Comments about ‘Charles Krauthammer: Nationalized same-sex marriage is now inevitable’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, June 30 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
cjb
Bountiful, UT

I disagree, same sex marriage throughout all the country doesn't need to happen. Especially if states would all institute civil unions without the right to adopt.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Good. Let's get past this; it's fireworks time.

QuercusQate
Wasatch Co., UT

@ cjb: "...institute civil unions without the right to adopt."

And this gives equal protection under the law how? There's NO legal reason to deny gays the right to marry; tossing them civil unions, esp. WITH NO ADOPTION is obviously the back of the bus. It may even be the back bumper of the bus.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Now that the government (not God) has decided marriage means nothing special, legalized polygamy, polyandry, bestiality or pedophilia "marriages" can't be far away either. Now people, be careful, you wouldn't want to discriminate against anyone would you?

Phranc
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@cjb

I have a better idea if you want your religious marriage to be special have a religious ceremony and name it what ever you want but stop trying to force the state to give you special status.

@mountain man

thank you for illustrating exactly why those that support doma and prop 8 lost.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Pharanc. Let me correct you! Prop 8 was approved by the majority of the citizens of California in a general election as was the DOMA nationwide. The courts legislating from the bench overturned the will of the majority which means prop 8 and DOMA did not lose anything, freedom lost! Marriage lost and the people of America lost the meaning and value of elections!

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

"Marriage is the province of the states. Each state decides who is married and who is not. The federal government may not intrude."

If marriage is the province of the states how is it that abortion is not, likewise, a province of the states? Neither marriage nor abortion is found in the US Constitution. And, according to the Tenth Amendment, these issues are delegated to the states and to the people.

If the issue is 'equal protection' the answer of federally defining marriage is not the way to go. The way to go is to remove the federal benefits that accrue to marriage. That would include such as variant IRS tax rates for married and single, conveying property on death such as social security, and a myriad of other benefits accruing under federal law to the married. A herculean task for sure but the only fair way to meet the requirements of US Constitution's Tenth Amendment.

It appears our Justices are a bunch of learned nitwits who don't seem to know what they are doing.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@mountain man

Tree things,, first I never claimed prop 8 was not passed by popular vote, second doma was passed by the legislature not poplar vote and third regardless of how they became law you lost because they violated the federal constitution. So no need for correction

amazondoc
mid-state, TN

@Mountanman --

"legalized polygamy, polyandry, bestiality or pedophilia "marriages" can't be far away either. "

Here we go again.

1. polygamy -- polygamy creates concrete dangers to citizens. Public safety has always been a valid legal argument for limiting personal freedoms.
-- For details, look up the 2011 case in Canada, which easily reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban -- even though they've had gay marriage for years now.

2. adult incest (adult siblings, adult parent/children) -- illegal in every state because of public safety concerns. Not only is there the question of undue influence/coercion amongst close relatives, but also the risk of genetic defects in offspring is very high (roughly 30-40%).
-- For details, look up any of SEVERAL recent court cases, in both state and Federal courts, which have very clearly and uniformly declared that homosexuality rulings DON'T apply to incest.

3. child incest/pedophilia/bestiality -- children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent. Therefore, they can't sign marriage contracts. Informed consent is a bedrock principle of all our contract laws. It can't be removed.

4. In contrast, gay marriages **don't** convey any special risk to public safety, and adult gay people CAN give consent.

The differences are obvious.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The Supreme Court acknowledged States Rights. But I still think every State law concerning the definition of "Marriage" will be wiped out soon based on the "Equal Protection" angle.

I have no problem with a ruling (either way) as long as the highest court hears the evidence and delivers a ruling. But all this "we can't even hear the case" so we're going to kick the can to somebody else or let lower court judgements (even if they are invalid) stand. The CA voters deserve a ruling, not a game of dodge-ball in the courts.

IMO California should defend their laws, their Constitution, and the voice of their people, so the case can be heard and ruled on. Quit ducking and leaving this issue open.

Mr. Bean
Pheonix, AZ

@Tolstoy:
"... regardless of how they [prop 8] became law you lost because they violated the federal constitution."

Where in the Constitution? Please elucidate. Apparently the Supreme Court Judges couldn't locate it.

@amazondoc:

"... polygamy creates concrete dangers to citizens."

Marriage creates danger... called domestic violence. Using your logic all marriages should be banned.

"... adult incest - illegal in every state because of public safety concerns.

Make it legal... problem solved. The government has no business in deciding about genetics.

"... children and animals are incapable of giving informed consent."

Bull. Most children can make informed decisions. They do it every day.

"Therefore, they can't sign marriage contracts."

Change laws on contracts. I know 14 year old children who can make excellent decisions. Current law unconstitutionally discriminates against them.

"... gay marriages **don't** convey any special risk to public safety, and adult gay people CAN give consent."

Gay marriage opens the door to a variety of marriage arrangements that will eventually destroy the institution. The line on marriage needs to be drawn at one man/one woman... else there is no line to be drawn.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@Mr. Bean --

"Marriage creates danger... called domestic violence. Using your logic all marriages should be banned."

Nope. There is GREATER risk of harm in polygamy.

From Judge Bauman's decision:
-- "I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm," -- "Women in polygamous relationships are at an elevated risk of physical and psychological harm. They face higher rates of domestic violence and abuse, including sexual abuse" .

"Make it (incest) legal... problem solved. The government has no business in deciding about genetics."

From one of several court cases about adult incest, this one in Federal court:
-- “Because we have already concluded that THE STATE HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN PROHIBITING INCEST, we reject Muth's challenges to the constitutionality of the incest statute.”

"Most children can make informed decisions."

I don't have enough words available to thoroughly explain the legal concept of "informed consent" to you. You'll have to look that one up.

"Gay marriage opens the door to a variety of marriage arrangements that will eventually destroy the institution."

Nope.

The differences have already been explained to you. The courts already understand these differences. And I trust the courts to know more about law than you do. ;-)

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@Contrarius:
"Nope. There is GREATER risk of harm in polygamy."

Doesn't matter the degree of risk. If polygamy is denied due to risk of harm so should monogamy. Besides, Mideast religion is the source of most harm in polygamy.

"From Judge Bauman's decision..."

Is the judge American or a foreigner?

"THE STATE HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN PROHIBITING INCEST..."

What compelling interest?

"I don't have enough words available to thoroughly explain the legal concept of 'informed consent'..."

Informed consent is a lawyer's construct with ulterior, self-serving motivations.

"You'll have to look that one up."

I did... and it says: 'In cases where an individual is considered unable to give informed consent, another person is generally authorized to give consent on their behalf, e.g., parents...'

"Nope."

Yup.

"The differences have already been explained to you."

Your explanations are bias personified.

"The courts already understand these differences."

What courts?

"And I trust the courts to know more about law than you do."

Law is not the issue. The issue is whether gay marriage will open the door to a myriad of aberrant marriage arraignments... and it will.

Contrariuser
mid-state, TN

@wrz --

Following are excerpts from US court cases, demonstrating that homosexuality rulings don't protect polygamy or incest in US courts and reaffirming "state interests" in banning them. I'm condensing these excerpts like crazy. Apologies if anything remains unanswered.

Below, "Lawrence" is the SCOTUS decision overturning sodomy laws.

-- People v. McEvoy (Cal. App. 2013) : "'In any given non-consanguineous relationship, the rate of severe abnormalities in offspring is estimated at two to three percent...children of siblings or a parent-child coupling have a risk between thirty-one and forty-four percent.'...This increased risk is surely sufficient to provide A LEGITIMATE BASIS FOR CRIMINALIZING INCEST..." and "'...California's interests in..PROTECTING AGAINST INBREEDING ARE SUFFICIENTLY IMPORTANT TO JUSTIFY section 285's incest prohibition."

-- also People v. McEvoy: "Lawrence held that the Texas statute was unconstitutional...because the statute 'furthers no legitimate state interest...' ...Lawrence thus 'did not announce...a fundamental right...for adults to engage in all manner of consensual sexual conduct, specifically in this case, incest.' ...THERE IS A RATIONAL BASIS for criminalizing incest..."

-- State v. Freeman (Ohio App. 2003): "In the case of incest, as opposed to a consensual homosexual relationship, THERE IS INJURY TO PERSONS....

continued --

amazondoc
mid-state, TN

continued --

-- State v. Freeman (Ohio App. 2003) (cont'd): "...the state has a LEGITIMATE INTEREST in preventing incest...The same cannot be said for homosexual relationships."

-- Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, (Mass. 2003): "...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but this) DOES NOT MEAN that this constitutional right...extend(s) to POLYGAMOUS OR INCESTUOUS relationships....the state CONTINUES TO HAVE A STRONG AND ADEQUATE JUSTIFICATION for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships...the state constitutional right to marry...DOES NOT AFFECT the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives."

-- Muth v. Frank (7th Cir. 2005): "Because...THE STATE HAS A COMPELLING INTEREST IN PROHIBITING INCEST, we reject Muth's challenges to the constitutionality of the incest statute." and "Lawrence DID NOT ADDRESS the constitutionality of incest statutes."

-- Utah v. Holm (10th Cir. 2006) -- a polygamy case: "Despite its use of seemingly sweeping language, the holding in Lawrence is ACTUALLY QUITE NARROW....In fact, the Court went out of its way to EXCLUDE FROM PROTECTION conduct that causes 'injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects.'"

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@mr bean

try the fifth and fourteenth amendments for starters.

to comment

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