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

Return to article »

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

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

"That government sanction in the same stroke approves depriving that adopted child of the right to either a mother or father."

Oh please... if Utahns' really cared about making sure every adopted child had the "right" to a mother and father then Utah wouldn't allow single people to adopt.

Greeley, CO

@Lagomorph - That is simply not true! To members of many faiths marriage is more than benefits. Mormons are not to live together or have sexual relationships until married. That is why this has become such an issue - to us marriage is a religious rite. The government got tangled up in it.

Salt Lake City, UT

"It's certainly our hope that the homosexuals will not win the approval of Utah. I'm sure there are many more who are against their practices than for. I surely do not want my grandchildren and great grandchildren to have to grow up in this kind of environment. I'm sure many of these men and women are good people but just misdirected."

Funny, 'many of these men and women good people but just misdirected' is a phrase I tend to think of when it comes to people who are against same-sex marriage.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Sneaky Larry:

Perhaps you didn’t understand my statement. Regardless, you failed to state why (or if) the legalization of marriage shouldn’t be extended to other groups beside gays and lesbians. If your justification is for a married unit to enjoy “companionship,” “love,” or to rear a family “in a moral environment,” shouldn’t that same privilege be extended to groups with multiple partners? If not, I ask, once again, where do we “draw the line?”

Salt Lake City, UT

@ liberal larry:

No, it is not up to the courts to decide if society has a compelling interest in who may marry. In my opinion, the decision is the up to the citizens who don’t reside in the rarified realm of jurisprudence but who live in the “real” world. Through their votes they have the moral right to decide the effect a particular kind of marriage will have on them, their children, and on society. In California, the citizens voted against gay marriage, but the elite judges, clearly assuming their intellect is superior to the masses, overturned the majority “will of the people.” I think the bigger question you should ponder is whether, in a democracy, our votes still matter.

Tooele, UT

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

While unfortunate, it's beginning to appear that statement has an outside chance of coming true.

If it does, it'll be interesting to see what LGBT activists will demand next.

My money's on a big push for "hate crime" legislation that'll impose draconian penalties for the thought crime of refusing to abandon principle, longstanding and wise tradition, and true religion. It'll attempt to force embrace of LGBT assertions that they're perfectly normal people.

It's probably at about that time, real people -- who are the American majority -- will wake up to the fact that there IS a good reason to oppose the LGBT agenda, and that creating a new, extra-constitutional "freedom," especially and exclusively for the LGBT, really WILL adversely affect the currently-cowering majority of Americans.

Once that happens, fear of what have become effective liberal and LGBT bullying tactics will likely be replaced by outrage, greatly reducing the out-of-any-reasonable-proportion liberal and LGBT influence on politics of this issue.

Hope they've thought of that.

mid-state, TN


"you failed to state why (or if) the legalization of marriage shouldn’t be extended to other groups beside gays and lesbians. "

This question has been asked and answered multiple times already.

Again -- pedophilia, bestiality, incest, polygamy, etc., all significantly increase the risk of harm compared to other forms of marriage.

Gay marriage does not.

It's a very simple distinction.

Look up the harm principle.

"overturned the majority “will of the people.” "

That is one of the things our US Constitution was created for -- to protect individuals against the tyranny of the majority.

Poplar Grove, UT

Your using the same argument that segregationists used in the 1960's. If black people wanted to have the same rights as whites they should vote for them. Your the Strom Thurmond or Robert Bird of the 2010's.

The Reader
Layton, UT

In the long way it matters little what the court decides. Marriage of anyone other that male to female will not be recognized after death. What is wrong is wrong no matter what public opinion says. Gay and lesbians know they are wrong to want marriage between same sex couples recognized as correct. They are on the losing side of what is right and will forever be on the wrong side of God's law!

Provo, UT

The detriment to society that would come about should same sex marriage be allow is significant.

First it is non-procreative. No matter how you look at it a man can not produce a child with another man nor a woman with a woman. We are already seeing the burdens China is facing because of the 1 child only law. They are seeing fewer people to sustain their economy. And recently eased up on these laws. So to support a relationship that can produce no offspring will be detrimental to the future of Utah.

Second assuming that the same sex couple decides to adopt or use other means to produce a child. These relationships would deny the child/children being raised in that family of a father or mother. Numerous studies have been done that show that children raised in single-parent homes face significant challenges later in life. This is due to the absence of either a father or mother. Children of same sex couples will face similar significant challenges, no matter how much love they provide.

Mcallen, TX

You get out of life what you put into it.

If gays want to marry each other, just do it.

Don't expect others to cheer for you, or except your practices.

Alex 1
Tucson, AZ

If air-tight constitutional amendments Utah can't withstand this challenge, then no state constitution will.

If a federal judge can dismiss an iron-clad state marriage amendment (a state matter) backed up by hundreds of years of case law out of hand, then he can also force a religion to marry gay people, even in the temple. I wish it were unthinkable, but it is not. Gay marriage advocates argue that this would not happen because of the first amendment. As long as the Constitution is secondary to a clever arrangement of case law, then religious liberty can be anything the court says it is and for any reason. So sorry, I don’t believe you. Of course churches would not be forced to perform gay weddings......not yet. However, give it a few years as carefully crafted decisions are handed down that set the stage. Watch as some "evolved" judge EVENTUALLY finds a way for the Constitutional guarantee of religious liberty not to apply to marriage. Also watch as those who are currently reassuring us that we will never have to surrender our religious liberties sit in conspicuous silence as churches are forced to do exactly that.

Stalwart Sentinel
San Jose, CA


Uhm, it’s only circular logic if you ignore COTUS Article III and VI powers and live in a pre-Marbury v Madison world (decided 1803). Welcome to the 19th Century! I can't believe you missed those parts of the COTUS given the self-proclaimed "studying" you've done.

In reality, the logic is linear: COTUS Articles III and VI grant judicial review powers to SCOTUS, standing is established and cases come before the SCOTUS, the SCOTUS issues a ruling on the constitutionality of said issue in line with their powers under the COTUS, and laws/statutes/et al are informed by said ruling.

So, I have the COTUS, hundreds of years of American jurisprudence, thousands of legislative acts/statutes, and compliance from federal and state gov’ts my side of the argument.

Your “judicial activism” perspective is considered valid by which relevant governing body?

At the end of the day, I would love for you to prove me wrong. Please, file an amicus curiae brief on the next SSM case that reaches the SCOTUS outlining your "alternate universe argument" and let me know how that goes; I won't hold my breath.

mid-state, TN

@trueblue87 --

"First it is non-procreative. "

Procreation has never been a requirement for marriage under US law. Millions of current US marriages are nonprocreative. This issue is a nonstarter -- as was specifically pointed out by the SCOTUS justices during the DOMA and Prop 8 hearings.

"So to support a relationship that can produce no offspring will be detrimental to the future of Utah."


Only around 5% of the population is LGBT. Therefore, same-sex marriages will always be a small minority of the total marriage count. They do not offer any risk at all to "the future of Utah".

"These relationships would deny the child/children being raised in that family of a father or mother."

1. Gay couples already raise children, with or without marriage.
2. Utah already allows gay people to adopt children.
3. Utah already allows SINGLE people -- gay or straight -- to adopt children. Therefore, Utah doesn't especially care about that hypothetical two-parent home.
4. Gay couples don't steal children out of happy stable straight homes. There is no "denying" going on.
5. Studies have NEVER shown that children do worse in married gay homes than in married straight homes.

Leesburg, VA

@ Worf
you wrote: "

Mcallen, TX

"You get out of life what you put into it.

If gays want to marry each other, just do it.

Don't expect others to cheer for you, or except your practices."

Worf, I think for the very first time we are in total agreement.

Yes, we are responsible for our own actions
Yes, LGBT people should be allowed to marry.
I agree, nobody should act because of expectations of cheering up, acceptance or rejection from other people.
I would add; When SSM becomes the norm the sky will not fall and nobody will care.

salt lake city, UT

@ Worf
I'm sure gays do not care if you, religous zealots or anyone else cheers their life choices. They only ask that their choices be protected under the same constitional rights as every other American. Simple and American enough to understand if you take one's religous beliefs out of the equation.
And for others that think that gays will now ask for sealing in the Mormon temple, that is a separate argument and not applicable in this case. If that ever arises, I'm sure the DN News will cover that with all the vigor of a Mitt Romney occurence.
Conservatives continue to look like bigots on this issue and are forcing millions of potential voters away from the GOP party. For the party's long term stake it needs to focus on important economic issues and not cater to a small, declining voting bloc.

Bountiful, UT


I don't think my beliefs are typical of the segregationists. I think they are more in line with the Founding Fathers. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your insults will not alter the truthfulness of my position. I continue to believe in a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," without said government being overthrown by one perverted totalitarian judge.

Hyrum, UT

You make your arguments sound reasonable, but after further thought, it becomes obvious you are cherry-picking bits and pieces of the Constitution in an effort to support your ideology. You are also doing the same thing using particular court cases.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has parts that seem to be somewhat open to interpretation. Liberals like to call it "a living document' that should change with the times. Fundamentalists want it left alone to stand for the very principles and reasons it was created for. I support the latter group.

The arguments you make neither sound right, nor feel right. Obama got elected because of his smooth use of verbal rhetoric with little substance. You seem to be a cut from the same cloth. There is a certain art to making wrong sound right and right sound wrong. And you do it well. But in the long run, such reasoning never withstands the tests of time.

God created and ordained marriage for the benefit of mankind. He married Adam and Eve as the basis for family structure in society. He never married or joined Adam and Bob, nor has He ever condoned such a union... or homosexuality itself.

Wasatch Co., UT

Marriage between same-sex partners is no more immoral for them than is marriage between opposite-sex partners. For either category to marry contrary to their natural attractions would be "immoral" in a very real sense.

Would those of you opposing SSM be content to have a gay or lesbian marry your straight son or daughter? Of course not.

Would you be satisfied being deeply in love with someone only to have your state or religion tell you to be celibate, or to marry someone to whom you aren't attracted? Of course not.

Have some sense and compassion, people.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Utah's Amendment passed on the November 2, 2004 hardly 100's of years?

The Reader said: "In the long way it matters little what the court decides. Marriage of anyone other that male to female will not be recognized after death."

Actually this is a unique idea held by mormons "Till death do you part" so not universally accepted, like your Idea of traditional marriage is based on your religious views not some imaginary universal marriage laws.

God, by the way had a lot more to say about divorce than gays so maybe you should be fighting to out law divorce before you go about changing America into a theocracy.

to comment

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