Quantcast
U.S. & World

Judge strikes down Idaho's same-sex marriage ban

Comments

Return To Article
  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    May 15, 2014 1:54 p.m.

    Serious:

    I applaud you standing up for the biological brothers of the world who want to get married. All four of them are planning a parade in which you personally will appear in effigy on a float.

    Let's at least try to keep our answers close to sane and our "slippery slope" fallacies at least plausible. Frankly, if two brothers want to get married, have at it. Somehow I fail to see that as one of society's pressing issues.

    The weird tangents, mental gymnastics and spiritual fevers people go through to oppose SSM rights is a sight to behold . . though it is getting old. The arguments are always the same, and never stand on firm legal ground. You're losing. Just accept it, clutch your "Proclomation to the Family" firmly to your chest, and breathe.

    It'll be OK. I bet you that 35% of the world turns gay after SSM is legalized across the US. Tops.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    May 15, 2014 1:47 p.m.

    Re: Understands Math

    Again you get caught up in the words and miss the point.

    "So what does it say about you that you use the word?" It probably means that my opinion is different from the public words of the "professionals" you seem to speak for. I clearly stated that it is my opinion that homosexuality is a disorder. Get over it.

    The numbers are irrelevant. I am advocating that the SCOTUS put the issue to rest.

    If I could give you individual quotes, which I can't because I do not collect them, you would dismiss them anyway. Again you mince words.

    My original point still stands. The issue needs to be put to rest so we as a society can move on and stop wasting our efforts on it.

    Do you have anything to say about my original point or do you want to continue to pick at the minutia?

    This is a silly conversation...

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 15, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    @Samson01 wrote: "I used the term not with any "animus" as you claim." Then, "It is my opinion that homosexuality is a disorder."

    "Disorder" is a word used by medical and psychological professionals, and the professionals do not use it to describe homosexuality.

    So what does it say about you that you use the word?

    "The number 1.9% is a number that was given on a NPR segment and I quoted it. If it is wrong I suspect that it is no more inaccurate than the numbers you quote."

    After doing some searches, I see that in a Gallup poll from October 2012, 1.9% of people 65 or older identified as LGBT. Among the total population it is 3.4%, and among people 18-29, it is 6.4%. That may have been the source of the number that you passed on without context.

    Context is important.

    "You may call it updating or any other euphemism, but it is being redefined. That is the word used by many SSM advocates."

    Name them.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    May 15, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    Re: Understands Math

    I used the term not with any "animus" as you claim. Common sense, biology, and evolution simply indicate that homosexuality is an abnormal state that differs from the norm. There are many disorders that we all may or may not have that differ from the ideal. It is my opinion that homosexuality is a disorder.

    The number 1.9% is a number that was given on a NPR segment and I quoted it. If it is wrong I suspect that it is no more inaccurate than the numbers you quote. Doesn't really matter. If you read my original post you would clearly see that I do not advocate withholding any rights from anyone. My point was that the SCOTUS needs to put this issue to rest and that I would personally abide by whatever decision was arrived at. I think you are lumping your response to my posts with what you would like to say to many others.

    Redefining marriage is exactly what is being done. You may call it updating or any other euphemism, but it is being redefined. That is the word used by many SSM advocates.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 15, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    To "Bob K" actually, I don't want you to shut up and go along. What I want you to do is the opposite. I want you to read the Book of Mormon, Read the Doctrine and Covenants, read the Proclamation on the Family. After you become informed, think about what you have read, is it good is it bad, would you be a better person following the doctine or not. Then, honestly and scincerly pray to God and ask him if the things you have read are true.

    If you do decide that it is good, keep thinking and asking questions. The more I read and think about what I know the more patterns I see in history both scriptural and secular.

    As for disgarded children, that does not happen. My nices and nephews have told me about all of the gay kids that are in their mostly LDS schools few, if any, have been disgarded. In actuality, when a child declares themselves to be gay, there are even more resources and support within the LDS church than ever before.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 15, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    Has there ever been a prosperous society where same-sex marriage was the norm?

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 15, 2014 12:04 a.m.

    Bob K:
    "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."

    I'm sure the LDS prophet is aware of the problems of the world and seeks God's direction.

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

    People enter into this world with all kinds of conditions, drives, appetites, and afflictions. The idea is to recognize what God would have us do and become, and work toward that ultimate goal. The idea is not to obstinately tell God to accept what we are. He probably won't.

    Those too arrogant to look to God for help and do what's needed to orient themselves with God's design will, in the end, likely stand alone.

  • equal protection Cedar, UT
    May 14, 2014 10:01 p.m.

    @ El Chango.

    Rarely, is there as much consensus in any area of social science as in the case of same-sex couple parenting, which is why the American Academy of Pediatrics and all of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights". These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Psychoanalytic Association, National Association of Social Workers,Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association.

    That was easy.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    May 14, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    Redshirt1701
    Deep Space 9, Ut
    "To "Bob K" since you are not LDS, let me explain some key points of LDS doctrine when it comes to gay marriage.
    First, the LDS church teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is it."

    ...Yes, I know the religion is based on marriage and procreation leading to prosperity, sainthood, etc. Smith did a good job!

    "When a gay LDS child leaves their family, friends, and church, it is because the child has turned their back on the people they leave, they are not sent away."

    ...You ought to look on the streets of SLC for the discarded teens.

    "As the scriptures point out, the greatest commandment is to love God. If we love God then we will follow his commandments."

    ... You take the doctrines of the lds to be the definite commandments of God, which is OK for you, but it's not your place to expect everyone else to follow them.

    If you want to know more, contact your local LDS missionaries.

    ... Always the same deal: we are told to shut up and read the book of mormon, and stop thinking for ourselves.

  • Candide Salt Lake City, UT
    May 14, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    The stay has been denied, so now it is up to the 9th circuit. Maybe there will be some gay weddings in Idaho on Friday! Also, NOM has been denied standing to defend the ban in Oregon. I love it when the good guys win.

  • El Chango Supremo Rexburg, ID
    May 14, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    Re: Understands Math

    "Rational basis."

    Okay then, It's not rational for a man to marry another man. The only marriage should be between one man & one woman. It's the only relationship that can rationally make sense for a marriage. That was easy!!

    Gay partners cannot have a child TOGETHER. If they choose some other means to have a child, that child will be deprived of a Mom or a Dad. You can't tell me that you could replace my mom with a man and we could have the same relationship I shared with my mother.

    Whenever there is a study out that says that children are raised best by a mother & father, a cry is raised that the study is biased & not to be trusted. Whenever a study comes out that says that children don't need both a Mom & Dad, which flies in the face of personal experience for millions, that study is hailed as pure and without bias. Give me a break!

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    May 14, 2014 12:03 p.m.

    Has anyone noticed that this judge was appointed by a Republican? Has anyone noticed that she is not the only Conservative jurist to rule against the prohibition of same sex marriage?

    What planet do you people live on that think that the judiciary is a liberal cabal intent on destroying your country?

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 14, 2014 11:59 a.m.

    Redshirt there are some corrections to your post that need to be made.

    The LDS Church has taught publicly since 1896 that marriage is between a man and a woman, and privately since the 1910s or so. Before that they taught that marriage could also be between a man an multiple women. The scriptures and prophets provide ample support that this was inspired by god.

    I'm guessing you haven't talked to too many gay members of the church. If you had would know that there are far too many who were treated terribly by other church members and sadly even by their own families. There are again far too many who have indeed been shunned and sent away.

    Finally, marriage between one man and one woman ONLY is not an eternal principle. To this day a man who has lost his wife can remarry in a temple and will have both wives for all eternity. In fact there are at least two members of the quorum of the twelve who are sealed to two women. So the eternal principle is actually that marriage is between a man and a woman, or several women. That fact cannot be disputed.

  • WonderingNoMore Logan, UT
    May 14, 2014 11:41 a.m.

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

    Golden Rule.

    That was easy!

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    May 14, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    To "Bob K" since you are not LDS, let me explain some key points of LDS doctrine when it comes to gay marriage.

    First, the LDS church teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is it. That is what the scriptures say and what Prophets have been inspired by God to say.

    Second, families are not about this life only. The marital relationships that we have now can last throughout eternity. The reason for this is that a married couple will be able to continue to have children.

    When a gay LDS child leaves their family, friends, and church, it is because the child has turned their back on the people they leave, they are not sent away.

    As the scriptures point out, the greatest commandment is to love God. If we love God then we will follow his commandments. As I have just explained, marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that it is an eternal principle.

    If you want to know more, contact your local LDS missionaries.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 14, 2014 11:08 a.m.

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

    In-vitro, adoption (especially in states like Utah where single people can adopt), and surrogate parenting still exist along with some children coming from previous heterosexual relations (bisexuals exist you know).

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

    That requirement list used to include "of the same race" but we removed that while keeping the others the same.

    "we had better throw out our laws pertaining to murder & theft... those are also laws rooted in the judeo-christian tradition. "

    First off... our Christian faith didn't invent "don't steal". Secondly, there are secular reasons to ban those.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 14, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    dalefarr: "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" from the First Presidency and Quorum of 12 Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints presented by President Gordon B. Hinckley, September 23 1995 is the mind and will of the Lord Himself. The family proclamation could not be more unmistakably plain and simple on gender roles in God's plan for Families.

    If one does not believe these 15 men are Prophets and Apostles of the Lord you are certainly free to believe that but to those who do believe and sustain them we are obligated to know their words are the words of the Lord Himself. That is what is intended, that is what is meant by making this Proclamation to the World. We are also under commitment to treat all people with respect, kindness and dignity and our Prophet and Apostles have reminded us of that commitment when it comes our treatment of those who may be homosexual.

    Unless the prophet announces that he has had a revelation from God that SSM is prohibited, Mormons, myself included should back off from treating our gay brothers and sisters differently than we treat each other.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    May 14, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    I thought I would let the Judge herself answer some of the objections raised by the people commenting on this story.

    “The Defendants offered no evidence that same-sex marriage would adversely affect opposite-sex marriages or the well-being of children. Without proof, the Defendants’ justifications echo the unsubstantiated fears that could not prop up the anti-miscegenation laws and rigid gender roles of days long past.”

    “Then as now, it is the duty of the courts to apply the law to the facts in evidence. Here, the facts are clear and the law teaches that marriage is a fundamental right of all citizens, which neither tradition nor the majority can deny.”

    “‘The history of our Constitution . . . is the story of the extension of constitutional rights and protections to people once ignored or excluded.’ United States v. Virginia (1996). Slow as the march toward equality may seem, it is never in vain.”

    From Judge Dale's ruling in Latta v. Otter, May 13, 2014.

  • dalefarr South Jordan, Utah
    May 14, 2014 10:21 a.m.

    Unless the prophet announces that he has had a revelation from God that SSM is prohibited, Mormons, myself included should back off from treating our gay brothers and sisters differently than we treat each other.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 14, 2014 10:14 a.m.

    @Samson01 wrote: "Personally I feel that redefining an essential societal institution because 1.9% of us have a disorder is absurd...but it is the reality of our day."

    First of all: "Disorder"? I think you'll find that no medical or psychological authorities consider members of Gender and Sexual minorities to intrinsically have a disorder. For you to use that term shows animus on your part. (And it's that kind of animus by lawmakers that has contributed to bans against same-sex marriage being overturned.)

    Second: "1.9%"? That's an awfully precise (and low) number. I'm thinking the standard estimate of 3 to 5 percent is probably closer to the mark. And I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't say "you can withhold rights from groups that are small enough."

    Third: "Redefining." No, marriage is not being redefined. It's only a matter of updating who is allowed to be married. Marriage is no more being redefined than if the minimum marriage age in Utah were to be increased from 15 to 16. Saying that marriage is being "redefined" would imply that current marriages would be changing. They won't be. At all.

  • The Wraith Kaysville, UT
    May 14, 2014 10:13 a.m.

    One of the earliest known laws against murder is found in the code of Ur-Nammu in 2100 BCE, approximately. By comparison the 10 Commandments, according to the legend were written in about 1800 BCE. The code of Ur-Nammu also has laws against robbery (theft), kidnapping, adultery, assault, lying, and much more. Nothing in the 10 commandments was original, they borrowed from laws that had been a part of other cultures for hundreds and sometimes thousands of years before they were written.

    I'm with Understands Math, a rational basis is the best foundation for law.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    May 14, 2014 9:20 a.m.

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

    Rational basis.

    That was easy!

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    May 14, 2014 9:06 a.m.

    The overall agenda for which SSM is taking the lead is spelled out in "The Overhauling of Straight America" by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in Guide Magazine, November 1987. This article was one of the defining efforts in the start of the present day war being waged against marriage and the family.

    Kirk and Erastes define "The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion." Until you have read this article don't think the issue is just about making marriage something it has never been defined to be, there is an even larger agenda. You will recognize these same methods, marketing strategies, and techniques outlined over 25 years ago with what is happening even right here in the discussions of comments on this and every other related article. Most people in Utah are against SSM but we don't speak up because of many of the reasons mentioned in the article. Google the article and read for yourself.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    May 14, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    The SCOTUS needs to put this issue to bed one way or the other. This tearing down of state laws and state constitutions must be settled by the highest court in the land and not by individual judges.

    Personally I feel that redefining an essential societal institution because 1.9% of us have a disorder is absurd...but it is the reality of our day.

    There is also the point that heterosexuals have done far more damage to the institution of marriage than SSM could ever do.

    I am all for rule of law and in this case the law is ambiguous and needs to be defined by our highest court. I think the SCOTUS will rule in favor of SSM. Once established, I will honor the law. Will the LGBT community do the same if it does not go their way?

    I doubt it.

  • gmlewis Houston, TX
    May 14, 2014 8:58 a.m.

    @Wilf55 - Didn't you mean to say:

    "Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by federal and state legislatures disallowing same-sex marrriage, which laws have been pronounced unconstitutional by the court of last resort ..."

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    May 14, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    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?

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    May 14, 2014 8:43 a.m.

    @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.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    May 14, 2014 8:28 a.m.

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

    Welcome, joyous day.

  • girl.in.slc Salt Lake , UT
    May 14, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    @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!

  • GingerAle North East, OH
    May 14, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    @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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 14, 2014 8:10 a.m.

    @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.

  • BJMoose Syracuse, UT
    May 14, 2014 8:01 a.m.

    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.

  • YoungPuppy west Jordan, UT
    May 14, 2014 7:56 a.m.

    @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.

  • Wilf 55 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 14, 2014 7:31 a.m.

    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."

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 14, 2014 7:21 a.m.

    @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.

  • koseighty The Shire, UT
    May 14, 2014 6:46 a.m.

    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
    May 14, 2014 6:39 a.m.

    Legalized bigotry is losing.

    "Another one bites the dust".

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    May 14, 2014 6:34 a.m.

    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!

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    May 14, 2014 5:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Bob K portland, OR
    May 14, 2014 2:28 a.m.

    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.

  • Liberty For All Cedar, UT
    May 14, 2014 12:38 a.m.

    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.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    May 14, 2014 12:20 a.m.

    "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.

  • Serious Rexburg, ID
    May 13, 2014 11:53 p.m.

    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.

  • Serious Rexburg, ID
    May 13, 2014 11:47 p.m.

    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
    May 13, 2014 11:38 p.m.

    "...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?