Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Same-sex marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Dec. 26 2013 12:25 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
BYR
West Bountiful, UT

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Render unto God, what is God's. The problem is what to do when Caesar and God are in conflict.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Activist judge = one you disagree with.

utah chick
cedar city, UT

Richard, how does this affect your marriage?

If your marriage was on shaky ground prior to this "stroke of the pen", it's likely to be on shaky ground post the "stroke of the pen".

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

"in spite of the fact that the 2004 law was passed by 66 percent of Utah voters."

Majority rule doesn't matter with laws that are unconstitutional. Many of you want Obamacare overturned even though a majority in Congress voted for it because you think it's unconstitutional. Many of you were glad the Chicago and DC gun bans were overturned despite a majority supporting those because you think they were unconstitutional.

"I’d like to also mention that the states have a right to jury nullification"

No you don't, this isn't 1850.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

It's something many in Utah should have learned a long time ago. An unconstitutional law is no less unconstitutional just because many favour it. The constitution is starting to work for us here, and those who have held sway for too long against the dictates of that constitution are going to have to get used to a new reality.

J. S.
Houston, TX

"the Constitution that gives the states the power to make laws not specifically enumerated in the Constitution as being within the jurisdiction of the federal government."

Does the Constitution gives the states the power to ban inter-racial marriage? the answer is NO.

let's roll
LEHI, UT

Jury nullification? Really? Of what, exactly?

I'd be interested in your idea of how that would work.

Who would be on trial? What would the charge be? Juries can't arrest people, nor can they charge people with a crime (Utah doesn't use Grand Juries unless you can convince five judges to convene one).

Jim Holmes
Ventura, CA

A lynch mob is a majority rule action as well. Doesn't make it or its actions right.

What is wrong with two people, or even more than two - who want to get legal recognition of 'marriage' doing so?

As long as they are of legal age and can consent freely - no one is harmed.

Those who want to impose their 'moral standards' on all others are no better than the taliban types who do so.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

"Marriage" is a legal contract, binding people together.

In business, they are called -- Articles of Incorporation;
i.e., Corporation, INC., Co. and LLC.

It protects everyone interests,
so that one person can not take over complete control or the assets.

"Marriage" documents serve the same purpose.

Try getting a divorce,
and see for yourself how "Godless" and "legal" everything quickly becomes!

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

The moral climate of this country is spiraling downward.

Morals: Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.It defines how things should work according to an individuals' ideals and principles.

Where do they come from? Individual - Internal.

So maybe sir granting civil rights to a group formerly denied those rights is against your personal morals, but you don't get to speak for the "nation". In fact poll after poll shows that 2/3rds of Americans do not share your "morals" regarding this subject.

The country doesn't even share your ethics which specifically refer to societal standards.

Believe as you will but do not conflate your opinions with those of others.

LelandTC
West Valley City, 00

There is still little data to show the affect of homosexual marriages on society. To just jump on a bandwagon that can harm the development of children is a dangerous move. It may prove to be a non-issue, but until we know, would it not be more prudent to study it before jumping to the idea that fairness to a small group of people is more important than the health of a society? Can a child consistently be raised by just fathers or just mothers and not have emotional or mental issues? People who are not willing to take the time to look at all of the angles are fools, and a danger to society. The traditional purpose of marriage was to create a stable home environment for the raising of children. Even some heterosexual couples are not good at this, but are we asking for more trouble by changing the formula without much testing?

the truth
Holladay, UT

Marriage is NOT a contract.

Name one instance where a marriage license has even been revoked by the government ever.

No where has it been demonstrated that Utah's law is unconstitutional other than by an opinion of one man.

If one man can change law that is tyranny,

His opinion does not make Utah's law unconstitutional, hence the appeal process. Nor does it make gay marriage legal.

Marriage is a 'rite' not a 'right'.

Always has been a 'rite'
Particularly a religious rite.

If you want government recognition for your relationship then you should be properly fighting for a 'union'.

Government has no business being in marriage.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Lehi and Nephi wrote about the "fools' parade" that we're watching pass before us. They saw the great and spacious building. They saw those who mock God and His laws. Lehi and Nephi saw those who know better, but were so ashamed of Christ that they joined the parade rather than stand as witnesses at all times and in all places. Some of them have not yet realized that Christ dispenses the oil that we will need drop by drop to those who stand with him against the forces who rush towards that spacious building.

Isaiah wrote of our day and Moses was only gone for 40 days before the "children" gave in to their sexual appetites and defiled themselves on the calf.

The constant sorrow of life is that those who will not curb their appetites and passions will reap the same consequences as all who yielded before them.

There have always been ambitious judges who repay their appointment by racing to the head of that "parade". They will someday learn the law as the true Lawgiver overrules their decisions.

Nephi wrote about our day 2,700 years ago but few heed his words.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@the truth

"Marriage is a 'rite' not a 'right'.

And exactly where did your legal degree come from? How many years did you serve on the Supreme Court to make that determination. I only ask you that because they US Supreme Court does not hold you same opinion. In fact in the case Loving v. Virginia, they stated exactly the opposite:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,""

So, again I ask, where exactly did you receive your legal training in case law?

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:LelandTC
"To just jump on a bandwagon that can harm the development of children is a dangerous move."

Poverty is harmful and dangerous to the development of children but somehow we don't blink an eye when cutting benefits for families with children or funding education. Divorce is disruptive and can be harmful to the development of children but it isn't illegal. We don't want to pay for birth control to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. Finally, we claim to care about children, and marriage, except we will deny gay parents marriage. Marriage is better for children UNLESS their parents are gay. How messed up is that?


Here are the stats:
How many same-sex marriages are there?
MA 22,406 (2004-2012)
CA 18,000 (2008)estimated
NY 12,285 (2011-2012)
CT 5,759 (2009-2011)
IA 4,679 (2009-2011)
VT 2,779 (2003-2013)
WA 2,500 (2012-2013)
NH 2,329 (2010-2013)
MA 428 (2012-2013)
(Pew Research Center)

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

"... in spite of the fact that the 2004 law was passed by 66 percent of Utah voters." If the amendment denies equal protection it doesn't matter if even 100% voted for the measure.

Contrariuser
mid-state, TN

@the truth --

"Name one instance where a marriage license has even been revoked by the government ever."

The legal term is "invalidation" or "voiding" rather than "revocation". And yes, it's perfectly legal to invalidate marriage licenses in some circumstances.

-----

"Marriage licenses can be declared invalid for a number of reasons. The most common basis for an invalid marriage license is probably fraud on behalf of one or both of the parties to the marriage.

For example, the parties might enter into a fake or sham marriage, such as a fraudulent marriage arrangement for the purposes of obtaining a certain immigration status. Or, one of the parties might claim to be divorced, when in fact they are still married.

While the laws may vary locally, in general a marriage license can be invalidated on the following grounds: Underage...Improper Identification...Prior misrepresentations (fraud):.....Medical Examinations...Certificates (prior marriages)...Additional Documents...Waiting periods...Also, the license is usually only valid for around 30-90 days. "

-----

"Marriage is a 'rite' not a 'right'."

Millions of people in this country alone are quite happily married with no religious rites whatsoever.

Mike in Sandy
Sandy, UT

The painful puritanism of Utahns is excruciating to behold.
People...this is the REAL world...This is reality.

The protected, uncultured little bubble of resistance to global reality that surrounded Utah has popped.

Grow up, live your lives in concert with your own values, and let others do the same.

Gay marriage doesn't affect yours for one second.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Richard Nielsen;

Since you seem to have forgotten, or possibly never knew it, the US Constitution take precedence over State Constitutions. The State may not create laws that violate the US Constitution.

Hope this helps.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Does the U.S. Constitution give anyone the right to demand rights because he/she feels that the face in the mirror is not the face that should be in the mirror? If that person told his banker that he/she wanted a loan because he would feel better with some money in the bank, would the U.S. Constitution be used to force that banker to make that loan because, according to the Judge's ruling, "feelings" are the basis for Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

A banker would look that the person's ability to pay the loan back, but most of those who have posted would call that discrimination. They would demand that the banker change the rules because they "feel" that they should have equal access to every loan just because the "feel" that they need the money. It doesn't matter that the banker applied all rules equally to all borrowers, some would demand new rules suited just for them. They would use the 14th Amendment to prove the "feelings" are a right and that heaven and earth must be moved so that they can exercise that right.

Yes, the parade marches on.

to comment

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