Comments about ‘Gay marriage opponents ask court to intervene’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, June 29 2013 5:40 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Contrarius
mid-state, TN

A huge congrats to all the newlyweds. It's about time!

And may there be many many more of you in the months to come!

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

“By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.”

While it may be true that if the election were held today proposition 8 would fail, SCOTUS should have ruled in favor of the proper and legal election that was held. The people of CA could then bring it to the ballot again if they so desired. Instead the democratic was thwarted and this will go on to be another great divisive issue like Row vs. Wade. Even justive Ginsburg now sees that the some issues like Roe vs. Wade should be setteled other than in the courts.

Sneaky Jimmy
Bay Area, CA

Many Californians know that PROP 8 was unconstitutional. Just because a majority of voters say that something is legal doesn't make it so.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

Rocket Science,

The entire point of our constitution and and our government's reliance on judicial review is that a popular vote that creates a law that violates the constitution does not make the law any less unconstitutional, and we therefore authorize and empower our judiciary to strike down unconstitutional laws, including those passed through a direct referendum.

toosmartforyou
Farmington, UT

I saw on the TV news where the person with authority to perform the marriage said "I now pronounce you....married." There was an awkward moment while he was trying to think what to say. He couldn't say "I pronounce you 'husband and husband'" because that wouldn't make any sense. And pronouncing them "married" makes about as much sense as pronouncing someone 'male' or 'stupid' or 'single' or any number of other things, maybe even (perish the thought) 'religious.' It made one wonder just what "married gays" really are, other than in a position to enjoy all the legal advantages of married heterosexual couples, which they should enjoy and which would be granted with civil unions. But to pronounce them 'married' is awkward and meaningless; the officiator certainly got that part right. So much for being pronounced "man and wife" or "husband and wife." (Maybe he could have said "Man and man.")

Oh well, we will see what happens next. (Like children having a Mom and a Mom, but no Father.)

The Scientist
Provo, UT

These people are the worst kind of wedding crashers.

It is not your wedding! Keep your noses out of other people's business! If you don't like same sex marriage, don't get one! Live your own lives and let others live theirs!

Robert Johnson
Sunland, CA

Not unexpected but futile. The Court very rightfully said that it is wrong for discrimination to continue for even another day. The Court made the right to decision to lift the ban and not wait for another month. The LEAST thing that a government should do is make sure that the fundamental rights of all of its citizens are protected.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@Rocket Science --

"SCOTUS should have ruled in favor of the proper and legal election that was held."

The Supreme Court Justices have to follow the law just like everyone else -- and the law says that they CAN'T rule on a case unless BOTH sides of the case have standing. In this case the Prop 8 supporters did NOT have the necessary standing.

"Persons do not have standing to sue to enforce a constitutional provision when all they can show or claim is that they have an interest or have suffered an injury that is shared by all members of the public."
-- "Standing to Challenge Lawfulness of Governmental Action" at Justicia.com

As for either the state or Federal executive branch declining to defend the law, that is also not new.

For details, look up "The Indefensible Duty to Defend" at Columbia Law Review; "When May a President Refuse to Defend a Statute?" at Northwestern University Law Review; and "Executivie Discretion to Decline to Defend Federal Law Against Constitutional Challenge" by the Palm Center for Sound Public Policy.

These principles are very well established, folks. There's nothing brand new about either of them.

TDS
Clearfield, UT

The supreme court ruling simply expanded the rights of all their citizens both LGBT and straight but before the ruling both groups had the same rights - that being marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of sexual orientation or use of this right. Now, in addition to those that are bisexual, if a heterosexual or homosexual decides to change orientation for whatever reason, and wants to enter into marriage, they have the right to do so.

It must be noted however that increased freedom can come at the expense of security/stability (i.e. the great recession following decades of decreased legislation governing stock trading, and loose financial management) or vice versa (i.e. patriot act). What do we embrace what do we reject - it depends on our situation, maybe freedom maybe security.

In fairness, qualitatively speaking, no one really knows the social impact these marriages will have on society at large. Some cite current statistics as a way of predicting stability/instability but such numbers represent nothing more than a freeze frame of current activity levels. What is certain is that things will be different. With increased freedom comes increased responsibility/consequences for all- are we ready?

Oatmeal
Woods Cross, UT

The legal wranglings are over for now. If you want to know what happens next, read the LDS Proclamation on the Family.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Rocket Science;

Many Americans were already wondering if there was something wrong with our system of government when the majority was able to actually put the rights of their fellow citizens up to a popular vote. Something which should never have been possible in this country to begin with.

@notsmartenough;

It mean's we're spouses, husbands and wives, just like with straight couples.

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

Sneaky Jimmy and Blue

While we do rely on judicial review, SCOTUS did not declare marriage being limited to a man and a woman as unconstitutional, that would have affected all 50 states. They could have seized that opportunity but they did not. Thus laws against recognizing same sex marriage stand in 36 states. As I stated, even as liberal as Justice Ginsburg is, she has commented about some cases in which taking an issue away from legislative or democratic processes has not been in the best interest of the Nation. I suspect this Supreme Court decision to not uphold a vote of the people, saying they have no standing, will in time be seen a another mis-step by SCOTUS as Roe vs. Wade was.

That being said I am sure that now, as polls show, a majority of Californians would vote in favor of legal recognition of gay marriage. In other states it will remain against the law and the diviseness of the issue goes on.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@lds4gaymarriage:
"The Church would quit having sealers perform legally recognized weddings."

No, no. Temples are for marriages, not just sealings.

"That's what the Saudis say about Christians wanting religious freedom. They can, provided they follow the age-old tradition of worshiping in a mosque."

Many Christians meet (worship) in other than Christian churches.

"Good. There is no reason to ban it (polygamous marriages)."

It would also pave the way to a multitude of other marriage combinations... and thus, the end of marriage altogether.

@Contrarius
"Repeating a false claim many times will never make it magically become true."

Then, perhaps you might stop repeating false claims.

"You have already been shown the reasons why these other activities are NOT bound to homosexuality rulings."

There is no logical reason to draw the marriage line at same sex. There is one line to be drawn, that of one man/one woman. Else there's no line at all.

"There's a 'higher' risk in polygamous marriages than in monogamous ones..."

Don't equivocate. If you're gonna condemn/ban polygamy due to domestic violence, to be fair you must condemn/ban heterosexual marriages, as well... for the same reason.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@Sneaky Jimmy:
"Many Californians know that PROP 8 was unconstitutional."

How could prop 8 be unconstitutional? It was an amendment to the state's constitution setting up what marriage is, and isn't. The US Constitution is blank on marriage.

"Just because a majority of voters say that something is legal doesn't make it so."

Strange that some people would have the the country run by what the minority wants.

The real issue of disparity in marriage is that married people get benefits the unmarried don't. One example is the IRS tax rate. If you're married you get a better tax rate than a single person. That's unfair. And there's a myriad of other inequitable examples of disparity between the married and the unmarried. That's where the courts should be placing their emphasis on equality and rights... not on the act of marriage. To attack one man/one woman marriage means we will soon have dozens of types of marriage all seeking recognition which will complicate the subject beyond recognition and may even mean the demise of marriage itself. In my opinion we have a bunch of dummies in our courts deciding legal issues re marriage.

toosmartforyou
Farmington, UT

Ranch,

You may claim to be husbands and wives "just like with straight couples" but that's not true, is it? You're husbands and husbands OR wives and wives, but you're definitely NOT husbands and wives. Instead, you're "married."

Enjoy.

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

@wrz

"The real issue of disparity in marriage is that married people get benefits the unmarried don't."

I agree, If there were no monetary rewards to being married we would not even be having this debate.

Bob K
porland, OR

I would hope that those reading this are smarter than to really think that more people wanting to enjoy the rights of marriage attacks existing marriage.

What marriage equality actually threatens is the rules and tenets of many churches -- not because anyone from outside will force them to change, but because their own sons and daughters will want to enjoy the freedom and rights that outsiders have.

The huge amount of ugliness and expenditure of at least $100,000,000 in the last few years is about some Americans and some churches having the willingness to be unfair to others, mistakingly think they are protecting their churches and agreeing with God.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@wrz --

"Then, perhaps you might stop repeating false claims."

If you can actually find a single false claim that I've ever made, I'll stop making it. ;-)

"There is no logical reason to draw the marriage line at same sex."

Public safety **is** a logical reason, with a long and widespread tradition in al legal systems.

1. NONE of the countries that already have gay marriage have legalized polygamy.

2. You have already been shown the example of Canada, which easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of its polygamy ban.

3. Many US court decisions clearly declare that rulings on homosexuality do NOT apply to other activities such as incest.

The evidence has been laid in front of you several times -- but you continue to willfully ignore it.

Try actually dealing with the evidence, instead o sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!"

" If you're gonna condemn/ban polygamy due to domestic violence, to be fair you must condemn/ban heterosexual marriages, as well..."

Don't be ridiculous. You might as well claim that if we outlaw drunk driving, we must outlaw ALL driving -- because all driving has dangers.

That's just silly.

Keep trying, wrz.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@Contrarius:
"If you can actually find a single false claim that I've ever made, I'll stop making it."

Much of what you post is false.

"Public safety **is** a logical reason..."

Public safety?? There are cops on the street to deal with public safety.

"Don't be ridiculous. You might as well claim that if we outlaw drunk driving, we must outlaw ALL driving -- because all driving has dangers."

Stop with the non sequitur.

If domestic violence is the reason for banning polygamy you must logically ban both homo & hetero marriage arrangements since you find domestic violence in both.

"That's just silly."

No. It's just logic.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@wrz --

"Much of what you post is false."

The actual evidence says otherwise. :-)

"There are cops on the street to deal with public safety."

And what do they do? They enforce THE LAWS. And the laws are constructed to -- guess what -- increase PUBLIC SAFETY.

"Stop with the non sequitur."

It isn't a non sequitur at all. In fact, it's a good example of distinguishing between varying levels of risk. I'm sorry that you can't see the obvious parallel, but it's obvious nonetheless.

"If domestic violence is the reason for banning polygamy you must logically ban both homo & hetero marriage arrangements since you find domestic violence in both. "

Nope.

You find car accidents in both sober driving and drunk driving. Yet sober driving is legal, while drunk driving is not.

Why?

Because there is much GREATER risk of accidents in drunk driving, of course.

It's obvious, wrz.

From Judge Bauman, just to remind you: "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

to comment

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