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
QuercusQate
Wallsburg, UT

I understand the viewpoint of straights who are uncomfortable when thinking about gays and their intimate relations; as a lesbian, I feel the same way when I think about intimate straights. Perhaps it would be more informative to think in terms of what is right for a couple. It is wrong for a straight person to have gay relations, just as it is wrong for a gay or lesbian to have straight relations.

It's not quite as simple as my statement above, because there are also people who could fall in love with either gender, but the point is that love and loyalty are what validate a relationship and marriage, not gender.

Apart from that, there are thousands of children of gays and lesbians who are currently the innocent victims of society not allowing their parents to marry.

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

From a Network release

In a historic oral argument on a challenge to state laws that limit marriage to heterosexual couples, the Supreme Court indicated Tuesday that it might not strike down such laws.

The justice whom many observers view as the swing vote in the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy, voiced worry at one point during the argument that proponents of same-sex marriages were asking the court to issue a decision that would “go into uncharted waters.”

After the oral argument, Pete Williams of NBC News reported that it seemed “quite obvious that the U.S. Supreme Court is not prepared to issue any kind of sweeping ruling” declaring that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
Williams said there seemed to be “very little eagerness” from any of the justices to “embrace that broad a ruling.”

QuercusQate
Wallsburg, UT

Coleman51, I know a number of faithful lesbian couples who have technically been celibate for years. Being gay or lesbian has nothing to do with "sexual addiction."

In addition, there is no threat of anti-gay churches being forced to marry gays; freedom of religion is already strongly protected under the Bill of Rights. Why hasn't the LDS Church ever been sued to let blacks (before '78) or women or Catholics have the priesthood? It's because they have every right to discriminate as a religion. I believe your argument is typically called a "red herring."

Flashback
Kearns, UT

Marriage is a contract between two people. Nothing more, nothing less. It should be a binding contract, but it is a contract none the less. It is a word that everyone is hung up on. The word is marriage. Anyone can make a contract with another person. There is no discrimination if one wants to enter into a contract with someone else. Just don't re-define the meaning of marriage when you are talking about a contract.

BTW, the slippery slope on this is, polygamy. Descrimination happened to some of my ancestors when polygamy was banned. But some of you say that there isn a right to polyg marriage. How can you argue that its not a right to marry who or what you want when you apply it to homosexual marriage and not a polyg one?

coleman51
Orem, UT

Let's get the record straight. I know of numerous therapists who do indeed treat gays, including lesbians. In those cases when there is a desire to change, gays do indeed go through a 12 step program which is the same as those who are going through addictions. Throughout recovery, they have support groups and during recovery, they indeed get married to those of the opposite gender and have children. This is well documented and occurring at this time. Also, under the civil rights laws in which gays are appealing, there are indeed punishment for those who don't comply with the law. The so-called rights of gays would create a litany of laws for their "protection" which would make void all marriages that don't fall under the law. Temple marriages would of necessity have to be done away just like they do in certain countries and only sealings would take place in our Temples. Our tax exempt status would be jeopardized as well under the same litany of new laws. Then, the only ones who would be discriminated against are those who wish to practice their religion by marrying in the Temple and their giving charitable donations.

snowman
Provo, UT

Same sex marriage will never happen in Utah. The Church will never allow same sex marriages in the Temple.

Jazzledazzle
Provo, UT

@ Two for Flinching

You missed the point....

If God intended man to marry man or woman to marry woman, why does it say otherwise in the Bible and why can they not procreate. I know some women are not fertile, but by nature it takes a man and woman to make a baby and you know that full well.

Jazzledazzle
Provo, UT

Funny how the LDS church always makes its way into the gay/lesbian conversation. As a faithful member of the LDS church I will boldly say that our church is one of the few churches with a spine that will stand up to this issue. Many other religions believe it, if they believe the Bible, but will not stand against it.

The article is not talking about the LDS church here, it is talking about couples suing Utah for the right to be married. So those of you that want to bag on the LDS church, do it somewhere else. It is not relevant here.

Claudio
Springville, Ut

Re: Jazzledazzle

As a faithful member of the LDS Church, I find no problem with those of varying views discussing them on this forum. If you don't like it, don't read it.

If the purpose of marriage is simply to procreate, then marriage licenses should be denied to couples who are unable to have children, due to infertility/sterility or old age or their own decision to not have kids. Seeing as most, if not all rational people would agree that such a proposal is ridiculous, the argument that marriage is entered into for the purpose of procreation is moot.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Moabmom
"better to be on the wrong side of history, than the wrong side of eternity. "

Whose plan was it exactly to force everyone to follow the church's rules while the other plan involved free agency?

@Redshirt1701
"Can those that support gay marriage explain why their desires are more important than the Constitution?"

Because we argue that what the Constitution upholds same-sex marriage based on the 14th Amendment. If you really believe your position then you must believe the court got it wrong in Loving vs. Virginia.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

@worf 9:09 a.m. March 26, 2013

@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.

------------------

You're right. Romney did that all the time. Fortunately the people were able to see through him, and sent him packing.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "amazondoc" using the arguements that the gay marriage groups are using, then yes incest should be legal. Why should the government restrict who you can love and what you do in the privacy of your bedroom?

To "Flashback" actually the marriage of 2 people is not a contract between just those 2 people. In a traditional religious sense, it is a contract between 2 people and God. In a more secular sense, it is a contract between 2 people and the state where the state promises certain protections if the couple remain married.

Guy Smiley of Utah
St. George, UT

There is no such thing as marriage when the partners are of the same gender. It is against God's intent when he created us.

isrred
South Jordan, UT

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

Perhaps if you are going to use an absurd example to try and attack gay marriage you should choose an example that ISN'T ACTUALLY LEGAL in 25 states, including Utah.

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

@amazondoc

You seem to forget that not too long ago homosexuality was also illegal in the United States and arguments comparable to what you have suggested to say that polygamy will always be illegal were presented to make homosexuality illegal.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@zoar63 --

"You seem to forget that not too long ago homosexuality was also illegal in the United States and arguments comparable to what you have suggested to say that polygamy will always be illegal were presented to make homosexuality illegal."

At the time that homosexuality was illegal, the majority apparently also thought that homosexuality was learned rather than an inborn trait. We now have a greater understanding of some of the biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals -- both in the human species and in other species -- through which it has become apparent that orientation is indeed a biological phenomenon and not a choice.

In contrast, polygamy is still a choice -- and not an orientation.

Therefore, the arguments used to justify one will not justify the other.

In addition, polygamy has known, concrete undesirable effects, especially because women have always had less power in society than men. Therefore, it is easy for them to be mistreated in polygamous relationships. No such known, concrete undesirable effects exist for homosexual relationships. So, once again, we see that the two situations are not comparable.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Contrarius" actually for some, loving multiple women is not a choice. It is a natural instinct for most men. For men, the choice is being married and staying married to just 1 woman.

Your arguments against polygamy only show that you do not understand much of the modern polygamist movement. Outside of having multiple wives, they act, look, and dress no different than the rest of the world. Thier children have the choice to follow in polygamy or not. The women actually have more power because there is always somebody home to care for the children.

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

Redshirt -- "for some, loving multiple women is not a choice. It is a natural instinct for most men. "

Go ahead and try that argument in court. You'll be laughed out of the courtroom.

Also remember that men are NOT a minority. "Protected groups" are by definition minorities in need of protection from the majority. You say "MOST men" -- which removes them from the minority category.

"Outside of having multiple wives, they act, look, and dress no different than the rest of the world. "

The multiple recent court cases against polygamous sects within the US prove something very different. Uniformly, the women and children have been subjugate and/or abused -- including coercing very young girls into having relations with sect leaders and/or with whomever those leaders chose.

Note that it is not necessary for anyone to prove that **every** polygamous sect operates in this manner -- only that there is a high risk of them doing so. And as court cases have already shown, that high risk does exist.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "plainbrownwrapper" you are wrong. Just look to Canada for what allowing Gay Marriage will lead to.

From the UK Guardian "Polygamy in Canada: a case of double standards", shows that the polygamists not only did not get laughed out of court, but have started legal proceedings much like the gays did 10 years ago.

You should also read "Same-sex marriages give polygamy a legal boost" in the Washington Times. They state that "legal analysts say the recent gains posted by gay marriage in the courts and state legislatures cannot help but bolster the case for legalized polygamy."

Again, seems like history and legal experts agree that opening the door to gay marriage will lead to polygamy.

You should watch the show "sister wives", that is more how the mainstream polygamists act.

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

@Redshirt --

"You should watch the show "sister wives", that is more how the mainstream polygamists act."

Oh yeah, fictional cable TV shows are SUCH reliable sources for real-life education. Really.

" Just look to Canada for what allowing Gay Marriage will lead to."

Hmmmm. Stable, prosperous society. Sounds okay to me!

"polygamists not only did not get laughed out of court, but have started legal proceedings much like the gays did 10 years ago."

Actually, they (the Canadian polygamists) **did** essentially get laughed out of court. Judge Bauman ruled against them.

From the NYTimes article reporting his decision:

"Robert J. Bauman, the court’s chief justice, found that women in polygamous relationships faced higher rates of domestic, physical and sexual abuse, died younger and were more prone to mental illnesses. Children from those marriages, he said, were more likely to be abused and neglected, less likely to perform well at school and often suffered from emotional and behavioral problems. "

People can sue all they want -- that doesn't mean they will ever win in court.

to comment

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