Quantcast

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
Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

So interesting that as soon as I throw the religion card in there, I get hammered by pragmatist and EDM. You may not understand where my religious convictions come from, or why I have them, but don't start pointing the finger and telling me how bigoted I am for not seeing things the way you do. That's hypocrisy at its finest.

We really do live in a day when people call good evil, and evil good, just as Isaiah prophesied. A day when people condone sin with the expectation that "God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God." A day that Timothy described as "perilous times [...] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof."

ParkCityAggie
Park City, Ut

So many "activist judges" so little time. I suppose virtually ever every judge in the US is now a so-called "activist" because they... oh decide to defend the Constitution? I seem to recall a famous Supreme Court Justice describing an activist judge as a judge who wakes up in the morning. And isn't that the truth? If we like the ruling of a judge, well they made the right decision. If we don't like it we revert to the o'l ad hominem about the judge being an "activist" - yea, typical.

Mr. Bean
Phoenix, AZ

@EDM: "Relatively few people today consider homosexuality a disorder."

Would you be saying the same thing about polygamy, incestuous feelings, love between sibs, old geezer/young girl desires?

And if 'yes,' would you be in favor of these marriage combinations?

@Blue AZ Cougar: "Few kids born today will ever understand old prejudices."

And you can count on more seeing homosexuality as normal (which it isn't) and move in that direction.

LiberalJimmy
Salt Lake City, UT

Wow! These "activist" Judges seem to be everywhere. So what's the excuse now? Time to wake up people. It's 2014. Discrimination is unconstitutional. Period! All the whining and complaining will not change this.

Clark W. Griswold
Sandy, Utah

@ pragmatistferlife

"Marriage at it's core is a personal, social, and legal commitment, that's it"

Not quite, marriage is more than just a personal, social, and legal commitment. Marriage for thousands of years has always been about the joining together of man and woman for the purpose of creating children and establishing a family unit. Only a man and a woman can create their own biological children together and taking on roles as fathers and mothers in raising them. Two men and two women cannot.

Chilidog
Somewhere, IL

@wrz, you wrote: "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."
-------
The state can stil make marriage determinations, BUT, and this is a vitally important point, those determinations must follow the US Constitution.

In Utah, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, the courts have determined that the state SSM banns violate the 14th amendment. (Which trumps the 10th amendment, BTW).

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

On one hand you want government out of peoples lives, "the marriage business" on the other hand you want the government to be very involved with people lives. Fees to live together and fines if they don't pay the fees. With all due respect this sounds like more nonsense from people trying to force their religious values on people who don't believe what they do and is possibly the absolute worst idea I've seen on this issue. That position relegates all who do not believe in the definition of marriage as you do as somehow second class citizens. The solution is clear both to reasonable people and the constitution. Same sex marriages, yes MARRIAGES, with all of the protections and benefits afforded to heterosexual marriages should be legal across the entirety of the United States. Like it or not, religions do not have the monopoly on the definition of what marriage is. Period.

TA1
Alexandria, VA

I am LDS. I have been criticized for supporting equal rights for the LGBT community by my fellow Church members. I also believe in the (among other things) in the 12th Article of Faith (and by definition the Constitution of the United States of America).

formerteacher
Salt Lake City, UT

I applaud the Oklahoma Judge's decision. Even though it was fettered with a stay, pending the Utah decision. This seems to be a similar situation with the federal courts in the 60's to finally approve mixed marriages between blacks and whites. No harm has come from that decision. It has only validated the children raised in those mixed marriages. This ruling along with the Utah ruling will only do the same. It does not threaten any traditional marriage and those who have religious beliefs that are otherwise should not feel threatened. They are welcome to think the way that they do. This is more about bringing our constitution of equal treatment to all in fruition. I don't see how a gay couples decision to want to be married or raise children should in any way affect those who want a traditional marriage. All these decisions do is give every US citizen the same rights. Whether that be raising children, hospital visitations or death benefits. This has only become the latest threat to our constitution that states that ALL citizens should have equal rights!

Pete1215
Lafayette, IN

Apparently gay people want IRS backing to extract money from my wallet. And I am supposed to be happy about this?

Karen R.
Houston, TX

@ImaUteFan

"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."

If religious leaders were to announce tomorrow that they'd been mistaken; that God had revealed to them that homosexuality is not in fact sinful, I believe that many WOULD be swayed. This I find deeply disturbing. And deeply telling.

Springvillepoet
Springville, UT

@ Blue AZ:

"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."

I don't suppose you see how this sentence contradicts everything you are saying about gay marriage. The point is, Gay people want to label their relationship as a marriage. They want to enjoy the same rights and obligations under the law, as heterosexual couples who ask for legal recognition of their relationships. When you say they have the right to live how they want but say marriage is not part of that right (as it is the right of any heterosexual couple) you are contradicting the very essence of how rights are defined.

By labeling their relationship a marriage, Gay people are not saying your marriage, or the marriage of any heterosexual couple, is somehow now less, but rather that their relationship, between two consenting adult citizens, is entitled to the same legal considerations and subject to the same obligations under the law.

Yorkshire
City, Ut

Blue AZ Cougar said: "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?"

Brilliant!

New to Utah
PAYSON, UT

Hopefully the American electorate realize that
elections have consequences. Obama's win
has set in motion his radical agenda to fundamentally
transform our country ,SSM is just one area
where activist judges rule against the will of
the people.

Mayfair
City, Ut

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

Yes, the LDS do.

And no matter how the wind continues to blow, no matter what happens, no matter how many states are forced to upend their majority vote and SSM is declared the law, even if the Supreme Court decides to cave and declares it law in all 50 states...

No matter what---there will ALWAYS be an LDS position that will NOT cave and and that will not be able to be 'worn down, won over and convinced' --- that will remain unconquerable by those who insist same-sex become socially and morally acceptable.

The 'irresistible force' will find they run right into the 'immovable object'.

kolob1
sandy, UT

Everybody knows that behind the scenes the Church is cringing at these"activist federal judges" (16 now total nationwide). If we are only arguing about the word "marriage " why not rewrite Amendment 3 which simply states: that all citizens have the right(s) to form legal state sanctioned partnerships and that all religious institutions have the right to perform quasi-legal marriages. All people who want to be legally "married" MUST be "partnered/married" by the State as "partnerships".They can then elect to get "married" in the Church of their faith. Quite simple. Make Church marriage SPECIAL, retain they name but not the official "blessing" of the state. The church doesn't need the official blessing of the State to bestow the blessing of marriage. Eliminate Church personnel from the statutes as authorized to perform state sanctioned partnerships.The Church would retain their right to perform their "blessings" on their own members as they saw fit. So very simple.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

@ Bob A Bohey:

When did religion give up its "monopoly" on marriage definition? It was a religious institution long before government stepped in. Was it when states started charging for marriage licenses? When states started performing blood tests?

Marriage existed long before government. It is a religious institution. Revising history to fit personal beliefs and opinions is tricky business....

Mayfair
City, Ut

Prodicus said: "The winds of the gullible public will blow according to the cunning craftiness of the self-deceived....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.

Really love your turns of phrase.

Well said.

kolob1
sandy, UT

Everybody knows that behind the scenes the Church is cringing at these"activist federal judges" (16 now total nationwide). If we are only arguing about the word "marriage " why not rewrite Amendment 3 which simply states: that all citizens have the right(s) to form legal state sanctioned partnerships and that all religious institutions have the right to perform quasi-legal marriages. All people who want to be legally "married" MUST be "partnered/married" by the State as "partnerships".They can then elect to get "married" in the Church of their faith. Quite simple. Make Church marriage SPECIAL, retain they name but not the official "blessing" of the state. The church doesn't need the official blessing of the State to bestow the blessing of marriage. Eliminate Church personnel from the statutes as authorized to perform state sanctioned partnerships.The Church would retain their right to perform their "blessings" on their own members as they saw fit. So very simple.

Prodicus
Provo, UT

BTRP, what I'm saying is that when someone has sex, either they made a free choice to do so, a choice which is subject to moral scrutiny, or they were raped. That is equally true regardless of what direction their attractions tend and regardless of how those attractions developed.

Neither genes nor upbringing nor anything about attractions and inclinations force our actions on any particular occasion. This is equally true of all our feelings and desires, sexual or not.

That people have inclinations, attractions, etc towards particular immoral behaviors does not eo ipso make them bad people. Everyone has some such inclinations; this is part of being human.

Treating people with justice and compassion never requires approving of whatever immoral actions they have tendencies towards.

Treating people as though they were ruled by their attractions and had no choice in their actions isn't compassionate, it's treating them as inferior animals rather than equals. Even if people would feel intense gratification doing some immoral deed, they will be better off in the long run if they avoid it.

EDM, whether homosexuality is classified as a disorder or not is utterly irrelevant to anything I said.

to comment

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