Federal judge strikes down Utah’s same-sex marriage ban

SALT LAKE CITY – A federal judge declared Utah’s same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional Friday afternoon.

In a 53-page ruling, federal Judge Robert Shelby struck down Utah’s Amendment 3 as unconstitutional, as it “denies the plaintiffs their rights of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

The plaintiffs are three same-sex couples who sued Utah over its same-sex marriage ban. Amendment 3 classifies marriage as being between a man and a woman only.

“The State of Utah has provided no evidence that opposite-sex marriage will be affected in any way by same-sex marriage,” Shelby said in his ruling. He continued:

Moreover, the Constitution protects the Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights, which include the right to marry and the right to have that marriage recognized by their government. These rights would be meaningless if the Constitution did not also prevent the government from interfering with the intensely personal choices an individual makes when that person decides to make a solemn commitment to another human being.

The ruling can be read in its entirety here.

The following statement is from Cody Craynor, spokesperson for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, concerning the ruling:

The Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with respect. This ruling by a district court will work its way through the judicial process. We continue to believe that voters in Utah did the right thing by providing clear direction in the state constitution that marriage should be between a man and a woman and we are hopeful that this view will be validated by a higher court.

Approximately 66 percent of Utah voters voted in favor of Amendment 3 in 2004.

Same-sex marriage licenses have begun to be issued across the state in the wake of the ruling.

The Utah’s Attorney General’s Office has stated will it seek an emergency stay of the Amendment 3 ruling:

The federal district court’s ruling that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right has never been established in any previous case in the 10th Circuit. The state is requesting an emergency stay pending the filing of an appeal. The Attorney General’s Office will continue reviewing the ruling in detail until an appeal is filed to support the constitutional amendment passed by the citizens of Utah.

While the LDS Church and some state officials do not agree with the ruling, others are celebrating it.

“We’re glad that the court has ruled against this discriminatory law,” said John Mejia, legal director of the ACLU of Utah, in a statement. “This law only serves to deny loving and committed couples the protection and dignity that only comes with marriage. We congratulate the brave couples who brought this challenge and their legal team.”

Equality Utah posted on its Facebook page:

Marriage is about committed couples who want to take responsibility for each other – and who want to make a lifelong promise to take care of each-other, in sickness and in health. Thank you Judge Shelby for striking down Utah’s Amendment 3.

Local reaction

The Washington County Clerk’s Office has begun to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after waiting on advisement from the county attorney’s office.

“I believe everyone on this earth was created by God, and deserves to be treated with respect,”  Apple Valley resident Cathy Williams said. “However, I personally believe in the traditional, biblical definition of marriage; that it is meant to be between a man and a woman.”

Randy Thomson, of Ivins, said: “Such a joyous moment for all Utahns. This is history in the making, and such an enormous step for equal rights. This is the happiest moment thus far in my life! To have my home state, the state I was born and raised in to say that I’m an equal human being means more than I think words could express.”

Annettie Cannvale, of Ivins: “Words cannot express how overjoyed I am at hearing this news. I am a straight, married woman who has been a supporter of same-sex marriage and equal rights all my life. As a resident of Utah, it gives me great pride to know that our state now aligns with this very important cause and will allow all marriages to stand as equal … Today gives us all hope for a brighter future and a better tomorrow, and is well deserved.”

St. George News reporter Alexa Verdugo Morgan contributed to this article.

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @MoriKessler

Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2013, all rights reserved.


Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • Mark December 20, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    I love my dog.. She’s so cute and affectionate.. I want to marry her. I wonder if this is lawful? Hmm.. I’ll contact an attorney right away!

    • Matthew Jacobson December 20, 2013 at 5:13 pm

      Really? Can your dog sign a contract and consent to this incredible relationship you profess? If so, then I think you’ve got a case. And, I think you’ve got a dog that deserves to be on national television.

    • Not a bigot December 20, 2013 at 5:21 pm

      Because dogs have the ability to agree to a marriage? You’re right. You are a pig. Go ahead and marry a dog.

    • Steve December 20, 2013 at 5:59 pm

      According to the judge, it would be ok because in doesn’t affect opposite sex marriages.

      • Marcus December 20, 2013 at 6:14 pm

        But, a dog can’t sign a contract, so… Yeah…

    • Amanda Shaw December 20, 2013 at 6:55 pm

      BAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That’s a good one! 🙂

    • Amanda Shaw December 20, 2013 at 6:56 pm

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That’s great!!!! 🙂

    • Nonbeliever December 20, 2013 at 8:43 pm

      It’s so refreshing to hear idiotic and hateful comments from people like you.
      It would be such a dull and misinformed comment section without the faint yapping of dolts such as yourself.

  • Isley December 20, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    2011 Obama appointee…what a surprise

    • simone December 21, 2013 at 1:32 am

      IKR? President Obama made the right decision…..again.

    • Smigman December 21, 2013 at 10:14 am

      Yes, an Obama appointee……recommended to him by Utah/LDS senator Orin Hatch. Love it!!!!

  • Brandt Hardin December 20, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    We need an across-the-board decision by the Federal Government. Here in TN, they’ve gone as far as to create a new holiday- “Traditional Marriage Day” in which the wording of the bill quotes The Holy Bible. Why does the State feel it has the right to continually define marriage? Exactly what is “Traditional” Marriage in Tennessee seeing as even Interracial Marriage is STILL outlawed by the State Constitution along with Same Sex Marriage? http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2013/08/on-wrong-side-of-hypocrisy-traditional.html

  • Matthew Jacobson December 20, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    It’s so easy to poo-poo something that you have but have no idea what it’s like to not have. The previous commenters on this thread could learn to live a little more like Christ and be happy the people around them don’t have to suffer any longer, rather than make snide comments about people with very real lives, real feelings and real situations that will be wholly improved because of this situation.

    • Amanda Shaw December 20, 2013 at 6:59 pm

      Maybe if people were more Christ like they’d see that Homosexuality is wrong and forbidden in the Bible if you want to talk about religion here…. Just saying…

      • Mike December 20, 2013 at 9:17 pm

        OH please Amanda, do me a favor and read your clothing labels, in the same area of the Bible that you are using to support your bigotry it also says you should not wear clothing of mixed cloths, or eat shellfish and you should hang a bloody sheet outside your home to prove your daughter is a virgin. Also a rapist can force his victim to marry him. I would like you to turn to the words of Christ where he condemned homosexuals in Mark, no wait, John, no wait, it was Luke, no wait, Matthew? Oh that’s right, Christ never said anything against the ‘mo’s. So if his life, death and resurrection wiped away the old laws then it too must have wiped away all the condemnations to which you tirelessly refer.
        Honestly I have no problem with you disliking gays, that’s your right as a human to be prejudice, personally I dislike bigots, but I am actually friends with quite a few, as long as their bigotry doesn’t affect me.

      • Smigman December 21, 2013 at 10:26 am

        Mike is right, and further, while Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, he did say about divorce that “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” yet Christians get divorced every day. If you insist (as is your right) that people be more Christ-like, maybe you and your fellow Christians should be leading the fight to make divorce illegal.

    • Jessica December 21, 2013 at 9:56 am

      Perhaps the hateful people should re-read the bible. Jesus didn’t like the pharisees. So, be more “Christ-like” and stop being one. You seriously need a bible study. Go to a different church that actually uses the bible not some made up book from a con artist. Toodles.

  • anna December 20, 2013 at 5:36 pm

    Why is everyone getting in such a twist about this? Aren’t we supposed to keep religion separate from state? If you don’t believe in gay marriage, then don’t marry someone who is gay. How is someone else getting married hurting you?
    As for the person who made the comment about marrying their dog….Really? So inter-species marriage in your eyes is the same as a marriage between two human beings. Hmmmm. Nice to know you put homosexuals on the same level as an animal. Quite christian of you.

    • Steve December 20, 2013 at 6:41 pm

      And how would mark being married to a dog affect you Anna? If you dont want to marry a dog, don’t. You see Anna, it doesn’t have to affect anybody to be wrong.

      • simone December 21, 2013 at 2:42 am

        steve, i ask you this, How do you justify telling another capable consenting adult who they should or should not marry? Why is it any of your business? For that matter, why do the majority of people who voted for this in Utah feel it is okay to tell capable consenting adults who they should and should not marry? Contrary to what I would venture to say is the opinion of at least some of the negative posters here, Gay capable consenting adults want to marry other like Gay adults. Gay people are not fighting this battle sot they can marry their Cat, Dog, Car or Child. In case these negative posters have not heard, Cats, Dogs, Cars and Children are not capable of giving an informed consent. They are fighting this battle merely so they can enjoy the same rights and privileges under the law as their heterosexual counterparts.

        Furthermore, Have you considered what it would be like if the situation were reversed and it was heterosexual people who were fighting for rights? I ask you to consider this because I doubt very much that heterosexual people like yourself would stand idly by and do nothing to change the law in that situation.

        • Steve December 21, 2013 at 8:09 am

          There are tons of laws in place that are none of anyones business. I don’t see all the liberals crying about legalizing prostitution. What business is it of yours if two consenting adults wanted to pay for sex?Simone, the state of Utah voted on the issue and gays should live with it just as conservatives have to live with the current president this country voted on. Why is this so difficult to understand?

  • Roy J December 20, 2013 at 5:41 pm

    Judicial legislation at its finest.

    • Hunter December 21, 2013 at 9:13 am

      How so? I know a lot of people really like to throw that term around when things don’t go their way, but do you even know what it means? Our government was established with three branches to facilitate a balance of power. This balance of power is there to ensure one branch can’t wield so much influence as to curtail the freedoms of our country’s citizens. In this case, a law was passed by a popular vote and was challenged by citizens who believed their freedom was affected by it. At this stage, the judicial branch agreed. A judge’s job is not to rubber stamp a law just because a majority of voters approved it. If the majority of Utahns went to the polls and voted to disallow marriage for anyone who is a natural redhead, would you simply throw up your hands and say, “well, the voters have spoken?” I doubt it.

      • Roy J December 21, 2013 at 1:52 pm

        The term judicial legislation, in the sense that Robert Bork might have used it, does apply to this case. Whether you think that is good or bad is, I suppose, debatable. But let’s be honest about the judicial system: it has always been prone to abuse. This ruling is a good example. However, I don’t suggest that we therefore take the issue outside the existing body of law. I think that this ruling, which I and alot of other people disagree with, can and should be overruled by the 10th district judges en banc, and if not by them then by SCOTUS, and if not by them then by an amendment to the Constitution by Congress. That is the method of our rule of law, and I support it. And that being said, if there is a moral majority across the country that opposes this ruling, and their representatives in Congress are not representing them as they should, it is the responsibility of that majority to toss them out on their ear and elect representatives that will represent. I don’t know if that majority exists, but by the sudden and overwhelming support of Daddy Duck, I think it might.

        • Hunter December 22, 2013 at 9:36 am

          While I agree wholeheartedly with you that the courts need checks and balances just as our three branches need them (and that those checks and balances exist in the form of the appellate courts), the rest of your post doesn’t really address Steve’s claim of legislating from the bench. It actually sort of supports my point to him. The fact is, there is NOT a moral majority anymore across this country on this matter. There’s been a significant shift in Americans’ opinion on this matter, and while I wouldn’t say they are overwhelmingly in favor of allowing same sex marriage, the balance is very slightly tipped in that direction. I believe it will continue to go that way as more and more Americans realize there is no reason to deny their fellow citizens the right to marry. As far as a Constitutional amendment…good luck with that. We can’t even get our politicians to agree on simple matters anymore, let alone get 38 states on board. And, with regard to the ruling, I’m sure we can each find legal scholars on both sides who will support our position. I guess we’ll just have to watch it play out.

  • Steve December 20, 2013 at 5:52 pm

    Once again a single judge disregards what the majority of an entire state voted on. What is the point of voting any more? Most of us in utah are not in favor of same sex marriages, but yet it is forced upon us.

    • Not a bigot December 20, 2013 at 6:17 pm

      Most of us? You mean most of the people you associate with. Move along.

      • Steve December 20, 2013 at 9:45 pm

        Most of us meaning what the majority of the state voted on. And no, I am not Mormon. I just believe what is morally right. The people of the entire state voted and it should be left at that.

    • Mike December 20, 2013 at 7:16 pm

      Yes Steve, now you must marry a dude. *eyeroll

    • Nonbeliever December 20, 2013 at 8:39 pm

      It’s incredible how hateful and bigoted the Utah Mormons are.
      I am appalled at the sheer ignorance and nastiness perpetuated by a supposed Christian religion.
      You seem to forget “love thy neighbor” and “love one another” when it applies to someone not part of your religion.
      How is gay marriage being “forced” on you? Are you signing more marriage certificates? Carpal Tunnel going to act up and ruin your day?
      Gay marriage will not hurt or effect you and your brood.

      • Steve December 20, 2013 at 9:51 pm

        You are assuming I am Mormon which I am not. Seems like you have issues with Mormons.

        • Nonbeliever December 20, 2013 at 11:22 pm

          My apologies Steve. It’s become increasingly difficult to differentiate between “conservatives”, most religions and those of us who are none of the above.
          I only have issues with bigots and narrow minded people actually. Sad to say they tend to fall under those specific categories.

      • Gmom December 20, 2013 at 11:34 pm

        considering UTAH had to ban polygamy, a practice of the Mormons at the time, in order to become a state by mandate of Congress and the Supreme Court…. I think they have every right to be a little steamed up about “marriage equality” and how the federal government decides that in this state regardless of what the majority wants. Marriage equality my butt!

  • Marcus December 20, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    I’m glad (:

  • Patti December 20, 2013 at 6:19 pm

    How come “The Church” always has to put their half a cent in? Who freaking cares what they have to say. I don’t judge…but they do.

    • Gmom December 20, 2013 at 11:38 pm

      You might find this interesting considering “the Church” which founded and mainly developed this territory had to change it’s definition of marriage in order for UTAH to become a state in the first place….

    • simone December 21, 2013 at 1:29 am

      The church put their half cent in because, in Utah, the church and the state go hand in hand. Oh sure we have a Governor, Congress and Senators but lets be honest here; Most of them would jump off the Golden Gate Bridge without any sort of safety equipment or net if their Fuhrer, Thomas Monson, told them to.

      • Steve December 21, 2013 at 10:06 am

        That was so nice of you to speak for MOST of THEM Simone.

  • JamesB December 20, 2013 at 6:47 pm

    If a father wants to leave his son a large sum of money but does not want his son to have to pay an inheritance tax can he now marry his son before he dies to avoid the tax? Spouses don’t have to pay the tax. These rulings are going to open a big can of legal worms in the future. Just sayin’.

    • Randy Thomson December 21, 2013 at 11:33 pm

      Um.. no. You do realize that incest is still illegal yes? …and by that logic what stops a father from marrying his daughter, so that she doesn’t have to pay tax?

      Hah, silly silly boy….

  • Randy Thomson December 20, 2013 at 7:17 pm

    Well, if it takes a judge to rule on equal rights because the ‘majority of an entire state’ are religious bigots, then so be it. This is a joyous day for equality!

  • bUB December 20, 2013 at 7:29 pm

    I think the whole gay rights thing is way overblown, and pushes real issues out of the spotlight.

    • Hunter December 21, 2013 at 9:16 am

      I would argue the stability of Utah’s families led by same sex couples is very “real” to them. Every single day.

  • Giuseppe December 20, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    The constitution protects the minority when the majority trample their rights, so voting against same sex marriage is just such a case of the majority bullying the minority. Separation of church and state. It doesn’t matter what your religion is or beliefs the church can’t (or isn’t suppose to) make the laws. The State law was found unconstitutional by a federal judge so until Utah secedes from the United States federal law will prevail.

    Quote THE YOUNGBLOODS “Get Together” ~ “Come on people now, smile on your brother. Everybody get together try to love one another right now.“

    • Gmom December 20, 2013 at 11:41 pm

      not so….atleast not when the Utah territory was petitioning to be made a state….polygamists were attacked by Congress and the Supreme Court and laws made against the practice of it and it therefore had to be banned in order for UT to gain recognition as a state….I don’t see the constituion protecting the minority there…

      • Giuseppe January 23, 2014 at 4:12 pm

        Utah wasn’t a state at the time and the “Mormons” could have continued being polygamists if they didn’t want to be a state. but the privileges and advantages of being a state were to great to pass up so the all mighty prophets had a revelation that polygamy was bad, dropped it from their religion and applied for state hood. Even though the elders continued to have multiple unwed women with children living in their homes. Gee I wonder who the husbands were to all those unwed women and the fathers to all the children born to those women. So no rights trampled there they could have continued to be polygamists but not a state. The pioneers had a choice.

  • Craig December 20, 2013 at 7:39 pm

    It’s about time, Utah! HOORAY!!!

  • Malin Williams December 20, 2013 at 8:22 pm

    One of the reasons that the state defines marriage is to grant certain privileges to married couples based on the idea that certain unions are beneficial to society. Stable marriages and families tend to make for a more stable society. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God so that children can be born into such stable circumstances. Same sex marriages cannot provide the same stable, natural home for their children…assuming they were able to have them…and therefore this kind of union cannot provide the same benefits to society. So, live together if you wish, but this part of society (me) will never recognize your union as legitimate, judicial legislation notwithstanding. I will treat you kindly, but will never believe that your union is legitimate.

    I recognize that there will be those who choose to think unkindly of me for exercising my right to have and express an opinion. Ironic, isn’t it?

    • Mike December 20, 2013 at 9:28 pm

      Hiya Malin!
      May I point out the obvious fallacy in your argument? You assert that only straight people have stable relationships? How do you support that? This country has a greater than 50% divorce rate, we have couples that split and use their children as weapons against one another. I know many amazing single mothers and fathers who raise their children alone, do they not provide stable homes? I have been blessed to know some amazing same sex couples who have raised amazing children of their own most of them without the benefit of legal protections that straight couples have. You are trying to use a religious definition of marriage as a legal version. Religion should never dictate law, it has never been intended to be that way. If you are fine with that type of practice then I invite you to try out the middle east where sharia law (a completely religious mandate) many of the countries there. Let’s stone a woman for daring to remove her veil and show her face. Let’s circumcise little girls so they are incapable of enjoying sex and will never cheat on their husbands. Using religion to dictate law is a slippery slope.
      I applaud you for sharing your opinion and I heartily believe it is valid for you. Does that make it correct and absolute? No. Just as you might prefer Ford over Chevy that does not unequivocally prove that one is actually better than the other, it is simply an opinion.

    • Randy Thomson December 20, 2013 at 10:37 pm

      Nobody is asking you to either. You are absolutely right though, you can certainly express your opinion all you want but it doesn’t make it fact nor does it give you an exception when others want to express thier opinion that your a complete ignorant bigot. 😀

    • Nonbeliever December 20, 2013 at 11:01 pm

      Malin you have offered a lot of assumptions in your comments.
      How do you know same sex couples are not capable of creating a stable and natural home life for their children?
      Do you actually know any gay couples personally? Any conversations with them about child reading or discussions about their ethics and values?
      Everyone is so quick to pass judgement on people they really know nothing about.
      I am nauseated by this community.
      Bigots, racists and religious snobs.
      All attributes that create intolerance and fear from birth to death. If that’s what you were working towards you are all doing a fine job.

    • Hunter December 21, 2013 at 9:24 am

      The great part is…I am not asking YOU to recognize anything (although a little self reflection on what it means to be a Christian might be in order). The fact that the STATE recognizes my marriage more than compensates me for your disapproval. That alone entitles me to more than one thousand state and federal benefits and protections I have previously been denied, including the ability to make important decisions for my spouse in the face of an emergency, visit my spouse in the hospital without fear of removal, rest easy knowing the property and wealth we have created TOGETHER as law-abiding, tax paying citizens of this country is protected should anything happen to either of us. Yeah, I think those things make me feel a little better and take the sting out of you not thinking we’re married. Oh, and the fact that my family and friends, many of whom are Christian and even Mormon, support us and are thrilled that our marriage is just as important as theirs are.

      • Giuseppe December 22, 2013 at 6:33 pm

        Hunter, I am a 54 year old heterosexual male and seeing same sex marriages on the news brought tears to my eyes. I am so proud to be an American and thankful that the world is finally starting to accept ALL people. Congratulations to you and yours. I hope the appeal process is short and the current ruling stands.

  • James Legg December 20, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    Romans 1:21
    For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
    Romans 1:22
    Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
    Romans 1:23
    and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
    Romans 1:24
    Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
    Romans 1:25
    because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
    Romans 1:26
    For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
    Romans 1:27
    and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
    Romans 1:28
    And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
    Romans 1:29
    They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
    Romans 1:30
    slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
    Romans 1:31
    foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

    • Nonbeliever December 20, 2013 at 11:05 pm

      You are regurgitating words written by men. Imperfect men. These words have been altered over the decades to suit needs and attitudes.
      You are not here in earth to be judge and jury.

    • Randy Thomson December 20, 2013 at 11:30 pm

      I’m glad the bible says such things, now show me where it says it in the US Constitution. Truely thankful that we have seperation of Church and State in this great country.

    • simone December 21, 2013 at 1:21 am

      Thank you for your very accurate description of Mormonism.

    • Hawk December 21, 2013 at 2:19 am

      Isn’t that the same book that said all with dark skin are descendants of Cain?

  • Chris December 20, 2013 at 11:50 pm

    Randy, until 2 dudes can create an offspring together you will never be equal! Gays will never have true equality and that’s a fact!

    • Smigman December 21, 2013 at 10:40 am

      So a heterosexual Mormon couple who can not have children are inferior to a couple who can and their marriage isn’t as illegitimate? You see this is what your logic suggests?

    • Randy Thomson December 21, 2013 at 11:37 pm

      Equal, in the eyes of the law Chris. Lady Justice is blind, she doesn’t care that two men don’t make babies. I may never be equal in your eyes, but then I really could care less of what ignorant small-minded bigots think.

  • simone December 21, 2013 at 1:42 am

    Thank God for Judge Shelby! 🙂

  • Samuel December 21, 2013 at 5:24 am

    Allow me to quote from a classic:

    Yukon Cornelius: “This fog’s as thick as peanut butter!”
    Hermey: “You mean pea soup.”
    Yukon Cornelius: “You eat what you like, and I’ll eat what I like!”

    Congrats to Utah for allowing people to eat what they like! Now we apparently need to focus on the “love one another” and “judge not” parts…

  • Craig December 21, 2013 at 5:38 am

    This is a letter written several years ago to Dr. Laura Schlessinger who often claimed homosexuals were a mistake of nature. Many of you Bible thumpers may be able to learn a thing or two about the Bible and what you think is the true word of God.

    Dear Dr. Laura,
    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

    I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

    a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

    g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

    i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
    Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
    Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
    Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp#vZxgcHd41gdX6C48.99

  • Mike December 21, 2013 at 8:50 am

    Seems to me that if God Almighty decided to send some dude up a mountain so he could give him some laws written by his own “hand” so the peeps down below knew he was not messing around that those laws would be for real and serious and stuffs. I mean, HE wrote them, right? Me, I like to call these bad boys the Big 10. Let’s see what they say, shall we?
    1. I am the Lord they God thou shalt not have any other Gods before me. (nope nothing gay here)
    2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (still no gay)
    3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (nope)
    4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy (again, nope)
    5. Honour thy father and thy mother (huh, we’re halfway through it’s gotta be here somewhere right?)
    6. Thou shalt not kill (do you think these arranged in a specific order? This one seems like a biggie)
    7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (oo oo, maybe this one can be stretched to fit)
    8. Thou shalt not steal (hmmm only 2 more)
    9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour (negative)
    10. Thou shalt not covet (here’s another one, maybe this one can stretch too)

    I just don’t see it. I mean HE’s pretty specific about this stuff, much of it can’t be taken two ways. I think if the whole gay thing was that big of an issue HE woulda thought, “hmmm this could come back to bite me in the butt, I better be specific.” But apparently he wasn’t. He’s omnipotent and all so he had to know this was gonna come up in the future. But i guess it’s just more important to him that we don’t get all ” I WANT MY NEIGHBOR’S CAR”.
    Maybe this was written on the tablet that Moses dropped?

  • zacii December 21, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    Well, I guess nobody’s surprised that this happened.

    I think that the real problem here isn’t who can marry, but rather why is the state a party to such things?

    The gov’t has way to much to say about our lives; who we can/can’t marry, what we can/can’t put into our bloodstream, what we can/can’t spend our money on, or even whether we can/can’t keep our own money earned by our own sweat.

    The only reason that the gov’t is involved in our marriages is so that they can tax us, our estates and inheritances, and by so doing have more control over us and our children.

    It ain’t about marriage equality. It’s about us the servants being equally subservient to a runaway gov’t. And it’s not limited to federal and state levels.

  • D Hodja December 22, 2013 at 1:03 am

    People on here are comparing two humans marrying to marrying a pet? There are others including this very article, and the LDS church who unfortunately do not get it. Voting? We don’t vote on human rights. The judge upheld a human beings right to make a personal choice about marrying another human being. Super sad that any human being could be so filled with hate and fear that they would post something so offensive concerning marrying a dog. Utah you have got to break free of the archaic cultural teachings and use your heads a bit more. Brigham Young is now admittedly wrong, completely wrong on blacks, perhaps again you and your religion are on the wrong side of history. Stop the hate and judgment Utah.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.