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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

truth in all its forms says:

"Why couldn't judge Shelby be that smart when he overthrew Utah's constitution?"

---Because Utah's AG didn't follow the correct procedures to requiest one.

Blue AZ Cougar says:

"But telling me that your happiness depends on me labeling your relationship something it is not seems a little weird to me."

---Who are you to say what someone else's relationship is or is not? Butting into other people's lives like that seems a little weird to me.

@A Run;

Separate is not equal. Your comment is like telling Rosa Park that the back of the bus arrives at the same time as the front of the bus.

@toosmartforyou;

The 10th Amendment prohibits states from violating the rights of US citizens. This isn't a state's rights issue, it is a federal issue.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@Elms:
"Gay people exist. Get over it and let them be happy."

What's your opinion on polygamists , incests, brother/sister, children, geezer/child marriages?

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

Looks like Shelby had an agenda.

@A Run:
"Constitutionally speaking, same sex marriage doesn't have to be legal."

Here's all they need do... go down the stationary store, get a nice piece of paper with serifs on the edges, write on it in a careful hand 'marriage license,' then each partner sign it. You're married.

@Willem:
"LDS do you now see which way the wind is blowing?"

Wind for sure... called an 'ill wind.'

@digitalcamotim:
"Nothing is stopping homosexuals from being gay."

What they want is to be not only gay but happy as well.

@Vince here:
"There are many others."

True... like Edmonds-Tucker Act - Outlawed polygamy; disincorporated the LDS Church; required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials.

Utefan34
Seattle, WA

@RanchHand

That is fantastic point.

Bingham High School Student
South Jordan, UT

@ Vince Here, How many of the cases you listed were from the same judges that are in now?

Anyways, that was not my purpose of wanting to comment. To all of you who think that us Mormons are Bigots, as well as all of you Mormons who are getting angry that this is happening...I might direct you to another article which the quotes partially the LEADERS of our church. http://www.deseretnews.com /article/865593905/ LDS-Church-issues-instructions- to-leaders-on-same-sex-marriage.html.

That article is great. One more point that I would like to make is that the First Amendment guaruntees separation of church and state, so no matter what the legal standards are, it doesn't change the churches standards or right to only marry couples of different genders.

OHBU
Columbus, OH

Produces,
There is no Orwellian conspiracy here. Granting Civil Unions to gay people and Marriages to straight people is a pretty clear case of separate but equal...a clear violation of previous Supreme Court rulings. The problem is that the word marriage is the default language in everything from loan contracts to insurance benefits. Either everyone gets civil unions or everyone gets marriages, that's how equality works.

ImaUteFan
West Jordan, UT

Willem - this may come as a shock to you but the LDS people are not the only religion or group of people in the country who oppose gay marriage.

Some of us have our beliefs built on a solid foundation and it doesn't matter which way the wind is blowing, our beliefs cannot and will not be swayed.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

It's interesting to note that the State of Virginia, in seeking to uphold their ban on interracial marriage, used many of the same arguments the State of Utah (and others) apparently intend to use to justify bans on gay marriage.

-Interracial marriages were considered inherently less stable.

-Interracial marriages were much more difficult for the children involved.

-It was argued that genetic defects from interracial parenting were a distinct possibility. (OK, that argument is not going to be used today.)

Fortunately, the Supreme Court looked beyond those flimsy excuses, and it's really curious that the same objections are being recycled today.

Prodicus
Provo, UT

Utefan34, no one claims that "who someone is as a person" is a sin, but rather that a certain set of actions is sinful.

Some people have tendencies towards alcoholism, kleptomania, or pyromania; the research that claims these tendencies are genetically caused is just as solid as the research that claims the same for the tendency towards same sex attraction. The requirement of equal protection under the law does not mean that society has to condone drunk driving, theft, or arson. Nor does hoping that people with genetic predispositions towards these disorders can nonetheless lead happy lives entail condoning such behaviors.

No matter what you think about the causes of attractions, tendencies, or disorders, the actions described as sinful are always the result of a choice, and are just as subject to moral scrutiny as any other choices. Papering over the distinction between the attraction and the action has been a longstanding tactic of the homosexual movement.

A Run
South Jordan, UT

@funny_guy... I Agree Completely

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

@RanchHand
Well let me ask you, are they the same? Is same-sex marriage the same as heterosexual marriage? It's a rhetorical question, I know what your response will be. My point is that the LGBT community is so bent on labeling their relationship so as to identify with heterosexual couples, when in reality they are not the same thing. I'm not as much hung up on the labeling of it as I am about how we are required to teach our children that it is the same. That defies logic and spiritual understanding in terms of what a marriage can and should be.

Look, if two people of the same gender want to shack up together, I have no problem with that -- they have the right to live their life how they want. But you must understand that there are a whole host of issues that come along with this territory, not the least of which is how children are impacted when we start teaching them the false idea that two women or two men is the same as a man and a woman. It is not - that is a lie.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

Here's an interesting factoid from the Oklahoma decision: this case has been going on for 9 years. It was originally filed in 2006.

The case has previously been appealed to the 10th Circuit, and at one point the district judge declared the couple did not have standing, so they re-filed specifying different defendants.

It's hard to argue this case was a spur-of-the-moment, "pile on" type of decision based on other recent decisions. This litigation has been going on a long, long time.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

I think that it is odd that someone would refer to something that was considered dark, demeaning, and gross for centuries by all of humanity would now refer to it as "enlightened"and that every human that lived before the last thirty years as the anomaly of history! I welcome the discussion about the Unconstitutional stripping of the rights of the people, however, something that only came about because enough people were humbled enough to start thinking about the constitution. Cruise control puts people to sleep!

Willem
Los Angeles, CA

IIf you have a gay friend (or sister or coworker or…) but still think that queer people should not be able to get married, then you are anti-gay.
If you’re fine with queer people as long as you don’t have to see them kissing or holding hands, then you are anti-gay.
If you don’t have anything against queer people but wouldn’t want a gay man leading your son’s scout troop, then you are anti-gay.
If you think that inside queer people there is anything lurking — however small — that causes us to have any less integrity or humanity than straight people have, then you are anti-gay.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"when we start teaching them the false idea that two women or two men is the same as a man and a woman." What?

Same sex marriage is simply allowing two people, regardless of genders the opportunity to make that special commitment of marriage and at the same time enjoy any and all legal ramifications. Marriage at it's core is a personal, social, and legal commitment, that's it.

It has nothing to do with physical differences. Having or raising families or sexual activities. Those activities or choices may come with marriage but are not marriage. So not allowing two people regardless of gender to make that commitment is discrimination and brings with it a by definition a certain bigotry.

You may justify your discrimination in anyway you chose. God said, I believe etc. the result is the same.

BTRP
Orem, UT

@Prodicus

Its sad and unfortunate how you believe that so many GLBT people are just acting out on a "choice." By the same hand, you must be clearly acting out as a result of your choice to be heterosexual? I would like the information of the studies you have cited that conclusively decide that homosexuality is a tendency, if that is possible?

I can understand that there are people out there who are not educated about homosexuality, but to reduce the life-altering attraction and love that two of the same sex feel towards each other as less than the attraction that you feel toward the opposite sex is just ignorant. The way that homosexuality is so carelessly equated arson, theft, and other CRIMES clearly says a lot about your feelings towards the GLBT community.

Is it not possible that those homosexuals feel as strongly about marriage as you do? Is it not reasonable that two people of the same sex, would feel just as normal being attracted to each other as you feel towards your spouse?

GLBT want EQUAL treatment. Its always been about "equality" not "superiority".

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

Prodicus,

Relatively few people today consider homosexuality a disorder. This is the first problem with your argument. You are free to believe what you want, but it's a hopeless proposition to expect much credence be given to your way of thinking.

Blue AZ Cougar,

You worry about what to teach the children. Me too! They are not growing up in the same world you and I did. Few kids born today will ever understand old prejudices. Let's stop trying to fill their minds with religious dogma that is out of sync with new realities.

Oh, I know. "The word of The Lord is pure and true forever, and it cannot be compromised!" - Well, like it or not, not even the LDS Church calls homosexuality (by itself, as a natural orientation) a sin. Moreover, love can't be sliced into good and bad types. Our kids are coming into a better world, and old prejudices are just old - and more and more difficult.

O'really
Idaho Falls, ID

@ Pragmatist...

So what's to stop any combination of people whether they are romantically involved or not from getting a marriage license and getting those same benefits? A couple of roommates who hate each other but want the tax benefits for a couple years before they "divorce"? Two brothers?
An uncle and his nephew? A 95 yr. old lady and her 18 yr. old female renter? There is no requirement that they love each other. No one even asks that at the license office.

See how this is diluting and destroying the very definition of marriage? Your description of marriage makes no sense at all. It could simply be called a joint contract for all intents and purposes.

The very word "marriage" implies an intimate relationship. You just can't get around that. And due to the obvious fact that two of the same gender have to make some serious accommodations in that area, it really doesn't deserve the term marriage. Pretend all you want, shack up, throw a party, wear matching tuxes or dresses, but be honest about the fact that it's different than a hetero marriage.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

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

Sounds like a 'win/win'... for thew state.

"Suppose... states got out of the marriage business altogether and simply rename it a civil union."

Why not just draw up your own marriage license, sign it, and send a copy to the state government to record? This way anyone can marry whomever they please... and as many as they please? And if they get a divorce just send another notice to the state government of the dissolution.

@RanchHand:
"The 10th Amendment prohibits states from violating the rights of US citizens."

Oops Did you mean the 14th?

"This isn't a state's rights issue, it is a federal issue."

Oops again. SCOTUS ruling on DOMA clearly turned marriage determinations over the states. And it will also eventually rule that Utah's marriage laws are Constitutional.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Blue AZ Cougar

"Look, if two people of the same gender want to shack up together, I have no problem with that -- they have the right to live their life how they want. But you must understand that there are a whole host of issues that come along with this territory, not the least of which is how children are impacted when we start teaching them"

When we start teaching them that gay people should ditch this marriage thing and just shack up together as the better alternative. Yeah, I can't see how that teaching could lead to problems...

Starry starry night
Palm Springs , CA

Blue Az says: "But telling me that your happiness depends on me labeling your relationship something it is not seems a little weird to me. Is it solely the monetary aspect of tax breaks that precludes you from being truly happy?"
Actually, it is not "soley" the monetary aspect...but it sure matters! In fact, it is the more than 1100 federal and statutory benefits that make a huge difference in people's lives that matter. We actually don't care what other people, at this point think...we actually don't care whether others think we are moral or not...we actually are not concerned if others are put off, or perplexed, or confused or even grossed out by the lives we live. We are so way past that. We don't concern ourselves with the privacy of heterosexual bedrooms...visa versa is the least that can be offered. What we do care about is that we are equal under the law and that in our country we honor the Constitution by helping it live up to its full potential. And that includes our right to all the protections under the law that are obviously take for granted by others.

to comment

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