Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court, Congress, citizens: The debate over who should define marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, June 14 2013 3:35 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

“because the act that unites a man and a woman creates new life. And this new life needs and deserves a mother and a father because otherwise, the social costs run high.”

The act that unites a man and a woman creates new life? That's not marriage, that's sex.

States including Utah allow single people to adopt. We allow infertile, elderly, or couples who just don't want kids to marry. If this were the purpose behind gov't involvement in the matter then it's not used very consistently.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

The right belongs to We the People...as long as we don't violate anyone's Constitutional rights.

The sole job of the Court is ensure that everyone's rights are protected. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's really that simple.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

When people put their own sexual preferences above the good of society, we have warped ideas of what "marriage" means. God created man and woman for a purpose. He instituted marriage BEFORE this world was ever created. Marriage is not something that can be redefined without ignoring eternal law.

Of course, there are those who will immediately tell us that they don't believe in God or that "my" idea of God differs from their belief. If that is the case, then perhaps they should come to terms with "God" before they tell us what "marriage" means. John wrote: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent". Something that important should never be put off.

If the Court is wise, it will not further destroy society by destroying the traditional family and traditional marriage.

Miss Piggie
Pheonix, AZ

@atl134:
"The act that unites a man and a woman creates new life? That's not marriage, that's sex."

True, but every child deserves a mom and a pop to the extent possible.

@Darrel:
"The sole job of the Court is ensure that everyone's rights are protected. Nothing more, nothing less."

I think you're right... and I think it's my right to three husbands... at one time. One to bring home the bacon, one to cook it, and one to scratch my back.

Lightbearer
Brigham City, UT

Second try, slightly changed, since the first try was denied, even though it contained no hyperlinks, only one word in all caps, and no personal attacks.

As I have asked before, where does this idea come from that marriage is somehow the domain of religion, especially Christian religion? There are billions of people in the world who don't believe in the Bible or Christianity, and their marriages are no less valid because of it. According to a Buddhist website, "wedding ceremonies have always been regarded as secular affairs in Buddhist countries," and if the parties involved want a blessing from a Buddhist monk, they obtain it AFTER the civil formalities have been taken care of. Marriages performed by a civil authority are just as legitimate, and just as much real marriages, as those performed in a Christian church.

Some people concede that others don't believe in god, but in the next breath imply that those others are wrong and should have to abide by the rules of a being they consider to be imaginary anyway.

Can't believers live their religion unless even non-believers are forced to live by its laws?

Live and let live.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@Lightbearer:
"As I have asked before, where does this idea come from that marriage is somehow the domain of religion, especially Christian religion?"

During much of the history of Europe the Christian religion (Catholic) dominated most of the government goings on... such as the crowing of kings. In other words, the government was subject in large measure to religion or deference to religion. The line of separation of church and state was fairly dim. And, when Henry VIII of England decided he wanted a divorce from Catherine of Aragon and the Pope in Rome said no, Henry set himself up as not only king of England but head of the church in England as well, breaking off from the Church in Rome. And of course, in the Old Testament the Jewish tribes had religion as their government. So, both Christian and Jew had marriage as part of religion.

Here, in the good ole US of A if you don't want a religious marriage, you can get married by visiting a justice of the peace... which is a government entity.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@Miss Piggie,

As long as you're all consenting adults, who am I to tell you different.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Soooooo according to this article, if a man and a woman cannot have children then their marriage is a sham? Interesting.

Maudine
SLC, UT

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

DOMA violates this.

14th Amendment, Section 1: "... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Prop 8 violates this by removing an existing right.

Article 3, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, ... or which shall be made, under their Authority;...."

Article 6: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Authority of SCOTUS to decide the cases.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Marriage does not create a new life. It creates a new legal entity, and that's why it's the domain of government. After all, one turns to government when it comes apart.
I've come to terms with god; she tells me not only is your religion dead wrong but also that she has no interest in what so called marriage is. You can't prove otherwise, and at that maybe it's time to consider that, in this case as in most cases, religion just clouds the issue.
The court needs to protect our rights as individuals. After that, if we want to sell those to a church, fine. Do it on your own dime.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

The Supreme Court is not interested in these marriage cases "because the act that unites a man and a woman creates new life." They are interested in these cases because the act is a legal contract that creates new rights.

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

@Miss Piggie --

"True, but every child deserves a mom and a pop to the extent possible."

Gay people can already adopt children -- even in Utah. Gay marriage, or the lack of gay marriage, won't change that.

Gay people across the country are already raising hundreds of thousands of children -- whether through adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, or the children of previous marriages. Gay marriage, or the lack of gay marriage, won't change that either.

Gay marriage WILL help to create more stable homes for those children to grow up in.

And that's a GOOD thing.

"I think you're right... and I think it's my right to three husbands... at one time. One to bring home the bacon, one to cook it, and one to scratch my back."

Polygamy conveys a high, known risk of abuse and/or mistreatment to women and children. Courts already recognize this fact. And public safety has always been a valid legal reason for limiting personal freedoms. So you're out of luck there.

In contrast, consensual homosexuality has NO known risks to public safety. Therefore, there is no reason to limit the personal freedoms of gay people in this way.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Interesting....

Governments issue licenses and legal contracts binding people together,
[which established the entire premise of the Citizens United ruling by the SCOTUS].

Black, White, Male, female, Asian, Hispanic, Democrat, Republican -- it doesn't matter.
It is a legal contract, legally binding them together as one entity - period.

If one wishes to quit and leave, or violates any promises or trusts - there is ground to sue.

Marriage - legally then - is precisely the same sort of contract as a business.
And any "marriage" - even Religious ones - require a marriage "license", given by the State, at a county Court House - which may be exercised by either a clergy or Court appointed Justice of the Peace. But the "marriage" even Temple marriages, must have a signed license.
Otherwise - there is no legal recognition of the marriage.

The final consideration for me as to what defines a "marriage" is who has the authority to dissolve one?

Whatever authority bound the "marriage", is the only authority that may dissolve one.
Just like Corporations, marriages are legal arrangements.

So - when Churches start providing "Divorces" like they do "marriages", rather than only the State - THEN you have a valid argument.

Therefore - I say, it is the Government.

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

@LDS Liberal --

"Whatever authority bound the "marriage", is the only authority that may dissolve one....So - when Churches start providing "Divorces" like they do "marriages"... THEN you have a valid argument."

Of course, if Christians were REALLY living by the Book, they wouldn't get divorced anyway. ;-)

"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." (Matthew 19:9)

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her." (Mark 10:11)

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Luke 16:18)

"A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife." (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

Did you know that, according to a 2009 Census Bureau study, Utah actually has a HIGHER than average divorce rate?

The Gospels actually say more against divorce than they do against homosexuality. The phrases "holier than thou" and "judge not that ye be not judged" spring to mind.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

One poster told us that "marriage" was just a contract. Can you believe that? Is that what his Church teaches him about marriage? Marriage was instituted by God as the perfect unit of society. He expected us to do in marriage what he does in marriage. He expected us to love and respect our spouse. He expected us to procreate (that was a commandment, not a suggestion). If we were able to procreate, he expects us to raise our children in righteous, teaching them about Him, teaching them right from wrong, teaching by precept and by example how they should conduct themselves.

Marriage is much more than a "contract". On its lowest level, it is a "contract". On its highest level, it is the kind of life that God lives. How we respect the institution of marriage tells others what we think about God, the church that we profess to have membership in, and what we think about keeping eternal commandments.

Some profess no belief in God. Some pretend that they are exempt from eternal laws because they profess no belief. Little kids think that if they close their eyes, no one will see them. Adults know better.

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

@Mike --

"He expected us to procreate (that was a commandment, not a suggestion)."

Errrr....lesseee...

1. Lord they God...
2. no other gods...
3. no graven images...
4. name in vain...
5. keep the Sabbath...
6. honor your parents...
7. no killing...
8. no adultery...
9. no false witness...
10. no coveting...

Nope, sorry. "Thou shalt not fail to procreate" just isn't in there.

God commanded ADAM AND EVE to procreate. They did that. God didn't say that EVERYONE had to.

----------

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and WHATEVER OTHER COMMAND THERE MAY BE, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Romans 13: 8-10

Lightbearer
Brigham City, UT

Little kids "know" that there's a monster under the bed, or behind the door, or in the closet, and expect everyone to be afraid. Adults don't take their word for it, they investigate - and discover that there's nothing there, nothing at all.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

@plain,

I'm so sorry to read that your marriage ceremony was abridged. Mine was not. The sealer, who had authority to speak for God and to seal on earth as is sealed in heaven, very definitly included the commandment to multiply and replenish. Each time I've attended a marriage in that very holy place, the same exact words are used. That should not be surprising. God does not change his laws because of our personal desires. He expects us to change our lives to show our willingness to keep his commandments.

A marriage license might be issued by the State, but only God gives authority to His sealers to perform that marriage. Check your scriptures (you seem to be familiar enough with the Bible). See how many references you can find where God has given authority to "seal". While you're at it, you might also note that God chose those to whom he gave that authority.

Marriage means so much more than most people realize, but anyone who is interested can easily find out what it really means and why it can only refer to the uniting of a man and a woman.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Conscience is a great thing. It teaches one to abide by the truth, including what the word 'marriage' means. No mystery, no excuses, just the truth. Those who don't abide the truth are not going to be persuaded by anything less than Christ before him/her. Only then will the lips move and the knee bend. 'til then, do your best to 'train up a child in the way he/she should go.' It's much easier to that then convince someone not willing to understand the truth!

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Mike --

"The sealer, who had authority to speak for God and to seal on earth as is sealed in heaven, very definitly included the commandment to multiply and replenish. "

Speaking of traditional wedding vows --

I don't know how Mormon vows are worded, but common traditional Christian church vows often include the passage: "whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God."

Did you say that vow? It's a good example of a fine, traditional, heterosexual vow, right?

Except that it was originally spoken -- in the Bible -- by one woman TO ANOTHER WOMAN.

Check it out -- Ruth 1:16 .

;-D

In reality, wedding vows are only traditional passages that hopefully have special meaning for the people involved. They vary from place to place, church to church, and couple to couple. Our "traditional" wedding vows weren't even invented until the Middle Ages -- in fact, they weren't ever recorded until the 1500s. They should never be confused with direct commandments from God.

Unless you really want to interpret that passage from Ruth as a commandment that all women should marry other women. ;-)

to comment

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