Quantcast

Comments about ‘Attorney General Reyes directs counties to give certificates to married same-sex couples’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 9 2014 7:30 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
poyman
Lincoln City, OR

@pagan... Sorry, but you're wrong... Being Gay does not put you in a "protected class"... A person is still subject to the rule of law in Utah which states that marriage is exclusively “between a man and a woman... “.

Tekakaromatagi
Dammam, Saudi Arabia

@Quaker:

"1) Marriage has nothing to do with childbirth. Zero.". Your evidence only shows that some people have children without being married and not everyone who gets married has children.

If marriage is not about childbirth, then why are brother-sister marriages banned? Why do various cultures make symbolic gestures wishing the married couples fertility?

If marriage is only to celebrate an important commitment made between two people, why don't we give tax breaks to roommates? Or if someone moves in with his aunt? Or his best friend from high school? Or her brother after her divorce?

David
Centerville, UT

A Quaker,

Do you believe in God? If so, is sex out of wedlock acceptable to God and to your religious beliefs? The fact that it happens does not mean God condones it. But having children still requires a mom and a dad. God did not create us so that children can be born from homosexual relationships. It is impossible. You must have a mom and a dad. Homosexuals can never create children together.

The commandment given by God is to marry and then have children.

Now if you don't believe in God, then any type of relationship is possible. I suspect that there are some who post on this comment board who do not believe in God. Understanding that gives me perspective upon why this topic is even a topic. But for those who do not believe in God, if they understand that there are many more people who do believe in God, then it will provide them perspective as to why so many of us believe bearing children out of wedlock is wrong, as are homosexual relationships.

God has not commanded us to stop having children.

David
Centerville, UT

Quaker,

I remember in the 70's and 80's people were arguing that the world's resources are stretched to capacity and that we must stop having so many children.

I believe what the Lord has said: Doctrine and Covenants 104:17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves. Though this revelation was given over a century ago, it also has not been rescinded. We must be wise with resources and I do not believe we are always wise in this way. But that does not mean we stop having children.

Science makes all sorts of things possible with in-vitro, etc. But it still requires a mom and a dad. This, in my mind, proves that in the creation, God did not create us to have children in homosexual relationships.

Now we are commanded to love everyone. We try to do that. But it still does not make gay marriage right, nor something we feel to work towards.

I do not speak for my church. I am imperfect in my understandings. I speak only for myself & my current understandings.

CBAX
Provo, UT

Hey Quaker,

Cool Story Bro. Not really related at all.

manuretruck
St. George, UT

@David

For thousands of years in many cultures across the world, homosexual relationships were common and in some cases even encouraged. From the greeks and spartans in the west, to the japanese samurai in the east who often had homosexual relationships with their squires, and many cultures in between. These practices were not frowned on, and were usually openly accepted, if not commonly discussed. Certainly, nobody was put to death over it, nor even punished at all. Of course, unfairly, women were usually still expected to maintain their virtue for their first husbands, but some cultures did not frown on pre-marital lesbian relationships either as long as the maidenhead remained intact.

Homosexuality only started becoming taboo in Japan when the early Catholic priests starting opening missions there. It's not as though the Japanese were an uncivilized, uncultured society before the priests arrived - anyone who would suggest that is wholly uneducated. This idea that homosexuality will somehow ruin society is ridiculous and completely without any rational basis. Allowing homosexuals to enter into committed partnerships, especially for tax and probate purposes, is simply a modern extension of an ancient practice, and there is absolutely no rational reason to fear it.

David
Centerville, UT

A Quaker,

Lastly, I doubt you really mean to imply that gay marriage will help solve a perceived over-population problem. Really?

The problem with resources and population is probably more related to corrupt governments, greed, poor systems of distribution, education, technological advancements, etc.

NedGrimley
Brigham City, UT

We are so lucky to live in a society where so many have complete understanding of the thoughts and intents of others, even when they have never met them. It makes complaining and accusations so much more meaningful and valid...

These are wonderful, enlightened times, aren't they?

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

Questions
1.If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls his child out of school, and because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed, is he harmed?
2.If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes bankrupt, is he harmed?
3.If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone hurt?
4.If a public school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook on his own time, away from work, in his own home, on his own computer, and is fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?
5.If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worship service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, is the congregation harmed?
6.If Christians are forced into silence because of fear of legal, social, and financial retribution, are they harmed?
7.When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality are labeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate mongers," "right wing fanatics," "preachers of hatred," "intolerant," are they harmed?

Ranch
Here, UT

If you try to legislate your religious beliefs, you potentially violate the religious beliefs of others. God has no standing in our legal system.

This is the right decision. These people were married and they are still married.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

Issuing marriage licenses is a ministerial function of government, sort of like recording births and deaths.
All along the government has recorded marriages of illegal aliens to citizens without regard to their immigration status, creating a nightmare for families and society.
The clerks are not validating anything; merely recording an event for the public record.
If they record the deed in a home purchase and the sale itself was illegal, they will simply void the transaction later.
The same will apply if these marriages are found to be illegal.

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

@I know it. I Live it. I Love it:
You say "Likewise, we believe the state we're part of should recognize and honor certain relationships. We believe special recognition will benefit society. We do not believe in taking things away from people". If you are referring to "special recognition" to traditional marriage, I agree. If you are referring to "special recognition" to same-sex marriage, I would ask you to consider the following:

"We all care about fairness, and adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to Utah's nondiscrimination law might sound reasonable and fair, but it's not. The problem is that it would give special rights to some people at the expense of other people. In fact, it would give special rights to some that conflict with the first freedoms of others" (from fairtoall.org).

We must protect our first freedoms granted to all citizens by our constitution!

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Goll. Another of my freedoms taken away.

tethered
Salem, OR

I am responding to the 7 questions asked by Meckofahess:

1. Any parent can pull their child out of school for any reason in order to home school them, or send them to a private school. BULLYING has nothing to do with MARRIAGE.

2. Anyone who turns away any customer is losing their business and the profits thereof. Today's pauper could be tomorrow's millionaire. This is not a question of MARRIAGE

3. Utah authorizes single people to adopt children. Obviously some parenting is better is better than no parenting. This is separate from MARRIAGE.

4. This has nothing to do with MARRIAGE.

5. ACT-UP focuses on HIV & AIDS, not on sexuality. This has nothing to do with MARRIAGE.

6. That is coercion, not MARRIAGE.

7. This is name calling, not MARRIAGE.

No one is forced to REACT that particular way in any of the questions.

None of these examples of rhetoric & hypotheses are about MARRIAGE!

People are legally responsible for their choice of actions & reactions.

If you don't like gay marriage, then don't marry a gay person.

BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BLOCK YOUR GAY NEIGHBOR FROM MARRYING A GAY PERSON!

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

Meckofahess-

Yes there is great harm!

But there is a class of people here who simply don't care about anyone but themselves.

They don't want freedom of religion or freedom of speech or freedom of thought for everyone. They seek to dictate religion and speech and thought, by making laws requiring everyone else believe, say and do as they say. They tell us, "We can have homosexual relations and you have to perform our ceremonies in your churches, bake our cakes, make our flowers, take our pictures, and call us married."

B-BALLER
SLC, UT

quote from liberate

"There may be justifiable reasons to oppose gay marriage but "because that is the way it has always been" is not one of them. Yet this seems to be the main argument put forth by those opposing gay marriage, at least on this board. News flash for all of you but that type of thinking has never led to progress (technology, government, finance, etc) on anything and shouldn't be relied upon in any discussion of the pros and cons of gay marriage."

Yea But, Right is still Right, and Wrong is still Wrong. That should never change, and if or when it does, will destroy any society.....

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@Tekakaromatagi: I hope you realize your argument is specious. I'll take your points in order:

Correct. There is no correlation between babies and the legal institution of civil marriage. Show me where on your marriage certificate it includes the number of children you must bear, under pain of having the marriage dissolved. Show me where in the legal code we force unmarried women to get abortions or throw them in jail for giving birth. You can't, so there's no correlation.

Incest is banned, period. Why would you expect legal recognition for a banned thing?

As for marriage, are you certain you understand what it is? It's not just roommates. It's a loving life commitment to care for another person, in sickness and in health, to share life and responsibilities, and to bury your spouse when they die and celebrate their life. The State benefits from such a bond, in many ways, including stability for childrearing and eldercare, which is why we recognize marriage of unrelated, loving, committed, consenting adults as something special.

By the way, how goes the proselytizing in Saudi Arabia? Do you get out much?

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

@David:
1. Marriage has been defined differently by various cultures and has evolved continuously over the 100,000 or so years of humans existing together in organized communal populations.

2. Organized human created monotheistic religions and their definition of marriage evolved well after the concept of marriage and by no means should be credited with the absolute definition of marriage.

3. You appear to have difficulty differentiating between marriage and procreation.

jcobabe
Provo, UT

Inventing something that is dramatically new always seems to involve a fair amount of uncertainty, even if it happens to be a near-imitation of something that is old.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

I find it very interesting that it seems most of the pro-gay marriage posters on these articles are from out of state. Why are they so concerned about what goes on in Utah since they don't live here? Interesting!

to comment

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