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
Jazzledazzle
Provo, UT

Regardless of your religion, if you believe in the Bible it talks about a woman cleaving to a man. Thus, man and woman, not woman and woman, or man and man. Yet, everyone is on this train of supporting same sex marriage. Not to mention, it takes a man and a woman to make a child, does it not? You and I would not be here today if our parents were of the same sex? Is that not a fact? Just a couple things to consider huh?

TOO
Sanpete, UT

While we're at it, if we are allowing everyone to marry who they love, let's let polygamy come back to town. Many people love more than one person. Many people (although I feel it's a psychological problem) actually feel a love for animals.
Shall we allow people to become polygamists or to marriage to animals legal? It's the same concept. If you want marriage equality, you have to accept this premise...and I don't think that most people do.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Simplicity is indeed a virtue: 'Marriage' is between a man and a women. Americans, get on board to the future!

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

The question that I have is if there is such a thing as a civil union with "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2", and there is marriage where there is a "Husband" and a "Wife". The argument is that a civil union is inferior to a marriage. OK, if that argument is correct, and gays are allowed to get marriages, then who is the husband and who is the wife? Well, of course, that is not possible, so the marriage certificates will be reworded to replace "Husband" and "Wife" with "Spouse 1" and "Spouse 2". So no one will be getting married, and only civil unions will be allowed.

So traditional marriages which are powerful tools for fighting the feminization of poverty and childhood poverty will be eliminated and replaced with the inferior civil unions.

If you don't like traditional marriage, then don't get one.

worf
Mcallen, TX

@ Gemini
Australia, 00:

You hit the nail on the head. People moving into Utah wanting to change things.

It's happening in Colorado, and here in Texas, as people promote liberalism in their home state, then leave when it doesn't work.

coleman51
Orem, UT

I am sick and tired of people claiming "rights" when wanting to do whatever their carnal nature leads them to. There is an abundant amount of scientific research that has determined that homosexuality is the result of a sexual addiction rather than the various reasons (excuses) that people give to it. A number of gays have gone through therapy in which they live normal heterosexual lives, marry someone of the opposite gender, and have children. The majority of them never act out on their tendencies. Why is that never reported? Part of the problem is the false narrative that pervades the media that aids to the problem in our society. We need to have an honest debate about gays and their so-called "rights" without having thrown at us as being bigoted or homophobic.

worf
Mcallen, TX

@coleman51:

"Part of the problem is the false narrative that pervades the media in our society".

Creating false images?

A tactic used in the last presidential election.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@TOO --

"let's let polygamy come back to town."

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.

Flashback
Kearns, UT

Contrarius can you tell me exactly when marriage became a constitutional right?

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@Flashback --

"Contrarius can you tell me exactly when marriage became a constitutional right?"

I never claimed that it was one. The "constitutional right" being violated here is the right to freedom from discrimination, which applies to all legal privileges and immunities enjoyed by US citizens.

US Constitution, 14th Amendment, section 1:

"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. "

Notice that says ANY law. "Any" law means it applies to marriage laws just as much as to anything else.

Moabmom
Moab, UT

ET Bass said "Utah & conservatives are once again on the wrong side of history".......better to be on the wrong side of history, than the wrong side of eternity. Men can rewrite laws and give certain groups more "rights" at the expense of the rights of others undermining the family unit, people can pat themselves on the back because they think they are "more tolerant" than others, and praise perversion as a "civil right" till the cows come home. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it noble and it certainly doesn't make it righteous. God's Word is clear, both old and new testament, on marriage being between a man and a women and on homosexuality as an abomination in His sight. Choose wisely whom you will serve, the whim of popular culture and those who seek to undermine society and traditional family values or God. The dustbin of history is full of societies that have rejected God's plan and His laws. .

Kjirstin Youngberg
Mapleton, UT

In all of the debate, pro and con, I feel I must say that just because the "ideal" may be a righteous man and woman who will marry, take their vows seriously, and raise upstanding children who will contribute to society, it is not always the case. Many relationships have men who feel superior to their wives, and treat them as subservient slaves. This teaches the sons to do the same to women they marry, and it carries on for generations. This is far from ideal.

Some male and female marriages are not healthy for a variety of reasons. Children raised in these families pass on these tendencies. If I were a child being raised by, say, an abusive alcoholic and an enabler, would it be better for me to stay in that family because they were a man and woman, or to be adopted by a loving couple of the same gender? I'd pick the latter.

ender2155
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Coleman You know very well no such studies exist (at least in the last 30 years), so please stop trying to pretend they do. And even leaders in the ex-gay movement admit that people can never be truly straight but can only repress their feelings.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

So far only a few people have touched on the Constitution and laws of the US.

Lets look at the the US constitution and see what is going on here.

The 10th Ammendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Since the US constitution does not define marriage as a right, it is left to the States or the people to decide.

The Utah Constutition Ammendment 3 reads "1.Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
2.No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."

So according to the US constitution, the states decide what marriage rights are to be. Utah, California, and other states have defined marriage in their states.

Since the Constitution does not define marriage, whatever the states decide is the law, and have the constitutional right to say so.

Can those that support gay marriage explain why their desires are more important than the Constitution?

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

@ amazondoc:

By your own logic, incest should be legal:

Some people are allowed to marry the person they love. I am not because the person I love happens to be my cousin. The distinction is based solely on biologial relationship. That is "biology discrimination". Biology discrimination is unconstitutional. Therefore laws against incest are unconstitutional.

If my cousin and I are concenting adults, why can't we be married and celebrate our love and have the state sanction our family? How are incest laws any different from the sodomy laws?

(BTW - I am NOT in love with my cousin. This post is for illustration purposes only....)

Web Geek
Lehi, UT

amazondoc said: "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."

Women can bear children but men are NOT allowed to! That's gender discrimination! Men should be able to bear children, too!

That's what your argument sounds like. You are arguing against nature. Men and women are physically different. You can scream about it all you want, but you can't change that fact.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Jazzledazzle

The ability to have children is not a requirement for marriage.

solsticelight
Newport, OR

It is my humble opinion that this is part of the big picture. There are people having children that SERIOUSLY can not/should not be parents. I know many gays and lesbians who are wonderful, loving and caring people who have great jobs, lovely homes and high moral standards. I would much rather see them married and insured and raising children than crackheads on food stamps and welfare who let their kids run wild with boogers on their face and full diapers. I'm talking about things I have seen, not TV shows, but on my own block. I have "Aunts" in Washington who own a massive apple orchard. They have employees, boats, nice cars, four wheelers... I wish I was raised by them! My next door neighbor is a lesbian and she rocks! Get to know who you are talking about before you judge! This is Gods balance... good people who can raise the children of the fallen! We should be embracing them en mass! It is time to do away with archaic notions of right and wrong, and recognize that God is changing the world to fit our needs.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@RedWings --

"By your own logic, incest should be legal:"

Nope. Anti-discrimination laws apply to members of **protected group**, which are usually minorities. You are not a member of a protected group.

Incidentally, "protected groups" usually include members of established religions whose beliefs are intrinsic to their religion, or groups who can not change who they are (gender, race, ethnic group, age, sexual orientation). "I feel like marrying my sister" doesn't qualify in any of those categories.

Now, if you want to go out and establish a religion that specifically espouses incest, then you might start getting somewhere. But you would still have to fight against the known biological consequences of incest.

coleman51
Orem, UT

Since I got ten recommendations, I will further comment on this issue. In the first place, research does indeed exist stating that same-sex attraction falls under the area of sex addiction since the same biological processes are are work and the results are the same. Second, I would like to discuss the legal issues involved. The gay rights community argue that that their constitutional rights are being violated under the civil rights statutes when they are not allowed to marry. While marriage has always been a state issue rather than a federal one, if it is allowed to fall under civil rights statute, then we create a special class Temple marriages could take place if gays are not allowed to marry in the Temple. If the LDS church resists, they could conceivably lose their tax-exempt status. Under that scenario (a very real one) anyone who wished to marry in the Temple will be denied (only sealings would take place) and no deductions for charitable or missionary service will be allowed. The question then remains, whose rights are then violated?

to comment

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