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
Vladhagen
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.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@SLCWatch --

"Actually the reasoning in marriage is a valid positive...how would extending benefits to homosexuals benefit the state. It does not."

Of course it does.

Many gay couples are already raising children -- for example, more than 40,000 of them in California alone.

Marriage encourages family stability. Gay marriage would encourage family stability in gay couples -- thus providing more children with stable homes. And stability is a very important component of successful child rearing.

Many groups of child-development-related experts -- including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, AND the American Psychological Association -- have all come out in **support** of gay marriage.

The AAP's new position statement declares, in part: “There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" and "“ ‘Marriage strengthens families and benefits child development".

People who think children are important should ENCOURAGE gay marriages, because marriage encourages stable families -- and THAT benefits society.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Equal righta, or government benefits?

Don Bugg
Prince Frederick, MD

The article actually misstates the issue when it says the Court is considering whether gays and lesbians will have the right to marry. Gays and lesbians do have the right to marry--as long as they marry members of the opposite sex. This has always been true. The issue is whether people--regardless of their feelings of sexual attraction--have the right to marry persons of the same sex. Marriage law is, in a very real way, already equal. This is not to denigrate the feelings of gays and lesbians or to dismiss the importance of same-sex marriage to them; it is only to point out that we're talking about a universal right to marry a person of the same sex, and that one's "sexual orientation" need not enter into the equation, legally.

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

I find it strange that Supreme Court Justices are arguing about how long Gay Marriage has been around rather than the fundamental issue of whether the States can define marriage to exclude same sex couples. What happened to all the "strict constructionists" on the Court?

Conservative
Cedar City, UT

Mr. Bugg, marriage law is NOT equal. You can't marry your sister or other close family members. There are age restrictions. There are restrictions related to being able-minded. Within our lifetime there were prohibitions related to interracial marriage. So, marriage is not equal for all people. That said...the time has come to cancel the prohibition against same-gender marriage. It has no medical or social standing any longer.

SLCWatch
Salt Lake City, UT

@Lane Meyer

I laud your social belief in rescuing the shattered lives of almost 40,000 children of broken biological relationships in California and millions throughout the country. The professional organizations you named support you. How many of them support taking children from loving, caring biological parents so that they can be raised with a loving, caring homosexual couple? Of these new couples how many will produce more children? There would be a zero net increase. You are talking about loving caring relationships that can only raise the results of failed relationships. But we digress from the legal argument. The state has an interest in proper child rearing but there is no advantage to the state to give children to homosexual couples over heterosexual couples with all other things equal. You are basing the strength of homosexual couples on the basis of a "better than nothing" premise. Benefits to support child rearing can be conferred in legal means with out resorting to marriage benefits. So I repeat, how does granting marriage benefits to homosexual couples benefit the state by increasing tax payer numbers?
Would it not be more in the states interest to strengthn biological families?

NT
SomewhereIn, UT

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Nothing codified as "law" can change that fact. Its a law of a much higher institution...God.

NT
SomewhereIn, UT

@Vladhagen
"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..."

Ok, sure. Then we can have 2 types of "marriage" - - traditional/correct marriage (between a man and a woman), and modern/incorrect marriage (between man and man or woman and woman..or whatever and whatever)

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@SLCWatch --

" How many of them support taking children from loving, caring biological parents"

This is known as a "straw man", aka "red herring".

Nobody is talking about taking children from ANY "loving, caring" couples -- straight or gay.

Marriage increases stability -- whether it's a straight marriage or a gay one. Stability helps kids.

"You are talking about loving caring relationships that can only raise the results of failed relationships."

Yes! Loving, caring gay relationships can help minimize the damage from failed straight relationships. Very good point. Gay adoptions actually help to make up for some of the problems caused by straight divorces, straight unwed mothers, and straight abusive parents. Thanks for bringing that up!

"there is no advantage to the state to give children to homosexual couples over heterosexual couples"

This isn't an either/or question. Thousands of children grow up in foster care and orphanages because NOBODY wants to claim them. There isn't any shortage of kids needing loving homes -- there's plenty to go around!

"Benefits to support child rearing can be conferred in legal means with out resorting to marriage benefits. "

But marriage supplies additional stability -- which we already know is incredibly important to kids.

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

Amendment 10

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.

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. "

So what part of the Constitution do we consult when debating gay marriage?
It looks like there are two conflicting amendments here. The only logical solution is to repeal one or the other.

suzyk#1
Mount Pleasant, UT

To Lane Myer: Your comments were absolutely senseless. Why should innocent children be brought into a family of two women or two men as parental guidance? Well, let's see..who is going to play the father role? There should never be a question in this. These children deserve to be raised in a normal environment...not be subjected to the perverted way of homosexuals. It's not right and that is not the way it was meant to be. Those children deserve to be raised by a loving Father(man) and Mother(female).

Ranch
Here, UT

@NT;

Thor disagrees with you.

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

@suzyk --

"Those children deserve to be raised by a loving Father(man) and Mother(female)."

When gay couples adopt children, they are not stealing those children from happy heterosexual homes. Adopted children come from places like broken homes, abusive parents, and single mothers. Whether or not these children "deserve" to be raised by a father and mother, that simply isn't happening. Thousands of kids grow up in foster care and orphanages because NOBODY wants them. There aren't enough good homes out there to fill the need.

Many groups of child experts have endorsed gay marriage. They realize that STABILITY is incredibly important for children -- and marriage increases stability, whether the marriage is gay or straight.

The position statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics reads in part: “There is an emerging consensus, based on extensive review of the scientific literature, that children growing up in households headed by gay men or lesbians are not disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents" and "“ ‘Marriage strengthens families and benefits child development"."

People who think children are important should ENCOURAGE gay marriages, because marriage encourages stable families -- and THAT is what helps kids.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

The 14th amendment should be rescinded. Also, the argument in favor of allowing gays to adopt is just another destraction and ploy from reality. the reasoning goes something like this: First, we must get everyone to accept gay marriage as something good and moral. Second, make it sound like those who disagree are bigots. Third, skip all the details of history regarding the evils attendant to the gay lifestyle. Fourth, exclude God's opinion on the issue. Fifth, try to get everyone to believe that gay marriage is about equality. On and on it goes! It is futile to write here. Those who choose evil cannot be convinced to accept a concept that they have absolutely rejected. The only thing left to is defend marriage as the Lord stated and stand firm on family issues. Gay marriage is one of satan's best counterfeits for the Lord's definition of it.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@banderson --

"First, we must get everyone to accept gay marriage as something good and moral."

Not necessarily. I don't accept that being a Republican is "good" or "moral" -- but I recognize a Republican's right to have the same legal protections that I do.

"Second, make it sound like those who disagree are bigots."

Not everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a bigot, but a large percentage of them are. One sign of that? The number of people who change their minds when they find out that a loved one is gay. It's hard to remain bigoted against a family member.

"Third, skip all the details of history regarding the evils attendant to the gay lifestyle."

WHAT details of history??? The Romans and Greeks did just fine, for a thousand years EACH, enjoying the "gay lifestyle". What are these "details"??

"Fourth, exclude God's opinion on the issue."

This isn't a theocracy. Your God isn't my God, and my God isn't everyone else's God. Your God doesn't get to "win" just because you say so.

"Fifth, try to get everyone to believe that gay marriage is about equality."

It **is** about equality.

Don Bugg
Prince Frederick, MD

"Conservative" wrote, "Mr. Bugg, marriage law is NOT equal. You can't marry your sister or other close family members. There are age restrictions. There are restrictions related to being able-minded"

All of those laws are applied equally. No one can marry siblings. No one can marry under the legal age. Everyone is held to the same standard. As a matter of law, the restriction to marrying only members of the opposite sex is also applied universally--equally. Everyone is held to the same rule, regardless of their sexual feelings.

My original comment is meant to point out that this is a debate about SAME-SEX marriage, and not necessarily about marriage between homosexual persons. If the states, or the nation, decide to grant the right to marry persons of the same sex, that right will apply to everyone, regardless of their feelings of sexual attraction. So if someone wants to get his fishing buddy better health insurance, he can marry him, and then maybe wait until he meets a nice girl before divorcing his husband.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

amazondoc: If I found out a relative was gay it wouldn't change my opinion one bit. Thats like saying God will change His mind about the Ten Commandments because His children don't want to obey them. How foolish! Doesn't mean He stops loving them or helping them turn from their evil ways. It wouldn't matter in a thousand years what kind of reasons that are abundantly evident that show the deviance of said lifestyle, anyone that won't listen is not going to hear! Whether you believe in God or not, I believe in the Constitution and limited government, which clearly means that the federal government shouldn't be involved in this anyway. I would prefer chaos over state sponsored perversion. I'm prepared for both! So,go ahead, see where it leads you.

amazondoc
USA, TN

@banderson --

"If I found out a relative was gay it wouldn't change my opinion one bit."

I never said you would. I said that a lot of people do.

I'm still waiting to hear about all these "details of history regarding the evils attendant to the gay lifestyle" that you were so excited about earlier. What details did you have in mind? Please be specific -- thanks!

southmtnman
Provo, UT

NT,

I did not know God was a member of the Supreme Court, and in the US House, or Senate, or in the Whitehouse...

Until America officially and formally votes God into one of those key positions, then he has no more say in the making or enforcement or interpretation of law than anyone else.

to comment

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