Quantcast

Comments about ‘Attorneys for same-sex couples file argument against stay in Supreme Court’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 3 2014 10:30 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Saguaro
Scottsdale, AZ

Although I am not LDS, I admire the attitude of one of the church's founders, at a time when his view of marriage was certainly not traditional:

“I have never altered my feelings towards individuals, as men or as women, whether they believe as I do or not. Can you live as neighbors with me? I can with you; and it is no particular concern of mine whether you believe with me or not.” – Brigham Young

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

Every day more and more LGBT people are getting married in Utah. Every day that passes is another day of proof that no harm is coming to anyone. The more time Judge Sotomayor takes in making a decision about this issue, the more than those against SSM lose ground. Why?
The sky has nor fallen
The sun still shines over everybody
Heterosexual marriages have been unaffected
No heterosexual couple have had to complain that they were denied a marriage certificate because of the new law.
The LDS church still have the right not to marry same sex couples
Children being raised by LGBT parents are more secured
SS spouses may receive Health benefits
SSM will receive the Tax Marriage Penalty as everybody else (price of equality)
and Utah continues being the beautiful State that has always been.

Where is the harm?

Impartial7
DRAPER, UT

Has Monte Stewart ever won a same sex marriage case? I believe his record is 0-5. If he were honest, he'd tell Utah that they have no chance on overturning this ruling & stop taking our tax dollars. This is a legal issue, not an emotional issue that the court is hearing.

stanfunky
Salt Lake City, UT

Interesting argument being made here, that taking away same-sex marriage would do irreperable harm. A different argument was utilized by Judge Shelby's ruling, that it wouldn't harm anyone else to allow gay marriage to begin, or continue, while the appeals were heard. Irony?

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

I am not LDS, but I stand with Mormon Prophet Monson on this issue. He believes only a man and woman should be able to marry. Nice to know I agree with Mormon Prophet Monson, who according to Mormons, speaks for God.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

I just don't buy the "stop discrimination" claims when liberals aren't supporting polygamists right to marry or the rights of two brothers who wish to marry.

Jim
Mesa, Az

Great rhetoric, great scare tactics , but what is the stats based on? What was his sample population? What was the size of his population? Are the studies longitudal or cross sectional? Too often people make outlandish claims, based on emotion, which have the desired effect.....scare the people. The sky is falling chicken little., the sky is falling!

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

This argument seems at least as plausible as the 'Idaho gambit".

JNA
Layton, UT

Baccus0902 states: "The LDS church still have the right not to marry same sex couples"

What Baccus0902 says is true..........for now.

Believe me, the gay and lesbian activist community will never let that stay the status quo. Mark my words, they will go after all religions and force them to marry gay and lesbian couples or face very stiff legal and tax penalties which will cost these religious organizations millions and millions of dollars that could be used in helping the poor and other worthwhile objectives.

The gay and lesbian activists have never been about equality, they could care less about all the love and light and equality... they have always been about the acquisition of power and the indoctrination of the citizenry. Of course it is not going to happen overnight, they don't want it to happen overnight, then the lie is exposed. This is something they want to happen gradually and if we don't pull our heads out of the sand, that is exactly what is going to happen.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

Chris B
"I just don't buy the "stop discrimination" claims when liberals aren't supporting polygamists right to marry or the rights of two brothers who wish to marry".

Are you seriously asking to legalize incest?

Ken
Sandy, UT

Baccus0902,

"Are you seriously asking to legalize incest?"

Are you seriously suggesting that marriage and sex are the same thing? They are not. There are millions of relationships in our country that engage in sexual relations outside of marriage. And, there are millions of marriages that do not include sexual relations for one reason or another. If sexual relations outside of marriage were illegal and by law couples had to get a marriage license to engage in sexual relations you would have a point. But you do not as this is not the case. Sex happens outside of marriage and marriage does not equal sex. Trying to suggest they do is simply not true.

Besides, what harm does two brothers marrying do? Two brothers marrying in no way harms society more than two non-related men marrying does.

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

These "families" were in existence before the legal title of marriage. I am not sure how not being "married" affects the children living in these families. I have no objection to a legal union being made. The term marriage has been with us for thousands of years, but seems not to mean a union between a man and a woman any more. I suggest we coin a new coin for heterosexual unions. A same gender union will never be the same as a heterosexual one. Perhaps plural marriage, polyandry, etc. will become legal now.

Billy Bob
Salt Lake City, UT

I have said here before that a court (especially just one judge) should not be able to creatively (at best) interpret an amendment of the constitution based on the judge's own biases in such a way that it erases the voice of the people of a state. I will now go on the record that emotionally charged arguments should not be used in court. My view on homosexual marriage has nothing to do with how I feel about the judicial tyranny that is happening here, but has also happened in many other cases. Finally, the governor has the duty to defend the voice of his people against judicial tyranny. Herbert is doing the right thing.

Ken
Sandy, UT

Baccus, allow me to teach you something gay marriage supporters have been saying for years: Marriage is not about sex. They are not the same thing. One happens without the other and they can exists without each other. Or are you telling us that currently no couple in the entire country is having sexual relations unless they are married? Please stop trying to equate marriage with sex. And even if that were the case, how would two brothers being in love harm you? Please stop discriminating.

Cougsndawgs
West Point , UT

Patriot:
There was a time when I would have agreed with you. Unfortunately for your argument, research has shown quite the opposite. Children raised by same sex couples have shown no ill effects in their development, social acumen, or academic achievement. Not one single study has shown the harmful effects you speak of. In fact most research has actually shown positive outcomes for children raised by two loving and nurturing parents who happen to be homosexual.

I've watched this first hand with my sister-in-law and her spouse in a lesbian relationship. They are very good with children and very supportive of one another, and their children seem very happy and well adjusted, both emotionally and socially (their son is currently dating "the hottest girl in school" according to him lol). I think when there was less research and evidence your concerns would be justified, but as the positive effects and evidence mount, I think you will find them unfounded and based in fear mongering by anti-gay and anti-SSM advocates. Until proof is provided that children suffer in this environment I will choose to love and admire what I see with my own eyes.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Baccus0902
"The sun still shines over everybod"

Heh well if you were in Salt Lake you might disagree with that thanks to our nasty inversions.

@Chris B
"I just don't buy the "stop discrimination" claims when liberals aren't supporting polygamists right to marry or the rights of two brothers who wish to marry."

And I don't buy your outrage when you don't apply this standard to interracial marriage advocates too.

@patriot
"Innocent children should not be subject to a homosexual home - it isn't right and it isn't healthy."

Why does Utah allow single people (including single homosexuals) to adopt but shouldn't allow same-sex couples to adopt? I sure don't see any outrage about that.

"Take these kids OUT of the homosexual homes and place them in the home of a normal"

Hmm, who's the one out to destroy families now?

cjb
Bountiful, UT

If same sex marriage allows gay people to adopt children who otherwise could have had a mother and a father, same sex marriage would hurt those children.

The optimal resolution is to have civil unions with all the rights of marriage without the right to adopt.

skrekk
Dane, WI

>>>In U.S. v. Windsor, the high court overturned part of the Defense of Marriage Act, but the state contends that a majority of the justices maintained that states have the power to define marriage.

That's true but only insofar as the state doesn't violate the civil rights of a person, as it clearly has done with the bans on same-sex marriage. The state simply has no legitimate interest in the race or gender of your spouse, two categories Utah has historically used to discriminate against the people it wants to treat as 2nd-class citizens.

tinplater
scottsdale, AZ

When opponents of a discussion topic start tangential arguments, their position is weak. The discussion here is about same sex marriage/divorce. Not about what it might lead to (plural marriages, marrying your cousin, marrying a sheep).. The issue is should same sex marriages/divorces be legal in Utah? The answer in my opinion, is of course. The other battles are separate and need to be waged on their own merit.

SammyB
Provo, UT

JNA, you are so right. For 30 years I have been telling people that it is only a matter of time until the government forces LDS temples to close because the Church will never permit gay marriages. So many gay activists argue this point even though the small militant agitators have shown their hand in the aggressive campaign to force their ideology on religions who disagree with them. Militant gay activists truly believe we have no right to disagree and our rights are being trampled and will be much more in the future.

The Constitution is already being trampled as we speak because states rights and the voice of the people are being ignored. Anyone who understands how the Constitution works and how the courts functioned within the parameters of the Constitution before FDR but not after, knows the slippery slope we are on. I wrote a paper years ago on this judiciary power grab and not even my liberal professors could argue and grudgingly conceded the point.

to comment

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