Comments about ‘US recognizes Michigan same-sex couple marriages’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 28 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

This action is a grave insult to the rights of Michigan voters to define their own constitution.

The federal ruling was also majorly flawed in that it was brought about in part by excluding the testimony of Sherrif Girgis. Such exclusion of people who have thought deeply and written on the meaning and scope of marriage from testifying has no justification other than pure and simple animus against anyone who understands marriage in a way different than what cultural elites have decreed it to be.

Well, those of us who believe that marriage is meant to be a permanent, conjugal relationship focused on rearing children have a right to this belief, and a right to advance create public policy that will align with this understanding of marriage. We are not seeking to penalize any behavior, and we make no inquiry about people's sexual orientation. We only make a requirement that they fit the basic form of a man and a woman.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@john

so as has been pointed out before the "voters" of michigan (or any other state for that matter) cannot vote away the federally contracted rights of individuals. as far as Sherrif Girgis just because some one has "thought deeply" and "written" about an issue does not make them an expert in the field or gives them the right to testify .

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

sorry that should be protected not contracted, though it is still somewhat fitting

USU_Logan
Logan, UT

@John
“The federal ruling was also majorly flawed in that it was brought about in part by excluding the testimony of Sherrif Girgis”

He is a law student, not a lawyer
He is a PhD student, doesn’t have a PhD degree

to comment

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