someone is being treated less than others... What argument would you use in front of a panel of judges to prove that gays are not worthy of enjoying the same rights, privileges, and benefits of marriage that you enjoy? Is there an rational reason?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 1:57 p.m.

    @1978

    Are there any restrictions that can be allowed?

    Can two men and three women form a marriage?

    Can a 60 year man and a 7 year old girl form a marriage?

    Can a brother and a sister form a marriage?

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

    Easy, if harm can be shown to another, or society than yes.

    Can two men and three women form a marriage? Currently such marriages are against our Anti-Bigamy laws, and they would have to be changed. But on principle I have no objection as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, and certain administrative complexities are solved.

    Can a 60 year man and a 7 year old girl form a marriage? No, because the 7 year old girl cannot consent to a marriage contract. For this same reason you cannot marry your dog. Red Herring.

    Can a brother and a sister form a marriage? Utah law allows first cousins to marry after a certain age (well past child bearing years) or if one can show infertility. On similar grounds, if two siblings wanted to (although I do find it icky) why not? Laws would have to change, but no one's rights are be violated.

  • MtnDewer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 1:59 p.m.

    Trouble

    Lehi, UT

    No one is suggesting that a gay person should marry someone that he or she is not attracted to. That would be destructive to society and the individuals involved. If you don't find someone of the opposite sex that you are attracted to, then you have the right to NOT marry.
    ----------

    If you do not find a Catholic Church that you enjoy attending, you have the right to stay home and not attend. You are not required to be religious.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 4:03 p.m.

    First of all I would like to thank everyone for their responses. You bring up some valid points.

    My question is really related to the 14th ammendment. Liberal judges are arguing that a state can not define marriage as it would like based on the equal protection clause.

    If that is the legal statute then no group can denied the privilege of marriage. Whether there is harm or not to children or society etc. is irrelavent. That is the unintended consequence of these rulings.

    "You do realize that polygamy is still illegal." Of course but using the same argument as liberal judges are now using it should be made legal.

    @Father of Four - Baker v. Nelson in Minnesota was an attempt to legalize gay marriage through the courts in 1972. It was denied. They tried to claim that is was the same as Loving v. Virginia and failed. However with the liberal interpretation of the 14th ammendment that exists now that didn't exist back no group should be denied.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 5:02 p.m.

    Max: It won't. You missed the point of my post.

    Ranch: As did you... (Calm down, my friend. I don't recall shoving anything at you)

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 6:26 p.m.

    @aceroinox;

    The US Constitution's protections supercede the State's right to violate the rights of it's citizens.

    @Trouble;

    You don't have any gay and lesbian friends.

    "Celibacy is an acceptable alternative..."

    --- Why don't you do it instead?

    @1978;

    To be clear, they are NOT "traditional marriage amendments", they are anti-gay-marriage amendments.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 8:01 p.m.

    @1978
    "Whether there is harm or not to children or society etc. is irrelavent. That is the unintended consequence of these rulings."

    Actually, no. It is relevant, just like SSM opponents all tried to convince the judges that SSM harms the society, harms child welfare etc. They did not ban SSM because they don't like it, but to prevent the harm SSM would cause to society. If harm principle is irrelevant, they would not argue this way, and the fact that courts all listened and scrutinized their harm arguments proves such principle is relevant.

    The only problem is that all those claims have been refuted by different courts as baseless, or at best inconclusive. That is why the opponents are losing, because they can not prove such harm.

    In the same way, if someone tries to legalize polygamy, the opponents will also argue the harm of polygamy to society, and they CAN prove that, unlike SSM opponents. And polygamy proponents must convince the court that "lost boys" produced by polygamy or other harms caused by polygamy would not occur. I don't think they can convince the court and I don't see polygamy coming by court ruling.

  • the greater truth Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 8:07 p.m.

    {second try. I do not understand what possible problem you could have wit this comment, there is none of the above: ALL-CAPS shouting, overuse of punctuation, extreme length or violated other formatting rules]

    The problem is the Gays want to redefine the RELIGIOUS institution of Marriage.

    Marriage was never a government institution. By allowing the government to get involved in defining marriage, you are allowing government to be involved with religion.

    Do want separation or not?

    If a government wants have some government "union" for whatever government purposes and you want government involved in your "union" that is fine,

    but it can not and must not call it marriage.

    Again, Marriage is a religious institution, and must left to each religion to define.

    The problem is gays wanting to redefine marriage and intertwining them with government, that is a serious problem.

    Anyone with common sense and intelligence and wanting to keep government out of religion should be able to see that.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 19, 2014 8:32 p.m.

    @1978

    Baker was decided by MN state supreme court in 1972, when same sex intimacy was still a crime, MN court did not struck down sodomy ban until 2001.

    Our county has moved on, Romer v Evans in 1996, Lawrence v Texas in 2003, Windsor in 2013, have complete changed our legal understanding of gay rights. I would not overanalyze Baker as you do.

    @the greater truth

    If you want to define marriage as a religious institution, that is fine.

    But in the eyes of law, it is a legal contract between two persons. It comes with 1100+ rights from federal government plus various rights from state governments. A couple can get married whether they are believers or atheists. They don't need any church's approve to get married, only city hall's approval. Marriage is ALREADY intertwined with government from city level to state and federal level

    That is why we have family laws to regulate marriage and divorce. That is why state courts, federal courts have so many legal decisions on marriage. Because judiciary is one of three branches of government.

    Government did not force any church to recognize SSM, and church should not impose their specific religious belief to government.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    Aug. 19, 2014 10:42 p.m.

    @the greater truth: "Marriage was never a government institution."

    Okay. Fair. Of course following the religious wedding the bride still has her legal maiden name - changing it will require filing with the court and approval of a judge.

    Tax time? Legally, two single people cohabiting. No marriage benefit.

    Spouse sick in the hospital? You're not legally married, so legally we can't talk to you about diagnosis, treatment, or condition.

    Children? The family court will be involved to rule on custody and child support, like with any other couple without a legal marriage.

    Death and inheritance? Not a legal marriage, so full taxes will be paid, and as legal strangers the dead spouse's family will inherit unless there is a will.

    Divorce? Nope, not a legal marriage. More like roommates going their seperate ways.

    And on and on and on. Over 1,100 protections that come with legal - but not religious - marriage.

    I'm thinking it won't fly with even the most true-blue religious folks.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 20, 2014 7:32 a.m.

    "Ninety percent of those who reported having no religious beliefs were found to support same-sex marriage." Think about this for a second.

    Everyone who lives in Utah shares a common environment, a common government, lives among the same neighbors, has the same co-workers, reads the same newspapers, has the same percentage of children who turn out LGBT, went to the same public schools, gets the same tv channels. So, what can we make from the wide disparity between believers and non-believers?

    I think we can conclude that there is no objective, civil rationale for denying permission for same-sex couples to marry. The only rationale appears to be derived from a highly-selective reading of the Old Testament.

    And, while 10% of non-believers don't support SSM, a greater percentage of believers, including some entire denominations, do support it.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    @the greater truth: "Marriage was never a government institution."

    I'll believe that the moment the Government gets out of the divorce business. Churches do not dissolve marriages.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Aug. 20, 2014 8:44 a.m.

    This Poll seems to contradict what we have been reading in the DN.

    I thought most people in Utah were against Same Sex Marriage. However, they were O.K. with "Civil Unions" as long as they were not called " marriage".

    This Poll indicates that most active LDS favor Prop. 3 which prevents any form of "civil union".

    I don't get it:

    were most of our active LDS lying when they supported "Civil Unions" instead of SSM?

    Could it be that perhaps people are not fully aware what it is contained in Prop. 3?

    Could it be that the questions in the Poll were not well defined and organized rendering this Poll useless?

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    Aug. 20, 2014 9:01 a.m.

    @Stormwalker, @Darrell: The only thing I would add to your fine responses regarding governmental marriage is this: The United States is one of the few countries where churches are authorized to perform part of the governmental function of marriage. The couple needs a government-issued license first, but church officials may perform the solemnization and submit the completed license to the State for recording. In most other countries without an official government church (and in some with), churches play no part in the legal marriage process whatsoever. The couple needs to marry before a government official at a government office. They can opt for whatever religious rites they want, before or afterwards, but that is not the legal marriage.

    Shorter: Our country privileges ministers with an exceptional government function to officiate weddings. But, it's still a government function.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 3:10 p.m.

    @1978
    "My question is really related to the 14th ammendment. Liberal judges are arguing that a state can not define marriage as it would like based on the equal protection clause.

    If that is the legal statute then no group can denied the privilege of marriage."

    If same-sex marriage could make that argument work then the argument would have already been in place from when the courts struck down interracial marriage bans based on equal protections.

  • the greater truth Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    @Stormwalker

    A government civil union accomplishes all that, and meet all needs of the law, without any need to redefine Marriage.

    And churches will have their Marriage.

    So let's stop wasting time fighting over the definition of marriage. Leave Marriage to the churches.

    and start fighting for a government civil licensed union, all past "marriage" licenses can grandfather in.

    If the left and gays do not want to do this, then we know their true aim of destroying the religious institution of marriage.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 6:25 p.m.

    @the greater truth

    So would you support churches handling divorces too?

    Deciding Custody? Alimony? Division of property?

    What if the couple is non religious? Those things still need to be settled.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    Aug. 20, 2014 7:48 p.m.

    @the greater truth wrote: "If the left and gays do not want to do this, then we know their true aim of destroying the religious institution of marriage."

    First: There already is a government civil union. It's called 'marriage.' It does not in any way disparage the religious sacrament of marriage.

    Second: False dilemma fallacy. "If you don't do exactly what I say, then you are against everything good and decent in this world."

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    the greater truth

    All dividing "civil union" and "marriage" up between the state and churches will do is divide up Americans who are religious and non-religious.

    There are plenty of churches who believe in marrying gay partners, so there will still be gay marriage. Of course, any heterosexual couple who does not want to use a church for their ceremony will become "civil unionized" along with any gays who are not married in a church.

    This accomplishes nothing.

  • 1978 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    @Ranch

    "they are anti-gay-marriage amendments."

    No that is not true. These ammendments don't allow polygamy or any other type of marriage other than one man and one woman.

    @USU-Logan

    The argument of determining societal harm is not effective in court as you pointed out. There are three studies involving SSM that I am familiar where two do indicate that children are harmed in SSM families. One indicates that they do well. Since the country has "moved on" the liberal judge will use the liberal interpretation of 14th ammendment.

    I could produce a study which shows that there is no harm in plural marriages as well. Just hand pick the participants. That is what the pro-LGBT study did. Using children raised in affluent Lesbian households in Manhattan where the children had tutors great day care etc. and many wonderful opportunites based on wealth.

    The pro-SSM advocates are much more politically active than the average citizen therefore are making headway. Even look at these comment boards. A solid majority of Utah citizens including myself support the state's fight in the case but the vast majority of commentors on these boards do not.

  • the greater truth Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 21, 2014 4:05 p.m.

    @Darrel

    AGAIN, the government civil union can and will deal with all that.

    Churches can decide what they want to do in regards to religious/church devolvement of marriages.

    The LDS already has their own sealing of Marriage, and it can be unsealed if one desires and members already get a government licenses.

    So all this is already being done without any problems.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    the greater truth - will there still be gay marriages with your proposal? Yes. There are plenty of churches who are willing to marry gays.

    It does nothing to save the word "marriage" from gays using it. It merely divides people into 2 segments - religious and non-religious. Not gay and straight like you want it to.

  • USU-Logan Logan, UT
    Aug. 22, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    @1978

    the difference between the studies showing same sex parenting harms children, vs the ones showing it is just fine is that, the former "studies" were repudiated by peer sociologists, and have been debunked in Prop 8 and Michigan case court trials, but the latter studies have passed the scrutiny.

    I believe you can produce a "study" showing polygamy has no harm,
    but I don't believe your "study" can pass peer review and cross examination in court.

    And I also want to say, if the court agrees with you, and legalizes polygamy, even though I disagree, I would respect the court ruling. Can you do the same for same sex marriage?

    You said there were not whole lot of SSM opponents commenting here, but if you search similar article published in DN, you would found there were a lot more opposing comments. Why fewer opposing comments now? could it because many of the opponents, even though disagree with court, yet come to terms that this is a losing case anyway, like the poll said, "believe victory unlikely", so they stopped fighting the inevitable?

  • vdubbin' Ogden, UT
    Aug. 23, 2014 8:34 p.m.

    They will call us all kinds of names, but the fact is that if we don't want same sex marriage as Utahans we need to continue to resist it. The bullies in the SCOTUS can force feed us what they will, but they and everyone else need to understand that that branch of our government are disregarding the democratic process to do so. That may work for the supporters of gay marriage now, but hopefully we will be able to get some hollow pleasure when their slice of the democratic process is stolen from them In return.