Quantcast

Comments about ‘Michigan's 1st gay marriage license issued’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, March 22 2014 5:37 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
koseighty
The Shire, UT

Love and commitment -- a beautiful thing. :o)

Utefan60
Salt Lake City, UT

looks like the right of tax paying citizens whether we like it or not are now being enforced by the Federal Constitution. This is no threat to traditional marriage. It is only allowing citizens their legal rights. I think that this is in the best interest of the children raised by these couples.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

Congratulations Michigan!!!

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Utefan60:
"looks like the right of tax paying citizens whether we like it or not are now being enforced by the Federal Constitution."

If you're looking to the Federal Constitution for authorization you won't find it. There's nothing in that document about marriage. Marriage is a state issue.

"This is no threat to traditional marriage."

It is a threat to marriage. Soon polygamists will want the same benefit. Then incest couples. Them mom/son, Father/daughter, grandpa/grand-daughter, etc. You name it. There will be no restriction on any combination. Anything less would be discrimination. Then it's good-bye to marriage.

"It is only allowing citizens their legal rights."

I think you've got it right.

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

Blocked almost immediately by the appellant court. These rogue judges and their desire to legislate from the bench ruins a democracy.

Uncle Rico
Sandy, UT

One by one, states are giving into the pressure of same-sex "Marriage"
I don't think anyone can understand the repercussions this will create in the future
as society begins to turn morality into civil issues that can be debated and then outlawed.
We are all getting played here.

Stop The Nonsense
El Paso, TX

Well, looks like we can all stop voting now that the federal courts can just decide everything for us. Who needs a state constitution, anyway? Plus, it's not like civil marriage is governed by the states. Oh wait...

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

There is some clear misunderstanding in these comments. Your religion's definition of morality is not universal. My religion finds nothing immoral in an honest, loving commitment between consenting, unrelated adults. Several Christian denominations share the same belief as mine. Your religion is free to set moral strictures for your members. Your members are free to gossip about the perceived moral failings of others. You are free to hold your brothers and sisters in contempt for not meeting your personal standards.

What you are not free to do is impose your religious beliefs on others.

There is nothing illegal about being gay or lesbian. You may not like it, but there are no laws against it. You may misunderstand the integrity of gay men or women who stop pretending they're someone they're not. But, I have great trouble accepting that you honestly believe that allowing them to marry each other would have any real effect on your life, your church, your marriage or your children.

However, for your gay child, that hope for their own future could be the difference between happiness and despair. God is love. Respect love.

higv
Dietrich, ID

Why are judges after judges not only overturning the will of the people but the will of God. Not ours to redefine. Pretty bad when they will face there maker. Gay people have existed for some time. Why are they just now in last two decades finding a so called right to marry someone of the same gender? Hopefully some judges will uphold the will of voters and God. Or so called same gender marriages will probably collapse under the weight of those that engage in them. Laws will. A judge is not a King.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@wrz and uncle rico
Your right just like every other time others rights have been affirmed all sense of aw and order is gone, up is down, left is right and I think I just got hit by piece of the sky .
@lovely and stop
As was the case wiith every other such case you never have had the right to vote others rights away

slcdenizen
t-ville, UT

@ higv

"Gay people have existed for some time. Why are they just now in last two decades finding a so called right to marry someone of the same gender?"

I agree, why would an oppressed group only now begin to demand rights? Why did women choose last century to demand the right to vote, they had been fine not voting up to that point, right? We've de-segregated our schools at the insistence of the MLK Jr movement, but why did they wait so long to voice their concerns? This happens way too often, I don't hear about others' grievances until it becomes forced down my throat by judges.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@higv: "Why are judges after judges not only overturning the will of the people but the will of God. Not ours to redefine."

Because we live in a constitutional republic that is governed by the rule of law. The constitution was carefully designed to give checks and balances, to ensure that the "will of the majority" is not the "tyranny of the mob" and abusive to the rights of any minority group to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

In Iran and Afghanistan the "will of god" is an issue in laws because those countries are set up as theocracies. We are not a theocracy, so the "will of god" has nothing to do with the rule of law. You are free to live your life by whatever religious rules you desire, you are not free to impose those rules on others by government force.

The judges are doing the job they were appointed to do, by conservative and liberal presidents. They are applying the constitution, laws, and legal precedents to cases brought before them by American citizens. This is exactly how our constitutional system is designed to work.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@wrz
"It is a threat to marriage. Soon polygamists will want the same benefit. Then incest couples. Them mom/son, Father/daughter, grandpa/grand-daughter, etc."

-----
Apparently, you think polygamy and incestuous marriage are harmful, which I agree.

But what is at issue is not the harm of polygamy and incestuous marriage, it is what are the harms of same sex marriage? And just like every other opponent of SSM, Michigan state attorney's answer could not stand legal scrutiny either.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

@A Quaker: I truly admire your ability to articulate your position on this issue. You eloquently make your point and maintain a civil tone. I wish more people could "discuss" issues in this manner, including myself. My hat is off to you!

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@LovelyDeseret: "These rogue judges and their desire to legislate from the bench ruins a democracy."

Judge Bernard Friedman was appointed to the Federal bench by Reagen. His reputation is conservative but fair and impartial in court. Out of 39 rulings on gay marriage, his court is the first to hold a full trial and not respond to requests for a preliminary ruling on legal arguments. The trial lasted 9 days and included expert testimony from both sides. The only witness not heard was a grad student who does not have the professional experience to be an "expert."

Friedman is known to be very family oriented. Nineteen years ago he hired a lesbian law clerk who became pregnant and had a child with her partner. He decided they were a family, just like the families of every other employee in his office, and he treated them as such.

The judge said he was relying upon “the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the [constitutional] guarantee of equal protection must prevail.”

A "rogue judge" who follows the constitution to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

wrz writes, "Soon polygamists will want the same benefit. Then incest couples."

Polygamists already want it. The question is, does allowing people to take more than one spouse benefit the social order? Do multiple spouses make stable families and thus a stable society? No spokesman for polygamy has ever come up with an argument that makes has convinced a judge in the US to overturn the "one-spouse-at-a-time" rule. And polygamists are notorious for "marrying" children under the legal age of consent. Ditto with incest couples. However, wrz, if this "injustice" bothers you, you are welcome to take up the cause.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@wrz "If you're looking to the Federal Constitution for authorization you won't find it. There's nothing in that document about marriage. Marriage is a state issue."

Loving v. Virginia. SCOTUS disagrees, at some point it crosses from a state issue to a constitutional matter of equal protection. Citizens have brought cases, and 39 rulings have been made.

"Soon polygamists will want the same benefit..."

Polygamy is a different matter though I suspect some cases are coming. There would be much less abuse of women and children if polygamy was regulated by law instead of being underground and secret with no legal guidelines about the relationship(s).

"...Then incest couples. Them mom/son, Father/daughter, grandpa/grand-daughter, etc."

This sounds like a line from Ghostbusters (use your Billy Murray voice): Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

Marriage joins two "legal strangers" so they form a legally recognized family, giving them certain rights and responsibilities toward each other and toward their natural or adopted children. Parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren already have a legally defined relationship. Marriage does not apply to those relationships.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Quaker,

Nicely Stated.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

Do anti-polgyamy laws serve any rational purpose in preventing harm and abuse in closed faith promoting communities. Is there harm and abuse in FLDS like communities? How can the practice eventually become legal? When the harm and abuse goes away?

When applying the rational basis standard, courts will not invalidate a provisionof law on equal protection grounds “unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons isso unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that [a reviewing court] can only conclude that the government’s actions were irrational.” When addressing a spectrum of risks and harms, a line may need to be drawn. If a line has to be drawn somewhere, it is the governments business.

Utefan60
Salt Lake City, UT

wrz,Phoenix, AZ, you don't seem to know your Constitution very well. The Federal Judges better educated than you or I are ruling that it is a Federal Constitutional issue. So your argument not only doesn't hold water, it is upheld by Federal Judges sworn to uphold the Constitution.

39 cases so far ruled by our Constitution. So are these just "activist judges"? That seems to be the next argument that is used.

to comment

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