Comments about ‘Gay couples get hitched in Minnesota, Rhode Island’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Aug. 1 2013 4:28 p.m. MDT

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

Congrats to the happy couples -- and may there be many more of them!

30% of gay couples in the US can now legally marry. That's an encouraging number, but we've still got to ensure equal rights for the other 70%!

Hey It's Me
Salt Lake City, UT

Here's an idea. . . new words are made up every year and eventually put in the Dictionary, so here is a suggestion so everyone can get along. Why not make a word called "Pairage". The definition could be something like a pair of people united. They would have all the same rights as a couple who are married. I think "Pairage" would be awesome and I would definitely support it. I believe Gay, Transgender, bisexual or any other people should have the same rights as I do. We all will be judged by God, I have no right to judge. But, I believe the scriptures say Marriage is between a man and a women. . . . so as I suggested let's have "Pairage" and move on and love each other for who they are.

Red Corvette
SACRAMENTO, CA

I look forward to when it becomes legal in Utah. Thanks to the Supreme court, tt won't be that far off.

John20000
Cedar Hills, UT

Is there an difference between a union of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman, and a woman?

If so, the laws that govern those unions should be uniquely tailor to suit the needs of each type of union. I think it is a mistake to lump them all together.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

Hey it's you

here is an idea how about since marriage is a civil contract if you want your religious marriage to be something special why don't you name it something else. with all the same rights of course, like I don't know maybe a temple marriage? there is a reason because separate is not equal or you would just change the name of your marriages.

Larceny
Rural Hall, USA, NC

How about no Gay Marriages, huh? Am I still allowed to be in favor of that by my constitutional rights?

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@Larceny --

"How about no Gay Marriages, huh? Am I still allowed to be in favor of that by my constitutional rights?"

You can be in favor of it all you like. You just can't expect to force others to abide by your personal UNconstitutional desire to deny equal rights to all citizens.

@Hey --

"Why not make a word called 'Pairage'. "

Hey -- if you want a pairage, you go right ahead and have one. The rest of us -- gay and straight alike -- will go right ahead and have our marriages instead. ;-)

Marriages were happening long, long before the Bible was ever written. There is no reason why the mass of humanity should restrict the use of the word to your particular interpretation of how the term should be defined.

IMAN
Marlborough, MA

Excellent news. One day same sex marriage will take place in all 50 states!

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@larecny

You can be in favor of what ever you wish and others get to debate you on that issue without you crying that your rights are being taken away, Isn't the Constitution great?!

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

Next stop...Legalized polyamorous relationships.

Those of you that cheer the legalization of gay marriage realize that it opens the door for polygamy and any relationship that involves multiple people, right?

If gay marriage is a must because "they were born that way" or "they just want to marry the person they love", then polygamy is legal because of the same reasons.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

John20000

Cedar Hills, UT

Is there an difference between a union of a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman, and a woman?

If so, the laws that govern those unions should be uniquely tailor to suit the needs of each type of union. I think it is a mistake to lump them all together.

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

Legally, there is NO DIFFERENCE. That is why it should not have any other name.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@RedShirt --

"Next stop...Legalized polyamorous relationships."

Here we go again.

1. Roughly 15 countries already have gay marriage -- and NONE of them have legalized polygamy.

2. Canada recently reaffirmed the constitutionality of their polygamy ban -- even though they've had gay marriage for 10 years now.

3. Multiple court decisions in the US have reaffirmed the distinction between gay rights and both polygamy and incest.

Our Federal and State courts have acknowledged -- many times over -- that they have a strong interest in keeping acts like pedophilia, incest, and polygamy illegal, because of the harm principle.

Those same Federal and State courts have recognized in multiple court decisions that the state does NOT have an interest in banning homosexuality, because consensual homosexual relations do NOT cause harm. The courts recognize the distinctions between these acts, even if you don't.

Here's one very brief example. "Lawrence" is the SCOTUS decision that overturned sodomy bans.

-- Utah v. Holm (10th Cir. 2006), reaffirming polygamy bans: "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.'"

well informed
Salt Lake, UT

Why do gays deserve special rights?

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@well

The "special rights" to marry? funny I never thought that having the same "rights" as other already have and seem to take for granite as being "special."

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Contrarius" it is only a matter of time before the polygamists wear down the courts and get their way. How long did it take the Gay community to get their way? It should be easier for the polygamists because the gays have already redefined marriage, so that obstacle is out of the way.

The big question is now that marriage has been redefined, who can say that marriage between 2 people is good, but marriage between 4 people is bad? If they love eachother and enter into it of their own choosing, why is one good and the other bad?

If protection from injury is the reason to ban polygamy, then you should also support a ban of homosexual relationships. Gays are more likely to be in abusive relationships than heterosexual couples. See "Battering Victimization Among a Probability-Based Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men" in the Journal of American Public Health and "Lesbian Partner Violence Fact Sheet" at the National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@RedShirt --

You said: "It is only a matter of time..."

Yeah, sure, and it's only a matter of time before the sky falls, too.

You said: "Gays are more likely to be in abusive relationships...."

This is simply not true. Try READING the studies you cite.

-- The "Battering Victimization" paper specifically states: "Published estimates of partner abuse among MSM (gay men) range from 12% to 36%....these estimates are roughly comparable to cited measures of domestic violence among heterosexual women."

-- The "Lesbian Partner Violence" sheet specifically states: "Violence appears to be about as common among lesbian couples as among heterosexual couples".

You said: "who can say that marriage between 2 people is good, but marriage between 4 people is bad?"

The voting populace, the legislature, and the courts, of course.

From Canada's polygamy-ban case:
-- "The prevention of [the] collective harms associated with polygamy to women and children, especially, is clearly an objective that is pressing and substantial..."
-- "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."

Keep Trying, Red.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Contrarius" you realize that your views on polygamy are EXACTLY the same as what most Americans believed 30 years ago.

You may say say that it will never happen, but that is what they used to say about gay marriage too.

But, you ignor the fact that there are people touting its benefits, and are praising it. See "The paradox of polygamy II: Why most women benefit from polygamy and most men benefit from monogamy" where we learn why polygamy is good for women. From Cornell University we read "Lord of the Rings: An Economic Benefit to Polygamy?" From the UK Telegraph we see "Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits".

The UK and Australia already recognize polygamous marriages performed outside their countries. How much effort do you think it would take to get the practice legalized in those countries? All it takes is for some groups to leave the UK, get married then return and they will fall.

Contrariuser
mid-state, TN

@Red --

"your views on polygamy are EXACTLY the same as what most Americans believed 30 years ago."

Actually, no, they aren't.

We can prove the physical and psychological harms done by polygamy (and also incest) -- in stark contrast to same-sex marriages.

That very difference between them is why so many US courts have already pointed out that Lawrence (the case that struck down sodomy bans) does NOT apply to polygamy or incest. The courts recognize the differences, even if you don't.

"you ignor the fact that there are people touting its benefits, and are praising it."

People tout the benefits of Scientology, as well. So what?

"See "The paradox of polygamy II: Why most women benefit from polygamy and most men benefit from monogamy" "

Red, you REALLY should learn to READ your citations before you bring them forth.

The author of this opinion piece -- note that it's an OPINION piece, not any sort of study at all -- is an evolutionary psychologist who is simply mulling over THEORETICAL, EVOLUTIONARY implications of polygamy. He is not saying anything at all about the harms of abuse that are suffered by real-life women and children in real-life societies.

continued --

Contrariuser
mid-state, TN

-- continued from previous post --

"Lord of the Rings: An Economic Benefit to Polygamy?" -- this one specifically states: "This being said, there are also many negative externalities associated with polygamy, particularly in light of women's reduced utility (utility basically means happiness in a philosophical context) from being in a polygamous relationship." and "As many opponents of legalizing polygamy note, it is clear that a woman's individual utility from being in a polygamous marriage will be inevitably lower than their utility in a monogamous relationship." and "there are also issues regarding the 'consent' to polygamous relationships as well as many studies showing adverse effects in children that grow up in polygamous households."

"Multiple wives will mean multiple benefits" -- LOL! This one is talking about collecting WELFARE benefits, not general benefits of polygamy. Notice also that it was published in 2008, long BEFORE gay marriages became legal in the UK, so it has nothing at all to do with our gay marriage debate.

Cmon, Red. Keep trying. But try harder to present actual FACTS, rather than just blindly copying the titles of articles when you obviously don't even know what those articles actually SAY.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Contrariuser" you are going off topic. The heart of the issue is that 30 years ago the public and policy of the US was that Gay Marriage was wrong and would never be implemented. Now 25% of the states recognize gay marriage. It is only a matter of time until the US and more industrialized nations permit polygamy.

You can argue that it won't happen, but history and current events is showing us that it is just a matter of time until polygamy is fully accepted.

Do you deny that the UK and Australia now recognize polygamous marriages performed outside those countries? How much longer do you think it will take? In the UK it took 3 years from recognizing gay marriages performed in other countries until they had fully adopted civil unions for gays, then only 8 years from then until they declared gay marriage totaly legal.

to comment

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