Hundreds of gay couples flock to wed in Utah after judge's ruling; state vows to keep up fight

  • Article by: BRADY McCOMBS , Associated Press
  • Updated: December 23, 2013 - 6:52 PM

SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge on Monday allowed gay marriage to continue in Utah, rejecting a request to put same-sex weddings on hold as the state appeals a decision that has sent couples flocking to county clerk offices for marriage licenses.

  • 35
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
ericgus55Dec. 23, 1311:42 AM

I still haven't heard an argument why the law (Utah Constitutional Amendment) banning same-sex marriage should be valid. The Federal Judge in this case has ruled that it is in violation of the US Constitution (14th Amendment 'equal protection' and 14th and 5th Amendment 'deprived of liberty without due process'). If a state law or amendment is in violation of the US Constitution, 'the will of the people' in that state is irrelevant, because the US Constitution trumps.

37
3
tituspulloDec. 23, 1312:44 PM

ericgus55Dec. 23, 1311:42 AM I still haven't heard an argument why the law (Utah Constitutional Amendment) banning same-sex marriage should be valid.__________and you never will. Have you noticed the plague, pestilence and diminished state of heterosexual marriages in THIS state since same-sex marriage has been legal? Me neither....

37
2
subotai1Dec. 23, 1312:47 PM

And Theocracy fails in Utah again.....

32
1
goferfanzDec. 23, 1312:48 PM

More unelected judges forcing their personal belief system on citizens, and laughably citing the Constitution while doing it. It is like Roe v Wade, aka NOT discussed in the Constitution = just more judicial nonsense to drive citizens further and further apart. This wont end well for America.

5
51
daytonsajokeDec. 23, 13 1:04 PM

yeah, another judge also ruled that the law against polygamy was unconstitutional as well. He used the same legal reasoning as the ruling which stated that the law against same sex marriage was unconstitutional.

2
22
verdin11Dec. 23, 13 1:19 PM

Anyone personally apposed to the notion of same-sex marriage has every right to simply refrain from marrying a member of their own gender. I wonder if the anti marriage equality folks are aware that this option is still available.

27
3
hawkeye56379Dec. 23, 13 1:38 PM

goferfanz: Due process and equal protection are not mentioned in the Constitution?????????? Check again. and dayton: That other case did not rule that polygamy (as most people understand the term) was legal. The part of the law that banned cohabitation was struck down, but the law saying that you can only be married to one person at a time was upheld.

21
2
goferfanzDec. 23, 13 1:48 PM

Spare me, hawkeye. I see no mention of same-sex marriage in the Constitution. None. Ditto for abortion. We have had Civil War in the past, it seems likely we will have it again. You cant have these unelected, fascist judges decreeing their personal beliefs upon the citizenry. Nothing drove America apart in the 20th century like Roe v Wade. This marriage nonsense will do the same this century. The bitterness, even now, is stunning.

4
29
blorangeDec. 23, 13 2:18 PM

It's a festivus miracle

19
1
hawkeye56379Dec. 23, 13 2:37 PM

goferfanz: Equal protection means equal protection generally. It isn't necessary for the Constitution to say "equal protection applies to this, and this and this....". And equal protection was found to apply to marriage equality back in the 60's when the Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage. I have to laugh at the oddity of calling a judge "fascist" for INCREASING people's rights!

15
2

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT