Comments about ‘Challenge to Utah's same-sex marriage ban’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 4 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

Utah and the GOP is on the losing side of the gay marriage issue. The shift in opinion has been dramatic over the last 10 years especially among young people who have been weaned on television shows with gay characters and with gay themes.

After the PR disaster surrounding California's prop. 8 even the LDS church has toned down its anti gay rhetoric.

It is just a matter of time before same sex marriage is legal through out the country.

JDL
Magna, UT

So, what are the names of those wishing to marry?

Ranch
Here, UT

@JDL;

Too many to name them all.

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

Eventually Utah will be forced to drop objections to same-sex marriage, and it will become legal here, like in so many other states.

However, making something "legal" does not necessarily mean it is moral, right, or beneficial to society, even if it gratifies the desires of the participants.

Former United States Court of Appeals judge Robert H. Bork. Bork's 1996 book "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline" observes that American and more generally Western culture is in a state of decline and that the cause of this decline is modern liberalism and the rise of the New Left. Specifically, he attacks modern liberalism for what he describes as its dual emphases on radical egalitarianism and radical individualism.

'Tis to weep.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

If we give marriage benefits to family arrangements that are obviously non-procreative, then we have to do the same to all family arrangement that are obviously non-procreative. If not, we've created a new class of second class citizens.

We should leave out the term 'marriage' because it is exclusionary. It brings in the connatation of a sexual dimenson to the relationship. A man and a woman get married and as a natural part of that arrangement they are likely to have sexual relations which is likely to produce children. Society gives them special benefits because the woman may sacrifice her career for the important part of child-rearing.

A woman moves in with her sister. Are they going to have sex? No. Are they a family? Yes. But why is their 'family' of more value to society than two lesbian women living together?

We need to have family equality here.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Tekakaromatagi said: :If we give marriage benefits to family arrangements that are obviously non-procreative, then we have to do the same to all family arrangement that are obviously non-procreative. If not, we've created a new class of second class citizens."

Being "procreative" has never traditionally been a condition of marriage, so that has no place in the argument.
We're righting a wrong that treats families, families which exist with or without your permission, like second class citizens

"We need to have family equality here."

Steven S Jarvis
Orem, UT

If the attorneys are to argue in favor of the ban, they should argue from the point that marriage is a contract and contract law is discriminatory by nature. The State designates who or what is allowed to enter into the contract and who is not. The state also designates age requirements besides gender requirements. Utah does not allow a 12 year old no matter how mature to enter into a marriage contract. The lawyers could also argue that The Supreme Court once ruled that consenting adults could not enter into a secondary marriage contract (polygamy) and that law too was discriminatory.

Frankly, I don't really care about whether or not states decide to allow certain marriages (polygamy, cats and dogs, etc). It really doesn't effect me or my family if Bob and Joe can enter a marriage or not. What I do care about is all the courts creating law from the bench and breaking the constitutional balance between the three branches of government. The courts should not be making law as they have been on this issue. It isn't their place to legislate and any judge who does should be removed from office.

Jamescmeyer
Midwest City, USA, OK

"Can't justify treating same-sex couples differently"? The "couple" fit for marriage consists of a male and female! It is independend of race, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation.

If I truly wanted to wed someone of the same sex, I wouldn't even want to stay some place that doesn't recognize that union; I would do everything I could to go elsewhere, there are plenty of such places. Besides that; as has been demonstrated, these bullies who keep trying to change marriage have no interest in law as it is, freely distorting or ignoring it when it's not already in their favor.

MAYHEM MIKE
Salt Lake City, UT

Why, oh why, is it a constitutionally-protected right for gays/lesbians to marry and not for other groups (i.e., polygamists, three-somes, etc.) to marry? Where do society and the courts draw the line? Please, gay and lesbian readers of this newspaper, respond to me with some logic and legal arguments, not your silly "Because we want to" argument.

Makid
Kearns, UT

For all those that either have stated or will state that if the court rules against the law that this is legislation from the bench, remember that there are 3 branches of government.

1 - Executive - Enforces the laws
2 - Legislative - Creates the laws
3 - Judicial - Determines the legality and constitutionality of laws.

So, if the amendment is thrown out as unconstitutional, that means that it is bad. This is all part of the checks and balances process.

Legislating from the bench would be the court ruling against the state and then crafting in their ruling mandates and procedures outside of those for heterosexual couples that the state must follow in order to ensure that their ruling is adhered too.

However, if the ruling is against the amendment and states that the state cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, that is not legislating from the bench.

Sneaky Jimmy
Bay Area, CA

@Mayhem Mike You ask for something other than "because we want to". Why did you get married? Was if for tax benefits? To start and raise a family in a moral environment? For companionship? Because you love someone and want to spend your life with them? Same-sex couples wish to marry for the same reasons. It's embarrassing that a state and some of it's citezens would want to deny this blessing to people.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

DNS2 says: However, making something "legal" does not necessarily mean it is moral, right, or beneficial to society, even if it gratifies the desires of the participants.

It is not the purpose of the courts to determine if something is moral, right, or beneficial to society. The purpose of the court system is to determine if something is legal.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

Tekakaromatagi: "If we give marriage benefits to family arrangements that are obviously non-procreative, then we have to do the same to all family arrangement that are obviously non-procreative."

Utah already does this. Check out section 30-1-1(f) of the Utah Code, which makes infertility a mandatory precondition for certain couples to marry. You can't get any closer to "giv[ing] marriage benefits to family arrangements that are obviously non-procreative" than that. By your own definition, we've created a class of second class citizens by preventing gays from marrying. So why aren't you on board with gay marriage?

JDL: "So, what are the names of those wishing to marry?"

I like Ranch's response to your question so much better, but if you are asking who the plaintiffs in the case are, they are Derek L. Kitchen and Moudi D. Sbeity, Laurie Wood and Kody Partridge, and Karen Archer and Kate Call.

AZKID
Mapleton, UT

The goal of activist gays is to mainstream their lifestyle. Utah law already provides for civil unions. The result of legalizing so-called "gay marriage" will be to further undermine the moral perspectives of a complete generation of our children and make them more likely to embrace, rather than shun, this lifestyle. This is one of the many reasons I am opposed to "gay marriage". I firmly believe--and thousands of years of human history will back me up--that family life, based on mother and father and children, is fundamental to a happy, prosperous society. To have my children embrace the gay lifestyle, would be to limit their happiness.

What is occurring is an unprecedented and, I believe, ultimately misguided, social experiment with consequences far beyond what we see today. We are actually starting to see such consequences in the lawsuits stemming from private citizens--such as photographers--refusing to provide services to gay couples. Where does that sort of thing end? When will the courts force me to compromise my core beliefs and religious liberties to accommodate those who pursue "gay marriage"?

I don't know where this is heading, but the possibilities are extraordinarily alarming...

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

Mayhem Mike,

It is up to the courts to decide if society has a compelling interest in denying rights to certain groups. I don't think that critics of same sex marriage have established that it is detrimental to society to allow gays to marry.

My cousin's same sex marriage has provided the stability she needs to continue her genetic research, and to raise a child rescued from South America. I can't see the justification for denying her, and her partner, this opportunity to make such a huge contribution to society!

toosmartforyou
Farmington, UT

You can change the laws of man and decide issues or morality by majority vote, but you can't change the laws of God. You can only despise and break them but as the late Cecil B. Demille stated, "The wheels of God grind slowly but they grind exceeding fine." This nation will pull down the wrath of the Almighty one of these days and then it will be a dreadful day indeed, too late due to being ripened in iniquity. Believe it or not, it's true.

azreader1
tucson, AZ

To quote Ranch, "All three of those things are relative. What is moral, right, beneficial to you is immoral, wrong and non-beneficial to someone else, somewhere."

Actually, no, they're not relative, and this is where you and I appear to have fundamental disagreement. Moral relativism cannot by its very nature be a sound basis for law and public policy. Ultimately, true moral relativism would demand the abolition of all laws based upon moral imperatives, and that would have disastrous consequences for individuals and society at large.

Linus
Bountiful, UT

Whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people, and for the people?" One homosexual judge decided that the people of California had no right to govern. Will one judge decide that the people of Utah are henceforth disenfranchized? "We, the people" are being overthrown by a totalitarian bench manned by lawyers. We will soon have "government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, and for the lawyers."

Tad
TOOELE, UT

The concept of "marriage" exists in at least three distinct dimensions: economic, social and religious. The government's authority to regulate only applies to the economic area, and is prohibited from any legislation related to "morality" which would be defined on religious grounds. The economic dimension traditionally includes the state's right to ensure the support of children, but the current social climate in which nearly half of the children born in the US are to unmarried parents and many divorced/separated parents fail to support has failed, requiring the courts to settle patrimony and child support disputes, and operate collection agencies. Other economic issues include rights of survivorship, tax benefits, etc. These are not related to gender and should not be denied on the basis of gender or preference without a very significant policy interest. Allowing relationships to exist in the framework of marriage allows creation of standard rules for dealing with the relationship in law. Even if the government has the authority to regulate social conduct, it lacks the power; same gender relationship will exist whether recognized by law or not in much the same way that Protestantism defied the Roman theocracies.

Ticus
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Ranch: You said: "Moral? Right? Beneficial to society? All three of those things are relative. What is moral, right, beneficial to you is immoral, wrong and non-beneficial to someone else, somewhere."

Don't we wish Physics were that way? NASA's rockets must follow Newtonian physics, but I don't like that kind, so my rocket surely will get to the Moon using my own kind of Physics.

The reality is, Morality is like Physics -- you can't change it, no matter your opinion, and if you try to fight it then one day your proverbial rocket will explode on lift-off.

to comment

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