Comments about ‘Supreme Court set to hear gay marriage arguments’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, March 24 2013 8:55 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Embarcadero
SAN FRANCISCO, CA

Those who oppose marriage equality have tried every argument known to man, but their point boils down to this: they believe that civil law should reflect their religious view of morality. LGBT supporters see such views as arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory. A SCOTUS ruling supporting LGBT rights would send a powerful message about the limits of religion in America's public life.

I welcome such a message. No specific religion ought to dictate the basis of the civil laws we all share.

Clarissa
Layton, UT

To Embarcadero: I need that you say that marriage equality have tried every argument know to men. Interesting. I believe that marriage is decided by God, not man. Either you believe in the Word of God, or you don't. We'll see what the Supreme Court decides, but still, it will only be the mortality of man's decision.

Radically Moderate
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

To Embarcadero:

Your ignorance of the variety and depth of arguments which counter your preconceived notions is sad commentary on the state of the debate on this issue. This is not a mere question of morality, but one of changing millennial of established legal, social, political and even biological precedents. Unfortunately, many on your side only are there because they see the zealots on the other side of the question and "don't want to be on the wrong side of history". They never realize that the presuppositions of the LGBT arguments are flawed and not universally accepted, even by many in their own community.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

There is only one decision the Supreme Court can come to if this country is to survive as a nation... support Prop 8 and the Federal DOMA...(the later signed into law by Clinton).

All other combinations of marriage will doom this country.

If marriage is opened to same sex, then all other combinations of human relationships will require legal recognition of marriage as well... such as polygamy, adults marrying kids even of the same gender, group marriages such as two guys and five ladies... or vice versa.

As to the financial and social benefits of marriage... gays/lesbians seeking such benefits can realize them by simply finding someone of the opposite sex to marry. You say, well, they don't love each other. What has love go to do with it (as Tina Turner asks)? Many heterosexual marriages have no love in them.

SAS
Sandy, UT

Simple solution: get the government out of the marriage business. Want a tax deduction, inheritance rights, hospital visiting rights, etc? Go to the courthouse and get a civil union. Want the blessing of your chosen God (or Gods)? Go to the church, temple, synagogue, or mosque of your choice, who can then apply whatever standards they choose, without fear of having their terms dictated by government.

It's long past time we recognized that what we've defined as marriage as two distinct institutions. Separating them lets government be faithful to its guarantees of equal rights, and lets religious believers be faithful to their doctrines.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Clarissa
" believe that marriage is decided by God, not man. Either you believe in the Word of God, or you don't."

That's exactly the point. You don't have an argument that isn't religious in nature. That's why Prop 8's side lost the first two rounds in the court. What God says is irrelevent when it comes to Constitutional law.

@Radically Moderate
"This is not a mere question of morality, but one of changing millennial of established legal, social, political and even biological precedents. "

Well if you've got a good non-religious argument then you best inform the Prop 8 team because they haven't managed to find one yet.

Candide
Salt Lake City, UT

To Radically Moderate:

Embarcadero made a very well reasoned point. You on the other hand have not made any specific point whatsover as to why same sex marriage should not be legal. give me one good reason why you should be able to dictate who can and cannot marry.

Candide
Salt Lake City, UT

To Clarissa,
Which God in particular are you referrring to? Zeus, Thor, Woden, Ra, Allah, Yahweh, the Great Spirit, Quetzalcoatl, Baal, Mars, Anu, Brahma, Loki, Isis, Vishnu, Shiva, Osiris, etc., etc.... My God believes that two consenting adults should be able to marry. What you really mean is that your beliefs should be able to dictate how others live.

Claudio
Springville, Ut

Bye-bye DOMA. And good riddance.

Claudio
Springville, Ut

The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to determine who can and cannot marry. Why do conservatives feel differently?

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Question: Let's hope that SCOTUS refers it back to the states, as the constitution dictates, then I can take great consolation that it will never be changed here in Utah! Good luck with the rest of society, as the states have to decide on polygamy, bigamy, or any other form of 'marriage' that someone wants. Thank God there is a God and it is His view that counts most in the end!

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Candide. The same God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for what you are supporting. Yep, that God!

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

bandersen
Saint George, UT
Question: Let's hope that SCOTUS refers it back to the states, as the constitution dictates, then I can take great consolation that it will never be changed here in Utah!
----------------

You then have to deal witha the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution. All gays need to do is go to California and marry and because of that clause, they MUST be recognized as married here, correct? It does not matter what law Utah passes since the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

I don't think you can do anything about that. They will be married here too, just not able to marry here.

HS Fan
Salt Lake City, UT

Embarcedero does a good job of bringing the dispute down to a single point. I see no reason why Goverment should be making decision for God and our citizens. If your a religous person and your church defines marriage as between a man and a women, live that way. The company I work for and most other Fortune 500 companies already lets their employees define their mariiage in any way they choose, and they provide the same benefits to both hetero and homosexual partnerships.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Ezekiel 16:49

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."

----------
Mountanman,

You need to read a little more into what the sin of Sodom really was. It is in the Bible, if you read it and not what someone told you in a church meeting. Read about ancient times and how important it was to show hospitality to those in this desert region.

You might be surprised that we are headed towards Sodom - but it is because we are starting to refuse to take care of our poor and needy!

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@wrz --

"If marriage is opened to same sex, then all other combinations of human relationships will require legal recognition of marriage as well... such as polygamy, adults marrying kids even of the same gender, group marriages such as two guys and five ladies... or vice versa."

I'm really tired of hearing this old claim over and over again. It simply isn't true.

Here's the truth:

Some people are already allowed to marry men. Other people are NOT allowed to marry men. The distinction is based solely on gender. That is called "gender discrimination". Gender discrimination is unconstitutional. Therefore, marriage discrimination is unconstitutional.

NOBODY is allowed to marry multiple partners. NOBODY is allowed to commit incest. Therefore, there is no discrimination. These laws ARE constitutional.

If you'll try for once to use logic instead of religious dogma, you will be able to see the difference very easily.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Lane Myer. Nice try but totally inaccurate!

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Gay marriage is not equal to straight marriage for roughly the same reason a toaster is not an aircraft; a dog is not a cat; a tuba is not a hose.
It isn't the same, simply because it isn't (which is obvious to anyone paying attention).

Those who compare gender to skin color merely prove they are not smart enough to tell the difference between pigment and genitals (as a society we no longer have colored bathrooms, but we DO discriminate between genders – hence men’s and women’s bathrooms, sports teams, etc – because gender matters)

I am homosexual - yet I don't need straight social convections to validate my life, nor do I need pretense of equality as a bully pulpit. I am not the same. Since a very low percentage of actual gay couples in areas where marriage or unions are allowed actually do get married (and most are lesbian couples - not gay men) and considering that (according to San Francisco State University) more than 50% of gay couples openly confess to not being monogamous- with spouse approval; my position is not as radical as gay activists (aka bullies) would have everyone believe.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@Counter Intelligence --

"a very low percentage of actual gay couples in areas where marriage or unions are allowed actually do get married"

When gay marriages were legalized in Washington, more than 800 gay couples got married THE FIRST DAY. And if you look at video of the waiting lines, you'll see that a very high percentage of them were men, as well.

If you don't want to get married, then don't. But people who DO want to get married deserve to share the same rights and benefits as every other married couple in the nation.

"as a society we no longer have colored bathrooms, but we DO discriminate between genders – hence men’s and women’s bathrooms, sports teams, etc – because gender matters"

Gender matters in SOME things -- where safety or strength play a part. Nonetheless, gender is irrelevant in the context of forming committed relationships -- and therefore discrimination in areas which depend on committed relationships, as opposed to strength or safety, is unconstitutional. For a related example, consider age discrimination. Age matters in some contexts, yet age discrimination is also specifically disallowed in constitutional law (refer to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act).

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Contrarius: In regards to your position about how it is 'unconstitutional' for someone to marry their cat, I have two questions. Why would I feel secure in any 'constitutional' opinion when the SCOTUS can change the constitution on whim, including who or what constitutes 'marriage'? If, in fact, we were living under the constitution, states would have the say on what constitutes a 'marriage' or not. We aren't! Given your opinion, however, why would I feel secure in believing that SCOTUS won't redefine marriage as between plants and humans 10 years down the road? Sorry! Considering that 30 years ago Homosexuality was considered by most as deviant and an affront to civilized society, a person would have to be delusional not to believe that 10 years from now any form of marriage will be acceptable.

to comment

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