Comments about ‘Utah judge could be first to rule on state marriage law since DOMA’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 4 2013 6:10 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
J. S.
Houston, TX

Marriage equality WILL come to Utah eventually. It is not a question of "if", only 'when"

Saratoga Springs, UT

Utahns have voted and the amendment was passed.
If you don't like the way we here define marriage, move to another state.

Mapleton, UT

The goal of gay activists is to mainstream their lifestyle more than it is about marriage itself. The result of legalizing so-called "gay marriage" will be to further undermine the moral perspectives of a complete generation of our children and make them more likely to embrace, rather than shun, this lifestyle. This is one of the many reasons I am opposed to "gay marriage". I firmly believe--and thousands of years of human history will back me up--that family life, based on mother and father and children, is fundamental to a happy, prosperous society. To have my children embrace the gay lifestyle, would be to limit their happiness.

What is occurring is an unprecedented and, I believe, ultimately misguided, social experiment with consequences far beyond what we see today. We are actually starting to see such consequences in the lawsuits stemming from private citizens--such as photographers--refusing to provide services to gay couples. Where does that sort of thing end? When will the courts force me to compromise my core beliefs and religious liberties to accommodate those who pursue "gay marriage"?

I don't know where this is heading, but the possibilities are extraordinarily alarming...

Laura Ann
Layton, UT

@happymomto9 and AZKID, I couldn't have said it any better. Good job.

Salt Lake City, UT

"Utahns have voted and the amendment was passed. If you don't like the way we here define marriage, move to another state."
A citizens' initiative does not trump the Constitution. Had Utahns voted to restore slavery, it would end up in court as well.

J. S.
Houston, TX

Well said, Mr. Man. The so-called "procreation" argument simply can not pass scrutiny in the court room.

mid-state, TN


"make them more likely to embrace, rather than shun, this lifestyle."

What is wrong with a lifestyle of monogamy??

"family life, based on mother and father and children, is fundamental.... "

So outlaw divorce. Outlaw single parenting. Outlaw adoption by single people -- gay or straight.

Utah already allows adoption by gays, and by single people, whether they are gay or straight. Obviously, therefore, the state isn't all that concerned about your hypothetical perfect straight two-parent home.

Furthermore, no studies have EVER shown that kids do worse in married gay homes than in married straight homes. And, very significantly, every professional group of child development experts in this country SUPPORT gay marriage.

"To have my children embrace the gay lifestyle, would be to limit their happiness. "

Being gay is not a choice. Even the Mormon church acknowledges this fact.

"Where does that sort of thing end? "

With equality and respect for the US Constitution.

We have heard all of these arguments before -- first in the days of racial segregation, and then in the days of the miscegenation laws. Conservatives got over most of their horror then, and they will now as well. And the world will not end.

Tooele, UT

Re: "Marriage equality WILL come to Utah eventually."

Marriage equality HAS come to Utah. In fact, it has always been here.

I can legally marry anyone that will have me, so long as they meet the law's requirements regarding majority, consanguinity, marital status, and mental responsibility.

So can any LGBT activist.

LGBT activists are now pushing legal inequality -- demanding "rights" that apply only to them.

Nothing in the Constitution, however, guarantees them any more rights than I have.

J. S.
Houston, TX

I mean you can not force someone not to love, not to marry someone of same gender, if that person is gay.

Salt Lake City, UT

To those who repeat the tired lines of "move to another state if you don't like it here"--those who seek freedom and equality are here to stay whether you like it or not--maybe it's you who should be moving--I hear Russia's views are more in line with your own.

Salem, UT

I have but one question. Where in the Constitution of the United States does it state that same-sex marriage is a right. Where? I don't want generalities. Where does it state GAY MARRIAGE is a constitutional right? I don't see it. I don't buy it. I just want someone to tell me where.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ procurador: What new rights would be created to which you would not have access?

When same-sex marriage becomes legal, you will have the exact same right to marry someone of your same gender as a homosexual person will have - just as they currently have the same right you have to marry someone of the opposite gender.

Now, if your argument is that it would not be an equal right because you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, that would mean that your previous argument is fallacious - homosexuals have no more desire to marry someone of the opposite sex than heterosexuals desire to marry someone of the same sex. Therefore, if their desire to marry someone of the same sex is a right you don't have, your desire to marry someone of the opposite sex is a right they don't have. (You and I both know that wants and desires are not the same thing as rights and your argument fails on this point.)

Either same-sex marriage does not give homosexuals an extra right that you would not have, or current marriage laws have an inequality.

You cannot logically claim both.

Cardston, Alberta

It is far and away too early in the national dialogue vis-a-vis same sex marriage to proceed unabated. What is at risk here is not the impact on existing marriages which is the cry we constantly hear from many adults but on the coming young(er) generations. For now I clearly side with the small group of ecclesiastical leaders I regard unquestionably as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. I strongly believe they speak for our Savior is opposing same sex relations and in opposing same sex marriage. Lets NOT run the risk of messing with our young(er) generations by allowing the GLBT group to become mainstream. They already have far too loud a voice in school systems in many states and countries where the minds of impressionable young people are being tampered with.

Salt Lake City, Utah

@ stretchy: Article IV, Section 2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

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

Amendment XIV, 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."

The right to marry has been determined to be a fundamental unenumerated right retained by the people. Denying same-sex marriage abridges the privilege of same-sex couples to marry and denies to them and their children the equal protection of the laws.

The Constitution may not come right out and say marriage - same-sex or heterosexual - is a right, but it does make a very clear statement on why same-sex marriage should not be prohibited absent a compelling, legally-sound reason.

Bleed Crimson
Sandy, Utah

I'm in favor of a civil union for gays and lesbians that grants them the same benefits as a married heterosexual couple. But the problem is, that's not good enough for the LGBT community. They want the "title" of marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony that unites a man and woman as husband and wife for the purpose of forming a family and raising children. The government needs to stay out of the marriage business, period!

If government must be involved then recognize civil unions for all. Let religions define what marriage is since God set the standard.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ stretchy

Where does it say in the Constitution that "straight marriage" is a right?

American Fork, UT

I think it's time we start messing with the old(er) generations by following the lead of the young who have no problem with the GLBT (Sic) group who want to get married.
It's about time. Nobody has special insight as to why it shouldn't happen.

Provo, UT

If they want to get married they can go to a state that allows it. It will never happen in Utah

Provo, UT

@Kalindra: The 9th Amendment does not give judges authority to enforce arbitrary purported extraconstitutional rights against the states. They could thus deprive states of all power on a whim. That is a mockery of the entire Constitution and the federalism it embodies. Read what the Founders said about the 9th; it is there to reaffirm that federal powers are limited and enumerated.

We can't operate this nation by relying on what unelected judges and pundits get to decide counts as "compelling, legally sound reasons" for laws to be passed- that's an oligarchic dictatorship, not a democratic republic.

Rather, per the Tenth Amendment, states have all powers not prohibited them by the Constitution, and state constitutions decide what are legally sound applications of those powers.

Your skirting around the subject and twisted logic still can't avoid the admission that the Constitution does not prohibit the state this power. That the state amendment was passed with proper majorities suffices to make it a "legally sound" application of that power, regardless of what reasoning you ascribe to those who passed it and regardless of your opinion of those reasons.

Provo, UT

@Two For Flinching: it doesn't. If you want to try to pass bills or state constitutional amendments that abolish marriage, you're free to try.

States aren't meant to be governed by federal judges through the application of a morass of arbitrarily invented purported rights (fundamental right to sodomy! fundamental right to free healthcare! fundamental right to internet access! and other such baloney). Rather, they are meant to be governed by (usually representative) majority rule, with a handful of expressly delineated, narrow exceptions, as seen in the Bill of Rights. (The actual amendments, not the ever-expanding monstrosity that exists only in the minds of activist judges.)

to comment

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