Quantcast

Comments about ‘Gay rights supporters erupt in cheers over ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 26 2013 11:50 a.m. MDT

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

I'm cheering, too.

I'm also disturbed that sanity and reason have to be defended so vigorously these days.

amazondoc
USA, TN

It will be very interesting to see how these decisions play out in the states. The defeat of DOMA, in particular, would seem to give tons of ammunition to those who want to contest the constitutionality of state bans on gay marriage.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

Good for Gay Marriage which is two LGBT people.

Marriage is still one man and one woman.

I never had an issue with people receiving the benefits that they work for. Something that democrats have a hard time allowing people that make and earn a living, spend those earnings on their families, rather than being taxed out of all of their income so the democrats can redistribute the money to buy votes.

With this passage, it will be interesting to see if the LGBT will be happy with this or if they will now go against their word and force this down the throats of people of faith and use the full force of the government to take away religious freedom....

worf
Mcallen, TX

Gay marriage is irrelevant.

What's dangerous is allowing government jurisdiction in this kind of matters.

worf
Mcallen, TX

America was great, because America was good.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Liberal Ted --

"Marriage is still one man and one woman."

You can call "marriage" whatever you like -- but the GOVERNMENT in states with gay marriage laws won't agree with you. And many religious denominations, both Christian and Jewish, also don't agree with you.

@worf --

"What's dangerous is allowing government jurisdiction in this kind of matters."

That's what the Supreme Court is FOR -- protecting the rights of its citizens. There is nothing new about SCOTUS ruling in marriage-related cases -- they've been doing that for more than a century already.

Cool Cat Cosmo
Payson, UT

Interesting...I wonder how this will relate to polygamists...what about their 'equal rights'?

Uncle Rico
Sandy, UT

I think this ruling will bring many Christian religions together to settle differences and work together.

Cincinnatus
Kearns, UT

You really need to keep your own arguments from contradicting themselves, worf.

"Gay marriage is irrelevant." Well, then, if it's irrelevant, then it shouldn't bother you, and you didn't need the second half of your statement.

Additionally, you must not understand marriage in this country very well if you think it's dangerous to allow "government jurisdiction is this." Surprise! Government already had jurisdiction in marriage. You can't be legally married in ANY state in this nation without first going to a county government and obtaining a marriage license. Pastors, Priests, Bishops and Temple Sealers will NOT marry you unless you have that governmental piece of paper. They and the witnesses sign it and then it is filed with the government. For lack of a better term, marriage is a legal contract. Therefore government has jurisdiction. You may not like it, but it's been that way for quite awhile.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Cool Cat Cosmo --

"Interesting...I wonder how this will relate to polygamists...what about their 'equal rights'?"

Polygamy (and also incest) are completely different issues. Courts in both the US and Canada have already shown very clearly that they can easily distinguish between these issues.

If you're interested, a 2011 case in British Columbia has detailed reasoning behind Canada's reaffirmation of the constitutionality of its polygamy ban. (It may be of special interest that the case was based on a polygamous Mormon-offshoot up there in Canada.)

In regards to incest, **several** US cases -- both Federal and state, and in several different states -- have already very clearly declared that homosexuality rulings do NOT apply to incest.

I can post specific quotes from both polygamy and incest cases in future comments, if you are truly interested. In general, though, you can be reassured that the courts DO know the legal difference between homosexuality, polygamy, and incest.

one old man
Ogden, UT

We won't really know for many years what the effect of this ruling may be. But I fear the results won't be good ones.

Mr. Bean
Pheonix, AZ

@Tyler D:
"... and the laws regarding what children can and cannot do have been made, by the people, for many many years, so I’m not sure what your point is."

Laws are meant to change... as we can see by the DOMA law.

"Are you saying that if two children want to get married, contrary to all laws in every state (i.e., the overwhelming will of the people), the SC should find that right in the Constitution and allow the marriage (somehow based on today’s precedent)?"

The rights for children to marry (including married to an adult) is guaranteed in the US Constitution... in the exact same paragraphs that authorizes gays to marry.

"Exactly – and so in both cases today the S Court essentially kicked it back to the states (as they should have done in R v W)."

But they didn't kick R v. W back so it stands on the books as a federal and not a state issue.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@Mr. Bean --

"The rights for children to marry (including married to an adult) is guaranteed in the US Constitution... in the exact same paragraphs that authorizes gays to marry."

That's just silly.

"Equal protection" doesn't mean "throw out all the other constitutional protections and laws", any more than "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged" means that four-year-olds get to vote for President. You need to deal with that whole "due process of law" thing.

We already know, from **several** court cases in **several** different states, that the courts do NOT apply rulings on homosexuality to cases of incest. The same distinction would be made with any child marriage.

Cmon, please -- we need less hysteria, and more facts and logic.

to comment

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