Quantcast

Comments about ‘Same-sex couples flock to S.L. County offices in wake of Amendment 3 decision’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Dec. 21 2013 11:09 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

32 years ago, I got married for love, not for sex.

These couples are already having sex,
Glad to see they can finally get married and show their commitment of love now.

Congrats...

Bob K
porland, OR

Pavalova
Surfers Paradise, AU
"Just a matter of time before a judge compels the church to open the temple doors for gay marriages too. whoo hoo, party on folks!"

.....addressed to all who bring up this idea:

Hey, folks! It is not 1890, there are no troops threatening your cities.

The threat is that wrong thinking may cause some folks to go overboard with unfounded fear.

No church has EVER been forced by a court to marry outsiders, it will never happen, ever!

However, your energy ought better be going toward:

"How can we, as mormon parents, work with the church so that our sons and daughters who are born Gay can have equal lives to their siblings who are born straight?"
...after millions of people have sworn that they were born Gay, and typically felt it by 5, but almost always by 11 or so, please do not tell them you know them better than they know themselves!

Jesus told us to treat everyone the same. The lds church has acknowledged that many people are intrinsically Gay, and should be treated well.

How can you place some of your children in 2nd class status?

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@T.Jefferson:
"If you are going to have laws giving special privileges like tax breaks to married couples you cannot restrict marriage based on sex."

If you want the tax break, get married... and do it with someone of the opposite sex.

"Equal Protection Under the Law."

Homosexuals have equal protection under the law. Like anyone else, they can marry provided they marry someone of the opposite sex. This applies to all human beings. It's not rocket science.

If homosexuals feel they don't have equal protection regarding who they choose to marry, the same can be said of polygamists, and a host of other possible marriage combinations. And to be fair, all these other marriage combinations should have the right to marry same as gay people. It's a matter fairness and equal protection under the law.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@wrz/etc. --

"... they marry someone of the opposite sex. "

This argument didn't work in Loving v. Virginia, and it won't work now either.

"...the same can be said of polygamists, and a host of other possible marriage combinations."

Here we go again.

There are at least two criteria for the legal recognition of any individual right.

First, there must actually be a substantial number of citizens who want to do it;

Second, legally allowing them to do it must not significantly increase the risk of harm to other citizens.

Look up the harm principle.

Gay marriage does not significantly increase risk to anyone, compared to other forms of marriage.

Polygamy, incest, and so on do significantly increase risk.

Therefore gay marriage is becoming legal, and those other forms are not.

"...the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples (but) does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships....the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. ..."

Pavalova
Surfers Paradise, AU

Where in any scripture is gay marriage condoned and mentioned in positive light. We want to use the name of Jesus as a foundation on how to treat everyone, yet in every example of marriage the Jesus gave, it's always between a man and a woman. Why is that?

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

"There are at least two criteria for the legal recognition of any individual right."

Sorry, but that's not what the US Constitution says... And the US Constitution trumps all other sources that define rights.

If the 14th Amendment says gays can marry it also says other combinations, such as polygamy, incestuous relationships, etc., can also marry. Doesn't matter what excuses you can come up with, such as 'detrimental effects,' which, by the way, is found nowhere in the US Constitution. Even if there is case or state law, etc... the US Constitution trumps them all.

I suggest you stop posting nonsense.

Contrariuserer
mid-state, TN

@Pavalova --

"Where in any scripture is gay marriage condoned and mentioned in positive light?"

Well, for example, in Hindu teachings some of their gods engaged in same-sex unions -- and one or two of their gods were even born from such unions. Some Hindu temples also have graphic depictions of same-sex couples prominently displayed on their temple walls.

Oh wait. You meant Christian scriptures?

Well, guess what -- this isn't a theocracy. And it certainly isn't a Christian hegemony.

But, since you asked, Jesus specifically mentioned three classes of men who shouldn't marry women. They were born eunuchs (a group which included homosexuals in ancient texts), made eunuchs (castrati), and chosen eunuchs (men who chose celibacy for religious reasons).

So, you see, even Jesus acknowledged that not all men should marry women.

Contrariuserer
mid-state, TN

@wrz --

"I suggest you stop posting nonsense."

I haven't started posting any nonsense, so it unnecessary to stop.

Take a look at court decisions on this issue. For instance, take a look at Shelby's decision.

"The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts."

He's talking about harm here. Specifically, he's saying that gay marriage will not harm straight marriages.

Now take a look at a recent court ruling on incest:

"....the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. ..."

Again, the judge is talking about harm. He's saying that polygamy and incest do harm -- they have a detrimental effect.

Look up the harm principle, wrz. It affects these laws just as much as it affects our drunk driving laws.

Contrariuserer
mid-state, TN

btw, take another look at the 14th Amendment.

The clause in question reads:

"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."

It says "abridge the privileges or immunities". Nobody has a privilege or immunity to harm others.

Now, look at the part that says "without due process of law". Due process entails determining, in a legal manner, whether you have actually done harm.

Now, look at the "equal protection of the laws" part. This means, of course, that all citizens are equally protected. It doesn't mean that one group is allowed to do harm while another group isn't.

Now, the harm principle:

In one of its original formulations, it goes like this: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Gay marriage does no harm.

Polygamy and incest do.

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ wrz

You understand that you still have to be a consenting adult to sign a marriage license, right? Nobody is going to start marrying children, animals, or inanimate objects.

rusty68
Cathedral City, CA

Karma gets the Mormon Church in the end, after the bazillions they spent to pass Prop HATE in California.

cougarsare1
Las Vegas, NV

Bob and others should stop fooling themselves into believing that there will not be an attempt to force churches to recognize and perform same-sex marriages. It is very clear it will happen.

The only reason it hasn't, yet, is because it is too early in them movement. If it were to happen now, the backlash would be so large, even states that now recognize same-sex marriages by choice would reverse and no court could stop it.

Harm? No harm is done by not allowing same-sex marriages, either. Why does government care about marriage in the first place? On what did government base the decision to follow marriage as a "stabilizing force" in society? How are those "stabilizing forces" created?

Be honest with the answers.

Contrarius
mid-state, TN

@cougarsare1 --

"Harm? No harm is done by not allowing same-sex marriages, either."

Seriously??

Denying same-sex marriage deprives millions of US citizens of the rights and privileges of citizenship. That's what the Equal Protection Clause is all about.

"Why does government care about marriage in the first place?"

Because it's a stabilizing force on society, of course. Creating stable, committed, long-lasting relationships is great for the economy and the society at large. Do you really wish to deny such an obvious fact?

cougarsare1
Las Vegas, NV

And on what scientific rationale do we base the understanding that marriage is a stabilizing force on society?

Contrariuser
mid-state, TN

I only get 200 words, but here's just a few --

children do better on several measures, including poverty and behavioral problems, in homes with married parents compared to cohabiting parents -- Acs and Nelson 2002, 2003; Nelson, Clark, and Acs 2001; Manning and Brown 2003; Manning and Lichter 1996

Married couples have better emotional health than cohabiting couples -- Waite and Gallagher (2000)

Marriages are more stable than cohabiting unions, making long-term investments easier, and improving long-term support from extended family -- Lerman (2002)

From the 2002 round of the National Survey of America's Families (NSAF):

-- Cohabiting fathers and mothers are both less likely to be working than married fathers, and are more likely to be high school dropouts
-- children in cohabiting families: 19.5% poverty; in married families: 7.7%
-- children in cohabiting families: 46.3% food insecurity; in married families: 21.3%

From a discussion paper called "What do Social Scientists Know About the Benefits of Marriage?"

-- Numerous studies have found that marriage is positively associated with men’s earnings.
-- Studies have consistently found that being married and being in a satisfying marriage are positively associated with health and negatively associated
with mortality.

And I'm out of words!

cougarsare1
Las Vegas, NV

And in those studies, what types of marriages were examined? What was the relationship between those couples?

Contrariuserer
mid-state, TN

@cougarsare1 --

"And in those studies, what types of marriages were examined? What was the relationship between those couples?"

You said "marriage", I gave ya marriage. If you still wish to deny societal benefits of marriage, present some evidence.

cougarsare1
Las Vegas, NV

But now you deny the science of those studies? They studied relationships between man and woman. There is no evidence that the same strength and effect would be there with same-sex couples.

Further, what was a stabilizing factor in those marriages? Children. Where do these children come from and in what setting are they best provided? All of your studies point to the same thing: marriage between a man and a woman.

The government should seek to shelter that which is proven over decades of research and hundreds of studies to be best for society. The evidence simply is not in favor of same-sex marriage.

Contrariusiest
mid-state, TN

@cougarsare1 --

"But now you deny the science of those studies?"

Of course not.

"They studied relationships between man and woman. There is no evidence that the same strength and effect would be there with same-sex couples."

Sure there is.

Those benefits have to do with stability and commitment and shared resources. None of those factors are exclusive to male-female pairings.

If you wish to claim that same-sex pairings would be fundamentally different in their effects, then it is up to you to supply the evidence.

"Further, what was a stabilizing factor in those marriages? Children. Where do these children come from and in what setting are they best provided? All of your studies point to the same thing: marriage between a man and a woman."

Many many gay couples are already raising children, with or without marriage.

And no study has ever shown that children do worse in stable gay households than in stable straight households.

Again -- if you wish to claim otherwise, it's up to you to provide the evidence.

So far, nobody has been able to do so. Guess why.

cougararesstill1
Las Vegas, NV

Actually, no, it is up to you to prove that it is the same. Years of studies and preponderance of the evidence is on the side of a heterosexual marriage.

It's a nice game - "prove it's not" - but it doesn't fly.

And government has to pick what it supports by science. What government knows is science shows that a male and a female are required to create children. It can rank how they are best cared for financially and emotionally, too. Science says a man and a woman in a legal marriage. After that, a two-parent - male and female - household, then probably same-sex couples and single parents. Adoption should not be denied to any of these others because it is always better than foster care, orphanages and the streets.

Government supports what science shows provides the best result for the children. Government doesn't - or shouldn't - care about "love." Government isn't in the "love" business. It is, however, in the business of protesting children and ensuring that it does not have to be burden with the financial care of children - hence a primary basis of marital law. Another is disposition of assets.

to comment

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