Quantcast

Comments about ‘Same-sex marriage supporters rally on same day feds recognize Utah nuptials’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 10 2014 6:10 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'There isn't a right to be married.'

So why does all 50 states recognize marriage of heterosexuals?

Pick a standard.

mrjj69
bountiful, UT

Mr. Holder needs to keep his personal opinions to himself, and not abuse his power by overriding the u.s. supreme court and legislative functions. The process will work, (rather he likes it or not), if left to the way our forefathers intended/.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@Mig
You wrote :
"An excellent example of the vocal, litigious minority forcing their will onto the majority who have already voted and spoken".

Mig, how you and many others can sleep at night knowing you are discriminating against millions of people?

Just as the article states; Is my family less than your family? What have our children than against you or society that you decided you can take benefits away from them?

We respect your disagreement with SSM. But as you can see "this minority" is saying "enough is enough" and we are not taking it anymore.

You are welcome to your beliefs, but you will not be allowed to perpetuate legislation based on bigotry.

Grandma 20
Allen, TX

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Provo, UT

Thank you for your wonderful, positive post. It's the best one I've read yet on this whole matter.

As has been stated many of the posters, we have all been given agency by our Creator and can choose whatever in this life. We have that power. What we have no power over are the consequences of our decisions.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.

"Why would anyone who knows about eternal families choose one that isn't?"

My family and marriage are just as "eternal" as anyone else's.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@Mig

"There isn't a right to be married."

The Supreme Court would disagree with you, and I am inclined to trust their judgment over yours. "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,""

- Loving V. Virginia, 1967

Kings Court
Alpine, UT

Yeah Mig, how dare they vocalize their opinion. What kind of country do they think this is? A free one?

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Here's a test of your consistency...

For those who are saying, "You must accept whatever the court decides"... would you say the same thing IF a State voted to OK same-sex-marriage and a judge stepped in and said "no way" and ended it with his opinion?

We should be consistent. If you must accept whatever the court says... then that goes regardless of the way the court decides.

I remember when California passed their constitutional amendment on marriage, and the first California judge upheld it... there was outrage, protests, vandalism, and all kinds of unseemly behavior from the GLBT community (even here in Utah... when Californians were the ones voting)!

I hope we can be consistent. The Supreme Court is going to decide this. We need to accept the decision (even IF it doesn't go the way the GLBT people want it to go).

I promise I will accept whatever they decide. Can the GLBT community commit to do the same?

esodije
ALBUQUERQUE, NM

When the courts instigate social change, it only invites ongoing controversy. (For example, except for Roe v. Wade, we probably would have reached some political stasis on the abortion question in the years since 1973. Most of the people who want to make all abortions illegal probably would have conceded a right to early-term abortion, and those people who abhor all regulation of abortions probably would have conceded a ban on late-term abortion.) The best strategy for promoting same-sex marriage would have been simply to get as many state legislatures as possible to pass bills approving it, and then to attack on the "full faith and credit" question. That ultimately would require Congress to preempt all state laws/constitutions by passing legislation requiring all states to recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions. Once that happened, there would no longer be any reason to bar same-sex marriage--in Utah or elsewhere. Public opinion has changed so much since the enactment of DOMA that there's little question that same-sex marriage is inevitable at this point.

Stenar
Salt Lake City, UT

Mig, the United States Supreme Court has decided that there is a fundamental right to marriage in the United States.
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." —Chief Justice Earl Warren, Loving v. Virginia

Two For Flinching
Salt Lake City, UT

@ Copy Cat

Which rights of yours are being violated again?

CBAX
Provo, UT

@ scientist.

I guess you'll find out sooner or later.

BAKC
Litchfield Park, AZ

It's sad when the majority voice is drowned out by a few in the minority. Since when does the moral compass of society belong to the few who choose to ignore the laws and just raise their voice.

As for those 60,000 names on that petition, clearly the millions who oppose this decision are left to wonder where their voice has a place. Those names were probably taken off of some graveyard census and don't actually represent a fraction of those "names"

It's sad to see the great state of Utah follow in the steps of Sodom and Gommorah.

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Provo, UT

Grandma 20,

Thanks! It's easy to get into a heated debate. I don't think any of us are exempt from that, including myself. But our goal is to remember who we are, who others are, and how we can contribute something worth while into a conversation. I tend to feel like I'm talking into the endless void of nothingness (both online and in person) and no one will find value in it. Thanks!

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Provo, UT

CHS 85,

In Loving v Virginia the court said it's a right, but they also said between a man and a woman. In the part of the quote you cut off... they also said the reason it was a right was because it's necessary for our survival as a species.

I don't believe it's fair to only quote part of the court ruling to suggest something different than what the court actually ruled. Yet everyone still does it. These days, fairness in equality only seem to matter as long as it's in agreement with one side. You may have not known this, so I have no quarrel with you. I don't want to quarrel either way. I just want the facts to be clear for other readers. The court has never set a precedent for the definition of marriage and the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court has even said so themselves long after Loving v Virginia.

Reading a document to suit your needs isn't a search for truth nor is it honest or fair. We are better than this.

Marco Luxe
Los Angeles, CA

Is the governor really spouting the "states' rights" canard? That specious understanding of the US Constitution and American ideals shows how desperately weak his position is. It's akin to "might makes right", which surely isn't a church doctrine, is it? Has anything good and right ever come out of a states' rights argument? [Slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation, secession threat of 1812, Strom Thurmond's pro-segregation Dixiecrats?]

Ximena
Provo, UT

Federal A.G. Holder had to set Utah straight to be in compliance with the law - allow those that legally had licenses to continue the paper process with all agencies. Utah A.G. Reyes has recanted his pervious remarks to not comply with paperwork - hopefully he will not be asked to resign, but this may be the only logical and lawful outcome for both A.G. Reyes and Utah Governor. If only they had listened to Judge Cassell whose advice was printed in an earlier article in the Deseret News. Utah has supported polygamist marriages for decades, and has not prosecuted for bigamy. Now they have pushed SSM to the federal level. Utah is a progressive state indeed!

Stenar
Salt Lake City, UT

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

Stenar
Salt Lake City, UT

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Stenar
Salt Lake City, UT

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

to comment

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