Comments about ‘Gay, lesbian couples sue Utah for right to marry’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 25 2013 5:50 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

I admire these couples for their commitment and courage. The most powerful action that any oppressed minority can take is to stand up and speak out against that oppression. I sincerely hope that everyone in your lives is proud of you!

worf
Mcallen, TX

Make the tax payers responsible? Dishonesty accompanies gay couples. Just pathetic.

Normal Guy
Salt Lake City, UT

Proud to be a Utahn where the law says that only a man and a wife constitute a family and yet where I see gays and lesbians respected on a daily basis.

The Skeptical Chymist
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

With luck, after the Supreme Court decides the cases that are being argued this week, these couples and all gay couples throughout the country will be able to marry.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare the Utah law unconstitutional under the due process and equal protections clauses of the 14th Amendment . . . ."

This groundless, vexatious lawsuit will be quickly thrown out under current law.

The US Attorney should strongly consider applying for monetary sanctions in this case, certainly against any lawyers involved, and against plaintiffs, as well, depending on their level of legal training and sophistication. This would compensate the legal system for this clear and deliberate waste of time and resources, particularly in this federal circuit.

Once the Supreme Court rules on its two gay-marriage cases this term, any future suit will be so clearly disingenuous and vexatious as to require application of sanctions. But current law is sufficiently clear on the issue to warrant sanctions as a deterrent to such disingenuous legal blather.

Engineer22
Provo, UT

I find this kind of lawsuit curious. To my understanding, if the Utah State Constitution has been amended to define marriage, then they aren't challenging a particular law, they're fighting the actual State Constitution. I don't see how a federal appeal will help either, because (at least according to every civil marriage I've been to) the justice/bishop/pastor/etc. will say something to the effect "By the authority vested in me by the State of , I pronounce you..." you get the idea. The authority comes from the state, not the federal government.

CPA Howard
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA

I wonder if Contrarius feels the same way about Polygamy? If you have 3 consenting adults who want to enter in to a committed relationship and want to enjoy all of the same benefits as a married couple, why should state law prevent it. The anti-polygamy were pasted in the past when it was considered deviant behavior, just like homosexuality. If we are going to rewrite the marriage laws, lets rewrite them to cover all types of marrige between consulting non-related individuals.

Personally, I believe the that marriage should be between a man and a women and it should be decided by a vote of the people. If a couple has been married and moves to a state where it isn't recognized, they made that choice and I'll assume it was an informed choice.

If I get a conceal and carry permit in Utah, I know it won't be recongnized in California; and I'll have to abide by California law.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

??

These couples are fighting for their rights. Where is the dishonesty in that?

DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Stand by for an avalanche of support for gay marriage by the very well organized gay activists.

However, despite their sincerity and enthusiasm, the laws of nature are not subject to repeal. They can call it anything they want, but marriage is truly one man and one woman, no more, no less, and no other permutations.

If homosexual "marriage" must be allowed, then so must polygamy and bestiality-- after all some people think these are "marriage" too.

Candide
Salt Lake City, UT

These couples are courageous trailblazers. Worf your post does not make any sense.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

Care to elaborate Worf? By itself, your statement makes little sense. I even reread the article to find anything related to what you wrote in your comment, and it still made no sense.

As for the article, good for them. Gay and Lesbian couples exist. Many raise children. Excluding them from the benefits of marriage provides no societal benefit. In fact, in really only creates harms. If marriage is for the benefit of children, the children of same-gendered parents will benefit as well. Couching this as a religious freedom issue is mostly presented backwards. If anything, the laws against marriage equality present a violation to the First Amendment as there are many churches who want to perform these weddings but are prohibited by the state. Likewise, the First Amendment provides cover for any church that doesn't want to. A church can no more be forced to marry a gay or lesbian couple than they could be forced to marry a member not of their faith.

VST
Bountiful, UT

First of all, it is not a law – it is an Amendment to the Utah Constitution (but so much for legal semantics).

Whether or not this Utah filing will have any meaning (or will be an exercise in futility) will be totally dependent upon the decision to be made by the Supreme Court after hearing oral arguments tomorrow and Wednesday.

The Supreme Court will be reviewing the California Proposition 8 decision by the 9th Circuit Court declaring Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. But that decision by the 9th Circuit was a narrow one which confined the decision to apply in California only. If the Supreme Court declares that an ad-hoc group fighting same-sex marriages in California has no legal "standing" before the Supreme Court, then the 9th Circuit decision will stand (gay marriages allowed in California only).

Ironically, the fight for same-sex marriage legalization is totally dependent upon whether a California ad-hoc group fighting same-sex marriage has legal "standing" before the Supreme Court.

Why the ad-hoc group? They were the ones requesting the appeal to the Supreme Court because the State of California decided not to appeal the 9th Circuit Court decision.

james d. morrison
Boise, CA

My 5 year old daughter is asking why she can't marry her cousin.

james d. morrison
Boise, CA

Everyone already has the same, equal right to get married. Anyone can get married to one other person of the opposite sex. There is nothing prohibiting them from doing that.

Claudio
Springville, Ut

Engineer,

State constitutions can be struck down if provisions are passed that violate the federal constitution under the supremacy clause. The defendants are claiming the Utah constitution violates the 14th amendment.

Also, the "power vested in my by the State" is not in reference to states as in UT, AZ, etc., but the State as the government body.

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@CPA Howard
...If you have 3 consenting adults who want to enter in to a committed relationship and want to enjoy all of the same benefits as a married couple, why should state law prevent it.

=================================

It shouldn't. As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, who or how many is none of my business. The only "stickler" with polygamy is it can make things like inheritance a mess, as long as there is a legally sound plan in place for such, it's none of my business.

1) I wouldn't want someone to be able to vote on MY marriage, why should I have be able to vote on someone else's?
2) What my neighbor does in his bedroom generally has no affect on what goes on in mine.
3) A common argument against gun control laws is that the "bad guys won't follow them"...will keeping same sex marriage off the books do anything to lower rates of homosexuality?
4) If you believe same sex marriage is a sin, don't seek one. Part of Freedom of Religion is that others have an equal right to practice, or not practice your religion. I practice mine by personal choice.

Engineer22
Provo, UT

Claudio,

That is definitely your interpretation. Every civil marriage ceremony I've ever been to has said, to the effect, "by the power vested in me by the state of Utah, Ohio, Kentucky, etc." If 'State' were referring to a governing body as a whole, wouldn't it make more sense for it to say, "By the power vested in me by the US government"? It says state. It means state.

The first section of the fourteenth amendment says in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I'm not a lawyer nor an expert on the constitution, but if we're throwing around opinions and interpretations, I'll contend that a law and a state constitutional provision are very different things.

amazondoc
USA, TN

To CPA Howard and DN Subscriber --

The issues of polygamy, incest, and bestiality are entirely different than the issue of gay marriage. Here's the short version of why that is:

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.

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

Further, in re bestiality and children: neither children nor animals are capable of giving informed consent. Consent is a fundamental component of all contract law. It can not be removed from our legal system. Therefore, children and animals will never be eligible for signing marriage contracts.

Further, in re polygamy: unlike gay marriage, polygamy has very practical dangers. Women have always had less power in society than men; therefore, it is easy to take advantage of/subjugate/abuse women in polygamous relationships -- as we have seen repeatedly in polygamous sects. Gay marriages have no such proven, concrete dangers.

Claudio
Springville, Ut

Engineer,

It's not my opinion. There are ample cases that SCOTUS has overturned state constitution provisions from taking effect. The prop 8 issue being debated tomorrow and Wednesday falls in that category.

Why did you take issue with my clarification of "state?" It didn't disagree with what you posted in response. I wasn't claiming the US Gov't was the "State" referred to, I was clarifying that it didn't mean "state" exclusively as we refer to state. It's leagalese.

Sorry you decided to take offense to my comment. I was merely trying to answer your presumed honset questions with the information I have as a legal expert. I guess you'd prefer to remain in the dark if it doesn't conform to your beliefs.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ DN Subscriber

Just like homosexual marriage, polygamy should be allowed so long as all the entering parties are consenting adults.

Bestiality will never be legal for the simple reason that an animal is not a consenting adult, and can't sign a marriage license....

to comment

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