Comments about ‘In our opinion: Judicial clarity on the issue of same-sex marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Dec. 10 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Shelama
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Sooner or later, whether from the Roberts-Scalia court or another, what we know for sure is that judicial clarity will eventually clear the way for same-sex marriage in all 50 states. And that there will be no damage to or diminution of the traditional family. Gays and same-sex couples and their families will continue to support, celebrate and honor traditional marriages among family and friends and society at large.

Traditional marriage will always comprise at least 97-98% of all marriages and always be, by far, the largest contributor to marriage and the family as the foundation of society. Gay marriage and their families will contribute proportionately to that same strong foundation. Their children will be just fine.

The children of traditional marriage will grow up with same-sex couples and their children and families as friends, neighbors, playmates, schoolmates and even pew-mates. They will see with their own eyes that they are just folks.

There'll be a brief period of unsettled administrative details and trivial lawsuits. Life will go on basically unchanged except for same-sex couples and their children and families celebrating their new found marriages.

Time to move on to something important.

Joe_Libertarian
San DIego, CA

This article is predictably conservative, from predictably conservative SLC. Recently a man I admire said that one of the problems that the GOP has, is that it has difficulty understanding another person's position. Here's yet another case. It is not a human right for two other people to marry. It is "social policy". And legislating from the bench is just that, not "guaranteeing a minority of their basic human rights". It is ironic, considering that the Mormans have been so persecuted throughout their brief existence, that the people of SLC would seek to persecute those that are different.

I challenge you to think differently. Consider that the word marriage is a religious word. That the right to marry is established in churches and before God.

So stay the heck out of my schools and government, thank you very much.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

"...the importance of prudence when reviewing democratically enacted social policy."

The rights of minority citizens should have never been up for "democratically enacted social policy" votes in the first place. It is wrong to deny others the very rights you partake of yourself.

I am trusting this Supreme Court to determine that in America, Equal Protection means EQUAL PROTECTION FOR EVERYBODY.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Ranch I thought the same exact thing when I saw the photo "Equal Justice Under the Law" on the front of the building.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

If it were not for the Federal pronouncements against polygamous unions in the late 19 Century, I would not think that marriaage law is a Federal question. Regardless, it would not surprise me if the court rules that it is a state issue, but requiring all states to give "full faith and credit" to the laws of states that do decide to permit it.

From the LDS standpoint however, this would not be a welcome decision, and not just from a moral standpoint, it also could also raise the specter of making polygamous unions legal. Simply put, if same sex mariages are legal, can the law really maintain the illegalty of any form of mutually agreed to adult unions?

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Here's my prediction: The court will rule DOMA unconstitutional. On the prop. 8 case they will issue a very narrow ruling which will not change the states' ability to regulate marriage. They may decide on technical grounds that prop 8 was either proper or improper. The ruling will apply only to California, since California is the only state that approved gay marriage and then rescinded the right to marry.

OHBU
Columbus, OH

Yes, we wouldn't want the court to be ahead of some of the state's on social issues. It was terrible that the court didn't let Southern states work out their civil rights issues on their own without federal intervention. (Sarcasm)

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Mike in Cedar City said: From the LDS standpoint however, this would not be a welcome decision, and not just from a moral standpoint, it also could also raise the specter of making polygamous unions legal.

I'm not sure I agree and think it might be a welcome decision.
Then the church could reinstitute polygamy, since it was only abandoned for statehood to begin with.
I know it had nothing to do with statehood just a quinkydink.

Besides if all parties marrying are adults and can sign a contract, it would be freedom of choice.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Roland Keyser
"On the prop. 8 case they will issue a very narrow ruling which will not change the states' ability to regulate marriage. They may decide on technical grounds that prop 8 was either proper or improper. The ruling will apply only to California, since California is the only state that approved gay marriage and then rescinded the right to marry."

That's what I had predicted until someone pointed out to me a detail that gives me pause... since that is what the appeals court had come up with, why would the supreme court take up the case just to agree with the lower court ruling?

@Happy Valley Heretic
"Then the church could reinstitute polygamy, since it was only abandoned for statehood to begin with."

The church would never re-institute it if for no other reason than the fact that re-instituting it would likely result in half the church membership to leave within 5 years. Plus it would still leave a mess seeing as its now a global church and many other nations still wouldn't allow it.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Shelama" unfortunately for you, and so many others like you, the assumptions you made are wrong.

Read "Dutch Decline: Losing interest in matrimony" in the National Review.

It is also harmful to children. See "Man and wife? That's best for baby" in the Austrialian National Times.

As for seeing a significant upsurge in marriages between gay couples. In the countries that have gay marraige, that never materialized. Most gays will remain cohabitating, and little will change, except marriage rates will continue to fall as people see marriage being cheapened.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

I think DOMA's going down, as it should, since it clearly violates Article Four Section One of the constitution, the 'full faith and credit' clause. I think Roberts will craft a narrow 6-3 opinion striking down Prop 8, but only in California.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt
"marriage rates will continue to fall as people see marriage being cheapened."

'Gay people can get married? Well that's it, I'm not going to bother marrying anyone myself.' - said no straight Dutch person ever.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@redshirt
once again opinion pieces and pieces that use the erroneous assumptions of the writer are not the same as research redshirt, try reading the credible research the facts clearly contradict your opinions.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Tolstoy" once again, try reading what was posted, and the researchers that were interviewed about their scientific research.

Just because it is a news article about a study published. The article from Australia is not an opinion piece. It is reporting on a study that was published. It is no different than the AGW articles that you believe.

Just because you reject the truthes contained in the article does not mean they are invalid. You should try reading articles before you lie about their content, that way you don't appear to be as ignorant as you do right now.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@atl134 said, "That's what I had predicted until someone pointed out to me a detail that gives me pause... since that is what the appeals court had come up with, why would the supreme court take up the case just to agree with the lower court ruling?"

To answer your question I believe the Supreme Court may taking up this case because it is the 9th Circuit Court decision that is being challenged (not the actual Proposition 8), which issued the narrow decision (California only) which supported same-sex marriage. In this instance, the Supreme Court could abandon the 9th Circuit Court decision, which then would allow Proposition 8 to become effective banning same-sex marriages in California. Or they could sustain it fully, which would then cancel the Constitutional amendments of the other 31 States (including Utah) that prevents same-sex marriages. Or they could decide on a narrow basis to sustain the 9th Circuit Court decision so that this decision applies to California only, leaving the other 31 State amendments to stand for right now. In that instance, challenges to those other State amendments would have to be appealed separately from this decision.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

Judge Roberts showed his true liberal bias last summer so I suspect gay marriage will be forced down our throats - like Obamacare - very soon. Every state - including Utah - will be forced to recognize homosexual marriage regardless of the what the people of the state say. Socialism doesn't regard states rights - just the all powerful federal government. Get used to it.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@ RedShirt: Marriage in the Netherlands has been in decline for many years - the decline started before gay marriage was allowed. And, yes, you can argue that the decline started as soon as gay couples started to ask for permission to marry and you may even be able to find support for that position - but, if the gay marriage debate was handled in the Netherlands the same way it was handled here, the only people you have to blame for the decline in marriage rates are those who argued that marriage really isn't that important in all situations and gays really don't need it since all benefits are available without marriage. In other words, blame the decline in the desire to get married on those who oppose same-sex marriage - they are the ones who talked marriage down and devalued it.

The "Man and Wife?" article you reference is actually in the Sydney Morning Herald, was written by Chris Meney, the director of the Life, Marriage and Family Centre in the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, and is an editorial - not a fact-based article. All it proves is the Catholic Church thinks people should be married before having children.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Let's get gay marriage legal and move on.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@redshirt
So the article on the Netherlands at best shows a weak correlation between the gay marriage debate and the decline in marriage but as usual fails to provide any evidence of a causal relationship. I can make erroneous correlations between the number of dead rabbits on the side of the road and the number of telephone poles per mile but that does not mean their is any casual relationship. Now if you have some evidence of a causal relationship lets see it.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@redshirt
the article you quote from the Australian times does not seem to exist anywhere on the internet, care to tell us exactly what research they make reference to in support of their claims?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments