Comments about ‘Gay marriage: Supreme Court strikes down DOMA, avoids decision on Proposition 8’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 26 2013 12:50 p.m. MDT

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

I would like to ask some questions.

#1 - How soon before gay and lesbian couples start suing churches, demanding to be married in places like a Catholic Cathedral or LDS temple?

#2 - How soon before it becomes a "hate crime" to simply say, "I disagree with the gay lifestyle?"

#3 - How soon before social workers and adoption agencies, fearful of being labeled "homophobic" start giving special (not equal, but special) consideration to gays and lesbians wanting to adopt or be foster parents?

Gays, lesbians and their supporters are wonderful about giving lip service to the word "equality" but equality means being exactly the same as everyone else, and who really wants that when you can be a little bit more? Possibly, a lot more?


"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." Barack Obama Nov 1, 2008

BYUtah Fan
Herriman, UT

Before I begin this comment, I should say that I am very conservative. However, I am convinced that the court got the DOMA ruling correct while being very cowardly on the Prop 8 question. DOMA is a federal law that essentially trumps State law. Marriage is one area where state law has always held sway and should continue to. While I might agree with the general intent of the law, the federal government has no business sticking its nose into traditionally state jurisdiction. On Prop 8 the court ducked the issue. They have also cursed California in a way that I believe few have recognized. The court, by ruling that private citizen groups cannot defend a initiative that was passed by the people, has handed the California state government a veto over any state initiative. The state government need merely refuse to defend the law and any challenge to it will succeed since no one else has the standing to defend it. That puts all initiatives at the whim of the party in power. So, gay Californians, while this might be a short term victory, it might very well come back to bite you.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT


I didn't realize Barack Obama was on the Supreme Court.


@Clark --

"#1 - How soon before gay and lesbian couples start suing churches, demanding to be married in places like a Catholic Cathedral or LDS temple?"
-- Just as soon as non-Catholics or non-LDS members start sueing to be married in those same places.

"#2 - How soon before it becomes a "hate crime" to simply say, "I disagree with the gay lifestyle?""
-- Just as soon as it becomes a hate crime to simply say "I disagree with the Republican lifestyle".

"#3 - How soon before social workers and adoption agencies, fearful of being labeled "homophobic" start giving special (not equal, but special) consideration to gays and lesbians wanting to adopt or be foster parents?"
-- the National Association of Social Workers already SUPPORTS gay marriage, so there is not much chance of them being homophobic on a widespread level.

We need less hysteria, and more rational thought. Cmon, people, this is NOT the end of the world.


@ CHS 85

Excellent observation.

Anderson Island, WA

@BYUtah Fan:

Actually you're not quite correct on the "curse". The Calif State Supreme Court DID grant standing, so citizen groups can qualify to defend state law, but only up through the State Supreme Court. The US Supreme court has never granted standing to citizens to defend a state law before the SCOTUS, and wasn't about to start now.

Anderson Island, WA

@ ClarkHippo:

I have extensive experience in discrimination law. Your questions sound like slippery slope red-herrings. Please believe that gay people want only what they say they want...equality, nothing more, nothing less. I would hope that you do not have a problem with gay citizens having equal treatment under civil law. Until such time as gay people are actually granted something that actually substantiates your fears, celebrate that we are getting closer to the equal treatment under civil law that our constitution promises to all citizens.

Rest assured, no church will ever be required to marry anyone when they do not wish to do so. Our separation of church and state is strong and actually being strengthened by these same sex developments. Consider that until my state approved same sex marriage, my Christian church, which supports gay marriage was unable to perform them. Now it can. Thus, from our perspective, our religious liberty was restricted until the ability to marry same sex couples was granted. But any churches that disapprove of gay marriages certainly don't have to perform them. And don't be fooled by examples outside the USA...they don't have the same constitution!

Highland, UT

It's a sad commentary about how far gone our society/culture is when we have forgotten the real purpose of marriage. I see no comments about it on this or any other discussion boards - gays and supporters think it's all about liberty and so-called equality. So-called gay marriage just puts us futher out into the weeds.

grass valley, CA

to avoid federalism as most seem to need, good thing there are 50 states....to assume everyone in the usa should be protected equally under the law one must accept the fact that there are at least two camps of thought....a stand against conflicts both: an automatic unequality of one,,,,thus unlawful. one would be guilty of unequal unlawful to all parties......the law is a personal, social, spiritual thing.....as much as hetero people have accused same sex people for whatever reason, they still have their way, say and ability to be.....the secret is to be confident in the final energy of each individual....why would any person withhold, stop, create harm for another...this....my friends...is the only law that will be judged.....all other man made laws are for the folly of mankind seeking the opposite of live.....E V I L.

Pound, VA

I do hope this Supreme court and the Obama administration realize that they are pushing the U S into the same category as Sodom and Gomorrah. Remember the Biblical historical results. There is always a price to pay for sin

BYUtah Fan
Herriman, UT


No the curse still stands. No litigant is forced to file in state court if there is a federal question. Any challenge on equal protection grounds would be considered a federal question. Any law can be questioned on equal protection grounds. Therefore, jurisdiction would lie in the federal district court and standing to defend would not exist. Hence, default judgement for the plaintiff.

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT

What really comes next is the demand for government funded research to allow same-sex couples have their own children that are really genetically both the parents' children, and state funded in vetro for same-sex female couples, and state paid surrogates for same-sex male couples in the mean time.

After all, same-sex couples will never be equal to heterosexual couples until they are able to bear children in these unions.

Mcallen, TX


Some people believe this about civil rights, and some think it will snow in Texas tomorrow.

Open Mind
Taylorsville, UT

We saw this coming. I'm ok with equal rights for gays, except calling it marriage. Christians believing that gay marriage is ordained of God needs to refer to the Bible. It's a hard subject because it involves such high emotions, but God doesn't change his feelings on the matter.

Payson, UT

Not to re-hash old discussions, but the seemngly.silly idea that gay activists want special treatment is based on history.
The fourteenth ammendment was cited regularly by champions of gay rights. Look at the history of the fourteenth ammendment and the civil rights battles that led to results such as affirmative action.

Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that those professing to only want equal rights actually want to be treated equally. Once that is achieved, they lose their agenda and will have to create a new agenda. Need to be clear- This is specific to activists, not the gay community.

Doma decision was really a victory for justice and rights of states to define marriage as the see fit,

The prop 8 non-decision was disgraceful as California is the one state that doesn't have this right.

Mcallen, TX

In a free, and prosperous society, laws, and rulings are made on moral values.

Is this Supreme Court ruling based on moral values?

Take away moral values, and laws become corrupted, and chokes a civilization.

Our people have become confused, and argumentative with defining the word "moral", and our country is decaying, because of it.

It becomes our duty to speak out when rulings become warped. If not for speaking out, we'd still be a part of England.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

Ah, to be alive during a time when the bonds of religious oppression are loosened. There is more to do and IMVHO it will get done. What a great secular and democratic republic we live in.

Payson, UT

Christian 25-8, then I assume you are also against equal rights for women since biologically they cannot be the same?

very concerned
Sandy, UT

As I've said in the past, homosexuality should be defined by mainly a behavior. I can see how one can have same-sex attraction, but I do not believe it is desirable nor uncontrollable. I have a hard time believing in a god who would send us to earth, prohibit us from a certain behavior, and then make it impossible to resist that behavior.

Having read the 14th amendment, I sincerely doubt those who wrote it could have imagined it to cover homosexuality.

to comment

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