Quantcast

Comments about ‘What comes next for Utah marriage law?’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 24 2013 4:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Turtles Run
Houston, TX

@ReadMineFirst

Unfortunately, despite what that piece of the Federalist Papers claims, the federal government yields the supreme law of the land. States are not able to pass laws that contradict the federal laws and Constitution nor can they nullify them.

The Necessary and Proper Clause, Supremacy Clause, 200 years of judicial rulings, and the 10th amendment have all affirmed the authority of the federal government and its explicit and implied powers.

Utah can not pass laws that violate the civil rights of people unless it can provide a compelling need to do so. Bible verses and being icky are not good enough.

J. S.
Houston, TX

@RedShirtCalTech

Do you know any case of 4, 5 gay men polygamy? Can such arrangement ever last? many same sex couples have been together for decades. a lesbian couple in SF even waited half century before they could lawfully wed and then only death set them apart.

Even though I don't support polygamy, at least I have to admit they have book of Mormon or book of Quran to keep such family together. have you ever seen a 4,5 gay men polygamy family together and last for decades?

When you try to win child custody, you have to show the court that you are a good parent. when you try to argue the case for a 4,5 gay men polygamy, you have to show the judge such arrangement can last. but can you? I highly doubt about it.

Draft dumbie
Farmington, UT

Both the U.S. Supreme Court "Windsor" decision and Judge Shelby's decision are absurd, because they attempt to validate the misnomer of "same sex marriage" by attempting to change the intrinsic definition of the word "marriage." Throughout the history of the world, the only definition "marriage" has ever had has been the "legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife." There has never been a right of persons of the same sex to "marry"; therefore, the idea that persons of the same sex have a fundamental constitutional right to "marry" is absurd.

If state or federal legislative bodies wanted to pass laws allowing legal unions between persons of the same sex, they certainly could do that; they could even define the parameters of a same sex legal union to include rights and privileges identical to those available to "marriage" partners. However, the judicial branch cannot legitimately interpret a same sex legal union to be a "marriage," because a "marriage" has always only involved a man and a woman, as husband and wife, as an intrinsic, definitional requirement.

Therefore, both the "Windsor" and the "Shelby" decisions constitute inexcusably shoddy legal work.

Contrariusester
mid-state, TN

@RedShirtCalTech --

"are you saying that no matter what the arrangement is, polygamy is always more harmful, regardless of the genders involved?"

I never said any such thing.

Read what I wrote again:

A few drunk drivers may be able to get home safely even while drunk. But that doesn't mean that drunk driving should be legalized.

Similarly, a few folks may be able to conduct polygamous unions without harm. But that doesn't mean that polygamous marriages should be legalized.

"To clarify, you are saying that you would deny a group of 5 gays a plural marriage because of unrelated information."

Nope.

I am saying that we don't change a law just to accommodate a few individuals who might be able to live polygamy without harm -- just as we don't make drunk driving legal just because a few drunk drivers might be able to get home safely.

Everyone Gets a Gun
Salt Lake City, UT

"3,995 same-sex marriages were later invalidate". Not true. These marriages were never invalidated.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'To "Pagan" since you are loving the Massachussetts stats, you should also mention that they have the lowest marriage rate. When you compare marriage rate to divorce rate, they are about average, meaning that what few marriages there are end in divorce about 40% to 50% of the time.'

And, since heterosexual marriages have been the defining factor in marriage until 9 years ago…

that means a clear and evident majority of those 40-50% divorce rates, have not been gay marriages.

Redshirt, I will freely admit MA had the lowest divorce rate in the country before gay marriage.

And after gay marriage, continue to do so.

This supports that gay marriage, does. No. Harm.

However, we have seen Contrariusester & J. S. disprove your claims many times in the past.

I look forward to doing it again.

Utah, welcome to gay marriage.

Willem
Los Angeles, CA

Ok Deseret News. Am I allowed to write. Mormons. 0. Gay community 10

kolob1
sandy, UT

Marry Christmas

worf
Mcallen, TX

Hmm?

Permissiveness, infidelity, and abortions are becoming the norm.

Contrariusier
mid-state, TN

@worf --

"Permissiveness, infidelity, and abortions are becoming the norm."

You can blame straight marriages for those.

Gay couples will never have an accidental pregnancy between them. All children being raised by gay couples are WANTED children. Therefore, they have very little need or desire for abortions.

And, so far, the divorce rate for same-sex marriages is roughly 1/2 of the rate for straight marriages.

"In the states with available data, dissolution rates for same-sex couples ...ranges from 0% to 1.8% annually, or ***1.1% on average***, whereas 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually."
-- from "Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States", published in 2011 by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.

Supporters of "traditional marriage" should focus on actually strengthening those marriages, instead of trying to block couples who want to commit to each other.

suzyk#1
Mount Pleasant, UT

Everyone has an opinion and my opinion is this: No matter what excuse you find to use in order to make this situation correct and pleasing - the fact is...it is an abomination before God.

to comment

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