Quantcast

Comments about ‘Federal judge: Florida gay-marriage ban unconstitutional’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Aug. 21 2014 2:30 p.m. MDT

Updated: Thursday, Aug. 21 2014 3:15 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
worf
Mcallen, TX

What's unconstitutional is how this country is being controlled, and our freedoms are being eroded.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

State Judges in Florida have come to the same conclusion. I wouldn't be surprised if the State did not appeal.

Liberty For All
Cedar, UT

A judge can never change the Lord's commandments of what is right and what is morally wrong.

Mikhail
ALPINE, UT

Someone please explain to us how "definition of marriage" is equal to, or the same as, "ban on gay marriage." Does the Florida law actually say something like "people of the same sex may not marry one another?" Saying that a law "bans" something seems to imply an inherent belief that it prevents something - rather than defines something. If a law defines "milk" as something that comes from a cow, does such a definition "ban" goat's milk?

Vanceone
Provo, UT

You know, you would think the left would not like all of this. Abortion was rammed down the countries throat in the 70's by judges. Tell me, 40 years later, is abortion a topic we all agree one?

Now the left is trying to force gay marriage, and the corresponding "If you don't do whatever a gay wants, society should cast you out and make you a pariah enforced by governmental wrath!" down us again.

Do they not think that people will revolt when they are told that being a Christian or believing in God means you can be fired for having the wrong beliefs?

Bob K
Davis, CA

Vanceone
Provo, UT
"Now the left is trying to force gay marriage, and the corresponding "If you don't do whatever a gay wants, society should cast you out and make you a pariah enforced by governmental wrath!" down us again."

--- No! You are being forced to do nothing except obey the law and stay out of other peoples' business.

Do they not think that people will revolt when they are told that being a Christian or believing in God means you can be fired for having the wrong beliefs?

--- No! You can -- and should be -- fired for spouting off your religious beliefs at work. For one thing, it is terribly rude.

Stop bringing up the man who was not fired, but had to step down from leadership, because he gave money to Prop 8, which nearly all of the young workers there consider to be a hateful act?
You cannot lead if most employees do not respect you.
You cannot lead if most employees and stockholders feel that having a Prop 8 donor as CEO makes the company look terrible.

If a boss at a company in Utah was found to have donated to "remove the lds tax deduction" ?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Vanceone said: "You know, you would think the left would not like all of this. Abortion was rammed down the countries throat in the 70's by judges. Tell me, 40 years later, is abortion a topic we all agree one? "

I don't know is there a religion we all agree with?

Than it's probably better left to those who use the constitution as a guide, instead of one of many, many, religious texts which are hardly consistent or agree with each other.

.....and your quite right Bob.

Really???
Kearns, UT

@worf,

Please explain how your freedoms are being eroded with this ruling. What can you no longer do that you used to be able to do because of this? These rulings actually bring more freedom. You are still free to reject the idea of participating in a same-sex marriage.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

I just don't like that someone [ a judge] can change what has been voted on by the people. I don't think that we all agree to live in a world that. Not in America.

Ranch
Here, UT

worf says:

"What's unconstitutional is how this country is being controlled, and our freedoms are being eroded."

--- Ironic coming from someone trying to *erode* someone else's freedom to marry whom they choose.

@Liberty For All;

Until the US becomes a theocracy, your "lord" has no say in our laws and is 100% irrelevant.

@Mikhail;

Defining marriage as ONLY 1 man 1 woman isno different than saying "people of the same sex may not marry one another?"

@Vanceone;

I apologize that someone is trying to *force* you to marry someone of your own gender. Please send them to me and I'll set them straight for you (pun intended). I also offer you my condolences that you need to treat LGBT people like you want to be treated; but, wasn't that what your god told you to do anyway?

@george of the jungle ;

"I just don't like that someone [ a citizen] can have their rights voted away by the people." Please take a civics and government class; they'll explain to you the role of the judiciary.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

@Really???: Worf can't explain how his/her freedoms are being eroded because they aren't. I would respect people like Worf's position much more (I still wouldn't agree but would respect the honesty) if they would just be honest and admit why they really oppose SSM and stop hiding behind religion.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@Vanceone

First of all, try to compare abortion with SSM is like comparing apple with orange.
After 40 years of Roe, people are still split on this issue, like in the 70s.
But for SSM, general public have already evolved from strongly against, to generally support in less than 20 years. Among young people, 70-80% support SSM. A national consensus is building up.

Second of all, if you don’t believe in gay marriage, no one will force you to marry someone of same gender.
No company will fire you because you oppose SSM.
Even someone like the CEO of Mozilla and his anti-marriage equality stance causes customers boycott the company's product, he can still choose whether to stay or not. Although the company also have their right to let him go. It is not about religious freedom, it is about business. Money talks.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Vanceone
"You know, you would think the left would not like all of this. Abortion was rammed down the countries throat in the 70's by judges. Tell me, 40 years later, is abortion a topic we all agree one? "

It's also been around 40 years since Loving vs Virginia, and interracial marriage has gone from around 25% support back then to 85% now. The courts have a duty to strike down unconstitutional provisions. I'm not going to support keeping something unconstitutional and immoral around just because getting rid of it would make some people upset.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@Mikhail
Someone please explain to us how "definition of marriage" is equal to, or the same as, "ban on gay marriage."

Please read Amendment 3.
1. Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
2. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

The 2nd part clearly bans same sex couple to marry. Not only that, even civil union is not allowed, even if recent DN survey showed majority of Utahns support civil union.

Does this answer your "ban on gay marriage" question?

Mikhail
ALPINE, UT

@USU-Logan

No, it doesn't answer the question, because Amendment 3 would also ban many other types of marriages and does not single out "gay" marriage. Again, how does that definition (and we are assuming that the Florida law was worded the same as Amendment 3) "ban" something. The word "ban" seems to be political in nature, since it is used exclusively to refer to same-sex marriages, while excluding polygamous, polyandrous, cross-species, etc. domestic unions or marriages in the discussion.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@Mikhail

Here is Florida Amendment 2
Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

It is the same thing as Amendment 3, it bans gay marriage and civil union.

You can argue it also bans polygamy. But when the state legislature passed the amendment, did any congressman argue that the purpose of such amendment was to prevent polygamy? NO, they made it very clear that their original intention was to ban gay marriage.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Mikhail;

States ONLY started passing these amendments once LGBT citizens started asking for equal treatment under the law.

You're really trying to pass off a falsehood when you say that these amendments weren't specifically designed to prevent LGBT citizens from marrying.

There is a scripture somewhere to the effect that liars will be heading to hell and not heaven. If you're really religious, you out to be worried.

firstamendment
Lehi, UT

This Judge is taking American freedoms. People no longer have a right to effectively vote or even have a real voice on this critical issue. There is no reason for our governments to involve themselves in promoting homosexuality. Gays are free to vote, work, do what they want together, and so on. If there is discrimination in the workplace etc., in gay bars (Black, Asian, overweight, and other gays are routinely discriminated against in gay bars (some are still segregated, some won't hire Blacks, some make Blacks go to the end of the line etc)) etc. then there are laws against that (but, now days, it seems liberals&gays make the rules, and thus feel they are above the rules- it's Orwell's "Animal Farm").

Associating homosexuality with the Civil Rights movement is shameful, it's offensive to many of us, especially those who had slave ancestors. It has nothing to do with that. It's sexuality, gays are FREE.

MARRIAGE, on the other hand, legally sanctions, upholds, and enforces relationships that are crucial for the survival of Humanity. Homosexual relationships need not be enforced. And, honest research shows that promoting homosexuality is harmful for our children.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@firstamendment

Your arguments seem plausible.

But majority of American people, who support the same sex couples marriage right, disagree with you.
70-80% American young people, disagree with you.
30+ different court opinions disagree with you. In fact, since last year, there has not been even a single federal court agrees with you.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

USU-Logan:

The idea that 70 - 80% of young people support gay marriage has much nore to do with the propaganda machine that the LGBT use than being a true measure of morality.

Young people are far more influenced by media, friends, celebrities they look up to, etc. Easy pickings for a really good marketer.

Funny how when the majority opposed SSM they were wrong, and now that the majority support SSM they are right.

to comment

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