Comments about ‘Women aim to block Idaho from gay marriage fight’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Dec. 26 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Glendale, CA

I am very surprised that governments first want to spend money on defending discrimination but furthermore they seem to duplicate their efforts and end up spending more money. They cannot seem to get anything right.

J. S.
Houston, TX

AG Lawrence Wasden may believe that, with his joining the lawsuit, the big government has better chance to keep a discriminatory amendment, which denies same sex couples' individual liberty, in place.

The truth is, unless they can present some new and more persuasive argument in the court, they will fail just like those other opponents of marriage equality. and I doubt they can present anything compelling.

salt lake, UT

The burden of proof lies with the state to provide evidence of a compelling state interest in denying someone equal access to their constitutional rights not on the individual to prove they deserve their constitutional rights the state has failed repeatedly to do so. Following your logic a person accused of a crime would be required to prove their innocence.

If an infertile couple needs the help of science then it is not "producing a child on its own" anymore then a gay couple seeking the help of science or adopting a child. It also does not account for those straight couples that make a choice not to have children. There is also no were in the current laws anything stating that marriage is exclusively for the purposes of reproduction. Even if such a clause existed the state would still need to provide compelling evidence as to how changing that definition would cause a substantial harm. Again something they have failed to do.

mid-state, TN

States will not be allowed to continue ignoring the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution for much longer. Ohio has already ruled against it on a limited basis. More wide-ranging decisions against it will not be much longer in coming.

"They contend Idaho has historically recognized marriages performed in other states that would have been considered illegal under Idaho law, such as marriages between first cousins and common-law marriages, but has unconstitutionally drawn the line at gay marriage."

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

This would also create complications for the case presented by State of Idaho. It sounds like someone is doing some political posturing in case they lose. As others have pointed out however, all it accomplishes is to waste resources.

Aurora, CO

So just to be clear, a suit is brought against the State of Idaho, and those filing it don't want the AG to defend it? Hmmmmmm. Is there some legal precedent for not allowing the respondent in a lawsuit to have counsel? The Governor is the Governor, he and the State are entitled to be represented by legal counsel, so if the plaintiff gets to decide if the respondent may have counsel, where is the due process here?

Correct, there isn't any.

Woods Cross, UT

Federalism is dead. We once had strong states that defended their laws and jurisdiction against the federal government. Within a decade we will have one set of marriage and family laws (once the domain of the states), one set of laws against indecency and pornography, one set of laws period. There will be no differences between states, no local laws, no differences... just one monolithic federal government.

Tom in CA
Vallejo, CA

Legalizing gay marriage will pave the way for polygamy and other marriage combinations. Things are progressing nicely.

Mesa, Az

Wadsen is right. He has the right to speak for the people. Irrespective if it is not popular amongst some. His voice needs to be heard, just like those who support Gay Marriage.

New to Utah

All 10 comment are people who don't reside in Idaho.i think the
State & it's citizens should make the laws of
each state.

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Provo, UT

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their... power [is] more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal... It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

-Thomas Jefferson

Morgan Duel
Taylorsville, UT

Here we go again. We no longer live in a Republic where the Majority rules!

Wilf 55

Those who oppose same-sex marriage constantly predict horrible consequences for the future: destruction of the family, growing immorality, incest, social chaos... Such predictions resemble the predictions made when slavery was about to be abolished, or racial discrimination, or the ban on interracial marriage. But fear-mongering is not an argument.

Countries that have had same-sex marriage for more than a decade now prove that it becomes a non-issue without any negative consequences, on the contrary. The desirability of marriage is reinforced and the importance of a steady, strong commitment between two persons is reaffirmed. Even more important, this kind of tolerance allows all people to live in peace and pursue happiness.

Utah, UT

One of the other dangerous fights behind the same-sex marriage bandwagon - state sovereignty.

Utah, UT

@ Jeffsfla

Defending traditional marriage (historically, a religious institution) is not discrimination.

Suspending a man for expressing his religious beliefs concerning what behaviors are sin - that is discrimination.

Rupert, ID

I live in Idaho and if the voters say no to gay marriage then so be it. I believe that it's up to the citizens of each state to decide if to allow these marriages. It can be put on the ballet's every 2 to 4 years depending on the demand of it. I know that I'm going to take a lot of heat over this but that's how I feel about this topic at this point in time.


The equal protection clause cuts both ways. If the state of Idaho can be required by the courts to extend to same sex couples the same benefits traditionally provided to heterosexual couples, the state of Idaho stands to lose the legal authority to require heterosexual couples to feed, clothe, shelter, nurture, correct, and teach their children as a condition of marriage, given that homosexual couples, as a general rule, have neither the desire nor the capacity to provide in return any benefits to the state,

KTC John
Wetumpka, AL

Lest we forget, the states created the federal government, and not vice-versa. A vote of 3/5ths of the states can create an amendment to the U. S. Constitution that trumps the Supreme Court. No amendment has ever been adopted by that state-proposed amendment process. But the procedure is already available.

mid-state, TN

@nlowder83350 --

"I live in Idaho and if the voters say no to gay marriage then so be it. I believe that it's up to the citizens of each state to decide if to allow these marriages. "

If states could define marriage any way they wanted to, then we would still have bans on interracial marriage.

That's exactly what Loving v. Virginia was all about.

All state laws MUST conform to the US Constitution.

Here, UT


Voting to deny other citizens the same privileges and rights you possess IS discrimination.

to comment

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