Comments about ‘Matthew Sanders: Let's take the pain out of the gay marriage debate’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 29 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

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

Ranch Hand:
[But I can't marry the person I've been with for over 14 years even once.

Don't you just love it?]

A greater irony is that I know of many gay and straight people who get married to a person of the opposite sex purely to help them get employment/residency/citizenship in this country, some of them even get paid to do it, and then promptly divorce once the process is done.

So here in America, marriage to bypass immigration, and profit from it, is legal, but marriage based on love and commitment is not.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

My religion forbids me from:

smoking,
drinking,
gambling,
pornography,
buying on Sunday,
Piercing my ears,
wearing Tank-tops,
Watching Monday Night Football,
working on Sunday,
or participating in an abortion (except in the cases of rape, incest, life/health of the woman, viability of the fetus, ect.).

All perfectly legal, under the law.

I don't need the rest of American Society to obey and follow my religous beliefs,
I chose to obey those additional restrictions, without feeling any need to pass legal legislation and force everyone else to do likewise.

Why should gay marriage be any different?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Speaking about canards....

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
Every man has the right to marry a woman. Every woman has the right to marry a man. That is absolute and unequivocal equality.

Those who use this phrase want something different. They want to change the marriage contract to be about sexual attraction. But it's never been about sexual attraction.

==================

Agreed - sort of, at least that part about "never been about sexual attraction".

Marriage is about Love.
A profoundly deep, enduring committment of friendship that knows no bounds.

It's about sharing and caring.
It's about - hopes, dreams, laughs, tears, struggles, successes, highs, lows, sharing lives together, not ever having to be alone.

To those of you who keep defining marriage strictly by sex - YOU are the one's dragging it's true meaning through the gutter.

To you, I say - Thanks for NOTHING!

I hope the courts see to it that all mankind - regardless of race, sex, age, color, religion, orientation, ect. - can all be allowed the same opportunity of being as happily married, as I have been.

Tear down the wall...[Pink Floyd]

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@Pops --

"Every woman has the right to marry a man. That is absolute and unequivocal equality.

**Every person has the right to marry another person of the same race. That is absolute and unequivocal equality.""

Sound familiar?

Pops
NORTH SALT LAKE, UT

"Why should gay marriage be any different?"

My religion forbids:

Murder
Theft
Assault
Rape
Kidnapping
Slander
Libel

All perfectly illegal, under the law, for the same reason that gay unions should not be recognized as equivalent to marriage - it's about the preservation of society. The problem with creating a thing called "gay marriage" is that the victims are future children, whom few are willing to protect and defend. They are the future of civilization.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Pops
"Every man has the right to marry a woman. Every woman has the right to marry a man. That is absolute and unequivocal equality."

And in 1960 every white man had the right to marry a white woman and every black man had the right to marry a black woman. That's equal too but we still declared it nonsense nonetheless.

@Charles
not from utah, 00

The behavior of homosexuality never has been and never will be equal to that of heterosexuality. If the understanding of that statement is not obvious to you then I'm not sure much else will help you in this discussion.

Someone said marriage is about love. Actually, the state doesn't care who you choose to love but they do care about how children are brought into this world and the best place for them to be raised. That is with their mother and father. It is the standard. Just because some in society choose not to adhere to that standard does't mean the standard should be lowered.

If it is all about love, then 2 guys and a girl, or 3 girls and a guy, or 1st cousins or fill in the blank, should all be allowed to be married. No exceptions if it is just about love. But that's not the case. The argument is for those who engage in homosexuality to have their behavior accepted as normal by society when biology and anatomy 101 tell them it isn't.

Homosexuality as marriage is not a civil right.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Pops;

"My religion forbids...:"

--- Whatever your religion forbids is totally irrelevant in the context of civil law. The First Amendment guarantees that whatever you believe, you're free to believe, but you are NOT free to force others to live by the dogmas of your version of religion.

"The problem with creating a thing called "gay marriage" is that the victims are future children, whom few are willing to protect and defend. They are the future of civilization."

--- You clearly don't care about the future of the children currently being raised by same-sex couples. I guess they just don't matter.

@Charles;

Having children is not a requirement for marriage.

Marriage is a civil right. Gay, straight, it doesn't matter.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

the feds have no business with this...just let each state decide and be done with it. Enough already!!!

Summer
Salt Lake City, UT

@RanchHand,

"But I can't marry the person I've been with for over 14 years even once."

Who is preventing you from performing your own private marriage?

wrz
Pheonix, AZ

@Pagan:
"And yet, even with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact information... Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her dying partner, Lisa Pond."

I think she is pulling our collective legs. Who was it that kept her from the bedside of a dying friend? She doesn't say. With the legal documents she had prepared there must surely have been one that said she had a right to be there. In any event, all she had to do was to ask the person or persons in charge to let her be there to say good-bye.

"They were together for 18 years."

Eighteen years is certainly long enough to prepare the necessary papers that would have allowed her to attend.

Mr. Bean
Pheonix, AZ

@The Skeptical Chymist:
"Civil rights are civil rights."

Everyone has the right to marry... provided they choose someone of the opposite sex. That applies to EVERYONE. How could that be discriminatory under the law?

"It doesn't matter how small the population is, all groups deserve to be treated equally in the eyes of the law."

Would that include small groups such as polygamists and pedophilians?

"One of the beauties of the Bill of Rights is that it states that certain rights are not subject to the tyranny of the majority."

The Bill of Rights says nothing about marriage.

@RanchHand:
"My partner and I have been together over 14 years... But I can't marry the person I've been with for over 14 years even once."

Sounds like getting married is a sure-fire way to guarantee divorce. Is that what you seek?

@Open Minded Mormon:
"It's about sharing and caring. It's about - hopes, dreams, laughs, tears, struggles, successes, highs, lows, sharing lives together, not ever having to be alone."

Ain't it the truth. That's what polygamists keep insisting. And those who would engage in pedophilia as well.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Summer;

What good does that do? Even if I go up to Washington to marry, I'll be legally single the moment I cross the state line on the way back home.

Alfred
Pheonix, AZ

@Ranch:
"Marriage is a civil right. Gay, straight, it doesn't matter."

Are you saying polygamists can marry? Even to underage females? There's a person serving an extended jail sentence who would like you to press that point on his behalf.

Any marriage other than the traditional man/women would open the Pandora's box to all combinations of marriages including polygamy, sister/sister, brother/brother/ brother/sister, father/daughter, aunt/cousin, you name it. If you're insistent on same-sex marriages you should be equally insistent on dozens of other marriage combinations.

@RanchHand:
"But I can't marry the person I've been with for over 14 years even once."

Just think... if you don't marry you'll have no worries re divorce.

Besides, you don't have to be married to live together and shack up.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Alfred;

Polygamists are already allowed to legally marry at least the first person of their choice.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@Mr. Bean and Alfred --

"Are you saying polygamists can marry?"

Of course not. One more time:

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 with the polygamous sects in court. Gay marriages have no such proven, concrete dangers.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@Mr. Bean --

I missed this one in my earlier post:

"Everyone has the right to marry... provided they choose someone of the opposite sex. That applies to EVERYONE. How could that be discriminatory under the law?"

**Everyone has the right to marry... provided they choose someone of their own race. That applies to EVERYONE. How could that be discriminatory under the law?**

Sound familiar?

"Protected groups" are minority and/or oppressed groups that either can not change themselves -- e.g. because of race, gender, age, disability, or orientation -- or groups that share unbendable beliefs that are fundamental to their religion.
'
Polygamists are not born -- nobody is born married, and you're not actually a "polygamist" until you're married -- and they are not biologically different from anyone else. So the only excuse they could have for being a "protected group" is religion. And courts in both the US and Canada have already proven that they can easily tell the difference between gay marriages and polygamy. For instance, just recently British Columbia's Supreme Court reaffirmed that Canada's ban on polygamy is constitutional -- because of the known dangers to women and children that often go along with that practice.

Normal Guy
Salt Lake City, UT

The gender discrimination nonsense again? Both genders are restricted to marrying the opposite gender (the one through which they could procreate with) so both genders are treated equally. All the arguments here have been posted hundreds of times and, as usual, those for changing the definition out-number those for keeping it 2 to 1, despite this newspaper being in an area where traditional marriage is supported 2 to 1. We get it, many of you are frustrated and vent in the comments section every time the DN has an article that even mentions those with same gender attraction.

The Supreme Court is looking at this the right way. Marriage to another of the same gender is different than the marriage that has gone on since recorded history. We have thirteen years of history of a countries experimenting with it - way to short to know what it will do to families, the building block of society. Civil unions provide the neccesary rights. No changes should be made to the definition of traditional marriage until we have decades more information.

eastcoastcoug
Danbury, CT

What if someone wants to marry 3 women they love, and perhaps bring another man and a teenage boy into the marriage?

If this is about being able to marry whoever we love, who and how many can we marry???

eastcoastcoug
Danbury, CT

I would like to know the position of those favoring Gay Marriage on Polygamy and Polyandry. Is there ANYONE who should not be allowed to marry?

to comment

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