Quantcast

Comments about ‘Attention now turns to Utah's Amendment 3’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 27 2013 6:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
hermounts
Pleasanton, CA

the two women "partners" mentioned at the beginning of this article do not "become single again" when they cross the state line. They were always single. Marriage involves a man and a woman, period, and calling any homosexual relationship a marriage doesn't make it so.

jimhale
Eugene, OR

We are headed toward gay marriage nationwide.
The only way to head it off would be an amendment to the US Constitution.
Many of us have been saying that for thirty years - a generation.
But the "mainstream" pols serving in Congress and the Bush White House and in many other elected offices - along with many religious leaders of many faiths have been poo-pooing that idea, saying not to worry, it was a state matter. A federal amendment they said would be unnecessary overkill. They didn't want to get their hands dirty on an issue based on sex.
In taking that stance they were all gutless Charlatans -- most knew better. All should have known better.
The dishonesty of that stance has been very clear since the election of Obama put him in charge of Supreme Court appointments at a critical time.
Such an amendment could have passed 20 years ago - maybe even ten years ago. It has no chance today - unless the GOP gains a Congressional super majority after the 2014 elections. That is unlikely.
This Supreme Court will order same-sex marriage nationwide before 2016.
Justice Kennedy is the real Chief Despot. Just read his opinion and weep.

Mugabe
ACWORTH, GA

The People of Utah is going to have two problems in trying to prevent this action: 1) is in their own State Constitution. It states:
Article I, Section 3.[Utah inseparable from the Union.]
The State of Utah is an inseparable part of the Federal Union and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

2) Is found in one of the paragraphs of the Official Declaration. It states:
As much as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws,and to use my influence whith the members of the Church over which I preside
to have them do likewise. (Wilford Woodruff, President of the Church)

There is an old saying: "When you start dancing with the Devil, you have to keep dancing with him until you change the tune.

plainbrownwrapper
Nashville, TN

@zoar63 --

"So if polygamy is illegal why do they not arrest all those who are practicing it?"

You might as well ask why all tax evaders are not arrested. That's just life.

Additionally, I would *guess* that it would be difficult to "prove" polygamy in many cases.

"Who is going to be hurt?"

We've already covered this. Women and children.

"why can't the others be legal?"

For one thing, legalizing the relationship would stabilize it just like any marriage does. Which means that the women would be more "stuck" in their relationship -- it would be harder for the wives to get out if they needed to.

Just as it's harder for an abused wife to escape a relationship than an abused girlfriend, legalizing polygamy would create more legal and financial entanglements that would be more difficult for plural wives to get away from.

"How can something be ruled constitutional but violations not be punished."

Refer back to tax evasion. No system is 100% efficient.

"you cannot withhold those rights from polygamists."

Canada's example has already proven that you CAN do exactly that. And several other countries also have gay marriage without polygamy, as well.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

If a person is legaly married in one state, that person should be considered legally married in ALL states regardless whether the marriage could legally be entered into a given state. The Full Faith and Credit clause in the US Constituion should apply to same-se marriage, just as it applies to "traditional" marriage.

TA1
Alexandria, VA

For all of you who are so certain that the laws will never change remember this - if you wish to keep an institution - you need to honor, respect and cherish that institution not write laws about it. I do not believe that the honor, cherish and respect have stood much of a chance during the last 100 years. The laws will not replace what you have given up.

Sego Lilly
Salt Lake City, UT

@ snowwhite&7dwarfs:Once the left gets its way and Utah accepts same gender marriage how long do you think it will take for a gay couple to sue the church because they can't be "married" in one of our temples

They will have to be members of the church and like everyone else that enters the temple have a current temple recommand. It won't be a case of "I have rights and I want to get married in your church building" They will have to follow the same rules/guideline for attending the temple just like everyone else who enters the temple

to comment

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