Comments about ‘Religious, political leaders sound off on same-sex marriage before court hearing’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 19 2013 3:40 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

According to the Gallup Poll referenced in the article 73% of adults between 18 and 29 favor same sex marriage with only 29% opposing it. I saw much the same thing happen during the Civil Rights Era. The Times They Are A Changing.

John20000
Cedar Hills, UT

If this was an issue of equality of rights as some have put it, then why the fuss over the term "marriage." California already has a legal term called domestic partnerships, which in the state law is equivalent to the term marriage. Domestic partnerships in California receive all the state benefits that married people do.

With all the benefits of marriage, the social argument was reduced to: "calling it a domestic partnership instead of a marriage is a significant difference that is discriminatory." Prop 8 passed in liberal California simple because that argument failed. The majority didn't buy it. They didn't buy that calling a union of two men or two women a domestic partnership was discriminatory, especially when the union retained all the same benefits as marriage.

Prop 8 doesn't ban domestic partnerships nor does it take away the state rights and benefits of domestic partnerships, which are equal to those of marriage. With a twist of words though, opponents say "Prop 8 bans same-sex marriage." Technically, it is not a lie.

USAlover
Salt Lake City, UT

We get it, we get it.

There is no way we can constitutionally disallow marriage between Adam and Steve.

There is also no way that we can actually explain to you why marriage was only meant for Adam and Eve.

All I can say is until two men(or two women)can have a baby together "naturally", I'm going to stick with the institution that has raised this planet's children for more than 3000 years.

All civil rights, EXCEPT MARRIAGE, should be granted to gay partners and we should sign that anti-discrimination bill in the workplace immediately.

Without a hateful bone in my body, I declare that marriage is for man and woman.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

John 20000

Did you read the California Supreme Court decision re gay marriage? If you had or if you had read the ruling on Prop 8, you would understand that separate is NOT equal. It is not just the benefits, but the distinction of a child to have their parents married - not civil unionized. It is the thought that you want to keep the word "marriage" for your unions and not share it because you feel it is the better of the two options, right?

Because of the 14th amendment (and it has been used for a number of rulings besides those for ex-slaves), we must treat each citizen of the United States equally under the law. We are not allowed to put ourselves above other citizens because of our beliefs or our history. We MUST show cause if we are to deny another citizen the dignity, benefits, and privileges that we take for granted as a right. This has NOT been done by any of those on the anti-gay marriage side.

If you were arguing in front of the SCOTUS, what would your legal, reasonable, and constitutional argument be?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

USAlover

Because we live in the US, you are allowed to believe whatever you feel good about. But it is not always advisable to press your beliefs into law, especially if you cannot tell us why we need to treat you differently than gays, other than say that you are sticking with what has worked. Please rest assured that gays do not want you or any other marriage to change.

What they are looking for is the same marriage that we grant to those who are too old to have children or those who cannot or do not want children. You must agree that we allow all these people to marry legally here in Utah. That is the marriage that they are looking for.

It just happens to be the same legal marriage that couples who want and do create children are allowed to have.

Marriage has never had "will have children" as one of the prerequisites for a couple to legally bind themselves together in marriage. Why would we change the rules because the couple is gay?

Are you saying that all marriages that do not result in natural children should not be called "marriage?"

Mom Johnson
West Jordan, UT

My dad taught me about sex using electricity as an example. He was very clever. He showed me that there were female and male plugs and outlets. When the male plug went into the female outlet electricity was created! Pure and simple. Electricity was born. Not only that, but good things were developed afterwards.....i.e. the washing machine, lights, air conditioning. Good things that helped society.
Good luck trying to put two male and two female plugs together. It creates absolutely nothing. And nothing good comes of it.

It seems to me that the LGBT community should take some electrical classes :)

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

It is ironic that a Church whose early history includes the practice of polygamy is now defending "traditional" marriage.

re:John2000
A study conducted by UCLA found that domestic partnerships are not equal to marriage. They found domestic partners often had trouble participating in their spouses' healthcare plans.

Finally,
"And someone made the comment that this is not about equality. Well yes it is about equality. And why in the world would we not allow those equal rights for individuals who truly were committed to on another in life to be able to show that by way of a marriage?
You know, my daughter came out of the closet a couple of years ago. And you know what? I thought I was going to just agonize about that.

Nothing’s different. She’s still a fabulous human being...I hope she will not feel like a second-class citizen involved in something called a ‘domestic partnership’ — which frankly sounds like a Merry Maids franchise to me."
(Washington State Representative MAUREEN WALSH, Republican, on why she voted to legalize marriage equality in her state.)

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@uslove
Honest and unhateful people do not continue to perpetuate lies that have been pointed out to them before (in this case the history of marriage), sorry.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Spring Street,

What is the lie? Marriage has been almost entirely isolated to men and women throughout recorded history. Are there exceptions? Sure, but few and rare. The weight of history is on heterosexual marriage.

Chachi
Charlottesville, VA

Why is it that politicians who oppose gay marriage can't articulate why in anything but tautological terms. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman," they say. Yes, but WHY do you believe that? The answer is usually, "Because that's what I believe."

There are much better answers available, but most Republican politicians seem to not know them. If they can't offer an intelligible articulation of their views, it's probably because they don't actually believe what they say. I expect them to soon experience a politically convenient "conversion" a la Obama, Clinton, Portman, etc.

Chachi
Charlottesville, VA

P.S. Here are some examples of better reasons to oppose gay marriage:

1) Marriage is heterosexual because it's designed to encourage the formation of families, which maximizes the chances of successfully rearing the society's next generation.

2) The civil rights and sexual choices of gay people can be accommodated by civil unions; labeling it marriage sends the message that the institution is primarily about meeting the sexual needs of adults, not meeting the needs of children.

3) Attempts to explain why gay marriage should be legal and polygamy should be illegal invariably depend on labeling polygamists with the sort of stereotyping that gets labeled "hateful bigotry" when applied to gay people——in other words, it opens the door to further expansions of the definition of marriage and dismantles the arguments against them.

4) Demanding that we use the same term to describe two different types of unions encourages a homogenous society, not a diverse one.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@twin
Marriage as those that appose gay marriage want to limit it to as between a man and a women has only been a constant for little more then a 100 years in our own culture let alone across history and cultures. The argument that it must be fails both historically and scientifically.

Pianoman
Salt Lake City, UT

@Ophelia
"It's interesting to note that the recent ABC/Washington Post poll (a reputable, accurate polling source) found 58% of Americans in favor of same-sex marriage. Even more impressive is the fact that a whopping 81% of Americans under 30 favor same-sex marriage."

I just would like to say I am under 30 and I do not support Gay marriage. A lot of people my age do support it, I think, from what I have gathered by talking to them, because they think everything should be "fair".

If that was true, I should've been a millionaire by now because i have brilliant ideas. Life is supposed to be "fair", right?

Unfortunately, life is not fair and some things are created for specific reasons, that no President or Court or Government official can change.

To keep my comment civil, I would like to say that the one rule of life I have learned is this: marriage is not a right--it's a privilege. It has always been that way and will continue to be that way until the end of time.

Pianoman
Salt Lake City, UT

@truthseeker
Easy turbo...
Yes that would be odd unless you had the belief that polygamy was from God and the church was only doing what God wanted it to.
And if you had a belief in the Bible you'd find that homosexuality is preached against and condemned but that doesn't mean those who practice it should be condemned. They should loved and accepted--but not their practices.
PS
I'm all for bringing back Polygamy if they pass Gay Marriage--because I can love multiple women can't I? (BTW, one woman is enough for me--just making an example) ;)

Pianoman
Salt Lake City, UT

@springstreet

Can you please retype your statement? I'm sorry, I really didn't know what you were saying..I'm sure it's something insightful :)

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Pianoman – “Unfortunately, life is not fair and some things are created for specific reasons”

A pretty callous and sanctimonious statement in this context. You should write that down so you can break it out if and when you ever have a gay son or daughter.

But I’m curious, do you actually have any arguments to make in support of your “life’s not fair so suck it up” views? So far Chachi is the only one on this thread who has even attempted to make an argument (weak as I think they were) that wasn’t a tautology.

Pianoman – “And if you had a belief in the Bible you'd find that homosexuality is preached against and condemned…”

You mean the book that sanctioned slavery and commanded genocide (“kill all the Amalekites…”)?

I don’t know… maybe slavery (perhaps the easiest moral question in history) was not the only ethical teaching the Bible got wrong… just say’n.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ Pianoman

It is sad to encounter such a cynical young man.

(you) "To keep my comment civil, I would like to say that the one rule of life I have learned is this: marriage is not a right--it's a privilege.

Most of human history marriages have been arranged by parents, usually for social and economical gain. The couples in the ceremony didn't have a choice in the matter. Please clarify for me, what part was the privilege?

(You) "It has always been that way and will continue to be that way until the end of time."

Again, what a sad statement. Is that really the way you see the world, humanity and the universe? Do you really feel so powerless that you blindly accept what has been, even though you may consider it wrong?

Most of us in the world believe in change. That's why we have revolutions, political ideas, elections, religious beliefs, education.

The universe is changing, so is our planet, so is humanity, the fact that we don't live in caves should be proof of that. That we are discussing SSM should be proof to you that change is taking place. Read history.

Civil
Salt Lake City, UT

I believe in equal rights, and I am a supporter of civil unions, but let us be logical, rational and factual: There are differences between heterosexual and homosexual unions. No child has ever been the biological product of two males, or of two females.

A rallying cry of those who favor marriage for gays is, "Don't be on the wrong side of history." Well, biology and history both fall on the side of the difference between gay and straight unions. Let us create laws that don't discriminate, but that also recognize those differences.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

bandersen
Compelling me to recognize abortion, pornography, or child abuse (anything evil) as a legal right infringes on my life and liberty.
KJK
Does that include teaching Trinitarianism and infant baptism?

Redshirt1701
To "Baccus0902" the Proposition 8 is completely constitutional. The 10th ammendment says that if it isn't mentioned in the US constitution it is up to the states or people to decide.
KJK
Was the Loving decision outlawing miscegenation also wrongly decided and that states should be free to reenact them.

John20000
California already has a legal term called domestic partnerships, which in the state law is equivalent to the term marriage.
KJK
Having segregated drinking fountains still gave Blacks equal rights and access to water. Why is this wrong yet the "separate but equal" domestic partnership status AOK?

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

KJK responding to Chachi's points

1) Since infertile and aged couples can marry, there is no legal link between marriage and kids. Gays also form families using adoption and artificial insemination.

2) Having segregated drinking fountains still gave Blacks equal rights and access to water. Why is this wrong yet the "separate but equal" domestic partnership AOK? Should infertile and aged couples marry since such marriages are "about meeting the sexual needs of adults, not meeting the needs of children"?

3) So? Polygamy involving consenting adults SHOULD be legal.

4) Huh?

to comment

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