Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court teases out implications of Prop 8’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 26 2013 9:23 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Lets look at previous court cases on Prop 8. By our own Deseret news.

**’Prop 8 declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote – Deseret News – 02/07/12

‘"Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.'

ticoloco
Tooele, UT

I agree with some of the Judges, it will be a terrible thing to allow gay married, the consecuences in the future will be terrible, from my point of view Man And Woman is the best for our future generations to survive,I don't feel it will be good allowing this. Look Holland they did it and now their goverment think has make their sociatity distance.
Allowing this will bring a terrible caos.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

Its good to see the Supreme Court has slowed the excited anxiety level of Left Wingers who think the supreme court should be building in more to the Constitution than what is there. The left wing thinks marriage is civil? right? but that is far from reality and basis of constitutional bill of rights.

Marriage is not a right or entitlement, we have law and order limiting entitlements to be fair and equal, singling out people and to finance lifestyle is inequality of the rights and that makes this case unconstitutional and not a matter for the supreme court to render any decisions or omission or contradiction to our christian based governemnt. If the supreme court does render any decisions, it cannot limit or expand the bill of rights for any reason.

Civil laws and entitlements are state and local government based law and order.

The left wingers think the constitution is the property of the governemnt when the truth is its the property of the people. The left wingers are in this with contempt for greed and money and tax fraud which casts a lot of doubt in convincing anyone this is a civil rights issue.

Fern RL
LAYTON, UT

There are many reasons why religions have a right to be involved in marriages, and some very good reasons why government should be involved.

Some of the reasons why marriage should be a government issue, are:

1. Determining responsibility for illegitimate births, and child-support.
2. Assuring that women who bear children do not need to bear an unequal burden of the responsibility for providing for them.
3. Assuring that women who have chosen motherhood are not disadvantaged as they mature beyond their fertile years.
4. Assuring that the burden of birth control does not rest primarily on the woman involved.

These are reasons for heterosexual marriages but not for same-sex marriages.

If society turns away from traditional marriage and toward same-sex marriages, there should be an over-all "Man Tax" issued to compensate women for their biological disadvantage where childbirth is concerned.

J-TX
Allen, TX

It appears that this SCOTUS is gutless and afraid to act, just like this CONGRESS. It is THEIR JOB to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the states...

There is really only one way out for the Supreme Court, since they deigned to take these cases:

The only Constitutional question here is 'equal protection under the law'. The only way they come out with a win-win is by declaring that Civil Unions would provide relief for LGBTs from financial discrimination in Federal benefits, Insurance benefits, etc., so if approved by a state, they will be recognized by the Federal Government. However Marriage as an institution is basically religious, offers the same legal benefits as Civil Unions, but should be only administered by a religious institution, pastor, priest or other clergyman. So then Justices of the Peace, Judges and Ship Captains would only offer Civil Unions.

Really, any other decision is unfair to either side.

No, I don't believe in Same Sex Marriage. But I could at least agree to this legal outcome. What are the chances out SCOTUS has the guts or wisdom to come to this conclusion?

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

The argument that people will just stop having kids because gays can marry is absurd (ticoloco).

How much longer are we going to have to wait for equality?

Marriage is between the couple being married and nobody else. Fern, if you get to vote on gay marriages, can we vote on straight ones? That would only be fair.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Some of the language used in this thread is just plain silly. "Man and Women marrying is the best for our future generatons to survive"..really. You seem to not reckognize that a lesbian women could in fact produce a natural child through insemination..just like many hetrosexual couples..but the point is how many of these gay marriages do you think there are going to be. The gay population is somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of the poplation..that's it.

"If society turns away from traditional marriage and toward same-sex marriages"..come on by allowing up to 10 percent of the population to marry that are not allowed to now socity is not turning away from traditional marriage..in fact nothing will happen to traditional marriage. Everyone who wants to marry someone of the opposite sex will be able to do so, and there will enough little rug rats running around to overpopulate the world and ruin a dinner in any fine restaurant in Utah, many times over.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Pagan,
what is the point of quoting a left wing jurist from a frequently overturned court and how the DN reported the jurist's decision? It does not prove anything.

the fabricated "right" of gays to marry will eventually trample the real and constitutionally defined right of freedom of religion. We are seeing that already in Obamacare and in other cases where religious business owners are forced to cater to gay couples or go out of business despite strongly held religious beliefs to the contrary. Churches that refuse to recognize gay unions will be denied buildling permits or zoning requests or other matters requiring civil actions.

Left-wing dogma trumps religious rights every day in the Disunited States Of Obama and the left wing fringe

Shimlau
SAINT GEORGE, UT

Pagan; What is your point? I thought the purpose of a newspaper was to report the news. What does quoting a quote from an old article have to do with whether this article is acurately reporting this news?

Fern RL
LAYTON, UT

No matter how you look at it, same-sex couples do not have the same issues to deal with that straight couples have. They don't have to deal with birth control or accidental pregnancies.

What does the LGBT community want? If there is some degree of happiness connected with having a "married" label, then they could be "married" by some person who would perform the ceremony without the legal involvement. If they want legal advantages that were designed to help compensate women for some issues that apply to traditional marriage relationships, then they are unfairly trying to dip their hands into a limited pot.

JBQ
Saint Louis, MO

Rush Limbaugh has commented that Justice Anthony Kennedy is the "swing vote" and wants to send the case back to the Ninth Circuit which declared the voters unconctitutional. The problem with this for conservatives is that this would esentially overturn Proposition 8 which was a validly conducted referendum of the people of California. The bottomline, whether for or against, is that the legislative process would be overruled by the thinking of "nine lawyers" or maybe eight if this is the case that Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself. It is plain that it is the will of the people to allow some type of accomodation in regard to gay relationships. However, the question is whether you do this with "one sweep of the law". The legislatures have to decide this issue since that is the way our system of government works. The U.S. House of Representatives would never pass this in its present form. The justices by 5-4 will never pass this in its present form. Legally, they should uphold. In actuality, they will probably follow the lead of Kennedy and take the easy way out which in reality will overturn only in California.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Fern,

Most of your comments are taken care of by laws other than the marriage law. Child support laws and custody laws are in effect whether or not the parents are married.

If a gay couple is raising children (if you listened yesterday, there are about 40,000 children being raised by gay couples in California), and one of the partners stays home with those children, should he/she also be compensated with social security benefits of the partner who goes to work?

Why do you want to treat the children of gay parents differently than the children of heterosexual parents? Don't you really think that all families raising children (2 parents, one parent, gay parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) should have the legal benefits that can best help raise these American citizens? Do we not want the best we can offer for all children?

What some here seem to be forgetting is that gays are having and raising children right now. They are not waiting for the government to allow them to marry and be a legal family. They are making their own families with or without us.

I say we support them with legal marriages.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

I learned something on this issue by reading all of the major space devoted to it in the media. Most know now that only nine States sanction gay marriage. For me that fact alone is enough for the court to steer clear of making any sweeping change at this time. What I didn't realize that another eight States sanction civil unions. Added together that means 17 states now allow gays to formalize their relationship. Further numerous polls say that over 50% of the population now favor gay marriage and that those under 30 years of age favor it by nearly 80%. Was it the Constitution or the Bible that enshrined the admonition: "You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" ?

PS. The ruling of the California courts ARE significant if the Supremes deny the proponents of Prop. 8 standing and refuse to decide the matter. In that case, gay marriage will be legal in California (number 18).

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

@RanchHand
"How much longer are we going to have to wait for equality?"

Probably forever: Because regardless of marital status; XX is not equal to XY
Facts can be annoying to dogma

worf
Mcallen, TX

Can't believe this is even and issue. Truth be known, 99.9% of gays were not born that way as it's an addictive behavior.

Is this about rights, or gaining benefits?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

worf,

How many gays do you personally know? Did 99.9% of them tell you that they are addicted to gay relationships? Or are you letting your opinion of them cloud your judgment and, without any research, lumping all of them under what you think is fact? Can you cite a study that supports your claims? If not, be careful.

This is about rights and gaining benefits AND being treated as equal citizens of the United States. Do you believe in the constitution? Have you read it - Especially the 14th amendment? How do you square your comments with our divinely inspired document?

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ FERN
Churches in the U.S. have NEVER had full control over marriage. Everyone who wants to get married needs ro get a marriage license provided by the state. Sometime some marriages need/want to be dissolved. Then those couples don't go to church, but they appeal to the state that control the binding powers of marriage.

Regarding yesterday's hearing on Prop 8. I don't think we had anything new. The judges asked questions in their 'devil's advocate fashion" to probe the various parties.

Scalia as usual, having politics and no justice in his mind asked "since when SSM is unconstitutional?" I would answer: since the constitution was written. The difference is that we as a nation were not culturally prepared and/or aware to deal with this issue. However, as Judge Ginsburg has expressed (paraphrasing), the constitution should be able to expand and include those who by neglect or ignorance were not protected by it.

I wouldn't read too much in these hearings. The questions not necessarily represent the thought of the judges. The only remark I would consider seriously is Judge Kennedy's about the 40,000 children of gay parents in CA.

Red
Salt Lake City, UT

If we redefine marriage then does that include Polygamy?

Or is that still bad?

morpunkt
Glendora, CA

I can't even believe we are having this debate. Where has this planet gone?

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

Worf -- "Can't believe this is even and issue. Truth be known, 99.9% of gays were not born that way as it's an addictive behavior."

Homosexuality isn't "addictive" any more than heterosexuality is. Unless you truly believe that being gay is just that much more pleasurable than being straight?

to comment

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