Comments about ‘Letter: Marriage debate’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 7 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
airnaut
Everett, 00

@Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Someone who "feels" that God gave him/her the wrong sex is homosexual, Airnaut.

========

1. See what I mean, I'm sorry I can't help you.

2. For someone plaiying on their homefield,
Preaching to their own choir,
a bonafide, born and raised Utahan, Mormon, middle aged, white guy, and commenting on an LDS owned and "monitored" newspaper...
you sure draw alot of negative responses.

3. If you want to change the world,
play Lehi, Jonah, Alma, Alumek, Samuel the Lamanite, ect.
Take a risk, step out of your comfort zone a little,
Take your "War" to those who need it most,
and try commenting on the San Fransico Chronicle instead of cowarding here?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Ranch,

Does Congress have unlimited authority to make laws? Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the duties which we have delegated law making authority to Congress. All other duties that are not specifically enumerated are duties that must be left to the States. Your quotation from the 14th Amendment clearly states, "equal protection of the laws". Do you claim that Congress has unlimited authority to pass laws? Can Congress issue a marriage license? Please state your source from the Constitution that gives them that authority. Don't bother citing "forgoing powers" unless you want a 3rd grade student to remind you that that is a dependent clause of Section 8 and that it refers only to the enumerated powers listed in Section 8.

glendenbg,
Christ loves all of us, but He is the Savior to those who obey him. Even the woman taken in adultery was admonished to go and sin no more. Christ did not forgive her, he said that he did not condemn her. Forgiveness comes after obedience has been shown. Christ told us to STUDY His word and he reminded us that our greatest duty is to KNOW God and Christ whom God has sent.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Mike Richards
"No authority has ever been given to the Federal Government by the people of the United States to define marriage or to issue marriage licenses. The10th Amendment clearly states that all duties not enumerated by the U.S. Constitution are to be left to the States or to the People."

Do you believe the federal court was correct to strike down interracial marriage bans in the states? It would appear that the court has disagreed with your interpretation of this before.

"Someone who "feels" that God gave him/her the wrong sex is homosexual"

You're referring to the T part of LGBT, not the L or G part.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Some are claiming that religion is not protected by the Constitution. Have they become so focused on misrepresenting the 14th Amendment that they refuse to even read the 1st Amendment? "Congress shall make no law pertaining to an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There are no words protecting a person's feelings that same-sex sex or same-sex attraction should be protected by Congress. There is no authority given to Congress to act in that matter.

One poster seemed to think that popularity is the guage by which our thoughts are right or wrong. Hitler was popular. Was he right? Was his message right? Did whole nations agree with him? Did that make him right? Popularity almost automatically means that you're on the wrong side of any argument. Seeking approval is a surefire way to know that you have no position. Google the arts and entertainment. Would you do what those who are popular have done? Is that how you would value your soul?

Who defines marriage, a judge or God? If a judge disagrees with God, does that make God wrong? More importantly, do you stand with God or with that judge?

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Joan Carlson" yes, if the district court rules in favor of Utah, the marriages performed here would be considered invalid. This is exactly what happened when Polygamy was outlawed, so there already is a precedent.

To "Ranch" the issue isn't the Utah Constitution vs. US Constitution. It is Utah constitutio vs. Federal law, which takes priority. The 10th Ammendment says that if a right isn't listed in the US Constitution, it is up to the states or people. Utah followed that, and declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. The US Constitution does not say anything about marriage.

airnaut
Everett, 00

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT
Some are claiming that religion is not protected by the Constitution. Have they become so focused on misrepresenting the 14th Amendment that they refuse to even read the 1st Amendment? "Congress shall make no law pertaining to an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There are no words protecting a person's feelings that same-sex sex or same-sex attraction should be protected by Congress. There is no authority given to Congress to act in that matter.

If a judge disagrees with God, does that make God wrong? More importantly, do you stand with God or with that judge?

11:58 a.m. Jan. 7, 2014

========

What if you belong to a Church that sanctions Gay Marriage?
Shouldn't your religous belief be protected under the 1st amendment?
or
only the Church's who agree with you?

That depends on who has the "legal" authority,
Does God declare a mariiage divorce, or does a Judge?

Maudine
SLC, UT

@ Redshirt: The 10th Amendment addresses powers - not rights. It clearly states that some powers are prohibited to the states by the Federal Constitution.

The 9th Amendment states that not all rights are listed in the Constitution and just because a right isn't listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee due process and equal rights. The First Amendment gives citizens the right to ask the government (in this case the courts) to review laws and see if they meet Constitutional muster (redress of grievances).

So the question is: Does the State have the power to prevent same-sex marriages or is doing so a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments? (Even the State admits the question is under the Federal Constitution.)

Asking the courts to review the laws provides the due process of the 5th and 14th Amendments. What the State has to prove is that either there is no right to marriage (which the courts have ruled there is) or that they can limit it to heterosexual couples to further a goal or prevent a harm (this is the argument the State is making and has not been able to prove).

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

glendenbg,
Christ loves all of us, but He is the Savior to those who obey him. Even the woman taken in adultery was admonished to go and sin no more. Christ did not forgive her, he said that he did not condemn her. Forgiveness comes after obedience has been shown. Christ told us to STUDY His word and he reminded us that our greatest duty is to KNOW God and Christ whom God has sent.

11:28 a.m. Jan. 7, 2014

========

Nobody is disputing Christ, Mike.
This is about civil law.

The evil Roman Empire Christ lived under had SameSex Marriage,
but it was the Jews who not believe in it and opposed it.

I don't recall Jesus being negative, or judgemental of anyone -- especially outcasts of that pious self-righteous Society.
and he repeatedly read them the riot act a time or 2.

BTW -
The Romans found Jesus innocent of any wrong doing,
yet those same Jews crucified him anyway.

Stop being so judgemental.
He who has no sin, cast the 1st stone.
Go, sin no more...

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

We have too many governments. We should check them out and throw our the ones we don't want.

Henry Ford said "People can have any color car they want, so long as it is Black.

In America, states can make any law they wish so long as it does not reduce life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Maudine" either way, Utah acted in accordance with the constitution. The 14th ammendmetn does not guarantee equal rights.

The 14th Ammendment says "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 is only stating equal protection of the laws, it does not say anything about rights. The 5th is similar.

The 10th Ammendment is still the question. Since the 10th Ammendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The US constitution says nothing about marriage, therefore, according to the US Constitution it is up to the States or people to decide.

In the case of Utah, the people and the state have both decided. This is a question of which law is supreme, Utah's constitution or federal law (not constitution).

glendenbg
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt1701 - You're making a very clever but flawed argument in an attempt to place marriage beyond the reach of federal courts.

The issue isn't marriage. It's about equal protection of the law. In this case, a law about marriage triggered equal protection questions, became a Constitutional question. State laws cannot violate the federal constitution.

The 10th amendment reserves many powers to the states but the 14th limits how the states may enact those powers. If a state enacts a law which violates due process or equal protection, it becomes a constitutional question and the law can be struck down on those grounds.

The 14th Amendment explicitly says that rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be infringed upon by any state (even if the people in the state vote overwhelmingly to do so). We could hold a vote and ban freedom of assembly or freedom of religion, but that vote would be overruled because it violates constitutional rights.

It's not about one amendment being more powerful or more important than the other, it's about balancing the sometimes competing demands of the various parts of law.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Redshirt1701;

Equal protection of the law.

Marriage provides legal protections ("of the law"). The government gives these protections to some, it must, per the equal protection statement give them to all similarly situated citizens.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Taxing LGBT couples differently upon the death of one of the couple is "depriving" that person of property without due process of the law. Inequitably from heterosexual couples (equal protection).

Federal and state laws that violate the Constitution of the US, need to be overturned. Amendment 3 among them.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Ranch:
"Marriage laws won't need modification for LGBT marriage: IT IS THE SAME as straight marriage per the law."

Too funny! Have you ever opened a human anatomy book and made the comparison between a man and a woman?

"A contract between two people to merge their lives into a familial unit."

I'd agree that same-sex marriage is not necessarily about sex. It's sometimes about two people who can't seem to qualify for a man/woman marriage and yet, want a tie with another. Sorry, but marriage is reserved for something else... If two same-sex people wanta be together, just draw up some kind of a companionship contract. You don't have to get a license or go to a judge for approval. Invite your friends over and have a celebration. That's it.

"Wrong. Utah is governed by The Constitution of the United States which takes precedence over ANYTHING in the state's constitution that violates the US Constitution."

The US Constitution says nothing about defining marriage. So state constitution/law is superior in defining same.

"Your 'god' has no standing."

His god is in the US Constitution.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@wrz;

Dream on.

Alfred
Phoenix, AZ

@Kalindra:
"Perhaps you should actually read the Utah State (sic) Constitution - and pay particular attention to where it states the the (sic) US Constitution is the supreme law if (sic) the land."

It also says 'powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.' Defining marriage is such a power.

@Pagan:
"Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state..."

Likely because the Catholic Church is predominant in Mass., not because of anything about gay marriage.

"And if God is perfect, and made everything... why do some choose to find fault with the LGBT people he created?"

LGBT's mostly created themselves.

@GZE:
"Those contracts are legal and need to be honored."

Not if they are illegal by settled state law. The federal government will likely have to make it up to them some way for fumbling the law... Some kind of a payoff one would think.

@Hutterite:
"Someone, somewhere, has to deny service to someone because they're heterosexual."

I was denied service in a restaurant once for being in a T-shirt and flip-flops. Is that the same thing?

Mr. Bean
Phoenix, AZ

@Shaun:
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why can't we let people live their lives as they see fit?"

I think I agree... it's a travesty that all forms of marriage, polygamy, incest, sibs, age difference, etc., are not allowed by the state law.

@glendenbg:
"... as a Christian I believe all persons are made in God's image and deserve love, respect, dignity and the opportunity to build emotionally fulfilling intimate relationships."

All persons have foibles to overcome. That's some of what life is all about. And some have harder tasks than others.

@Happy Valley Heretic:
"Show me where in the constitution where It says that the religious majority can impose it's doctrine thru laws based on denigrating other citizens?"

I think I'm getting your point... all forms of marriage, polygamy, incest, sibs, age difference, etc., should be protected by state/federal law.

@Mike Richards
"Your quotation from the 14th Amendment clearly states, "equal protection of the laws."

Amendment 14 also states clearly that the 'equal protection' issue applies to STATE law. And Utah's marriage laws are applied equally to all... marriage: One man/one women. This applies to ALL Utah citizens.

Truthseeker2
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA

re:MikeRichards
" Nothing in the 14th Amendment requires special privileges for those whose feelings contradict their physical appearance."

I invite you to familiarize yourself with Loving v Virgina, in a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court:

"This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations."

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

2nd try
re:MikeRichards
" Nothing in the 14th Amendment requires special privileges for those whose feelings contradict their physical appearance."

I invite you to familiarize yourself with Loving v Virgina, in a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court:

"This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations."

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "glendenbg" if you bothered to read the ruling, the judge cited that the issue was the 10th and 14th Ammendments. I am not being clever, I am just stating what the federal judges have stated.

To "RanchHand" using your argument, the Utah constitution should stand stating that marriage is between a man and woman only. No life is being ended by the law, no property seized, and they are not being thrown into jail to deprive them their liberty.

The question still remains, which takes precedence, the Utah constitution or federal law. The US constitution says nothing concerning marriage, so it is up to the states to decide how to handle it.

To "Truthseeker" you should read recent Supreme Court ruling on DOMA. They state that "By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States." If it is a state issue, how can the Utah Constitution be in violation of the US Constitution?

RFLASH
Salt Lake City, UT

People worry about somebody wanting a Mormon bishop to marry a gay couple. It isn't like other goods and services provided to the public! It isn't like you are a customer when you ask your bishop to marry you. It is your religious leader. There is a big difference. Since Church and State should be two separate things, it would be up to the state to provide somebody to perform the marriage. There is nothing saying that the state has to provide a Mormon bishop. So, therefore, a same sex couple is not being discriminated as long as the state provides someone to perform the ceremony. How many people are going to ask someone to marry them that sees them as an abomination!? Give me a break!

to comment

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