Quantcast

Comments about ‘Judge strikes down Idaho's same-sex marriage ban’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, May 13 2014 11:06 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Serious
Rexburg, ID

"...because they deny protections and resources to children of homosexual parents, Dale said."

Homosexuals can't have children together!

This whole gay marriage movement is mind boggling to me...I feel like all these federal judges need to sit down & get the birds & the bees talk they must of missed when they were kids.

The law is the same for everyone. Anyone can marry anyone else who is, not closely related, not legally married to another, of legal age, & of opposite gender.

How can you remove one requirement while still arguing the others should stay?

Serious
Rexburg, ID

I also want someone to answer this question...

Currently the law does not allow people who are closely related to get married to each other because of the potential for birth defects. If same gender marriage is legalized, what is the rational reason two brothers cannot get married? Having a brother provides none of the legal protections having a spouse does. If we are going to disregard biology in marriage law, how can we rationally put any restrictions on it? If I want to marry my dad or my brother or my uncle, who is that hurting? If biology is no longer an issue, aren't other restrictions rather arbitrary?

Serious
Rexburg, ID

Finally,

If we can't base our laws on judeo-christian tradition, who's to say what is moral? Who decided that same sex marriage is good & polygamy is not? I guess that becasue we are throwing out our marriage laws, we had better throw out our laws pertaining to murder & theft... those are also laws rooted in the judeo-christian tradition. We can't have our laws have any roots in religion.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

"Today's decision, while disappointing, is a small setback in a long-term battle that will end at the U.S. Supreme Court."

SCOTUS has no alternative but to rule in favor of Idaho's (and other states) marriage law of man/woman. The Court has already ruled that federal law (DOMA) re marriage is unconstitutional. And the US Constitution says all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.

The only thing left involves the 14th Amendment's 'Equal Protection of the law.' Equal protection of State law, that is. And all Idaho citizens have equal protection under Idaho State law... i.e., marry someone of the opposite sex. This applies to all equally.

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

Activist judges trying to legislate their personal views from the bench must be impeached or voted out of office. Legislatures legislate as part and parcel to the democratic process. Our democratic process is violated when judges take on the role of elected representatives and the will of the people. The ruling brings shame on judicial and legislative process. The government is granted power from the will of the people, not the other way around.

Bob K
portland, OR

May I relate this to Utah, as well as to Idaho?

As a non-lds person, I notice the lack of a path for members to communicate to the prophet to please focus on an issue to see what God tells him.
--- no matter how great a man the present prophet may be, it seems as if the world has changed drastically after he had already become an adult. To me, no human is so perfect that he cannot gain from the input of younger people.

The equality train is moving at a speed that no one could have predicted.

People born Gay into lds families deserve better than to have to leave friends, family, and church behind in order to marry the person they love

Mormon families deserve better than to either lose their Gay children or have to tell them to be celibate, due to their "affliction" as if crippled.

Just from a pragmatic point of view, the lds church is slated to lose many members who are Gay, or who have Gay family, as marriage equality becomes the standard.

I do not think that God means for His children who were born Gay to need to separate.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

Congratulations, Idaho!

To the lawyers out there, is the AG considering appealing directly to SCOTUS because the 9th Circuit has previously held LGBTs to be a suspect class? What might he argue as justification for skipping a step in the process?

And a bit of speculation: I noticed that none of the plaintiffs are male and it made me wonder if it's still too risky to be a gay male in Idaho.

Jamescmeyer
Midwest City, USA, OK

I picked the wrong job. I should have been a judge! Then I could uphold or ignore whatever laws I want!

"Specify what marriage is to protect the long-term interest of society in my state, as voted by the people"? Pssh, screw that. All I have to do is label people who don't agree with me as bigots, homophobes, or other such names and poof!

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Legalized bigotry is losing.

"Another one bites the dust".

koseighty
The Shire, UT

I love this point in the decision:

"Idaho’s Marriage Laws fail to advance the State’s interest because they withhold legal, financial, and social benefits from the very group they purportedly protect—children." p. 48

This is the same thing I saw in the Utah argument: "We want to protect children, so we must deny this group of children the security of a family." The logic doesn't fly.

Oh, well. Another day, another activist judge. (Or maybe, just maybe, there's something to the whole equal protection thing after all.)

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Serious;

Infertile and elderly couples, who are incapable of having children are allowed to marry so why not LGBT couples? BTW, LGBT couples can have children through ALL the same means available to infertile heterosexual couples - we CAN have children.

We are not a theocracy and your "Judeo Christian" values have no place in secular law when those "values" are discrminatory (which is, in fact, not a value at all but is anti-values).

@wrz;

SCOTUS will rule in favor of equality and against bigotry and discrimination.

@Lib;

You never had the right to use the "democratic process" to violate the civil rights of LGBT American in the first place.

Wilf 55
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Step by step we are moving to a point where we can expect to read something like:

"Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress allowing same-sex marrriage, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise."

YoungPuppy
west Jordan, UT

@Serious

"If we can't base our laws on judeo-christian tradition, who's to say what is moral?"

What judo-christian laws should we enact and force on others that do not believe the same thing? Also all Christian beliefs are not the same. There are dozens of Christian faiths that do not discriminate against same sex couples like the Episcopal church. So stopping SSM would be a violation of their religious beliefs. If marriage is strictly a religious practice than a religion should have the freedom tho marry those they see as worthy and not be restricted by the state.

Also why in your eye does your God think that SSM is wrong? Is it because in Leviticus it says it an "abomination". Well think of this, a person can break all 10 of the most holy Christian commandments and still get be legally married under God even while serving a prison sentence for those crimes.

Marriage Equality will become the law of this country the only thing stopping it now is a short amount of time. If you don't like it you have the freedom to speak out against it but it will happen.

BJMoose
Syracuse, UT

Whenever I read a story on SSM either from another local or a national news outlet, it is always accompanied by photos of SS couples. A few are of them kissing. Most are not. What I see in the faces of the couples are tears of joy and unbridled happiness. Here I see hands. It continues to boggle my mind why there are those who still want to deny people that happiness and the rights afforded to the rest of us.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Wilf55;

"12.We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

--- But you can still refuse to marry LGBT couples in your churches if you want to.

GingerAle
North East, OH

@Serious: "Homosexuals can't have children together!"

If homosexuals can't have children can somebody please explain why these two urchins are in my home calling me "mom" and asking if their other mother is going to get home early enough to go with us to Girl Scouts tonight?

Oh. Yeah. Because "homosexuals" can adopt. And we can do artificial insemination, like some hetero couples. And we can have kids from previous relationships. And we can raise kids for relatives who can't parent.

We are couples. We have children. We have families. We raise our children, together. Some have raised children and now have grandchildren.

Don't tell me you are "all about the children" when you are trying to say my children don't exist while you are busy treating them as second class citizens.

girl.in.slc
Salt Lake , UT

@Serious

The LGBT community will continue to raise families like they've been raising them for decades. It's just more visible now. How do LGBT have kids? Some from previous relationships, some use cryobanks, some adopt, some use surrogates. What would a couple with infertility problems do? That's what they do.

Congrats Idaho!

Vince here
San Diego, CA

And suddenly, the majority of the country is moving towards equality.

Welcome, joyous day.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@Serious: "I guess that becasue we are throwing out our marriage laws, we had better throw out our laws pertaining to murder & theft... those are also laws rooted in the judeo-christian tradition. We can't have our laws have any roots in religion."

Laws on murder and theft are not "judeo-christian," they are found in different cultures around the world. The laws that are most closely related to "judeo-christian" values are the ones seeking to regulate personal relationships and personal choices - sodomy laws, which have no rational basis, laws limiting alcohol sales, and so on.

If we actually had "judeo-christian" laws, our society would look much closer to Iran or Afghanistan with their theocratic legal system. As it is, we are slowly moving in the direction of the most civilized countries, like Norway and Sweden.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

Congratulations Idaho!!! Another state and another step toward equality across the nation.

This are sincere questions to those who oppose SSM on religious ground.

During his ministery on earth, Jesus preached and found that the clerics defending the law and the prophets were no really following the spirit of the convenant between God and his people.

Here many of you claimed that the Gospel talks against homosexuality. That is false. Only Paul in his letters to the Romans and Timothy mentions something that many people have interpreted literally as a reproach of same sex relationships. However, the same people reject openly or just ignore other teachings of Paul i.e. women being silence in their congregation and others.

The Lord always preached about the spirit of the law and the benefit toward humankind.

My questions:

How does SSM negatively affects you?

Do you think God opposes children being adopted and raised by SS parents?

Can you mention true examples of negatives concequences product of families headed by SS parents?

Does God listen and rejoices in the love of SSM and their children?

What would Jesus say about this issue?

to comment

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