Quantcast

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
CPA Howard
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA

I hope the court sends it back to Congress and California. DOMA was passed by Congress: and if current members of congress no longer agree with DOMA, introduce a law to repeal the law. If members of congress who believe DOMA is wrong and aren't willing to stand up for their belief, then the Gay lobby should find a candidate who will commit in public to support their position and work to get them elected.

The people of California put this on the ballot and a majority voted for the law. If the Gay lobby doesn't like the law, put an initive on the ballot to repeal the law.

I wish the Gay Lobby would stand-up and take their case to the people and let the people decide. Please don't compare this to slavery, because it's not the same. In most states civil unions are permitted, which grant you all of the same rights as married couples. If the reason you want it recognized is for the tax deduction (loophole), then change the tax code.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@AceroInox

You wrote: "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."

My dear friend, then we should unite our efforts. You see, NOBODY is against heterosexual marriage. Because as you say, it has worked for millennia ( worked well...that is arguable)
LGBT are FOR marriage, so much, that we would like to enjoy the same protection, rights and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy with the spouse/partner they love.

Many of us have children and we love them very much. SO much that we would like to give them the same protection that children of married couples enjoy.

We are not asking to deprive anyone of their ability to marry. We are asking to expand that ability.

Ranch
Here, UT

CPA Howard;

Can you guess why rights are called rights?

We shouldn't put rights up to a majority vote in this country; your own rights may be the next set up to someone's vote. How would you like it if gays got to vote on heterosexual's marriages?

aceroinox
Farmington, UT

@Baccus0902: I gather you did not read either article. At the very least read Doug Mainwaring's piece. I've voiced many of the same concerns he does, but having lived it, he has more credibility.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@Contrarius:
"I'm really tired of hearing this old claim over and over again."

I'm really tired of hearing over and over the claim that certain people are not allowed to marry. Everyone can marry. The only criteria is that you marry someone of the opposite sex. And it applies equally to ALL, so there's not discrimination, whatsoever.

"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.'"

I'd call it foolishness. Because that's what it is.

Here's some more foolishness similar to yours... some people can bear children (women) others can't (men). That's called gender discrimination.

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

Oh you foolish soul. Multiple and 'incest' marriages are governed by law. Laws can be changed. If the law (DOMA) is changed allowing same sex marriage, it can (and should) be changed for any other combination of marriage dreamed up by the participants. Else you have discrimination.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@aceroinox
I'll be rather busy with assignments and classes this week so I think I'll hold off on reading the 50 some page document until I have more free time this weekend.

@CPAHoward
"Please don't compare this to slavery, because it's not the same"

I'd compare it to interracial marriage. Mostly because it involves marriage, bans, and the idea that everything is equal (after all white people could marry someone of the same race and black people could marry someone of the same race). Plus...

@wrz
"If the law (DOMA) is changed allowing same sex marriage, it can (and should) be changed for any other combination of marriage dreamed up by the participants. Else you have discrimination."

...interracial marriage opponents used the same slippery slope logical fallacies.

TA1
Alexandria, VA

As I have said in previous posts relating to this issue - this boils down to treating all consenting adults “Equally” - no more and certainly no less.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ AceroInox

I just read the suggested article.

What a sad and insecure man.

You see, as a devoted LDS young man, I had to question and think, pray, fast, go to my churh leaders, see psychologists, I even subjected myself to reparative therapy (electric shock and others).

I was engaged to marry. However, I made the decision that I wouldn't marry unless I was cured. I wouldn't deceive the mother of my future children.

I found out that There is no cure because there is no need.

Mainwaring is a repressed soul, he equates homosexuality with sex. I have been with my partner for 31 years. I must admit that sex is important, but not the most important part of our relationship.

Mainwaring's article is summed on this sad statement: "My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen."

He doesn't dare to kiss his son, why not? French, Italian, Arabs, Latins, we are all crazy kissers. We may be macho oriented, but we love our families and express it with filial hugs and kisses.

worf
Mcallen, TX

‘Supreme Court set to hear gay marriage arguments’

They may hear, but they don't listen. It's already been voted against.

amazondoc
USA, TN

I tried to post this comment last night, but it seems to have gotten lost. Trying again!

@aceroinox --

I did read the Mainwaring article.

First he says that denying children the right to grow up with parents of both sexes is "evil". He says this despite the fact that he himself adopted a child while he was married, and **then got divorced** -- thereby denying his OWN child the right to grow up with both his parents.

Then he criticizes gay marriages because gay couples are unable to have biological children within the marriage. He says this even though he himself adopted a child.

Can you get much more hypocritical than that??

As for that Harvard Law paper you referenced -- it hinges on the argument of reproduction within the marriage. The paper has been thoroughly debunked in other publications -- and the reproduction argument has been countered many times in DN's own comment sections as well.

In essence: many straight couples can not or choose not to reproduce, but that doesn't make their marriages any less valid. Unless you want to outlaw all non-productive straight marriages, you can't legitimately use that argument against gay marriages.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@wrz --

"I'd call it foolishness. Because that's what it is."

Nope. Insulting a logical argument won't make the logic go away. If you want people to take you seriously, you need to have logic on your side as well. And right now, you don't.

Fortunately, I'm sure that the Supreme Court justices understand the concept of discrimination very well. And they're quite good with logic, too.

Arguments beginning today! I can't wait to read some of the transcripts!

The Caravan Moves On
Enid, OK

The fact that this revolting law suit is even being heard by the Supreme Court proves the steady decline of America continues.

America, America, oh, how the mighty have fallen....

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

The Caravan Moves On
Enid, OK

I am sure that is what the South thought when we did away with segregation laws.

In fact, this makes me proud to be an American. It is truely what we represent: Freedom for everyone, even those who are not like us and do not believe as we do. If I remember correctly, that is why many came here in the first place. Good to know that we still hold dear to those values!

worf
Mcallen, TX

This issue is not for the Supreme Court, but individual states.

kargirl
Sacramento, CA

bandersen, I think we can be quite certain that the idea of anyone who is not old enough to buy a xylophone factory isn't likely to be able to marry, in most states, any time in the distant future. Okay, so they aren't likely to buy a xylophone factory. But consenting adults who can sign a contract should be able to sign one to marry whichever other consenting adult who can also sign a contract they wish, should they not? Is that so hard to comprehend? And frankly, if three people who can all sign a contract want to get married, does that hurt you? I don't see people marrying cats anytime soon. For one, they can't sign anything. And it's easier to buy a xylophone factory.

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@Contrarius:
"Nope. Insulting a logical argument won't make the logic go away."

You need to have a logical argument to have it insulted... which you don't.

"Fortunately, I'm sure that the Supreme Court justices understand the concept of discrimination very well."

There is no discrimination in our marriage laws... Anyone can marry provided they can find someone of the opposite sex to marry. This applies to all, ALL citizens. No discrimination there.

"And they're quite good with logic, too."

They are quite good at dodging the issue as we can see in the Obamacare ruling.

"Arguments beginning today! I can't wait to read some of the transcripts!"

I think you'll be disappointed with the outcome.

Miss Piggie
Pheonix, AZ

@kargirl:
"I think we can be quite certain that the idea of anyone who is not old enough to buy a xylophone factory isn't likely to be able to marry, in most states, any time in the distant future."

The eligibility to buy a xylophone factory is a function of law. If the law can be changed re same sex marriage, it can be changed for buying factories.

"But consenting adults who can sign a contract should be able to sign one to marry whichever other consenting adult who can also sign a contract they wish, should they not?"

You got that right. And they shouldn't have to be consenting adults since such a requirement is discriminatory.

"I don't see people marrying cats anytime soon."

To the best of my knowledge, there is no law against it. And if there were, it can and should be changed. I'm quite positive there are people who want to marry their cat for a number of reasons including leaving it a fortune upon death.

"For one, they can't sign anything."

Who's saying you have to sign something? That too, is discriminatory and can be changed.

The Caravan Moves On
Enid, OK

@ Lane Myer - "Salt Lake City, UT, 2:27 p.m. March 26, 2013 - I am sure that is what the South thought when we did away with segregation laws. In fact, this makes me proud to be an American. It is truely what we represent: Freedom for everyone, even those who are not like us and do not believe as we do. If I remember correctly, that is why many came here in the first place. Good to know that we still hold dear to those values!"

Values? What "values" are you talking about Lane?

Sadly, Lane, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It is not a "value" to call evil, good. Time, and truth, will prove those on my side correct.

How long, Lord, how long?

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@The Caravan Moves On – “Values? What "values" are you talking about Lane?”

Freedom, equal protection under the law, that we are free to believe what we want and live our own lives as long as we’re not harming others. I actually thought Lane was pretty clear about it.

The rest of what you said strikes me as simply… well, sad. What “evil” are you talking about?

Ranch
Here, UT

@The Caravan Moves On;

Bigotry and discrimination are evil. You are calling it "good". Love and commitment are good and you're calling it "evil". You really need to apply your scriptural references more appropriately.

to comment

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