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
Sank You, Doctor
Salt Lake City, UT

Counter Intelligence

That is the argument you would put in front of the Supreme Court? Really?

Having had both a heterosexual marriage and lived in a homosexual relationship for years, I can tell you that there is not much difference. We go to work. We raise our kids. We worry about finances. We go to church. We take care of our housework and yardwork. We have friends and family that we love and cherish.

The main difference is that a homosexual couple in Utah must spend over $5,000 to receive 5 of the benefits of a $50 marriage license. Can you tell me how that squares with the 14th amendment? Is that treating each citizen equally under that law?

Just because you do not want to be equal does not mean that homosexuals should not be equal per our divine constitution. Just because you believe something does not mean that by our laws it is correct or just.

It does not matter how many gay couples want to wed. As long as there is one couple not treated equally under the law, it is unconstitutional, right?

Pat
Salt Lake , UT

Lets hope the Supreme Court is not swayed by public opinion but rather the rule of law.

ExecutorIoh
West Jordan, UT

Despite the assertions from so-called "experts," it is easy to see the social harm that comes from gay marriages. Experts claim that there is no negative impact on children, common sense clearly demonstrates otherwise. As teenagers go through puberty, they need the guidance of a loving parent of the same gender more than anything. It takes far more than love though. A teenage girl with two gay parents and no mother will have difficulties in the maturation process. A gay father cannot sympathize or even truly understand what a teenage girl is going through with her first period. With this absence, it falls to the schools or society in general to raise children. The same situation occurs with a boy and two lesbian parents, though with less emotional impact. Opposite gender parents are essential to the healthy physical and emotional states of children. Ask teenagers in those situations and they will admit concerns. Watch homosexual families and it is clear that something is missing. Any "experts" that claim otherwise have an agenda and truly don't care or understand the impact on children.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@banderson --

"SCOTUS can change the constitution on whim, including who or what constitutes 'marriage'?"

Nobody is redefining marriage, any more than universities were "redefined" when women started being admitted -- or any more than elections were "redefined" when blacks started being allowed to run.

Removing discrimination is not redefinition. Allowing gay marriage is simply an acknowledgment that the essence of the institution -- and in the case of marriage, that essence is love and commitment -- transcends gender as much as it transcends age, or religion, or race, or ethnic group.

"why would I feel secure in believing that SCOTUS won't redefine marriage as between plants and humans"

Because plants can't consent. Informed consent is a fundamental component of all contract law. It can't be removed from our legal system. But discrimination **can** be removed. One step at a time.

@ExecutorIoh --

"Experts claim that there is no negative impact on children, common sense clearly demonstrates otherwise."

You are simply wrong. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, and multiple other medical and scientific groups all support gay marriage.

"Common sense" once told us that the world was flat.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Thank goodness we don't live in a theocracy.

@ExecutorIoh;

"Common sense" isn't proof of a thing, nor frankly, is it all that "common".

@Pat;

Do you mean the "rule of law of the Constitution" or the "rule of the majority"? The two are not the same thing, nor is the latter actually the "rule of law".

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Lane Myer said, "All gays [would] need to do is go to California and marry and because of that clause, they MUST be recognized as married here [Utah], correct?"

Not quite correct Lane – it is a little more complicated than that. There are three possible alternative decisions from the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court is likely taking up this case to actually determine, whether or not, the ad-hoc group fighting gay marriage will be granted "standing" by the Supreme Court to represent the state of California in the Proposition 8 battle. The State of California did not choose to appeal the 9th Circuit Court decision.

1. If the Supreme Court decides the ad-hoc group DOES NOT have "standing," then they will have effectively decided to let the 9th Circuit Court decision stand as ruled. That Court issued a narrow decision (California only) which supported same-sex marriage. In this instance the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court allowing same-sex marriages would only apply in California.

--Continued in follow-on comment--

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Lane Myer (continued):

2. Or the Supreme Court could determine the ad-hoc group DOES have "standing" and sustain the 9th Circuit Court decision FULLY, which would then cancel the Constitutional amendments of the other 31 States (including Utah) that prevents same-sex marriages.

3. Or they could determine the ad-hoc group DOES have standing and decide on a narrow basis to sustain the 9th Circuit Court decision so that this decision applies to California only, leaving the other 31 State amendments to stand for right now. In this instance, challenges to those other State amendments would have to be appealed separately from this decision.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Mountanman
Hayden, ID
@ Lane Myer. Nice try but totally inaccurate!
•9:28 a.m. March 25, 2013

==========

Mountman,
You realize Lane Myer gave you the BIBLICAL scripture as to why Sodom was destroyed.

You realize you are arguing with the Bible, not with Mr. Myer?
[No, I didn't think you did.]

I call yours nice try, but totally inaccurate.

Score:
Lane Myer - 1
Mountanman - 0

Pat
Salt Lake , UT

Ranch Hand - What I mean is that I hope the US Supreme Court will not be swayed by politics and national public opinion polls in deciding these cases, but rather by Calif case and statutory law re initiative, referenda, etc, and Federal and Constitutional case and statutory law as applicable. It is my understanding that laws banning same-sex marriage do not rise to the level of strict scrutiny (like race discrimination) nor even mid-level scrutiny (like gender discrimination).

christoph
Brigham City, UT

If you can't say no to gay marriage, you won't be able to say no to anything in life; and why stop there, why not have polygamy next, the "super smart elite" attorneys in our country (Obama, Clinton, Biden, Schumer, Harry Reid) should all say today they are all for polygamy too, why favor the number 2 in marriage and discriminate any higher number of people in a marriage?? They only support something when it gets above the 50 percent approval mark. The Bible is more important than a law degree and popularity. Prophets speak a higher law than the Constitution. Thank you Al Gore and John Kerry for being the last smart Democrats to keep the faith, and not change with the wind.

christoph
Brigham City, UT

The three big enemies of life ( media, Hollywood and universities) are entities none of us should ever fear since they are all lacking in leadership and unity, unable to ever speak as one consistent voice.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

The Bible (or religion) aside, what do your own moral intuitions tell you on this?

And for those who think this cannot be done (i.e., we must consult our holy books to know right from wrong), please consider what the Bible says about love on the one hand and slavery on the other; and how it is you know one is a "higher" teaching than the other.

dustman
Nampa, ID

I still don't know why the LDS church is so involved in this.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

We live in historical times, I'm looking forward to tomorrow and Wednesday's hearings by the SCOTUS on Prop 8 and DOMA.

On this paper there are several comments against SSM. These comments I'm sure are well meaning for what the writers perceive to be the good of society.

What I don't understand and would like to understand, is why those against SSM don't use secular reasons to support their claims.Is it possible they don't exist?

Another thing I don't get, is the fallacy that "Marriage" is a religious contract.
In most countries around the world, the only valid marriage is the one signed in the Court House. People who want a religious ceremony have a "symbolic" marriage at a church of their choice.

The USSR had godless marriages that were fully accepted all over the world. Marriages in China are civil contracts, in Cuba there is no valid religious marriage. However, they are still valid marriages.

Personally, I hope soon I can have a religious marriage in a church that supports it. Being raised as an LDS is sad I will not be able to do it in the faith of my family.

xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

Mountanman: In other words, your God, correct?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@wrz
"All other combinations of marriage will doom this country."

Massachusetts doesn't seem doomed. Utah pre-1890ish didn't seem doomed.

@Mountanman
"The same God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for what you are supporting."

I can't speak for everyone but I'm pretty sure we all oppose attempted rape of angels (or really any rape). Also we believe offering daughters to rapists is immoral but that's what Lot, the one allegedly moral guy in the city did. Are you sure you really want to use this story as your moral argument?

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ExecutorIah

Friend,
I'm glad that you express your concern for children. More than that, I think your concerns are valid. We live in a society in which our kids are exposed to perhaps too much unfiltered information. The family should be the main source of strenght and values for the next generation.

You express that somehow, gays parents are lacking, ""With this absence, it falls to the schools or society in general to raise children". Well, that concept is nothing new. It takes a village.

Nobody claims that gay parents are perfect or even better than heterosexuals. However, statistics may show you that gay parents seem to be more sensitive to individuals needs of children. They are not trying to force their children into stereotypes.

Besides,most children facing Juvenile courts are children of heterosexual parents. Most teen suicides related to homosexuality take place with children of heterosexual parents.

I share your concern for children. But we, all parents, homosexuals and heterosexuals, face the challenges of growing children. Hopefully, relative and friends, school and society can provide all of us with the support we need when confronted with the challenges you mentioned and others that are lurking around.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

ExecutorIoh: "A gay father cannot sympathize or even truly understand what a teenage girl is going through... Opposite gender parents are essential to the healthy physical and emotional states of children."

And yet the law allows divorce, which results in children not having the full gender complement of parental modeling and support, and the law allows single parenthood (indeed, the pro-life movement insists that single pregnant women must bear a child even if the father is absent). The "two parents of each sex is optimal for child welfare" argument fails because the law allows many suboptimal family arrangements. Whether or not it is true, for the argument to be persuasive, you must demonstrate that gay parents are worse for children than all other legally sanctioned family arrangements.

aceroinox
Farmington, UT

@atl134--There are several very solid arguments that are not religion-based. The DesNews won't allow us to post links, but if you are really interested in this topic, you owe it to yourself to search for: marriage facts harvard law school. You will find an exhaustive treatise on the subject published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Yes, it's written by an attorney, but since we're talking here about legal arguments that's what you get. It is readable by laymen and worth the effort.

There is also an excellent article published a couple of weeks ago (also not from a religious standpoint) by Doug Mainwaring, a gay man. To find it, search for: i'm gay and i oppose same sex marriage mainwaring.

There is an important distinction to be made here. Most of the truly salient arguments are not AGAINST same-sex marriage, but rather FOR traditional marriage, for maintaining what has worked well for millennia in rearing and safeguarding children.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Pat;

So, you're saying that you prefer mob rule over the Constitution of the United States?

Article 4 Section 1:

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

--- GLBT Marriages are "public acts, records." Is your marriage recognized when you cross state lines? So should the marriages of GLBT couples be recognized as well - or yours shouldn't (equal treatment).

The 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

--- The God I believe in doesn't care about the genders of a couple in a marriage. Your religious beliefs do NOT trump any other's.

The 14th Amendment:

"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ..."

--- GLBT Americans are citizens as are you and are entitled to the "privileges or immunities of citizens". Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule. Freedom applies to ALL Americans.

to comment

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