Comments about ‘Utah recognition of same-sex marriage in judge's hands’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 12 2014 4:41 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Dietrich, ID

@alt I think many judges have upheld the will of the people in so called same gender marriage legalization.

Salt Lake City, UT

I think polygamy should be decriminalized. Close relatives (I assume you mean like cousins) is already legal in around half the states so I guess it doesn't change much even if I think it's gross. I oppose marriage between immediate family members.

I'm not going to be convinced to oppose same-sex marriage due to some fearmongering about polygamists.

Do you oppose interracial marriage? I'm just wondering because that's the one setting the precedents for courts intervening in same-sex marriage bans.

And no, courts aren't going to stop this whole same-sex marriage thing, they've been ruling pretty consistently in various types of cases in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, Utah, Oklahoma, Texas...

Centerville, UT

A stay should have been issued at the time Shelby released his ruling. The fact that the stay was not granted at that time was corrected by a higher court later. In my opinion, because the stay correction was granted, the marriages should be placed on hold until the Supreme Court decides the issue and the state should not recognize those marriages yet.

Miss Piggie
Phoenix, AZ

"Life will go on, and most people won't even notice a difference--except those who gain the rights they've long been denied."

What rights being denied are you talking about? If it's about marriage... all, ALL people have the right to marry... provided they marry one person of the opposite set. This means everyone. No one is excluded.

Salt Lake City, UT

Decriminalizing polygamy seems correct since sleeping around is legal (the inconsistency is confusing). Half the states already have cousin marriage legal.

Do you oppose interracial marriage? No, of course you don't (safe assumption). The court decisions overturning those bans are what's being used as precedent for same-sex marriage, so if you're worried about me supporting something that might be used as precedent then should we have opposed interracial marriage to avoid some "what if" down the road?

"I think many judges have upheld the will of the people in so called same gender marriage legalization."

Well if many have then it should be easy to name one, particularly one that has done so since the Windsor case. Same-sex marriage advocates have Utah, Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas, Kentucky, and Ohio rulings. I have no doubt that one did so long ago but now... the tide has turned on the legal front hasn't it?

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Provo, UT


When our lives pass, every one of us must return to God and face judgement. It is going to happen. Sooner than anyone realizes. You may certainly choose to believe or not, but all of us know that the truth is something we cannot rewrite.

You can either worry about how you'll reconcile yourselves with the world or with God.

How will I deal with any of this? Well, I'd rather be right with God than any court. God will not be stayed. The courts will.

St Louis, MO

"If same sex marriage is allowed, the door then has to be opened . ."

Ah, the "slippery slope" logical fallacy. It always rears its silly head in these debates. It translates to "My religious leaders say this is wrong, but since we, unfortunately, don't live in a theocracy, I must use some other argument to impose my religious views on others." If anyone here can tell me they buy into this type of logic and doesn't also object for religious reasons, I will be surprised.

You can apply the same "logic" to pretty much any law or ruling and it would make as much sense as it does here. Try it; I'll bet you can easily do it whether you agree with me on SSM or not. In short, the position that "If we allow A to happen, then B, C, and eventually X will happen!" is just not convincing to adults.

But then it really doesn't matter. SSM will be legal soon across the country, and in 20 years your grandkids will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Dietrich, ID

Religious people and churches have as much right to speak out on moral issues as those that disagree with those morals. Hypocritical there. Can't refute so tell them to be quiet. The tide turned on Pilate and Herod when they put people to death. Was that the right side of the Tide. God will not change his laws even if man does.

Values Voter

You're right, I do perceive a likelihood of bias on the part of Judge Kimball, but I would absolutely love to be proven wrong.

After reading the opinions of Judge N. Randy Smith -- the dissenter in the 3-judge panel hearing in Perry v. Brown, (9th circuit appeal) -- and Judge Robert C. Jones, ruling against the plaintiff couples in Nevada's Sevcik v. Sandoval, I've learned to be guarded in my expectations when it comes to judges, who are also Mormons. Of course, both of those relatively recent decisions were pre-Windsor and now the legal landscape is quite different.

In any case, which ever way Judge Kimball rules, I look forward to reading his opinion.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@higv: God's laws have indeed changed. Christians live under the New Covenant. In Romans 14, Paul clearly explains to us the difference between Law of the Old Covenant and the New.

Leviticus banned in no uncertain terms pork, clam chowder, shrimp cocktail, catfish, escargot, rabbit, and most game birds. Eating them was Abomination. Why is it now not?

Paul explains, "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean....For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. ... For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. ... Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT


Interesting you didn't post my whole comment.

Like I said before, just because I agree with something a religious group does doesn't mean my support is based on religion.

It is not.

Want to try again?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Chris B: "Like I said before, just because I agree with something a religious group does doesn't mean my support is based on religion.

It is not."


What is it based on then? Can you define what your position is and support that position with facts and legal arguments that would stand up in court without any religious idea mentioned?

I would love to hear this.


These couples were and are legally married in the state of Utah. The arguments put forward by the state are embarrassing to anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of the law.

Utahns, you knew when you joined the Union that your laws would be subject to federal judicial review. We told you not to pass the blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional Amendment 3. You wouldn't listen.

Are you listening now?

Salt Lake City, UT

"Utah recognition of same-sex marriage in judge's hands"

Since Shelby's ruling that overturned the voter-approved Utah constitution amendment, it's clear that this has been the case all along. At least in a strictly legal sense.

However, as I've noted previously, all REAL power lies with the people. If enough people value marriage enough to insist on defining it as they wish to, **that** is what it will be.

The fact that the definition of marriage can be so muddied in the span of just a few years shows what power there was in the initially subtle but increasingly overt and heavy marketing campaign by the gay lobby during the last couple decades. We haven't arrived at this dismal state of marriage by accident. It's been a long time in the making and a lot of strategic planning went into this.

If the reverence for marriage between men and women is ever going to be regained, it will only come from an equally dedicated plan of action. The forces arrayed against it are very formidable and determined.

Salt Lake City, UT

For debate sake:

Imagine that the Federal and State governments decided that home ownership was beneficial to communities and society. Suppose that both governments decided to grant tax deductions to homeowners. Suppose that States had the duty to define homeownership.

Now suppose that renters declared that this was unconstitutional to grant homeowners benefits while denying them the same. Suppose that renters wanted the State’s definition of homeownership changed to include renters. Also suppose that renters were being discriminated against and other rights were being violated.

What is the most logical solution? To address the discrimination and other rights of the renters directly? Or to redefine homeownership?

Christopher B
Ogden, UT


Lets use a very simple analogy in hopes a very simple concept can be understood.

Imagine your mom says that eating vegetables are good.

Then imagine that I also say eating vegetables are good.

That does NOT prove that my belief that eating vegetables is good is based on the fact your mom said that eating vegetables are good.

My reason for believing eating vegetables is good could be based on what my new doctor has said, what my childhood doctor said, what I read in a medical book, what I read in a study about vegetables, my personal experience of eating vegetables....

See how simple that is?

The fact your mom and I agree doesn't mean my support is based on your mom's statement, even if I agree with her.

Hopefully that clears things up!

If not, let me know. Always happy to help.

Midwest City, USA, OK

"the state is disrupting their lives because it doesn't recognize their unions."

"The fact is these people are legally married,"

Well, no, they're not. A single person made an overreaching and misguided decision to ignore the core law of the State of Utah, and these people rushed in to exploit it. This not only makes it hard on them, but forever sours the chance of others accepting such a union in any good faith.

If I wanted to establish a reliable and valid "marriage" with someone, that's certainly not how I'd go about it.

Midwest City, USA, OK

As a secondary considering, because it has been brought up, is to note that interracial marriage has nothing to do with this. Interracial marriage isn't about marriage, it's about race.

This is about marriage, something that is independent of race, religion, nationality, and sexual orientation.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Hi Chris,

I was speaking specifically about gay marriage. WHY do you believe as you do. I do not care if you agree with my mother or Pres. Monson.

I am asking for your reasons why you believe as you do. Do you have any facts or an argument that might persuade others to your point of view, or is it merely a personal belief? Is there any logical reason for you agreeing with the Pope? Is there a legal reason (per our constitution) that makes you feel that your anti-gay marriage side should prevail?

Thanks for your reply.


@ Azazeal: You have a very interesting analogy - but it is not quite correct.

See, most anyone can buy a home - provided they meet the basic requirement of being able to pay for it. People who rent have usually either chosen that voluntarily, or are doing it as a mid-step on their way to qualifying for homeownership.

in your scenario, it would be more correct to compare renting to cohabiting.

So, we have renters (cohabiting couples) and owners (married couples). Yes, there may be some inequalities in benefits (tax credits for instance) but most people consider those when making the choice to rent or own - and as time goes on they can re-evaluate that choice and make a new one.

Now, let's add in same-sex couples. These are couples who would dearly love to buy a home and they are well able to afford it, but they have been told that they do not have the option to buy but must always rent.

Your suggestion is that instead of allowing same-sex couples to buy, we should eliminate all differences between renting and owning.

Why change the whole system instead of allowing them to buy?

to comment

About comments