Reader comments
Gay marriage opponents vow to fight California ruling
94 comments | Read story
Phantom Panther | 8:54 a.m. May 16, 2008
The gays have the California Supreme Court on their side. It is highly unlikely
the Court is going to listen to pro-traditional family activists. Like the gays
they are carrying water for, the Supreme Court is determined to force
Californians to accept homosexuality as a "right." Considering their
liberal mindset, it would not surprise me if the California Supreme Court ruled
that homosexuality was superior to traditional marriage and outlawed traditional
marriage. All in the name of "tolerance" and stopping "hate
speech." We live in perilous times.
Hooray at Last! | 9:13 a.m. May 16, 2008
Courts were established to prevent the dictatorship of the majority of voters
from trampling on the rights of the minority. What a WONDERFUL concept. This
shows our form of government really does work.
HOORAY!
HOORAY!
Charles Clark | 9:43 a.m. May 16, 2008
It is about time that someone somewhere did the right thing and brought gay
couples into the full blessings of the rights the rest of us have in America.
The arguments against gay marriage are so hateful and unfounded that it has
surprised me that enlightenment like this decision has taken so long.
I, like Mrs Obama, can now be completly proud to be an American.
I, like Mrs Obama, can now be completly proud to be an American.
Comments continue below
Mahershalalhashbaz | 9:44 a.m. May 16, 2008
These California judges are part of a conspiracy to overthrow the freedom of the
US. The real reason they want gay marriage is 2 fold. #1, with less children
in the country it is easy to bring their communist buddies armies in hear and
defeat us. #2 is that they believe their holy prophet Al Frankenstien Gore and
that by having children we are causing global warming and so we are all going to
die. So they ACTUALLY believe just opposite of what is true, that a gay union
is superior to a heterosexual union. Homosexuality is a perversion, whether
born perverted or not, I do not know. But I was born attracted to more than 1
woman (which is also a perversion), does that mean I should have a right to be a
polygamist and have dozens and dozens of children. Ohh noo. That would
increase global warming and our strength in fighting a war. Heaven forbid. So
that clearly explains why the courts are for gay marriage, but not polygamy.
You will see the liberal judges fight polygamy tooth and nail. (not that I
espouse either).
Sterling | 9:49 a.m. May 16, 2008
Okay. If this is going to take an amendment to California's constitution
then that is what we will do. I will take my family to Los Angeles to march for
traditional marriage. I will march in my hometown. I will talk to my friends and
get them to march with me. I am not going to let Bay-area gay activists and a
few judges define what constitutes a family. It's an exciting time to be
living in California.
Jason | 9:55 a.m. May 16, 2008
California Supreme Court to Voters: Drop Dead.
Gary L. | 10:00 a.m. May 16, 2008
KUED produced an interesting documentary about Utah in the early 1900s. It
mentioned how vocal the LDS church was at the time with regard to marriage.
They felt very strongly that the goverment should stay out of marriage. I agree
with the LDS church leaders of that era, and I suspect I will agree with future
LDS church leaders once they adapt like they have done in the past.
MoNoMore | 10:09 a.m. May 16, 2008
Today I did something I should have done years ago. I mailed in my resignation
from the LDS church. After reading the reactions and statements from the church
I'm thoroughly disgusted and embarrassed to have ever been a part of such a
malicious and controlling organization.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -- Mohandas Gandhi
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Utah Valley Resident | 10:10 a.m. May 16, 2008
The effort in California to prohibit the legal recognition of sodomite
relationships is not over. A California Supreme court ruling on a flawed
California Constitution wording is appaling. The California Constitution needs
to be amended, obviously. I am hoping the fight will be continued, and another
referendum will be on the ballot, or some other remedy pursued that will have
the result to block this outrageous decision. It is just another reason to
think seriously about who is elected to offices who appoint these wrong headed
judges who come up with these decisions. This decision should be appealed to a
higher court, and other action taken to block this decision. Everyone knows the
definition of marriage....a union between a man and a woman. Any other
relationship is deviant behavior, and not worthy in any way to be considered any
more than sodomite behavior. These deviant relationships do not rise to the
level of legal status, any more than these cults who promote out of wedlock
relationships with multiple individuals of either sex. Give me a break. My
taxes are not available to these people. They can get their own insurance, and
whatever else they are after. San Francisco is crazy.
Not the way | 10:40 a.m. May 16, 2008
In a democracy, this kind of ruling isn't right. Instead, we should make
sure the majority always rules, regardless of other principles that are at
stake. In San Francisco, people want gay marriage, so it should be legal. In
Orange County, they don't, so it should be illegal.
Oh, wait, it's "States Rights," not "Trust the Citizens." I forgot.
Oh, wait, it's "States Rights," not "Trust the Citizens." I forgot.
re: Mahershalalhashbaz | 10:51 a.m. May 16, 2008
May I suggest you consider repeating high school?
Hate is not of God | 11:04 a.m. May 16, 2008
The Supreme Court Ruled because the previous ban is unconstitutional. You have
to take the good with the bad. It is the same constitution that gives people the
right to burn the American flag which I think is deplorable, but it is their God
given right that is protected by the constitution.
If you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. but you can't deny someone their GOD given right to choose. Let God be the judge, not you. He is perfect, not the church, the leaders, or it's followers.
Anything out of hate is not of God.
If you don't agree with gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. but you can't deny someone their GOD given right to choose. Let God be the judge, not you. He is perfect, not the church, the leaders, or it's followers.
Anything out of hate is not of God.
Bad People | 11:11 a.m. May 16, 2008
I don't get all the effort to descriminate against a particular group of
people who are different. Can you really be a good person / people when putting
forth this much effort to descriminate against a particular group of people?
Why so angry? Why such hatred? I thought we were all created equal in this
country. Sorry- hate to bring that up.
Maherblahblahblah has some pretty crazy ideas. That was some entertaining reading!! Keep it coming, Maherblahblahblah!! There MUST be a conspiracy behind courts giving gays equal rights. It CAN'T be because it is the right thing to do.
Maherblahblahblah has some pretty crazy ideas. That was some entertaining reading!! Keep it coming, Maherblahblahblah!! There MUST be a conspiracy behind courts giving gays equal rights. It CAN'T be because it is the right thing to do.
re Phantom Panther | 11:19 a.m. May 16, 2008
Please show me where the CA Supreme Court ruled that "homosexuality was
superior to traditional marriage and outlawed traditional marriage"? They
did no such thing, go back and read it.
G | 11:27 a.m. May 16, 2008
Where is this absurd and bigoted, outrage coming from? People act like gays came into their houses and stole their wedding rings. Let people live like they wish.
Study it or live with it | 11:28 a.m. May 16, 2008
It's self-evident that there's no way rationally to assess whether the
Court acted correctly if one doesn't bother to find out anything about the
California State Constitution and the precedent interpreting and applying it.
Anyone who seeks to opine about the propriety of the court's ruling without
doing that basic work is simply expressing an opinion about whether they like
the outcome as a policy matter, i.e., is being guided by the defining attribute
of so-called "judicial activism" (ignoring relevant law in favor of
outcome preferences).
bungalowguy | 11:35 a.m. May 16, 2008
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
UtahValleyResident - yes, you pay taxes - as do the majority of U.S. Citizens. In denying the same rights that you enjoy to all other U.S. Citizens you are creating second-class citizens that are not allowed to take advantage of the unalienable Rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence. BTW - the majority of those "wrong headed" Supreme Court Justices in California are Republicans - not Democrats.
UtahValleyResident - yes, you pay taxes - as do the majority of U.S. Citizens. In denying the same rights that you enjoy to all other U.S. Citizens you are creating second-class citizens that are not allowed to take advantage of the unalienable Rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence. BTW - the majority of those "wrong headed" Supreme Court Justices in California are Republicans - not Democrats.
law of the land | 11:37 a.m. May 16, 2008
Critically, the Court emphasized at the outset that its ruling had nothing to do
with the political views of the judges with regard to gay marriage, but rather,
was based solely on its legal analysis of past precedent interpreting the
relevant provisions of the state Constitution.
Anonymous | 11:38 a.m. May 16, 2008
Conservatives are well-known for their judgemental, moralyzing and self-centered
ways.
Nothing new here folks.
Nothing new here folks.
Hatuletoh | 11:55 a.m. May 16, 2008
Again I find myself perplexed by posts from people who would undoubted label
themselves "conservative", but then decry a actual conservative ruling
from a court. The court's positions was that the government has no legal
standing to prevent one group of citizens from exercising a right enjoyed by
other citizens. Even if the voters pass a law to that effect.
In effect, the court said that the government has no business in the bedrooms of American citizens. Homosexuality may be a perversion; it's practioners may well be immoral, but the government (says the court in this ruling) doesn't have the power to deny rights based upon the consensual sexual activities of adults.
That is a proper conservative ruling. It may be contrary to your personal beliefs and morality, but that's why they're called "personal" beliefs and morality.
In effect, the court said that the government has no business in the bedrooms of American citizens. Homosexuality may be a perversion; it's practioners may well be immoral, but the government (says the court in this ruling) doesn't have the power to deny rights based upon the consensual sexual activities of adults.
That is a proper conservative ruling. It may be contrary to your personal beliefs and morality, but that's why they're called "personal" beliefs and morality.
Calida | 12:00 p.m. May 16, 2008
Let's face it. We're living in a judicial dictatorship. By referendum
(often called a proposition) Californians voted on the one man, one woman
marriage only. This ammended the Calif.Constitution. When did the change come
to where Judges can change the constitution? CAL
Stenar | 12:06 p.m. May 16, 2008
Liberal judges? All of the CA Supreme Court judges were nominated by Republican
governors except for one.
Is marriage a secular issue? | 12:08 p.m. May 16, 2008
It seems to me that with some tax reform and universal healthcare that the
government could withdraw from the marriage debate completely... I'm not
certain this should be a secular issue.
But on the other hand, some uniformity would have to be decided on marriage law or else it makes the case harder to stop plural marriage. The state supreme court ruling that it is unconstitutional to limit marriage under the definition as between "a man and a woman" makes it seem like the constitutionality of a plural marriage ban is questionable... though I for one hope that polygamy doesn't get legitimized.
At some point, the government is going to have to back out of the debate or there's going to have to be a constitutional amendment to settle it.
But on the other hand, some uniformity would have to be decided on marriage law or else it makes the case harder to stop plural marriage. The state supreme court ruling that it is unconstitutional to limit marriage under the definition as between "a man and a woman" makes it seem like the constitutionality of a plural marriage ban is questionable... though I for one hope that polygamy doesn't get legitimized.
At some point, the government is going to have to back out of the debate or there's going to have to be a constitutional amendment to settle it.
Digression | 12:10 p.m. May 16, 2008
It happens one small step at a time. Sometimes it even happens in the name of
freedom. Why can't I marry a goat? It doesn't affect your marriage
and what I do in my own home is no business of yours. Surely this is the next
liberal step leading to the downfall of society. Sad day indeed.
The real issue | 12:12 p.m. May 16, 2008
Is that if Gay marraige is legalized, they will be eligible to adopt
children.
I don't think they should be able to. There is to great of a chance that molestation will occur. Many male child molestors seek out young boys (homosexuality).
This is in addition to the "Redifintion of the traditional family" of which I disapprove as well.
I don't think they should be able to. There is to great of a chance that molestation will occur. Many male child molestors seek out young boys (homosexuality).
This is in addition to the "Redifintion of the traditional family" of which I disapprove as well.
Anonymous | 12:24 p.m. May 16, 2008
Based on Hatuletoh's posting above,
never let it be said that the modern American conservative movement is a confused one.
Other than the adolescent belief that "we're number one!"
And that's what makes it so difficult to deal with that sort of sophomoric mentality.
never let it be said that the modern American conservative movement is a confused one.
Other than the adolescent belief that "we're number one!"
And that's what makes it so difficult to deal with that sort of sophomoric mentality.
EmmieK | 12:27 p.m. May 16, 2008
I agree with Gary in his above post. I wish the Church would stick to teaching
their doctrine to their members and stop trying to force their belifs on people
not of their faith. I think it's great that they have found a doctrine to
live their lives by, but it shouldn't be the government's job to
enforce religious doctrine. Not only is it unconstitutional, but even if you
believe in the religious doctrine being enforced it's a can of worms you
wouldn't want to open, as it would only be a matter of time before some
other religion would try to get the government to enforce their believes on
others. The LDS church needs to stay out of this fight and realize they cannot
save the world they can only save themselves. So the rest of us are going to
burn, well at least while we lived on this earth we could be happy with those we
choose to spend our lives with. With out people telling us we could not commit
to them.
Anonymous | 12:29 p.m. May 16, 2008
We now live in a full blown dictatorship! The Judges rule over the democratic
sacred vote of the people. Will people now be allowed to marry more than one
person?
Amazing | 12:35 p.m. May 16, 2008
The FLDS is appealing to the courts to protect their rights as a minority. In
many states, interracial marriages where against the law. The courts ended this
discrimination. Mormons, being a minority who were persecuted seem to have
regained faith in abolishing courts protecting the rights of minorities.
Gay marriage is a greater sin to our LDS brothern than waging wars because of lies or mining practices colored by greed that caused deaths.
I'm sorry, I can't believe in you values. I find them detestable.
Gay marriage is a greater sin to our LDS brothern than waging wars because of lies or mining practices colored by greed that caused deaths.
I'm sorry, I can't believe in you values. I find them detestable.
re: The real issue | 12:38 p.m. May 16, 2008
While I don't support the redefiniation of the traditional family, I also
don't know much about being gay, and it seems to me the gay=molestor is
pretty sweeping generalization for anyone to make and is not especially
productive.
To MoNoMore | 12:41 p.m. May 16, 2008
I too, have been extremely saddened, embarrassed, and at times even disgusted
with the unkind attitudes of some Church members and leaders. After my older
brother killed himself, I became even more distraught.
Sometimes I wonder if I even want to be linked to this organization any more. I totally understand how you feel.
Sometimes I wonder if I even want to be linked to this organization any more. I totally understand how you feel.
Samme | 12:45 p.m. May 16, 2008
"But I was born attracted to more than 1 woman (which is also a
perversion)...
It's not a perversion. I was born attracted to many, no, check that, ALL women. They are God's great gift to mankind. More beautiful than a breathtaking mountain vista view or stunning sunset.
"...does that mean I should have a right to be a polygamist and have dozens and dozens of children."
I think you've hit upon something. Have you contacted the FLDS about this? Sounds like possibly a very workable solution to their dilemma.
It's not a perversion. I was born attracted to many, no, check that, ALL women. They are God's great gift to mankind. More beautiful than a breathtaking mountain vista view or stunning sunset.
"...does that mean I should have a right to be a polygamist and have dozens and dozens of children."
I think you've hit upon something. Have you contacted the FLDS about this? Sounds like possibly a very workable solution to their dilemma.
Anonymous | 12:51 p.m. May 16, 2008
The judges were just following the law of the land.
What's so wrong with that?
What's so wrong with that?
Robert | 12:59 p.m. May 16, 2008
I think it is appropriate for a church to engage itself in political matters
when its core teachings are threatened. In this case, the LDS Church, having
always taught that marriage between a man and a woman is the core unit of
society, has a right and an obligation to stand for that principle and do what
is legally possible to oppose changes that might affect it.
As for the California court's decision, there is only one way to look at it: the state has not created a new "kind" of marriage; instead, the state now only recognizes one kind of marriage, and that is genderless marriage. That is, marriage is now the union of any two people, regardless of gender. This is a sweeping change, a change that throws away thousands of years of tradition and core social values.
To me, that is a very scary development, the ramifications of which everyone should carefully and thoughtfully consider before they defend it.
As for the California court's decision, there is only one way to look at it: the state has not created a new "kind" of marriage; instead, the state now only recognizes one kind of marriage, and that is genderless marriage. That is, marriage is now the union of any two people, regardless of gender. This is a sweeping change, a change that throws away thousands of years of tradition and core social values.
To me, that is a very scary development, the ramifications of which everyone should carefully and thoughtfully consider before they defend it.
RE: G | 1:01 p.m. May 16, 2008
"let people live like they wish". Ummm... I think that's what
rational people are suggesting. Homosexuals chose their abhorrent behavior; now
they should live with it.
Anonymous | 1:01 p.m. May 16, 2008
Sorry Amazing -
I find both values detestable.
I find both values detestable.
bungalowguy | 1:01 p.m. May 16, 2008
To "The real issue" - the MAJORITY of molestors of children, both
girls and boys, are STRAIGHT MEN. This has been shown by many studies and review
of the experiences of children that have been molested. I was molested by a
STRAIGHT male school teacher who was married with three children. Please try to
do some research before just regurgitating the same false arguments used to
spread fear and hate.
G | 1:05 p.m. May 16, 2008
"
Again I find myself perplexed by posts from people who would undoubted label themselves "conservative", but then decry a actual conservative ruling from a court. "
That's what happens when real (small government) conservatives get mixed up with the social values crowd.
Again I find myself perplexed by posts from people who would undoubted label themselves "conservative", but then decry a actual conservative ruling from a court. "
That's what happens when real (small government) conservatives get mixed up with the social values crowd.
Richard | 1:08 p.m. May 16, 2008
If churches stayed out of all issues, the children of Israel would still be
living under Egypt and every prophet accepted under Christian or Muslim writings
would have had to keep his/her mouth shut as well. But such writings are filled
with prophets speaking out against practices which go against God. So get off
the anti-religion soapbox and let the Churches proclaim their positions when it
comes to moral issues which affect (or afflict) society.
Anonymous | 1:33 p.m. May 16, 2008
Only in the reddest state in America would you find masses of people sticking
their noses into other people's private matters and freaking out.
Sad Day | 1:37 p.m. May 16, 2008
Its pretty sad that people rationalize a perversion as a "race" or
seperate group or minority that is entiteld to rights that all should recieve
under a free nation. No rights have been taken from them, they are free to
marry someone of the opposite sex. Where is this going to stop? I love my
cousin, or my child or my dog... therefore I am a seperate race and should be
given the right to marry whomever or whatever I love? Crazy.
Henry Drummond | 1:39 p.m. May 16, 2008
I hope I can engage Robert, Richard, and others who wish in a civilized
discourse over what the "ramifications" of same sex marriage are in
their opinion. I would honestly like to hear what the damage to society of this
ruling is in their opinion.
jackhp | 1:43 p.m. May 16, 2008
Robert,
Please, can you explain how gay marriage threatens LDS "core teachings" in any way whatsoever? No one is telling the LDS Church what to do with THEIR marriage covenants.
Also, please, do tell, what are these scary ramifications of "genderless marriage" as you so eloquently put it?
Please, can you explain how gay marriage threatens LDS "core teachings" in any way whatsoever? No one is telling the LDS Church what to do with THEIR marriage covenants.
Also, please, do tell, what are these scary ramifications of "genderless marriage" as you so eloquently put it?
Voice of Reason | 1:45 p.m. May 16, 2008
This decision is quite simply a direct assault on traditional marriage - the
fundamental and irreplaceable foundation of our civilization. The California
Supreme Court essentially said that favoring a dangerous & deadly sexual
practice is more important protecting the traditional family. A sad, sad day
for California.
As for "bungalowguy":
I am sorry for your abuse as a child - I truly am. I can only imagine the horrors you had to endure, and perhaps still have to endure as memories.
However, it is important to point out that while of course straights make up a majority of abusers, gays are statistically many times more likely on an individual basis to be abusers than straights.
As for "bungalowguy":
I am sorry for your abuse as a child - I truly am. I can only imagine the horrors you had to endure, and perhaps still have to endure as memories.
However, it is important to point out that while of course straights make up a majority of abusers, gays are statistically many times more likely on an individual basis to be abusers than straights.
When will FLDS get the same righ | 1:46 p.m. May 16, 2008
Just a quip... Since a majority of us believe it is none of our business what
goes on in people's bed rooms and we have no right to restrict who can
marry whom... When are we going to give the same liberties to the FLDS?
Just something to think about.
Just something to think about.
G | 1:49 p.m. May 16, 2008
"Homosexuals chose their abhorrent behavior; now they should live with
it."
There's a hidden assumption in there. What part of homosexuality precludes marriage?
There's a hidden assumption in there. What part of homosexuality precludes marriage?
Dan J. | 2:12 p.m. May 16, 2008
A Republican-dominated California Supreme Court decided this issue. They found
"there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the
institution of marriage because of a couple's sexual orientation."
If you're against gay marriage, why not supply a legally justifiable reason for your beliefs?
Thank God for separation of Church and State.
If you're against gay marriage, why not supply a legally justifiable reason for your beliefs?
Thank God for separation of Church and State.
jr | 2:45 p.m. May 16, 2008
Considering so many heteresexual marriages aren't succeeding why in the
world would the homosexuals want to put them through the same kind of hell.
Many of them go through relationships like toilet paper as well. Marriage is
between two people that love one another supposedly -- but I think the push is
more for the legal aspect of rights and ownership than love and sex. Our
society is messed up whether in a tradiational relationship or homo. Just ask
the kids what they think of marriage and a high percentage would question WHY --
PLEASE FOLK LEAVE GOD AND JESUS OUT OF THIS ARGUMENT as they sure get blamed for
all the ills of human nature
FDLS | 2:47 p.m. May 16, 2008
Are using tax payers dollars to live their religion, taxpayers are supporting
the extra so called spiritual wives and children - by far not the same as
independant working homos. Nope I ain't one of either but can't
compare apples to lemons
Anonymous | 2:48 p.m. May 16, 2008
More proof that no government has the right to dicate what people do in the
privacy of their homes.
Sorry conservatives. Live with less government intervention.
It's the American Way.
Sorry conservatives. Live with less government intervention.
It's the American Way.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Vegas, Poinsettia bowls or bust 2:01 a.m.
- Wildcats face tough defense 1:59 a.m.
- Aggies look to Idaho for an example 1:58 a.m.
- Aggies host Southern Utah 1:53 a.m.
- Cougars turn back Wildcats' 1:44 a.m.
- Cougar women lose at home 1:41 a.m.
- Sloan's two point guard lineup 1:39 a.m.
- BYU football: 5 keys to victory 1:36 a.m.
- RSL's Movsisyan departs 1:36 a.m.
- Glover gives Utes last-second upset 1:27 a.m.
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
264 - Protests against Phoenix LDS temple211
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin133
- Boys basketball rankings128
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies109
- Letters: Trump card for believers93
- Rivalry Week is highly profane84
- Utah, BYU are top choices for bowls75
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
"You are the very epitome of self-indulgence liberal crassness. You care...
I thought it was a great parade. Isn't it the only one in Salt Lake County?...
is struggling in some aspects of his game. We saw what he did last year early...
Having explored caves as a youth and spent 31 yrs working occasionally...
How do the Utes continue to do this? They are bad enough to lose to lousy...
A little help here. Harmon says Utah should be on a 3-0 win streak. I assume...
disgruntled parents need to stay off the blogs...
Honk if you intercepted Max Hall.
however it pertinent to look at their schedule and then look at ours. Because...
and there are no ute fans, only bandwagon fans, nice try though
Advertisements