Deseret News | Court makes Connecticut 3rd state to allow gay marriage

Reader comments
Court makes Connecticut 3rd state to allow gay marriage

Truth Justice & the American Way | 11:23 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Praise God and the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, California and now Connecticut!

This is why | 1:09 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Arizona needs a constitutional amendment! High courts overturn the laws passed by our duly elected representatives all the time. I don't want a few judges making the laws for my state. That's why we elect a legislature--and why we have referendums and initiatives.

Step outside the ward | 1:38 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

"Duly elected representatives" are not elected to create laws against civil rights. That's why we have a constitution that protects the minority and whose interpretation must be free from religious bias.

Comments continue below

Vote Republican this November | 2:15 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Democratic Platform

"support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections."
"oppose the Defense of Marriage Act"
"reproductive health care"
"reaffirm our support for the Equal Rights Amendment, recommit to enforcing Title IX, and urge passage of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women."
universal "comprehensive healthcare"
"vigorously oppose 'Right-to-Work' Laws and 'paycheck protection' efforts"
"expand the Family and Medical Leave Act and make leave paid."
"an economy-wide cap and trade program"
"a world-class education, from early childhood through college"
"early childhood care and education available to every American child from the day he or she is born"

LDS & Proud of it folks | 2:22 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

The Democratic Platform goes all-out in recognizing the support of their gay rights constituency. "We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections." The Platform adds, "We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act." Overwhelmingly passed in 1996 to prevent judges from forcing other states to validate Massachusetts' same-sex marriages, DOMA was one of the most popular laws ever passed and it was even signed by Bill Clinton. Feminist pressure won't let the Democrats recede from their "proudly" stated 2004 Platform position that "Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare." This year's Platform is just as pro-abortion, but uses slightly softer words, stating that the Democrats support "a woman's ability to make her own life choices and obtain reproductive health care, including birth control" (throughout nine months and with taxpayers' money, of course). The 2008 Democratic Platform stridently toadies to the feminists on all their issues. The Platform reaffirms support for the Equal Rights Amendment (which was declared dead by the Supreme Court 26 years ago).

McCain and Sarah 2008

Christina V. Larsen | 2:37 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

OH MY, another deadbeat lesbo bit the dust. I am so glad I left Utah. No church or government has a right to say who someone should love. Gay marriage will not hurt the institution of marriage. On the contrary, it will give all people the rights that those of us who are not gay have.
This is a matter of equality. It truly is about equal rights, not just marriage. As someone once told me, "You spent $50 to get a marriage license, we spent $1,500 to have an attorney draw up powers of attorney to protect our relationship."

Shame on the LDS Church for giving misleading information to its members and the public at large through this and other newspapers.

We hope she gets AIDS also from her behavioral problem's. Than God will sort it out when she to is Judged up there.

HA!! | 3:52 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Yet again it looks more and more like California is going to be a moot point in the marriage issue. Massachusetts, Connecticut making the right decision on this issue means that the LDS church has spent a lot of your tithing money and your time and acheived NOTHING.

Great job Connecticut! Who's next to do the right thing??

In the news | 4:19 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

A couple days ago I saw it in a newspaper - don't remember which one that Florida is also pushing for 'gay marriage rights'

The world is becoming a very evil place in which those who try to do what is right are call bigot and right is being called wrong and wrong is being called right.

Robert Oh | 4:38 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Yea!

Like a stone cut from a mountain.

Separate is NOT equal!

Looks Like | 4:55 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Some prayers do get answered.

Kevin | 5:10 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

It would be great if people in each state voted democratically in favor of these civil rights. But it's nice to know homosexuals still have recourse in the courts.

While everyone has been crying "activist judges!" it's been the executive branch, not the judicial branch, that has trampled the Constitution and seized extraordinary and unequal power.

Martin | 6:11 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Hallelujah! I am pleased to celebrate a time that will go down in history as the greatest advance in the cause of freedom since the American Civil Rights Movement!

Some of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have been fighting long to cash a check issued by our founding fathers. The check was a promise that all mankind -- yes, even gays and lesbians -- would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights include the right to decide with whom you will share your life, the liberty to marry whom you choose, and the pursuit of happiness with that person.

For too long, America in general, and California in particular, have defaulted on that promise insofar as their gay and lesbian citizens are concerned. For too long, when they have gone to the Government offices with their check, they have been sent away with it stamped "insufficient funds" and their application for a marriage license stamped "rejected."

But we refuse to believe that the bank of liberty and justice contains insufficient funds in the great vaults of "liberty and justice for all" to deliver on their promise!

Let freedom ring!

Wrong | 6:40 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

What's the difference between a civil union and marriage? Rights-wise, apparently nothing. But to gays and lesbians, they think somehow this will make them "normal" to the rest of us.

Bad news for you. No court or politician will ever change that.

More bad news - even Obama and Biden are also against gay marriage, along with over 75% of the US population.

l | 6:43 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

re Martin 6:11 pm -

I was about to reply, but I need to go brush my teeth after throwing up in my mouth while reading your comment.

Anonymous | 6:50 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Congratulations...you may now reap the consequences of that which you sow.

Caitlin McCain | 6:50 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

BYU students from California listened in Provo stake centers on Wednesday, as LDS Church leaders led a broadcast regarding the church's support of Proposition 8, the California amendment overturning same-sex marriage. "You don't expect the church to get behind things like this," said Chelsea Martinez, 20, a statistics major from Gonzales, Calif., who viewed the broadcast at a local stake center. Similar to other students attending the broadcast, Martinez's parents have participated in the church's effort by going door-to-door to identify voter preferences and are working to persuade undecided voters to help pass Proposition 8. During the broadcast, Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles focused on the importance of family and marriage and encouraged both single and married students to "use their unique position to influence the world for good. He urged listeners to join in the conversation through the Internet and to be strong in defending our position. He said the world's definition of tolerance has come to mean condone. However, tolerance does not require abandoning one's standards. It's also time to vote all the liberal's out of Office everywhere, it's them, that are pushing for this. Vote for Sarah and McCain.

Mike Mayers | 6:51 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Thank you Connecticut for realizing that everyone deserves to have the same rights. Thank you for realizing that we should not discriminate, or fear those who are different, and if we don't agree with the things they do, as long as it is not harming us, should let them live their lives. Thank you for acting like it is 2008 and not 1968! God Bless!

TetonMike | 6:57 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Yep...it looks like the words "with Liberty and Justice for ALL." will finally mean something. Be Proud, Connecticut, Be Proud.

Anonymous | 6:57 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

YAY! It is just a matter of time Utah...

Canadiandy | 6:58 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Thanks to this poor decision the next "Neo-Freedom" (just after the right of a healthy mother to abort a healthy fetus) is that of homosexuals getting married.

Next will come the argument against age discrimination or age-ism. And so the logical step will be the ability of 50 year old men to marry 14 year old girls and boys. Heck, "They love each other and it is mutual." Same justifications given by the Same-Sex Marriage proponents. I really worry about the direction this has taken. Nobody seems to be able to stop the new love train.

Bert | 7:01 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

OK people, start looking out for those big chunks of sky that are going to start falling... NOT!

Phyllis Schlafly | 7:04 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

NEA resolutions include all the major feminist goals such as "the right to reproductive freedom" (i.e., abortion on demand); "comparable worth" (i.e., government control of wages according to feminist ideology rather than the free market); full funding for the feminist boondoggle called the Women's Educational Equity Act; and "the use of non-sexist language" (i.e., censoring out all masculine words such as husband and father). The NEA even urges its affiliates to work for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA was declared dead by the U.S. Supreme Court 26 years ago. The influence of the gay lobby is pervasive in dozens of NEA resolutions adopted by 2008 convention delegates. Diversity is the code word used for pro-gay indoctrination in the classroom. The NEA's Diversity resolution makes clear that this means teaching about "sexual orientation" and "gender identification," words that are repeated in dozens of resolutions. The NEA demands that "diversity-based curricula" even be imposed on preschoolers. It's time for a REAL CHANGE in Washington DC, get rid of all liberals in every Office everywhere in America, vote in Sarah and McCain, close down all Public Schools and get back to Home Schooling, show them we mean business this-time.

Anonymous | 7:14 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

I guess there was really no point in creating a woman after all. God could have just created another man and called it "good". I love how this has diminished a heterosexual marriage to nothing more than "breeders".

KJB | 7:19 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Wow, 22 comments without the phrase "activist judges" appearing...

Oh, and for Canadiandy's peace of mind, a 14 year-old is legally incapable of entering into a marriage contract and that isn't going to change regardless of of gays getting their rights.

Stu | 7:21 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Where do all you weirdos come from?

Men marrying men?

Give me a break!

SpySmiley | 7:36 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Anonymous 7:14 p.m.: It doesn't diminish anything. In this country, heterosexual marriages are diminishing themselves. More than 50 percent end in divorce. Not very holy and not very representative of anything god authorized. Love is love. And in America, everyone is equal. Next is Florida. Utah, of course, will be last, but it will join the ranks of states allowing same-sex marriage. Eventually.

Get used to it.

Wyoming Citizen | 9:13 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God. The disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. Legally, allowing other types of marriages to occur is something that will destroy families. Instead, we need to stand up for those things that will protect families. We can be like Jesus Christ and love and tolerate every person, but not condone the act.

oregon outsider | 9:34 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

I am trying to get a handle on this issue. I personally believe it's wrong to have same sex marriage, and that comes from my belief in God and the Bible. I haven't heard any comments from those God fearing gay individuals how you can reconcile this alternative lifestyle and feel that God is okay with it regardless of what the government says. The Bible clearly outlines that same sex attraction is wrong and we can't pick and choose which commandments we will follow. Would someone from the gay community please educate me in how you reconcile this fact. God loves us all unconditionally but that doesn't mean he approves of what we do all the time. Please help me to understand your position.

Anonymous | 11:11 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

I think you went off the rails when you assume that your religious belief system is the true and only one, and that its' dictates are those that apply to our nation and everyone in it. Your religious beliefs say what they say but, if you have any right to hold a religious belief in our society, so does everyone else. And theirs can differ from yours, a lot. So, what you've not done is take a step further back. Your opinion on this matter is clearly based on your religious view. Your religious view is possible because of freedom of religion, which entitles everyone to the same by definition. Either we all have it or none do. And some have, and are entitled to, differing views than yours. So, bring your religious views to the discussion. But don't come expecting they deserve any more weight than anyone elses'. You're just one more voice in the crowd.

Random | 11:14 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

I live in California and am hoping this gets thrown back out. My biggest concerns with Prop 8 are 1) the judges completely ignored the will of the people and 2) It's my job as a parent to teach my children about homosexuality, hetersexuality and marriage in general. The state is presuming it knows better than I do how and what to teach my children, and I have a problem with that.

I am not a bigot, I know gay and lesbians and don't have a problem with them. I have a problem with the agenda being shoved down my throat.

Got your hammer and nails. | 11:33 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Better start building your arks, and gather your provisions, cause things are going to get pretty bad. To act on homosexual feelings is contrary to God's teachings, mind you, I say to act on them. There are two very sacred things, the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, and the bringing children into this world. Both of these are being destroyed and abused by gay relationships and abortions. What is the scripture about calling evil good and good evil, this is what is happening in our country, but no one sees it.

Death to Democracy | 12:31 a.m. Oct. 11, 2008

No longer do we live in a country that respects the rule of law or the right of the majority of its citizens to determine the laws and the moral code of society. Similar to intolerant, facist regimes of the past, a small radical group has organized in secret chambers and has joined forces with a few corrupt judges to overturn the law and the will of the majority of the people. This is why you have seen and will continue to see the degeneration of democracy and civility in Mass, California, Connecticut, and any other state or nation that embraces the gay agenda.

To: anonymous at 11:11 | 10:50 a.m. Oct. 11, 2008

I appreciate your well thought out remarks regarding religious beliefs and I understand where your opinion comes from. I believe there are those in the gay community that share the same belief in the Bible I do. I am trying to understand the opinion of those in the gay community who share the same belief in the Bible. Please help me to understand. Oregon Outsider

Anonymous | 2:12 p.m. Oct. 11, 2008

If you wish to 'maintain the sanctity of marriage' why not focus on the hundreds of thousands of marriages that are dissolved each year in the United States? Simply because you live your lives dictated by scriptures in a story-book, doesn't mean you should impose these views on others. Would you deny blacks 'marriage' and instead only allow civil union? No. Because they are equal... 200 years ago, this would not have been the case.

to: anonymous 2:12 | 5:37 p.m. Oct. 11, 2008

"would you deny blacks 'marriage' and instead allow civil union?" Of course not, all people are created equal. I just don't believe that those who are gay can be classified as a "race" of people, so comparing the gay community to a race of people doesn't wash.

John Pack Lambert | 10:31 a.m. Oct. 14, 2008

Please keep political parties out of the marriage debate. Although there are clear differences, Biden made it clear that both he and Obama support marriage as between a man and a woman.
There is a place to discuss which candidates are more likely to support various federal laws that will protect and sustain marriage. However, in the fight for Proposition 8 we need to remind people they can vote Yes on Proposition 8 while voting for Obama, McCain, Barr, Nader or any other candidate for president. In fact they can vote on proposition 8 while leaving the presidential part of the ballot and or and other part of the ballot blank.
Remember, when you vote you are not obligated to vote more than once. Technically you could go, get a ballot, fill nothing out, and turn it in. However, that would be entirely pointless. However, if there is only one point you are sure of, such as yes on 8, you can just vote that and ignore the rest of the ballot and your vote will count.
While it is probably could to vote on other things, if you feel to overwhelmed, just vote on what makes sense to you.

John Pack Lambert | 10:42 a.m. Oct. 14, 2008

To the 5:37 commentator,
The issue is no one is forced to enter into a civil union. All people have equal rights under the law to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Marriage needs to be kept between a man and a woman to keep child bearing in marriage. The goal is to maximiize the percentage of child rearing in marriage not the percentage of marriages that are child bearing. As long as we have opposite gender marriages that clearly encorage marriage to be linked to child bearing than we are achieving this goal. If we abandon this difference that creates in marriage we change the meaning of marriage away from child bearing. The fact that for various reasons some marriages do not produce chidren has no bearing on the fact that the goal of the system is to have child rearing occur within the bonds of marriage.
Those who support same gender marriage do not understand the benefits to children created by being raised by married people, or totally ignore them. I would urge them to go and study there benefits.
More to follow.

Rani | 3:17 p.m. Oct. 14, 2008

Gay marriage does not hurt families. It is not your business to decide who gets to marry who, it is not our duty to regulate that. Just because you think it is wrong does not mean it is. Some people don't like interracial marriage and think it is wrong. Should that be against the law as well? I thought we lived in a free country where we could be happy and marriage was about love not gender. It is sad to think that our country now is more concerned about what gender you are rather than if you love that person or not. It does not break up families. Plenty of straight people have children and those children are abused and neglected. Being gay doesn't have anything to do with child raising: its the quality of care you give your child, the love you give them, not what gender you are. Gay marriage does not destroy families, you can still have one when gay people do get married, it doesn't effect that at all.
Marriage is about love, not gender. I wish people saw that. Nowadays, in this country, marriage isn't about love anymore.

The Goose | 6:00 p.m. Oct. 14, 2008

To oregon outsider,

Let's see if this clears it up a bit. Would you restrict the rights of atheists who do NOT believe in God at all? So why restrict the rigts of gays and lesbians? Obviously, they don't believe in the same god you believe in, and many of them don't believe in god at all. So what? Is belief in god a pre-requisite for having rights in the United States?

As an American citizen, I have guaranteed rights and equal treatment under the law regardless of my private beliefs (whether religious or not). By forcing your beliefs about God and "commandments" into an amendment, you are circumventing the unalienable rights of others who do NOT believe the same religious beliefs you have. That is wrong. How hard is it to see that? You are legislating the morality of others who do not share your beliefs. Oh how I would pray for all you religious people to open your eyes and have a revelation on the subject of freedom and liberty... IF I believed in god! But I don't. I believe in liberty and justice for ALL. The biggest threat to liberty around the world is religion.

Anonymous | 9:00 p.m. Oct. 17, 2008

I pray for the day when reason rules at the polls instead of religious fanaticism and bigotry.

Of course, as an atheist, my "prayer" is figurative only. The world would be a much better place if people took everything taught by religion as "figurative" only!

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.

1 photo

Associated Press

This May 14, 2007 file photo shows Joanne Mock, left, and Beth Kerrigan speaking to media in front of the Connecticut State Supreme Court in Hartford where they were among plaintiffs in a suit brought after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses. The state Supreme Court ruled in the suit today that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.