Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage


This could be the case that finally ends the debate over whether gay people are entitled to the same right to marry as straight people. In my opinion, this is an example of the court functioning as it was intended. Even in a state so deeply under the finger of a religious organization as Utah, this judge had the intestinal fortitude to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. I pray to God that this case is appealed to SCOTUS and upheld, bringing an end to codified anti-gay discrimination.

This war is over.

I always thought that because of the Mormon stance on marriage and their efforts in the past (They alone got Prop 8 in California off the ground and funded), that Utah would be the last state, or one of the last to even consider it. Oh, well.

If left to its own devices, I’m sure it would. But this decision wasn’t made by the state. This suit was in federal court. Hopefully, this decision can be applied to the entire country.

No one to blame except ourselves, in a democracy you get the government you deserve. So goes the will of the people. Now it begins.

Just like the war was over for abortion in 1973? Even if homosexual marriage is legalised in all 50 states, that doesn’t mean that all people will support it or that the Church will stop preaching against it. For all intends and purposes, it looks like homosexual marriage will continue to be a divisive, controversial issue

Legalising homosexual marriage wasn’t legalised by the support of the majority of Utah residents, it was pushed into legalisation by a judge. What did Utah residents vote to do on the issue of marriage? The majority of people who voted on the issue of marriage voted in support of a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage

Legalising homosexual marriage wasn’t legalised by the support of the majority of Utah residents, it was pushed into legalisation by a judge. What did Utah residents vote to do on the issue of marriage? The majority of people who voted on the issue of marriage voted in support of a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage:(

Legalising homosexual marriage wasn’t legalised by the support of the majority of Utah residents, it was pushed into legalisation by a judge. What did Utah residents vote to do on the issue of marriage? The majority of people who voted on the issue of marriage voted in support of a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage

There are Catholics, Christians and people of other faiths and none that have friends, family or know people that are homosexual, and like and love them, but they still do not support legalising homosexual marriage. Are you calling those people anti homosexual, who like and love people who happen to be homosexual that they know?

Opposition to gay marriage is not discrimintion

Personally, I will continue to hope and pray that the true definition of marriage is upheld. Marriage is between one man and one woman in God’s eyes. That’s all its ever been and all it ever will be in God’s eyes and in mine.

Judge said

The State of Utah has provided no evidence that opposite-sex marriage will be affected in any way by same-sex marriage


I do not know what evidence the state of Utah put across but in the opinion from Judge Robert Jones, which upheld traditional marriage in Nevada, it says

“Although the distinction the State has drawn (between one-man–-one-woman marriages on the one hand, and any other gender- or number-configuration of spouses on the other hand) largely burdens homosexuals, the distinction is not by its own terms drawn according to sexual orientation. Homosexual persons may marry in Nevada, but like heterosexual persons, they may not marry members of the same sex. That is, a homosexual man may marry anyone a heterosexual man may marry, and a homosexual woman may marry anyone a heterosexual woman may marry. In this sense, the State of Nevada has drawn no distinction at all. Under this conception of the (lack of) distinction drawn by the State, the laws at issue would receive no scrutiny at all under the Equal Protection Clause.”


*“As Justice O’Connor noted in concurrence in Lawrence, there are additional reasons to promote the traditional institution of marriage apart from mere moral disapproval of homosexual behavior, and these reasons provide a rational basis for distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples in the context of civil marriage.

Human beings are created through the conjugation of one man and one woman. The percentage of human beings conceived through non-traditional methods is minuscule, and adoption, the form of child-rearing in which same-sex couples may typically participate together, is not an alternative means of creating children, but rather a social backstop for when traditional biological families fail. The perpetuation of the human race depends upon traditional procreation between men and women. The institution developed in our society, its predecessor societies, and by nearly all societies on Earth throughout history to solidify, standardize, and legalize the relationship between a man, a woman, and their offspring, is civil marriage between one man and one woman.

( “It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.” - See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190,211 (1888) )

“Should that institution be expanded to include same-sex couples with the state’s imprimatur, it is conceivable that a meaningful percentage of heterosexual persons would cease to value the civil institution as highly as they previously had and hence enter into it less frequently, opting for purely private ceremonies, if any, whether religious or secular, but in any case without civil sanction, because they no longer wish to be associated with the civil institution as redefined, leading to an increased percentage of out-of-wedlock children, single-parent families, difficulties in property disputes after the dissolution of what amount to common law marriages in a state where such marriages are not recognized, or other unforeseen consequences.

Because the family is the basic societal unit, the State could have validly reasoned that the consequences of altering the traditional definition of civil marriage could be severe. It is not beyond rational speculation to conclude that fundamentally altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions might result in undermining the societal understanding of the link between marriage, procreation, and family structure.”*

HT: email from Micah Clark, AFAIN


Full opinion


It appears the evidence is bearing Judge Jones’s concerns in his opinion, out

Anthropologist Stanley Kurtz writes,“When we look at Nordland and Nord-Troendelag — the Vermont and Massachusetts of Norway — we are peering as far as we can into the future of marriage in a world where gay marriage is almost totally accepted. What we see is a place where marriage itself has almost totally disappeared.” He asserts that “Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable.” But it’s not just Norway. Blankenhorn reports this same trend in other countries. International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.

You might say, “Correlation doesn’t always indicate causation!” Yes, but often it does. Is there any doubt that liberalizing marriage laws impacts society for the worse? You need look no further than the last 40 years of no-fault divorce laws in the United States (family disintegration destroys lives and now costs tax payers $112 billion per year!).


In The Future of Marriage, sociologist David Blankenhorn reports the results of polls taken by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), a collaborative effort of universities in over 40 countries. In 2002, the ISSP polled 50,000 adults in 35 countries, asking whether they agreed or disagreed with six statements about the value of marriage:1) Married people are generally happier than unmarried people; 2) People who want children ought to get married; 3) One parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together; 4) It is all right for a couple to live together without intending to get married; 5) Divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can’t seem to work out their marriage problems; and 6) The main purpose of marriage these days is to have children. David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage 222-24 (Encounter Books 2007). The poll suggests strong correlations between societal attitudes devaluing marriage and the adoption of same-sex marriage. Positing that statements one, two, and six indicate support for traditional marriage and statements three, four, and five reflect a lack of support for traditional marriage, Blankenhorn concludes:

Support for marriage is by far the weakest in countries with same-sex marriage. The twelve countries that . . . have marriage-like civil unions show significantly more support for marriage. The two countries with regionally limited recognition of gay marriage (Australia and the UnitedStates) do better still on these support-for-marriage measurements, as do those . . . without gay marriage and without marriage-like civil unions

In some instances, the differences are quite large. For example, people in nations with gay marriage are less than half as likely as people in nations without gay unions to say that married people are happier. Perhaps most important, they are significantly less likely—38 percent compared with 60 percent—to say that people who want children ought to get married. They are also significantly more likely—83.1 percent compared with 49.7 percent—to say that cohabiting without intending to marry is all right, and are somewhat more likely to say that divorce is usually the best solution to marital problems. Compared with Australia and the United States [respondents in the countries with gay marriage] are significantly more likely to say that divorce is usually the best solution

Similarly, a study done by The World Values Survey, a Stockholm, Sweden-based group reveals the same correlation between acceptance of same-sex marriage and societal devaluation of marriage. The Survey, which polled over 100,000 people in 80 countries, id. at 231, 7 contained three statements about marriage with which respondents were asked to approve or disapprove: 1) A child needs a home with both a father and a mother to grow up happily; 2) It is all right for a woman to want a child but not a stable relationship with a man; and 3) Marriage is an outdated institution. Id. at 239. Again, the highest percentage of those who approved the second and third statements lived in countries with same-sex marriage. Id. at 231.8 By significant margins, support for marriage was highest in countries that do not recognize same-sex unions of any kind. Id. Thus, the correlation between societal devaluation of marriage and the acceptance of same-sex marriage is indisputable. As Blankenhorn concludes:

Certain trends in values and attitudes tend to cluster with each otherand with certain trends in behavior. A rise in unwed childbearing goeshand in hand with a weakening of the belief that people who want to have children should get married. High divorce rates are encountered where the belief in marital permanence is low. More one-parent homes are found where the belief that children need both a father and amother is weaker. A rise in non marital cohabitation is linked at least partly to the belief that marriage as an institution is outmoded. The legal endorsement of gay marriage occurs where the belief prevails that marriage itself should be redefined as a private personal elationship. And all of these marriage-weakening attitudes and behaviors are linked. Around the world, the surveys show, these things go together.9


You have forgotten one very important reality: there is religious marriage and civil marriage. Millions of people get married every day with no involvement of any religious institution. As a practicing Catholic, I have absolutely no problem with gay and lesbian couples getting married civilly. They do not remotely hurt my marriage or undermine traditional marriage in any way shape or form. People who claim that same-sex marriage does do those things have no facts to back them up. And asserting that belief in marriage is weak because of gay marriage is a logical fallacy. Someone would have to prove by statistics that states, for example, where gay marriage has been instituted have had an accelerated rate of divorce/steep decline in new marriages and show that those couples were directly influenced by gay marriage. Facts count, and so far they do not support assertions against gay marriage: phys.org/news/2013-06-traditional-marriage-unaffected-states-same-sex.html

As Catholics, we are required to be actively against even the civil recognition of homosexual unions: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

There is a great darkness covering the earth, are we really surprised at this ruling?

Come Lord Jesus!


This needs to be repeated over and over. Why are we not hearing this in homilies and from the USCCB? This is not a matter of prudential judgement. **There is no position of: **

As a practicing Catholic, I have absolutely no problem with gay and lesbian couples getting married civilly.

By taking that position, you (not *you *James) make the statement that you are no longer a practicing Catholic but a dissenting Catholic.

I, personally, wish that states would simply get out of the marriage business altogether. Since the institution of marriage has been so desecrated over the past several decades, it really and truly doesn’t do anything.

Think about it for a minute: there is no legal issue with two people living together, marriage is no longer seen as a lifelong institution (except for a few backwards fundamentalist religious people ), divorce can be achieved for any reason or no reason at all, there is no real stigma to bastardy, and so on.

The only issues that the State would be involved in are strictly peripheral in nature: insurance benefits, welfare benefits, tax law, inheritance laws, and so on. And those can just as easily be taken care of without getting the State involved in what has historically been a religious ceremony.

The only authentic, integral reason for a couple to be married is for religious purposes. And those religious purposes can be accomplished with zero involvement of the State.

Pope Leo XIII, in his 1880 encyclical Arcanum, stated:
16. Yet, owing to the efforts of the archenemy of mankind, there are persons who, thanklessly casting away so many other blessings of redemption, despise also or utterly ignore the restoration of marriage to its original perfection. It is a reproach to some of the ancients that they showed themselves the enemies of marriage in many ways; but in our own age, much more pernicious is the sin of those who would fain pervert utterly the nature of marriage, perfect though it is, and complete in all its details and parts. The chief reason why they act in this way is because very many, imbued with the maxims of a false philosophy and corrupted in morals, judge nothing so unbearable as submission and obedience; and strive with all their might to bring about that not only individual men, but families, also – indeed, human society itself – may in haughty pride despise the sovereignty of God.

  1. Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.

18. Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.

19. Nevertheless, the naturalists,[32] as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature…
Don’t get me wrong, there are many blessings to society that spring from marriage: but we’re talking about a real, genuine marriage that is life-long and bears much fruit (lots of kids). What we have now has little or no resemblance to authentic marriage. And I, for one, would prefer the Church to have nothing whatsoever to do with it…and, without the blessings of the Church, I see no valid reason for the State to maintain it.

Under Australian federal law marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman…unlike here in the US where states have the right to allow gay marriage…in Australia states do not have that right as marriage is defined under federal law…states can allow civil unions or de facto unions…but not marriage…at least for now that is the case…pray that it won’t change.

So what you’re saying is ANYONE should be allowed to marry ANYONE and the state nor society has any interest in this?
Aside from the religious aspect which I won’t argue…if you allow same-sex marriage then by what rationale do you deny ANYONE the “right” to marry?

Here’s the deal…marriage is NOT a right…marriage is a set of privileges society has granted to some relationships and not to others because those relationships support and build society.

If same sex couples have the “right” to marry without the approval of society then by the same token so do polygamous couples, and incestuous couples. In fact, if society isn’t allowed input into whom it grants the privileges associated with marriage in the case of same-gender couples…then it has NO input at all…and ANYONE that is above the age of consent can and should be allowed to marry anyone else. So, I could, by your rationale…marry my mother…or father…or brother…or sister…or all four…and if we’re all of consenting age then it’s none of your business. Correct?

Otherwise, society DOES have a vested interest in granting privilege to some relationships and not to others and the courts should stay out of it.

There is indeed. When a majority of the posts on a “Catholic” forum see no problem with the legalization of “gay marriages” there is something evil afoot. Perhaps it is because it is no longer preached from the pulpit that this is one of the sins that cry to heaven for justice? Just because secular society accepts these things does not make it right and okay. Same with abortion, but then how many “Catholics” voted for Obama who is the most pro abortion president ever? What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah? I don’t think that God was very happy with them and they were destroyed by fire reigning down on them.

Also, these judges who overturn the rule of the law in these individual states to impose their own beliefs or opinions is disgusting. Kentucky has a similar law on the books, are they going to make a ruling that overturns our marriage law as well? So basically our vote means nothing? What a sad and sorry state of affairs in this country anymore.

I pray for our country and it’s future. It is very dark indeed. :bighanky:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.