Gay Marriage in Utah

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-halts-same-sex-marriages-in-utah-pending-appeal/2014/01/06/b1af9794-76e9-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html

This article is about gay marriage in Utah. Since everyone seems pretty well informed on the matter, I won't go into detail, but apparently the same sex marriages have been halted in Utah as of today. It said that the supreme court didn't give reasons, dissenting opinions, or hints as to how this will turn out in the long run for Utah, but as of now, a stay has been granted. The article said:

The state said each marriage was an "affront" to its ability to define marriage as between only a man and a woman, as well as to the Supreme Court's role as the final arbiter of whether state bans violate an individual's constitutional right to equal protection.

Then it talked about how Shelby and the Court of appeals denied a stay, and then it talked about the opinion of those opposing a stay:

James E Magelby...said the Supreme Court's stay "is obviously disappointing for the families in Utah who need the protection of marriage and now have to wait to get married until the appeal is over...every day that goes by, same-sex couples and their children are being harmed by not being able to marry and be treated equally."

Then it talked about the role of DOMA in this mess, and how it is unknown how those already married will be dealt with, and ultimately ended with a feeling of "who knows what will happen?"

Wow. Utah. Who woulda thunk? Well where should I start? I guess I will say that I agree with Mrs. McMurray about how the court's job is to make sure that the laws follow the constitution, not just the majority opinion. I do think it is fair to put a stay on the decision though, and bring it to a higher court rather than listen only to the opinion of this court on a matter this impactful. As far as the actual issue being decided here, I am not against giving gay couples all or at least some of the benefits given to married couples. I won't stop them from living their life how they see fit, even if I disagree, but to me personally, the institution of "marriage" is, by definition, between a man and a woman. If it is not that, it isn't marriage. It is a union or partnership or whatever. I think those partnerships can be recognized by the state, but to me they still aren't "marriages". Just my two cents.