Comments about ‘Court might sidestep major ruling on gay marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 26 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

If they dismiss the case, the ruling by the Federal Court stands and California will have gay marriage once again.

Doma tomorrow will be different.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

Whether people are for or against same-sex marriage, it's an untalked about fact that if same-sex marriages are endorsed and allowed with all the same benefits as traditional marriage, it will cost the federal and state governments tens of billions of dollars in lost revenue on tax returns and tens of billions more in additional entitlement benefits.

That might be considered only a secondary issue (and rightfully so), but is still an issue nonetheless, due to the fact that our government is already so close to being broke. It currently spends much more than it takes in with annual trillion dollar deficits adding to a nearly $17 trillion direct and growing deficit. I'd like to know where the many more billions are going to come from if this is allowed. It would make a big financial problem that much worse. I haven't read where any politician had addressed this potential issue.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Tators
Two things:
1. Why is it okay to throw homosexual marriage benefits out the window in the name of the deficit but not heterosexual marriage benefits?
2. Half of you conservatives say that marriage is harmed because the gov't encourages financially staying single. But you're saying marriage does provide monetary benefits? Can you all get your story straight on this?

Maudine
SLC, UT

@ Tators: What alt said - but in addition to that, one of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that homosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals. Does opposite sex marriage cost the government less than same-sex marriage? Or is your financial argument based on the assumption that homosexual individuals don't have the same right to marriage as heterosexual individuals?

caleb in new york
Glen Cove, NY

@atl134 - 1. for the most part allowing traditional marriage makes the country a better place so that there are less problems for the government to try to step in and solve. homosexual relationships do not achieve those benefits so same-sex marriage would just be another big government wasteful spending program. its a waste of money for the government to support institutions that don't help improve the country. the institution of traditional marriage and the government's support of this institution is not perfect but that is not justification for making the program worse.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Tators,

If America were your ideal and there were no gays, the US would be paying these benefits to all these same couples who would now be heterosexual couples. This fact nulifies the claim that we should not pay for gay couples benefits.

In fact, today, if we look into our country's finances, you would find that gay families (who must pay at a single rate) are supporting the government in their taxes at a much higher percentage than hetero families. Is that right? Yes, the US would even be more broke if everyone in America lived like you think we should.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "If they dismiss the case, the ruling by the Federal Court stands and California will have gay marriage once again."

And millions of Californians will have been disenfranchised by 3 unelected Ninth Circus Court of Appeals judges.

I don't see it happening.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

"traditional marriage makes the country a better place so that there are less problems for the government to try to step in and solve. homosexual relationships do not achieve those benefits "

------------------------

OK, you lost me. How does traditional marriage make this country a better place? Can you give me examples? Also show how gay relationships do not achieve those benefits.

Thanks for your examples.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I think that anyone expecting a sweeping ruling in either direction is going to be disappointed.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

@ Alt34:

Where in my above comment did I say it was alright to throw anyone's rights out the window. Those were you words, and certainly not mine. If you had the ability to read rationally, you would notice that I said the financial issue is a secondary issue. The only possible implied reason is because the rights of people are always secondary to financial issues... something I adamantly agree with.

However, that doesn't negate the fact that financial issues will result from homosexual unions being given the same government rights as traditional marriages. They will. But I never once said or even insinuated that money issues should trump moral issues. If that's an issue to you, it's only your issue and not mine. Do so if you want, but leave me and the other financial issue I brought up out of it.

ParkCityAggie
Park City, Ut

Oh it will happen. Consider that the Stete of California didn't even bother to defend Prop 8. The issue of standing is always huge with SCOTUS. And before you go bemoaning that fact that the people in the great State of California had their rights usurped, consider that the latest polling there shows 62% support in favor for equal marriage rights to 38% still against. What a difference 4 years makes. And even then, as we all know, civil rights are not something to be legislated away by a majority (large are simple). If that were the case the south would still have segregation (they still do in a sense) and no interracial marriages. I can’t wait to read the logical fallacies I’m sure I will see in further postings…

caleb in new york
Glen Cove, NY

@ Lane - its scientifically proven that sexual relations of people of the same sex are far less likely to produce offspring than sexual relations of people of the opposite gender. producing and raising children to have good morals is an important task and is best achieved with a contributing father and mother, and if members of society at large are focused on those tasks then they will be far less likely to screw around with their lives and cause problems for the rest of society to deal with.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Caleb,

Gays can and do have children. They bring them into the world the same way that infertile couples do: in vitro fertilization, sperm donations, and surrogate mothers.

If you were listening to the court hearings today, you would learn that gay couples are raising over 39,000 children right now in the state of California.

These families too, make this country a better place. Please tell me what problems the government needs to solve with these families? Do you really believe that gay couples are raising their children to have poor morals? Actually, single parent households are the most likely to raise children with problems - not gay families.

Sounds like you need to get to know a few gay couples with children before you make such a harsh judgment upon all of them. The truth is that older, Jewish couples have the very best results with their children - but I am not advocating not allowing anyone who wants to raise a child from doing so just because they might not have optimal outcomes.

Read about the lesbian couple before the SCOTUS today and their children. You might change your mind.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

Tators said "However, that doesn't negate the fact that financial issues will result from homosexual unions being given the same government rights as traditional marriages."

Tators remark reframed to the 1860's "However, that doesn't negate the fact that financial issues will result from the elimination of slavery."

Yep. That argument played just as ugly then as it does now.

MarkMAN
West Columbia, TX

Should they refuse to recognize this as a federal issue, they will vacate any federal rulings thus far made.

Mark

SoCalChris
Riverside, CA

Tators,

I believe formalized gay unions should be treated the same as marriages as far as tax benefits, etc. even if it means a reduction in revenue that we can't afford.

What I object to in the SSM debate is the confusion and legal mess that would ensue if gay unions were considered indistinguishable from traditional marriage. Leave marriage alone and allow for civil unions, etc., where the unions are treated fairly and reasonably but not viewed as the same thing legally as marriage. They're not the same thing.

Thinkman
Provo, UT

So if the Supreme Court rules that Gay Marriage is constitutional, will they also extend that to polygamous marriages?

If that happens, then the LDS church would have the cover it needs to reinstate Plural Marriage as set forth in Doctrine and Covenants Section 132.

Perhaps we will see Plural Marriage back in mainstream Mormonism afterall and not have to wait until death and the Celestial Kingdom.

Interesting implications to be sure!

Built2Last
Provo, UT

Don't get suckered by the media coverage of this. Remember what happened with SCOTUS and Obamacare...the same kind of hinting that SCOTUS was not buying the arguments and seemed to be resisting the arguments in favor of it. Remember how counsel was being raked over the coals? Remember that feeling you had that maybe the court would do the right thing?

brownderby
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Thinkman!
Bizarre reasoning

caleb in new york
Glen Cove, NY

@ Lane. people with homosexual tendencies also have the same procreation opportunities as most other people - by engaging in heterosexual sex. Ideally they would wait until they enter a traditional marriage before they engage in such procreative acts. To the extent that any current parents living in a homosexual relationship raise their children well and teach good values to their children, they are fully capable of continuing to do so under the status quo where one of the parties would have parental rights. Same-sex marriage proponents are not in pursuit of equality but are rather in pursuit of special privileges for a perverted minority. Government should not have an interest in nurturing and supporting the strange sexual attractions of a minority of its citizens and in trying to place all sexual attractions and activity on equal footing. No amount of governmental intervention will alter the natural inferiority of homosexual acts.

to comment

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