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

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, March 26 2013 9:20 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Provo, , UT


Oh wait a second... You only quoted one court case. How is that fair? twisting some facts there?

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT


"...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" ?...".

Subterranean Homesick Blues sung(?) by Bob Dylan enshrined the admonition...

Salt Lake City, UT

One has to decide if Marriage is a religious institution or a government institution.
If it is religious only the God of each religion would have a say in the issue.
If it is governmental then we ask What business is it to the government?
Keeping things simple: Making new tax payers is the only legitimate interest of the government.
Then the government has interest only in potential breeding pairs.
Benefits are granted in marraige to keep breeding pairs together.

No other issue matters. Not equal treatment, not love, not a desire to raise children, not a fainess issue, not rights, nothing.

Breeding pairs is normal to the goverment interest.

If you aren't a breeding pair but you want to produce taxpayers, they don't need to encourage you so the government would have no interest.
Homosexual couples who have children are a free bonus to the state.
Providing benefits to non-breeding pairs has no value to the state.

In it's simplest form this is the state interest in this issue. Many will find this heartless.
It is non emotional.

Being a couple in love is wonderful, beautiful, joyful and of no interest to the govenment.

Saint George, UT

The great thing about this debate is that citizens are actually thinking about Whether God exists, what does the Constitution really say about the proper role of government, etc., all of which will create division until those issues are decided. Since God does exist, and since our government has far exceeded its bound for over 80 years, the repercussions will be awesome. Treating Gays with dignity is one thing, allowing them to destroy the fabric of society is quite another. Gay marriage advocates can come up with all the heart warming stories they want, God will still hold them, and those who side with them, accountable for standing against His plan. Those who stand for the truth will assailed as a bigot, including eventually God, but it will be for not. Citizens will have to decide who and what they stand for if they want America, the standard for all nations, to continue as a beacon for freedom and liberty.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

"Making new tax payers is the only legitimate interest of the government."


I think you are looking at this too narrowly.
Marriage is also about inheritance, and social security (keeping elders out of poverty).

Can you imagine the courts loads if there was no marriage law stating that the spouse inherits their partners fortune? We would have to double the judges, courts, and time spent deciding these cases. Right now, legal spouses have over 1100 federal benefits that they enjoy because of their legal marriages. Do you think that they only deal with those couples who have children? NO. They deal with socail security, medical privileges, not having to testify against your spouse, etc.

The government has many reasons to have an interest in marriage. Your defination suits your argument, but is blantantly false.

If the government were only trying to perpetuate new tax payers, why would they grant a marriage license to older, infertile couples? Why would they allow couples who do not want to have children a marriage license?

Salt Lake City, UT

Oh for goodness sake! Is there anyone else in America that took my comment as serious other than someone from St. George. I guess I should be thrilled that someone from Dixie would catch my Dylan quote...you do however remember that Shakespeare said: "the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls!"

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Are we really ready to say it is a "right" and hence a duty of govt. to allow/promote same-sex marriage? We have had heterosexual marriage for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is barely a decade old anywhere on the planet. The simple question is, are we sure we really know what we are doing and are ready to "fix" something that does not appear to be broken? Do we truly know all of the consequences?

Salt Lake City, UT

One court case and we want to talk about fair?

Where is the factual context of using your faith to oppress others? No facts there. Only belief.

But I am used to the double-standard that only ONE side has to provide facts.

Here you go:

'Judge Ware Denies Motion To Vacate Decision OVERTURNING Prop 8' - By Barry Deutsch - Family Scholars - 06/14/11

To be clear, to even GET to the Supreme court, cases must be vetted through many lower courts.

Just like some can post on the Deseret news.

But fail to do a Google search about the topic they complain about.

Nashville, TN

@Twin Lights --

"Same-sex marriage is barely a decade old anywhere on the planet. "

This is not true. The ancient Roman and Greek civilizations both encouraged homosexual relations -- and at least two Roman EMPERORS are known to have married men. Homosexual relations were also encouraged in some cultures in the Far East -- for instance, in Samurai culture.

If you're really interested in more historical details about same sex relationships in history, one good place to look is the book _Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe_, written by John Boswell.

Salt Lake City, UT


"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"

So you think they ruled wrong in Loving vs. Virginia? And no, don't give me that "that made everything equal" thing because everyone was equal before that too (in that they could marry someone of their own race) just like a lot of people on your side argue now (in that they could marry someone of the other gender) and will still be equal in that regard with same-sex marriage (in that they could marry someone of either gender).

"Man and Women marrying is the best for our future generatons to survive"

Actually, to continue the species marriage doesn't matter, only procreation. Besides, gay people are gay. Banning them from same-sex marriage isn't going to make them start having sex with the other gender. So if you aren't getting kids out of it anyway then it really makes no difference.

Salt Lake City, UT

"Since God does exist, and since our government has far exceeded its bound for over 80 years, the repercussions will be awesome. "

I'd argue that suppressing rights by instituting religious-based law on the nation is what is exceeding its bounds.

@Twin Lights
"The simple question is, are we sure we really know what we are doing and are ready to "fix" something that does not appear to be broken? "

50% of marriages end in divorce and we have a group of people who want to marry but can't. That seems like a broken system to me.

Boulder City, NV

"the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that prevents gay couples legally married under state law from receiving a range of federal benefits afforded to straight married couples."
I hope this is not what the Court is considering. This is a false premise! The Defense of Marriage only defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It no way tries to take away federal benefits, or the rights of any individuals. If same-sex couples want to enter in to a legal union, that is fine, just don't call it marriage. That term is reserved for a union of a man and a woman. It is simply a matter of definition, and should be decided on that same merit. I don't think it will be, and I am not for a law that takes away from an individual's choices. But I am in favor of the Defense of Marriage!

Salt Lake City, UT

@Lane Meyer

I noted this is the arguement in it's simplest form.
It is not blatanly false.
Marriage benefits do cover a wide range of issues but underlying all of them is the issue of preserving the nuclear breeding family.
Inheritance and Social security are actually good examples.
Giving fertility tests or cutting people off for age or desire to not have children is making law to the exception rather than the rule.
The argument stands.
Sorry you can only see it in an emotional way to preserve your argument.

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.

California, like Utah and several other states, excercised their Constitutional given authority and has defined marriage.

If the Supreme Court rules against, or allows the 9th circuit ruling to stand against Prop 8, then that has greater ramifications than just gay marriage.

If the supreme court rules against does anything besides rule in favor of Proposition 8, then that means that the States are no longer protected by the 10th ammendment for defining the rights of citizens within their state. It will also show that the people cannot determine what their rights are.

Is good to take away Constitutional authority given to the states?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT


Don't be surprised when, like Loving v. Virginia, we have a reversal of all the anti-gay marriage laws that have passed. There is something called the constitution, and no matter why the amendment was written, the 14th amendment will not allow you to discriminate against citizens who are simularly situated.

In other words, since we allow older couples and infertile couples to marry, we MUST allow gays (who are simularly situated in a much as they cannot create children) to marry. You cannot treat citizens who are alike differently - unless there is a valid harm that would occur with treating them the same. That is not a harm to one's beliefs, btw.

What would you argue in front of a court to keep gays from marrying? What would be your legal reasoning? Tradition, beliefs, and wanting to keep things as they are are NOT reasons that a court would accept. Do you have studies, expert witnesses, and facts to back up your side of the argument?

Or is this your religious belief? If so, please keep it, embrace it, but it cannot and should not be a part of our laws.

patriot vet
Cedar City, UT

Marriage used to be a religious institution, administered by clergy, granted and withdrawn (divorce) by the clergy. But it is NOT a religious institution anymore.

Today it is a legal status granted by the State and withdrawn (divorce) by the State. Anyone wanting to perform a marriage ceremony must have legal standing from the State to do so. Religion is not part of the process.

I'm active LDS, and I know that the Church's role is parallel to the State The Church has no legal jurisdiction related to marriage or divorce.

The whole delimma of same-sex marriage has turned into a religious debate, when in fact marriage is not a religious institution. It is a government-run institution.

Same-sex couples should be given the same civil priviledges the rest of us responsible adults have.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY


Yes, the ancient Roman and Greek (and some other) civilizations were okay with homosexual relations (at least at times) but that is not marriage.

However, (as I understand it) marriage was not legally recognized except between man and woman. As to the two emperors (Nero and Elagabalus?) what they did/proclaimed was one thing, what would have been legal is another. Seriously, who would stand up and tell Nero he was wrong and live to tell the tale?

Salt Lake City, UT

@Lane Meyer

Don't jump to conclusions. You have assumed things about me you do not know or understand.
This is strictly legal.
My argument is to present the only legitimate reason for the government to get involved in marriage is to produce tax payers.
Historically the government only got involved to follow the religious culture of each country but that is not a legal reason to be involved. So religion is left out.
The 14th amendment argument does not apply-They are not simularly situated. Old heterosexual couples can and do get pregnant. Infertile couples can and do change and they can not be denied that possiblity. Homosexual couples can not without resorting to someone of the opposite gender to intervene and thereby negate the biological imperative.
You relied only on valid harm. Actually the reasoning in marriage is a valid positive...how would extending benefits to homosexuals benefit the state. It does not.
I have stated the legal argument. All law to this point has supported that fundemental concept...why should it change with no benefit to the state.
I have thought long and hard why the government should have a presence. Other than this there is none.

Huntsville, UT

Article IV
Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, ...

(Marriage is a 'public record').
Section 2
1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

(Marriage qualifies as "privileges and immunities).

Article [I]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

(Many religions believe GLBT couples should be allowed to marry, what about their Religious Freedom? Laws can't favor any specific god)

Article [IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

(Marriage, and other rights do NOT need to be specifically enumerated).

Article XIV
1: ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

(Prop-8 & Amendment 3 = Unconstitutional).

Salt Lake City, UT

Why don't we just let same sex couples get married? End the whole debate and give over the cake. Then the debate ends and we go on with our lives. Let the LGBT sit over in their corner and the rest of society can sit over in theirs.

to comment

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