Comments about ‘Judge: Indiana hasn't given valid reason for gay marriage ban’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, April 21 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Cleveland , OH

And again, legally speaking, gay marriage bans serve no legitimate purpose. They treat some citizens different than other citizens.

And again, the Republican Attorney General will waste the citizens money fighting it, because the rights and protections he and his wife and their children have will somehow be all icky if Gay and Lesbian couples have them, too.

Salt Lake City, UT

I cannot imagine the heartbreak this couple is going through knowing that one of them is terminally ill.

I am so glad that they will at least have some comfort in knowing their relationship will be legally recognized in death even if not in life, although I imagine it would be more comforting if the surviving spouse and their children were treated equally under the law as all other widows and children who have lost a parent.

While many states claim that they want to preserve marriage for fertile heterosexual couples, none of them have laws defining marriage in that way - they only seem to target homosexual couples. And not one single state has ever been able to explain how prohibiting same-sex marriage encourages fertile heterosexual couples to marry.

Comments on stories such as this provide no insight either - it is all religious or slippery-slope claims, neither of which are legal arguments.

When we see the very real harm visited upon very real same-sex couples and their families, it is hard to have much sympathy for those who claim some phantom harm may eventually happen.

Leesburg, VA

How long before the cruelty of discrimination against LGBT finish?

Ogden, UT

The Judge got it right. Good job, U.S. District Judge Richard Young.

Cleveland , OH

@Baccus0902: "How long before the cruelty of discrimination against LGBT finish?"

Good question. The civil rights movement is half a century old. When will we be done with racial prejudice?

Marriage equality. End work place discrimination. Gay, Lesbian and Transgender kids being safe in school.

That would be a start. What do you think?

Leesburg, VA

@ Stormwalker

I agree with you and I am on board. The problem we have is that this issue is not being argued rationally. On one side we have the real and practical lives of families and individuals and on the other side we have fears and biases rooted on religious misconceptions.

I am confident that objectives judges will make a final determination based on the constitution and equal treatment of all U.S. Citizens

4word thinker
Murray, UT

I am great with equality.

So if we change all the laws which discriminate based on marital status so there are no privileges or penalties for being married, rather than redefining marriage thus stepping on religious rites, would you pro-SSM people be satisfied?

Or do you feel the need to control churches and discriminate against those who are single or who are in plural marriages?

Leesburg, VA


You wrote:
" Or do you feel the need to control churches and discriminate against those who are single or who are in plural marriages?"

We don't need nor want to control any organization or interfere with anybody's life. We just want the privilege of joining in marriage with the person we love according to the law of the land.

Our plight is for civil marriage not for religious approval.

4word thinker
Murray, UT


"We don't need nor want to control any organization or interfere with anybody's life."

Except for bakers, and churches, and photographers, who get sued for not bowing to your control.

I love all my brothers and sisters. If we find ourselves single in our old age, we should be able to live together the last years of our lives. Would you withhold marriage from us, while you demand it for yourselves? We do love each other and we live together, same criteria you use for yourself.

Marriage is what it is, a religious union between a man and a woman. Civil marriage is the state taking over a religious institution. The state needs to butt out of marriage, return it to its rightful owner, the churches, and rewrite its laws to be marriage neutral.

If you are not for this, you are for inequality. You are discriminating against churches, those in plural marriages, and all single people.

Leesburg, VA


Sorry, but I cannot help you with your cognitive dissonance. But you can.

You have made up your mind and doesn't matter what anybody tells you, you will believe whatever you want to believe.

If you are LDS I suggest to you to use the same challenge that Mormon missionaries give to those they teach. Study, meditate and pray about this issue.

I wish you peace !!

salt lake, UT


What makes religion the "rightful owner" of marriage. Marriage predates church or government involvement and the eventual involvement of both institutions happened around the same time and long before either tried to lay claim to it as their own. You can write your own belief system to read however you want but you cannot rewrite history.

4word thinker
Murray, UT

So what you are saying is that equality for everyone under the law is not what you seek. You want civil marriage privileges, which you would withhold from others.

You would still deny the rights of civil marriage, as you wish to call it, to group marriage, and to siblings, and to single people who commit to each other as friends, but are not sexual.

Why? They are people worthy of consideration too. Their commitment to each other benefits society in all the same ways your commitment to your relationship does. But you place them too low for civil marital privileges. Why?

I see nothing in what you have written that considers the plight of these people.

Wouldn't it be better to seek equality for all, by making all laws marriage neutral?

If not, why not?

Kearns, UT

I see nothing wrong with Civil Unions. Just don't call it marriage.

salt lake, UT


So then you support not only gay marriage but all these other forms of marriage you are trying to dilute the conversation with? You want to force those that support gay marriage to play a black and white zero sum game of either supporting all forms of marriage or not support gay marriage yet exclude yourself from the game. Based on your own reasoning if you support heterosexual marriage you must also support gay marriage and all other forms of marriage or no marriage including heterosexual marriage. You don't get to simply excuse yourself from the game.

Logan, UT

@4word thinker

"single people who commit to each other as friends, but are not sexual."

If those two decide to get married, they can, and they will have all the legal rights and benefits, the government won’t deny them.
But a same sex couple who commit to each other, even raise children together, can not get married, you think that is fair?

Also, the reason that SSM opponents keep losing in courts is just like the headline said: they haven’t given valid reason for gay marriage ban.

you can go to the court to demand polygamy, or incestuous marriage, and if government can not give valid reason to ban those marriages, they can also be legalized, but that is not the case, I don’t think you can win.

"I see nothing wrong with Civil Unions. Just don't call it marriage."

Then you have to strike down Amendment 3 first, because it banns civil union too.

Cleveland , OH


1. I don't personally have a strong opinion on group marriage, other than pagan and secular people seem to make it work, while members of monotheistic religions have a history of using "patriarchy" as an excuse to treat women as commodities.

2. Siblings already have a legally recognized relationship that includes a host of legal benefits and protections. Why would they need to get married?

3. Roommates can already marry. That is, if they are opposite genders. And I don't know of any state that requires sexual relations between married couples, so they could marry and continue to live as roommates if they so desired.

I suspect, though, that if "marriage" was made a religious ritual without any legal recognition, benefits, or protections that hetero couples would strongly object. People get married today because marriage brings over 1,000 automatic legal protections.

Like hetero couples, some Gay couples want a church wedding, some don't, but across the board what they really want is the legal recognition and protections for their relationship.

4word thinker
Murray, UT

Tolstoy -

Nice lie. I never said I supported civil SSM. I don't.

For the last time, I support making all laws marriage neutral, thus taking marriage out of the law altogether. No legal protections or penalties for marriage, any kind of marriage, just total equality under the law.

I stated that in all three previous posts. I can see it is hard for you to read and process that when you are so emotionally rapt in getting special rights for yourself.

I have been insulted, misquoted and lied about a lot for this stance, but so far not one answer why this is not the best way to achieve equality for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

I will say that people can make contracts, with any number of people, to commit look out for each other and/or share monetary interests, like a domestic business partnership. The state has interest in such contracts, since they will have to deal with litigation of such contracts, and I have no problem with that. But these are not marriages any more than business contracts are marriages.

Individuals and churches determine their stand on SSM, a religious rite/right.

Salt Lake City, UT

@ 4wordthinker: Since many religious groups support and perform same-sex marriage, how does removing civil benefits from marriage change anything? Gay couples will still be getting marriage just the same as straight couples, they will still be celebrating with their friends and families, they will still be living down the street from you, their kids will still go to school with your kids.

What will be achieved by removing the civil element from marriage? How will this change anything in your favor?

Many of those who oppose same-sex marriage like to claim that the end goal of same-sex marriage supporters is the total destruction of marriage and thus civilization, but it seems to be that is more something individuals like you are after - if you can't keep it exclusively for yourself than it should be done away with entirely and to heck with the consequences, all while being able to defend how eliminating civil marriage will accomplish any goal of preventing same-sex couples from getting religiously married.

slc, UT


"Marriage is what it is, a religious union between a man and a woman."

Your attempt to make it about eliminating civil marriages does not change the fact you are excluding yourself and religion from your zero sum game.

forward thinker
Salt Lake City, UT


"What will be achieved by removing the civil element from marriage? How will this change anything in your favor?"

This will change nothing in my favor. I seek equality for everyone under the law, and religious freedom for everyone. I am fully aware that many churches will perform SSM and will honor those marriages. Other churches, which have beliefs which prohibit SSM will not perform or honor SSM. Those seeking SSM will have plenty of churches to choose from, or if they are not religious, they can make their own commitment ceremony. They will also have plenty of photographers, bakers, and florists to choose from. Religious freedom, including lack of religion, will abound for everyone.

Unlike many others, it is not all about me and what I get out of it. I seek a solution that will allow maximum freedom and equality for everyone, at some expense to myself.

Is that so hard to understand?

to comment

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