Comments about ‘Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage struck down by U.S. judge’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 14 2014 5:50 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

This is great news! And yet another state is dragged (albeit kicking and screaming) from 19th century bigotry into 21st century freedom and enlightenment. Gay people exist. Get over it and let them be happy.

Eugene, OR

From the looks of things, there are two options:

1) America is filled with "activist" judges.

2) Banning same-sex marriage is just inherently unconstitutional.

Sadly, I already know what a lot of people here are going to believe...

truth in all its forms
henderson, NV

The decision by U.S. District Judge Terence Kern is stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not take place immediately in Oklahoma. Why couldn't judge Shelby be that smart when he overthrew Utah's constitution?

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

I respectfully disagree with your comment. Why is it that when someone has a different opinion on the issue, they're labeled a 'bigot'? Nobody is contending that gay people don't exist, or that they shouldn't be happy. But telling me that your happiness depends on me labeling your relationship something it is not seems a little weird to me. How come your happiness is so dependent on the social acceptance of your actions? Are you somehow precluded from having a relationship with someone of the same gender? Or living with them? Is it solely the monetary aspect of tax breaks that precludes you from being truly happy?

Vernal, UT

Bad things like this are now happening across the country.

A Run
South Jordan, UT

Constitutionally speaking, same sex marriage doesn't have to be legal. If there were civil unions that offered the exact same benefits as marriage, but under a different name, then religions could be satisfied, while also satisfying the Constitution. I.E. the 14th amendment

Los Angeles, CA

LDS do you now see which way the wind is blowing?

Council Bluffs, IA

Nothing is stopping homosexuals from being gay.

Salt Lake City, UT

truth in all forms wonders "Why couldn't judge Shelby be that smart when he overthrew Utah's constitution?"

Utah didn't ask Shelby for a stay, so he didn't give one. Kern wasn't "that smart" in issuing a stay in the Oklahoma case. According to the story, "Kern decided to issue the stay after the Supreme Court granted a stay in the recent case on Utah’s same-sex marriage ban."

Farmington, UT

truth in all its forms, we already know the answer to that question. The judge in Oklahoma had the precedent of Utah's action being stayed by the US Supreme Court. They will eventually decide the issue anyway. Get ready for the funeral for State's Rights and following the US Constitution which states that powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the States because of the judges interpretations of being treated equally. Everyone was allowed to marry a person of opposite gender...no gays or lesbians were denied this right. State are now denied the right to define marriage as they see fit. The mess in Utah was made worse because the Utah judge couldn't see the forest for the trees with regards to a stay of the order until it could legally be sorted out; that's why he is an "activist judge" and the LGBT community will probably give him an honorary something or other.

Vince here
San Diego, CA

If American is full of activist judges... why of these landmark cases would you go without?

Brown v. Board of Education

Loving v. Virginia --- ended ban on interracial marriage

Griswold v. Connecticut --- the right of adults to use birth control

Miranda v. Arizona --- the case that entitled suspects to now called Miranda rights

and also...

District of Columbia v. Heller --- which guarantees the right to bear arms, independent of a militia.

yep - those activist judges alright.

There are many others. Simply put, we don't get to pick and choose which judgments we like and declare that sovereignty rests with the people. When the Supreme Court rules it become the law of the land.

A Run
South Jordan, UT

@Willem,are you mad at our church because of Proposition 8 in California a few years ago? There were other factors that influenced that vote. It is not only the LDS's Fault like you make it sound like it is. By the way, I am LDS, and I think that gay people deserve the same benefits as other people. I just think that there are ways other than marriage to give them these benefits.

Council Bluffs, IA

willem, so people of faith are now supposed to believe based on what a number of federal judges say?

Provo, UT

Willem, much of why Christ established His Church both anciently and today is so we might not be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph 4)

The winds of the gullible public will blow according to the cunning craftiness of the self-deceived, but those who are founded on a rock will not be moved to abandon truth.

A Run, those who advocate homosexual behavior are not satisfied with civil unions, because what they are after is to establish a false moral equivalency in the minds of the public. A distinction in name, even with no distinction in legal benefits, hints too much at a possible moral distinction. Theirs is an Orwellian attempt to control opinion by controlling language.

Further, there is no good reason, if one grants benefits to civil unions or homosexual "marriages," that one can justify not simply granting the same benefits to any arbitrary relation between people, in which case it is better to abolish all such benefits and legal recognitions and reform the law to only recognize these as private contracts.

Council Bluffs, IA

Vince here, Heller conformed to what a maority of people thought the 2nd Amendment said. As to homouality is concerned at the time the 14th Amendment was raified its practice carried serious prison time in all states. At the time the original constitution was ratified its practice was a hanging offense.

Somewhere, IL

@ digitalcamotim wrote: "At the time the original constitution was ratified its practice was a hanging offense."

And slavery was real and blacks only counted as 3/5ths of a person.

And your point is?

Seattle, WA

@Blue AZ Cougar

“Nobody is contending that gay people don't exist, or that they shouldn't be happy.”

By constantly telling LGBT individuals that who they are as a person is a sin, people are not contending that they don’t exist, but in a way you are telling them they shouldn’t exist. This makes it very hard to be happy.

Murray, UT

@truth in all its forms - Judge Shelby cannot issue a stay unless one is requested. The Utah AG office is the one who should have requested a stay properly, but did not.

Huntsville, UT

"...freedom of conscience by religions and business owners. He referred to a baker in Colorado threatened with the ability to continue his line if work if declining to make cakes for same-sex couples in contravention of his Christian beliefs."

Do you serve adulterers getting re-married? Do you serve fornicators? Do you server Sabbath Breakers? If you serve these groups in your business, then claiming "religious conscience" as a reason to refuse service to LGBT couples is simply an excuse to not serve LGBT couples. If you aren't going to screen all your customers to ensure they're not violating your beliefs, then it really isn't about your religious beliefs.

Vacaville, CA

States grant marriage licenses to receive the fee and then make money when more than half of all marriages end in divorce.

Suppose... states got out of the marriage business altogether and simply rename it a civil union. Everyone intent on living together (whether straight or gay) would be required to pay a registration fee prior to living together. Cohabitating without a license would be subject to a fine. A couple could turn in their license at any time and go their separate ways.

Marriage would then be strictly a religious ceremony. Derived from scripture, the concept of marriage traditionally required union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation and raising offspring in a God-fearing home. Those not accepting God's plan could still live as husband and wife through civil union and could later marry.

Therefore... any couple, straight or gay, could be married if the church they attend chooses to do so. Churches decide whom they marry, not the government. Marriage would not be deemed a civil right or needing equal protection. Get government out of the marriage business, once and for all!

to comment

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