Comments about ‘Same-sex marriage foes scrambling after court setbacks’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Feb. 15 2014 6:15 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
salt lake, UT

"Republican political consultants who were advising the party — which officially opposes same-sex marriage — to tone its rhetoric on the issue."

"The consultant class of the GOP has been stupid," Eastman said.

with such intellectual retorts like that from top leaders of the opposition to gay marriage its hard to imagine why they are losing, its mot like they are just using emotional reasoning like they accuse others of, right?

Crotty Kid
Salt Lake City, UT

God does not have a political party or affiliation and those who state otherwise are surely using his or her name in vain.

Think for yourself, question authority. Just because religious, political or social authoritative figures believe something doesn't mean you have to believe it. Use love and logic when supporting a cause and don't fall victim to false traditions, religious dogma or social pressures.

liberty or ...?
Ogden, UT

In other words a bunch of judicial activists twisitng the 14th amendmant to include something it has no reference to have basically said the constitutional power over marriage issues gauranteed to the states by the constitution (recognized by the FEDERAL supreme court) and duley voted and supported by the majority of the voice of the people in said states can elect to have gay marriage if they want according to the 10th amendment but you cannot elect to not have it. Tyranny of the minority has been given full power. Before somebody ignorantly cries bigotry the issue is the Federal goverment does not have this power the states do. If newyork elects to have gay marriage the constitution states they can but that means Utah, California etc can elect otherwise and not be held captive by judicial lawmaking from the bench.An amendmant to the constitution must be proposed by either side if this is to be done legally and without oppression from each and in the end the voice of the people must decide and ratify it by 2 /3 majority of the states. Any other way is Tyranny and not what founders intended.

Provo, UT

Anyone surprised at all?


So if the central government doesn't like a state's decision they overrule it via a federal judge, claiming that the law is unconstitutional. If the Executive cannot persuade the Congress an "executive order" is issued to circumvent the process? That is how it is looking more and more. I am very glad to see some of the states seeking to establish their rights over an increasingly assertive central administration.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

It is well-established and crystal clear that the right to marry is a central aspect of the right to liberty, privacy, association, and identity.

Fifteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

The Constitution does not permit either a state legislature or the state’s citizens through a referendum to enact laws that violate constitutionally protected rights. And “while the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out .. . the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.” Awad v. Ziriax 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012).

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Just because men in black robes make something legal, that does not necessarily make it right, or moral, or beneficial.

West Richland, WA

They are "scrambling" because they are rightfully losing.

The can no longer hide behind thinly veiled dogma, nor any of the other specious and outright ridiculous arguments, including procreation, tradition, 'natural' law, optimal child-rearing... none of that tripe is under judicial review here.

The sole issue under review is: is the state's interest furthered by denying a minority segment of the citizenry the same civil rights the majority enjoy?

Of course the the answer is no, if one applies logic and reason.

Bountiful, UT

Our nation has seen sweeping changes before that involved strong religious views that impacted how the issues were viewed. Notably, early in the slavery debate, it was widely seen that the Bible sanctioned slavery, and abolitionists really were unable to counter that argument, on religious grounds. Of course, today that issue is seen entirely differently than in the early days of slavery.

What we're witnessing on gay marriage is social change before our eyes in how the issue is seen. While most opponents of same-sex marriage base their arguments on religious grounds, it's also quite true that many supporters of same-sex marriage base their position on a very general interpretation of Jesus' teachings, emphasizing love and acceptance.

I predict in 10 years the formal religious understandings will begin to emphasize acceptance and the commitment and love aspects involved in same-sex marriages, and emphasize less the Old Testament condemnations.

Politically, Republicans are noting the sea change in viewpoint among the public, and are less likely to support discriminatory legislation. They see the wind changing directions.

Fascinating to watch.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

It's very simple. If you support "liberty and justice for all", then you support SSM. If you want to force your will upon the minority and discriminate against people, you are for "traditional" marriage. When you loo back, which side of history do you want to be standing on?

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Here's the bottom line regarding SSM: One camp wants laws reflecting their subjective morals (Justice Roy Moore) and the other wants limits only on activities producing objective harm.

America isn't a theocracy, so those wanting laws to reflect their morals try to uncover how SSM causes objective harm. Their focus is on children. They claim that since SSM can't produce kids, it provides no societal benefit warranting the rights and benefits awarded traditional couples. The problem comes from their logical inconsistencies since they allow the aged and those knowingly infertile/sterile to marry. They also forget that same-sex couples use surrogates and AI to reproduce. Denying the benefits and protections that those children receive from having married parents objectively harms them. SSM opponents' position objectively harms children.

SSM opponents state that kids are harmed by being denied parents of differing genders. Perhaps, but aren't kids harmed more by parents who smoke, openly deal drugs, are verbally abusive, criminals, provide unhealthy food, are indifferent to children's education, etc..? Yet such are allowed to marry. Why?

Should marriages only be allowed to those who can reproduce and then raise those kids in healthy environments?

Salt Lake City, UT

"Same-sex marriage foes scrambling after court setbacks"

I guess if figures that a reporter for the AP would phrase the headline like that.

Had there been a more accurate and objective take it would have read something like, "Advocates for traditional marriage defend it against continuing assault."

I would have added, "...by many forces, including the mainstream press."

Alameda, CA

Representative Steve Hickey, pastor of a Sioux Falls church that opposes gay marriage: "I'm saying keep the state out of my church."

Pastor when did your church include every city hall marriage license bureau? Every bakery in town? Every florist, caterer, limousine driver, photographer?

When you give up the tax-exempt status for your "church" you can tell the state to get lost.

Salt Lake City, UT

Of course you would phrase it in a way that ignores the fact your side has lost something like a dozen court cases in a row on the matter.

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT

“I'm saying keep the state out of my church. I only promote and perform traditional marriages."

Where on earth does this pastor get the idea that the government will try to require him to perform same-sex marriages?

Has the government ever required a Catholic priest to perform a marriage where one partner isn't a Catholic?

Has the government ever even hinted that it would one day require the Mormon Church to allow a non-Mormon partner to be married in a temple?

There is (to my knowledge) absolutely no precedent in this country for forcing any religion to do such things.

I suspect the reason this pastor (among other religious figures) is so defensive about this is because he, himself, has tried to do the same with gay people: allow the state to interfere with what gays value most (just as he values his church). In short, he's afraid he'll be treated just as he's tried to treat others.

We'll gladly agree to keep the state out of your church, pastor--if you'll finally agree to keep your religion out of the state. Deal?

Bob K
portland, OR

Folks, let's try to see this as it actually is:

--- Of course, the opponents struggle, because they have nothing solidly legal to go on.

--- It is foolish to call grandstanding like the Kansas vote a "setback". Everyone knows it is Republican legislators voting on something they know will not pass the Senate, in order to please older voters and contributors. Ditto similar actions in other States.

--- The article mentions NOM, which has lobbied for hate to Russian legislators, and is only still going because of a few donors.

--- As for "protecting the religious by allowing them to discriminate: where do you draw the line? Which taxpaying citizens can expect to be humiliated when shopping? How do we make a law that is Constitutional, but allows discrimination against Gays, or mormons, or Martians?

There was a startlingly blunt decision in Virginia on Thursday night, making it more and more obvious that the tide has turned.
The above article refers to it only in passing.
--- Personally, I say the DN perhaps owes the readers a fair and plain representation of events, so that they can see more of a world view, and not be so shocked when their side loses.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

I implore those on the anti-SSM side to read Judge Heyburn's opinion in the Kentucky decision. He directly addresses the fears discussed in this article and that I read on these threads, and he does so with great respect and understanding. For example, from p. 19:

"Many others may wonder about the future of marriages generally and the right of a religion or an individual church to set its own rules governing it...Must churches now marry same-sex couples?...

"[N]O COURT CAN REQUIRE CHURCHES OR OTHER RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS TO MARRY SAME-SEX COUPLES OR ANY OTHER COUPLE, FOR THAT MATTER. (emphasis added) This is part of our constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. That decision will always be based on religious doctrine."

It is very disappointing to read of legislators who don't know or appreciate this basic truth about our Constitution. They should be counseling their constituents about this and calming their fears instead of stoking their panic and indulging hysteria.

Judge Heyburn's opinion can be found scribd.com. It is document no. 206728126, or you can search using "Heyburn" and recognition-gay-marriages".

Alameda, CA

The other side are "gay activists" and judges decisions make them "activist judges" but you think "traditional" marriage just has "advocates?" Legal cases constitute a "continuing assault?"

I cannot speak for the AP, but like them, would suggest you look up definition of words, including "accurate" and "objective."

'Lies is lies Pip ... that don't make you uncommon.' Dickens, Great Expectations, Chapter 9

Los Angeles, CA

Ok mormons this case over, the church and the state lost,now lets all get on with our lives.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

"Our nation's uneven but dogged journey toward truer and more meaningful freedoms for our citizens has brought us continually to a deeper understanding of the first three words in our Constitution: we the people. "We the People" have become a broader, more diverse family than once imagined. Justice has often been forged from fires of indignities and prejudices suffered. Our triumphs that celebrate the freedom of choice are hallowed. We have arrived upon another moment in history when We the People becomes more inclusive, and our freedom more perfect.”-Judge Arenda Wright Allen

“It cannot have failed to strike you that these men ask for just the same thing, fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as in my power, they and all others shall have.” -Abe Lincoln

"Gays and Lesbians, and their children too, whose voices are in harmony with constitutional guarantees, also ask for fairness, and fairness only. This, so far as it our courts power, they and all others shall have."

to comment

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