Deseret News | Gay couples in Utah urged not to sue

Reader comments
Gay couples in Utah urged not to sue

428 comments | Read story

bubba | 8:31 a.m. June 18, 2008

I always devide this issue into two views. Personal and societal. On the personal side, I don't really care what two consenting people do together as long as they also respect me. On the societal side, I can't support the widespread accpetance of practices that history has shown to destroy societies. Gay people don't seem to know, believe or care about this. They just want to be accepted and have the legal rights afforded marriage. I also believe that Government shouldn't have a role in deciding what marriage is and shouldn't be providing "legal benefits". If our government wasn't out of control with its socialism and the taxation and endless bureaucracy that supports socialism then this wouldn't be a huge legal issue. Socialism is another practice that is a proven destroyer of societies. The problem with allowing the government to dictate to us what is marriage is that now we can be forced by law to accept gay unions as normal. The real problem is not that a small percentage of people want gay unions it is that government has overstepped it bounds. Government can't legislate morality. We just need to be moral people.

Caroline | 8:33 a.m. June 18, 2008

My question is why are the religous right wing people so up in arms. Gay couples are human being and should be able to have human rights just like everyone else. Just because a court gives them the right to marry like every other human being does not make YOUR marraige between a man and a woman any less. So, maybe the Religous right needs to STOP pushing their values and beliefs on others and just live their own lives and stop worring about others. Does having Queer people get married really affect your marraige? I think not.

Anonymous | 8:34 a.m. June 18, 2008

I honestly don't understand why the church and its colleges can loose their tax exempt status if they don't allow gays. What happened to their rights too? This is my house, I say who enter to my house and who doesn't. Doesn't the church have the same right?

And be honest, gays are looking for acceptance, they care nothing about religion or having the faith. They just want to break the system. That's it.

I am not against gays. That's their choice, good for them but when they want to break unto others' rights, that's when I don't agree. As someone said, marriage is religious concept. Make it a civil union and they can consider themselves married with all the rights. But don't tell me they want to get married in the church (and whatever church). I wonder, why don't they become muslims and marriend under the muslim law? that would be interesting to see.

Comments continue below

fr1nk | 8:35 a.m. June 18, 2008

Wow, not one decent reason why we should not to allow gay marriage. But I guess I can take the time to debunk a few (of the stupid reasons).
1)I dont believe in your god. I think man made god in his own image, not the other way around.
2)Your dog or cat cannot agree to marry you. You may think they love you that much but they dont.
3)In our country, all men are created equal and should be treated as such.
4)Your idea of family isnt the most important thing to this country, freedom is.
5)Courts are there to interpret the constitution (or in this case the California constitution). If you pass unconstitutional laws, expect them to be struck down by the courts. This is their duty.

Gay marriage will happen, just like interracial marriage it may take a while, but it will happen. Are you planning on being in the KKK side of the argument or are you for freedom?

No more fairy tails | 8:35 a.m. June 18, 2008

I was a homosexual until I read that I couldn't get married and have children. So I chose to become a heterosexual and got married in the temple and had ten children and lived happily ever after.

Anonymous | 8:35 a.m. June 18, 2008

There is nothing more to see than how our body functions were made, obviously it was made for a man to be with a woman.

Henry Drummond | 8:36 a.m. June 18, 2008

Good point RockOn. If we go against tradition and allow women the right to vote, what's stop sheep from being allowed to vote?

James J | 8:42 a.m. June 18, 2008

I think Debbie hit the nail on the head. Once America says that marriage can be anything, to anyone, the polygamist population will come out in full force saying that they have been discriminated against, and theyï¿½ll be right. In fact if I was their lawyer I would be preparing the lawsuit right now. I really donï¿½t understand why there are not mass protest in the streets over this. Gay marriage has been shot down by the people over and over again and some liberal judges come in and say they know better. We should kick these judges out of office. How do you boil a frog, if you put him in hot water he will jump right out, but if you put him in cold water and turn up the heat, heï¿½ll die. Oh how the left is turning up the heat.

Congratulations ALL CA couples | 8:48 a.m. June 18, 2008

It is indeed a great thing when equality trumps discrimination and ALL citizens can join in marriage with the person they love and choose to spend their life with.

Splinter groups always freak out | 8:52 a.m. June 18, 2008

Just like Roe v Wade, or stem-cell research, or banning prayer from school, or trying to eliminate social security and Liberal individualism in civil rights, you will always have some splinter group freaking out for a while then things settle down again, until the next social issue pops up for that same splinter group to once again try to dictate their unilateral point of view onto the world.

Stenar | 8:54 a.m. June 18, 2008

Actually, marriage has its roots in civil marriage. Marriages were civil contracts for hundreds of years before churches were ever involved. It wasn't even until the 18th century that the marriage contract even became a common religious affair. Do some research and you'll find this to be the case. Also, civil marriage, apart from religious marriages performed in churches, has existed from the inception of the United States. So, you can't really say that marriage is a religious function only.

The first commenter on here asks why gay people would want marriage since it is a religious union, as if gay people are never religious. A lot of gay people are very religious and there are many churches that exist that would be willing to perform religious marriages (and currently do perform commitment ceremonies) for gay people if it were legal. So, that is also a bogus argument against same-sex marriage.

Town Heathan | 8:59 a.m. June 18, 2008

Re: An Honest Look- "a perversion is a perversion".

Your right!!! What religious people do in the name of GOD to other people who do NOT believe in god is as perverse as anything I know!! You judge that you are right and they are wrong. You ignore YOUR...yes I said YOUR very own bible where it says "Judge not that you be not judged"....yet you turn around and judge that just because someone doesn't believe in your bible and it's peverse teachings, the they must be evil and their ideas, beliefs and practices in life must not be allowed.

Yes...perverse is perverse....

What about the chuildren? | 9:02 a.m. June 18, 2008

On Wednesday Norway's parliament legalized same-sex marriage and adoption and passed a law that would permit lesbians to be artificially inseminated. According to AFP, "The most controversial part of the law is that which gives lesbians the right to be artificially inseminated...'We are now creating a system where the father is reduced to a sperm sample,"

I think it sad that children can be raised in a same sex home, and be deprived of a God given right to have a Mother and Father. While most all of their friends will have Mothers and Fathers, Why sould Children be raised missing vital life rolls and learning male female deferences in a family setting. I think sad nobody cares about the children here.

Nick | 9:02 a.m. June 18, 2008

Scientific American is reporting today yet more medical evidence that sexual orientation is biological in nature.

Gays no more "choose" to be gay than I "chose" to be left-handed.

Please get past your religious bigotries and see people for who they are, not just their sexual orientation. I know I'm a whole lot more than just "a straight guy" and I'd hate for that to be my defining characteristic.

Sexual orientation is as biologically-based as eye color or handedness.

Would you prohibit marriage among people based on their eye or hair color or being left-handed?

Anonymous | 9:03 a.m. June 18, 2008

Sure it's weird and difficult to understand.
So are lots of other things.
But God keeps telling me to mind my own business and keep working on my own self-improvement before I start judging others and condemning them.

Ridgley | 9:05 a.m. June 18, 2008

I think gays and lesbians are showing some social/political maturity by toning down their ceremonies and not suing for recognition in conservative states. They learned their lesson from the last election cycle and sledgehammer legislation like Utah's Amendment Three. The "landslide" state referendums of 2004 banning recognitions for gays and lesbians were a direct response (or panic reaction) to Lawrence v. Texas. The conservative Get Out The Vote machine happily lumped two of their favorite issues together ("activist judges" and "gay rights")to inflame the electorate and divert attention away from the war, lawmaker scandals, and serious economic issues.
I guarantee conservative fund raisers have already used images from Tuesdays ceremonies in California in donation mailers & voter mobilization materials. Hopefully this time around, voters will recognize this divisive tactic and focus on real issues and imminent threats to the nation.

I want to know... | 9:07 a.m. June 18, 2008

Why do I have to believe in gay marriage and gay and lesbian lifestyles as a "right" when my religion is something that can come into fire? What I think is the key here is not Gay Rights and Homosexual Unions BUT the right of homosexuals to be recognized by God. He, God, is the one that gave us marriage. He wrote all the commandments that I want to adhere to in my life. I believe that the constitution allows also for me and others to practise our religion without state intervention and also say that there is NO state religion. If that means that the judges in this country are exempt from the constitution and abiding by it in their courts and can force citizens to adhere to their judgements THEN the constitution is null and void. What the courts are doing is defining religion NOT marriage. That is illegal. They are acting against the constitutional rights of all Americans by forcing a state religion upon us all.

Re Polygamy | 9:07 a.m. June 18, 2008

Trust me, it will never happen. Everything in this Nation revolves around money being poured into the economy. Polygamists, in general, have nowhere near the disposable income and spending power of gay people and tend to stay within their own group, live simply, and spend little. For this reason, I don't believe Polygamous marriages will ever be deemed legal, it doesn't equate to economic gain.

Re: Dixie Dan | 9:14 a.m. June 18, 2008

You really think homosexuals will want to use the cultural hall for their reception? Are you kidding. We have much better taste than that! Homosexuals do not want a basketball hoop in their wedding photos.

On the other hand, we could spruce up the place with some new curtains...

To Caroline | 9:15 a.m. June 18, 2008

To answer your question, actually read some of the responses by the "religious right". The responses will answer your question. Look what has happened to our country and the problems we are currently having. We can't blame Bush, or the democratic congress. We need to look at ourselves and see how far away we are from God's basic commandments (I'm not mormonizing this...I'm talking about basic Judeo Christian values). I want this to be a strong country for my children, and their children, but it takes strong families (1 dad and 1 mom), with strong morals, strong work ethic, and unquestionable integrity to make a strong country. We have strayed so far from that. I fear for our country! All I can say is God, please bless the USA!

Reality check | 9:18 a.m. June 18, 2008

Am I the only person who has realized that the world, not just the USA, but the world has been going downhill over the past decades? All the core values of individuals, families, and nations are the targets in a shooting gallery. For some reason, the few seem content to destroy the very fabric of society and that the many have enjoyed, treasured, and to some extent, have even taken for granted til now. This is not a debate over religion. This is a gross problem and decay of common sense, judgement, and respect for all.
True, everyone has the same claim over the inalienable rights granted by the constitution. But our rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness stop when they infringe on someone elses. Isn't the same thing happening here? Sure, you can express yourself within the bounds of the law. But when you change laws that have been tried and proven over centuries, where is the justice for those who believe in them? What has happened is the beginnings of a terrible disaster that will doom us all. I would say think of the children, but you can't reproduce, can you? Nevermind then.

cesqy | 9:20 a.m. June 18, 2008

Society has a vested interest in ensuring there is a next generation to "carry on", otherwise it ceases to exists. As such it has formulated policies and laws over the years that promotes its general interest (survival).

Marriage laws have been crafted to protect the wife and children from abandonment by the man. Marriage does not grant rights but places restrictions on the couple especially the man. Society has no vested interest in same sex marriage other then to keep a segment of its population happy, because, by definition a same sex union will not produce children.

In addition to civil society's interest in supporting one man and woman unions, the major religions of the world have their set of rules for marriage. In many people's eyes, marriage is more than a civil union but a spiritual union set in motion by their creator with the creator establishing rules governing marriage. These people become offended by society changing the basic rules.

So does society take a big risk to satisfy a small portion of its population by fooling around with a winning formula, mean while offending a larger portion of the population. Time will tell.

elisabeth | 9:21 a.m. June 18, 2008

Scott McCoy is such a lovely person. At least he is putting his face and views out here so that people on the fence can see there is nothing to fear.

James J | 9:24 a.m. June 18, 2008

To Caroline,
You explained perfectly why the religious right is up in arms in your post, ï¿½just because a COURT gives them the right to marryï¿½ï¿½ this issue has been voted on again and again, always shot down by huge margins by the people of the states. Then the government steps in and says the people of the state are wrong. We are loosing our rights daily!! By the way, I donï¿½t hate anyone so donï¿½t come out and tell me Iï¿½m wrong for having a different view then you.

Gary | 9:25 a.m. June 18, 2008

We are all entitled to our rights through the Constitution of the United States of America. Gay marriage is un-natural. Gays seem to want their cake and to be able to eat it as well. If they don't get what they want. THEY SUE.

Civil Unions | 9:27 a.m. June 18, 2008

To those of you asking why won't gays just leave marriage alone and get civil unions instead: We can't! you voted against that too!

(Taking away rights from people is so fun in Utah).

me | 9:35 a.m. June 18, 2008

The comments about the LDS church allowing gay mariage is rediculous. The fact is that the doctrine of the LDS church dictates that same sex marriage is not acceptable. Why would a gay couple want to be married in a church that does not support them in the first place. It seems that sometimes gay couples are just trying to prove a point, and not marry for the correct reason. If you are gay and want to be together, do what you have to do and get married, but do it for the right reasons. Dont force your will to prove a point. Religious organizations need to have their beliefs protected as well.

rich | 9:37 a.m. June 18, 2008

I thought that Jesus loves everybody. After seeing the Mormon post here I can see that the Mormon Jesus is different than the one that spreads love and acceptance across the world.

These people getting married are humans, and this is just life, I am glad that tonight instead of reading post like this and hearing all your hatred, I will be friends of sexual orientations having a drink and sharing smiles. That is a much better way to pass through life.

To "what about the chuildren" | 9:38 a.m. June 18, 2008

Perhaps you may agree that:
1. Children from low-income homes are more likely to commit crimes later in life.
2. A poorly educated child is more likely to commit crimes later in life.
3. A child from a single-parent home is more likely to commit crimes later in life.

But the government does not legislate that only rich, well-educated, two-parent households may have children (even though that may be in the best interest of the child).

So I empathize with your sadness, but also realize that this is not the role of the government.

RE: Gus | 9:41 a.m. June 18, 2008

Marriage is a LEGAL commitment with religious overtones. Marriage is not a religious service. If it were, it couldn't be done by a Justice of the Peace, a Judge or an Elvis Impersonator. It could ONLY be done by a priest or bishop or whatever.

And as a gay man, I don't care what you call it, so long as it is IDENTICAL to marriage in EVERY way.

And as far as people suing the LDS church to get married in the temple, if that were possible you would have had an inactive member sue for a temple marriage before now.

Anonymous | 9:40 a.m. June 18, 2008

for all you chicken littles out there,the world is not ending, the sky is not falling, there is no second coming. I know you need to beleive this to make your religion true but I hate to be the one to break it to you, you are only getting out of this world one way and that is the way we are all get out,through death.

Beth | 9:41 a.m. June 18, 2008

First off, according to the very concept of separation of church and state that leftists are touting, churches should not be successfully sued for banning gay marriages in their places of worship. That would be the government dictating religion (which is the ORIGINAL reason why the founding fathers included this stipulation in the constitution), which it is not allowed to do.

Secondly, we live in a republic but many things, like our elected officials and state constitutional amendments, are determined democratically. People vote according to their own moral code. This moral code may have been influenced by family, religion, friends, media, etc. When I participate legally in the democratic process and vote according to the dictates of my own conscience I am not ï¿½forcing my religious beliefs upon youï¿½.

Beth | 9:42 a.m. June 18, 2008

I am not worried about your homosexual union damaging my marriage, the condition of my marriage is my own (and my husbandï¿½s) personal responsibility. However I do hold strongly to the belief that one reason for promoting marriage is to strengthen families. Two women can not take the place of a loving and involved father. I think that children have a right to be born into a family with a mother AND a father who love and care for them. Please donï¿½t bring up examples of how two loving homosexual parents are better than two dysfunctional heterosexual parents, because I think that two dysfunctional heterosexual parents is also a big problem that we as a society need to work on. Because adoption is often legally tied to marriage I do not support homosexual marriages.

BYDC | 9:51 a.m. June 18, 2008

Gus and others,

Some of us would be happy with civil unions that included all the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. Some of us don't feel that separate means unequal just because it has a different label. Some of us think it's fine that marriage be between a man and a woman so long as gay unions can be recognized somehow and afforded all the rights of marriage.

Unfortunately, the anti-gay people mobilized by this issue aren't just trying to preserve the meaning of the term "marriage" though. They are trying to keep gays from having any of these rights. Since they won't concede to civil unions or any recognition of gay unions at all, they actually encourage gays to seek these rights by challenging the marriage laws.

G | 9:50 a.m. June 18, 2008

I love my dog and my dog loves me. My dog and I have been a couple for 13 years. I want to marry my dog because I love him so much and so that we can enjoy the rights and recognition that other, traditional couples are allowed. I also love my cat, but she doesn't care. She's a tramp.

BLJT | 9:54 a.m. June 18, 2008

The argument about churches losing their tax exempt status is a canard. Not able to identify any actual harm that will result from the recognition of gay relationships, some people make bogus and unfounded arguments like this. DON'T BELIEVE IT!

Anonymous | 9:58 a.m. June 18, 2008

The article stated that Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, urged Californians to "reject this elitist decision" by supporting the ballot measure in the California November election. BTW, most of these elitist judges were appointed by Republican California Governors. Furthermore, what about free agency?

Marriage | 9:58 a.m. June 18, 2008

Contrary to many comments made here, marriage is not strictly a religious union. Our society and government has a long tradition (although influenced by religion) of determining that the traditional family is the ideal stabilizing unit of society.

All other social experiments at replacing the traditional family have failed. Communists tried shipping all the children off to state-run institutions while mom and dad worked. Single parent households have been disproportionately represented in crime, drop-out, and welfare statistics.

Homosexual marriage harms the traditional family by weakening the meaning of the institution. While my marriage with my wife may not be directly affected by someone else's homosexual marriage, it (just like divorce, infidelity, and domestic violence) gives my children one more reason why a traditional marriage may be an option they may choose to ignore.

me | 10:02 a.m. June 18, 2008

The funny thing is that once someone stands up for what is important to them they get bashed. Why are gay rights more imnportant than religious rights? The "Gay Community" is frustrated and angry because they feel suppressed, I understand that.I am in no way a gay basher. I respect all people, all races, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Please give what you expect!

...in a handbasket. | 10:07 a.m. June 18, 2008

Yes, global social trends look troubling.

But why? Is it because of:

Exploding third-world population growth and the resulting conflict over scarce resources?

The rapidly widening gap between haves and have-nots?

The growth of religious extremism and the violence it endorses?

High-speed immigration and the sudden blending of incompatible cultures?

The increasingly easy and cheap access to small arms?

Nope. According to the folks on this board it's because the gals down the block who've been living together as a couple for the past dozen years want to get married.

Yep, that's it.

K.C. | 10:13 a.m. June 18, 2008

Wow! The irrational fear in many of the posts here is palpable. Many of you sound like my Utah relatives back in the 60s discussing "Negroes" and the Priesthood. Fortunately I grew up in California and, at the time, I had actual experiences and friendships to help inform my views. I feel like I've seen this all before.

For those hysterically raising the specter of forced Temple marriage for gay couples, think about our nation's progress on Women's rights and yet neither the LDS church or the Catholic church are required to ordain women to the Priesthood. Calm Down!

BYDC | 10:13 a.m. June 18, 2008

To "Marriage"

With regard to your argument that gay marriage weakening marriage by providing an option different from traditional marriage: Isn't marriage weakened more by cohabitation? When couples forgo marriage, doesn't this send a stronger message that marriage "isn't always necessary?" And when our laws say that some people CANNOT get married (and thus have to settle for cohabitation, I guess) doesn't this send the message that marriage isn't universal--that there are other options?

There is actually a conservative argument to be made here FOR gay marriage: By not discriminating we are setting up marriage as the gold star status to which EVERYONE is eligible and to which EVERYONE should aspire.

Stenar | 10:15 a.m. June 18, 2008

G, no matter how much you think your dog loves you, your dog cannot consent to a marriage with you and cannot sign legal arguments. Allowing same-sex marriage will not lead to people marrying their dogs. Stop being ridiculous.

re:...in a handbasket | 10:24 a.m. June 18, 2008

"Yes, global social trends look troubling" -

When children are denied a happy upbringing by a loving father who provides for their needs and a loving mother who nurtures and loves them. When true love and romance between a man and a woman is adulterated by unfaithful bonds that only express weakness. When children are not taught to stand up for what is right. When what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' becomes clouded by those who somehow think they're smarter than God. - You probably wouldn't know how good things WERE in the world BEFORE these current issues were even commonplace in a public forum. Romance between a man and a woman has been a universal element of happiness since before the beginning of time. Things that hinder that romance are adversarial. Romance = fidelity as well when times get tough. It means sacrifice and selfless living. I love my wife. I love her innocence. You don't know her. I'm happy with my relationship with her. Believe it or not, there is something you don't know and that's that "the people on this board" MIGHT know QUITE A FEW THINGS that you obviously don't!

Capt. Kirk | 10:27 a.m. June 18, 2008

Unlike you people living in the 21st century, we don't have many of the problems that are being discussed here. In the future, all people are treated equally--sexual orientation, race, education, religion have all been removed from our culture.

Everyone is educated to a standard accepted curriculum. That way we ensure that no one dissents against the decisions made by our coucil of governers. Our council is made up of 5 members who are appointed for life. This ensures their opinions are fair for all and not swayed by 'fad' opinions of majority groups.

No rich. No poor. We don't even need money anymore! Everyone is given what the council deems necessary for their needs; I don't even need to think about it anymore! (Just between you and me, I really don't even need to get out of bed in the morning--it's all taken care of...and I can do whatever I want!)

You will all come around to the system, just give yourselves a few hundred more years.

Scotty, beam me up! Get me out of this mixed up place...

Kirk out.

Anonymous | 10:29 a.m. June 18, 2008

Next thing you might see is same-ex marriage. You could have a married gay couple that loathes the same ex; or even worse, what if a person wants to marry a dog, horse or even a tree. With all kidding aside, shouldnï¿½t we worry more about larger problems? (For example, alcoholism, crystal meth addiction, five dollar a gallon gasoline, gang violence, or our war fighters overseas).

re: Serious Question | 10:34 a.m. June 18, 2008

In reality, I don't know that people would have such an aversion to polygamy if it were a practice between consenting adults making and informed decision. The problem as I see it based on the information available is that girls as young as 12 and 13 years old, just little girls, are being "given" to men old enough to be their fathers. They have no choice, and it is child abuse. I have no problem if an adult woman makes a choice of her own free will to become a "sister wife," but putting children in that environment is unacceptable.

bob | 10:37 a.m. June 18, 2008

Civil unions are called a 'marriage' in our society. If the union is among same sex it is not a way for the society to grow and get or remain strong because it does not produce a future generation. It is short sighted and not in the interest of a society to allow people of the same sex to marry.

The same sex marriage issue is small potatoes to weak families.

Not sure this is much of real problem in any case. Too few same sex unions among the society in any case. The real dilemma is people have children out of wedlock and one of the partner is left to raise them alone. A two parent partnership is by far more secure and beneficial for children.

Denied a Loving Father | 10:40 a.m. June 18, 2008

My father was abusive, so I didn't know the loving father and mother ideal. Love and romance between a man and woman has been corrupted long before the gay marriage issue came up. I would have been happy to be raised by a loving gay couple, if it would have meant a happy and loving upbringing instead of the one I got. I think what's most important is how we treat each other and that everyone gets the chance to experience love - parental, romantic, friends, etc. I think God is about love.

To Rich | 10:40 a.m. June 18, 2008

Of course Jesus loves everybody. But He doesn't have to love their actions. He stills loves murderers, but He doesn't love what they do. He still loves homosexuals, but He doesn't love their acting on that behavior, and has made that abundantly clear.

Just like those that oppose this law don't necessarily hate homosexuals - I certainly don't. I've known (and deeply cared about) several of them, but I don't have to like what they do.

And to "Dixie Dan" - the LDS church already HAS given their opinion on all of this. It's up to us to decide whether or not we're willing to follow the prophets, or the world.

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.