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
Sal
Provo, UT

I resent the writer of the article stating that Utah now accepts gay marriage. Utah does not accept gay marriage; one tyrannicaljudge unconstitutionally imposed it against the will of the people of Utah. The Constitution gives states the right to define marriage not the federal government.

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

@RedWings:"When did religion give up its "monopoly" on marriage definition? It was a religious institution long before government stepped in."

Your statement is absolutely false. Presenting statements such as you did as a fact is just one reason those that wish to deny equal rights to all undermine their argument. Marriage defined as a civil arrangement pre-dates the religious definition of marriage by almost 100,000 years. It never ceases to amaze me how little proponents of "traditional marriage" actually know about "traditional marriage". SMH

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

Blue AZ Cougar,

The only problem I have with your position is the assumption that your religious beliefs can be (or should be) imposed on others. Those beliefs have no place in how other lives are determined. They're yours to own, but I don't accept them as mine. The courts don't accept them as an argument either. I completely understand that might be upsetting.

Vanceone
Provo, UT

Listen to the gay supporters: All we want is to love and be loved! It can't possibly hurt anyone else! You are a bigot for not giving in and giving us everything we want! Religion is wrong! Homosexual behavior is not a sin!

Blah, blah. Tell me, who here thinks that the gay lobby will be satisfied with state recognition of SSM? They swore up and down that civil unions would make them happy. They lied. They swear that governmental recognition of marriage is all they want and they will never force churches to marry them. They are lying now. Look at groups like GLAAD. Do you honestly think they will be satisfied until you either praise them or are in jail? Look at how bent out of shape the got over Phil Robertson--they did their best to get him fired.

And THAT is why we should fight the gay lobby at every turn, because it is their open goal to criminalize any kind of opposition--moral or otherwise--to the gay lobby and its desires.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"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". Absolutely nothing and it happens everyday.

BTW that is a core characteristic of arranged "marriages" that historically have been the normal mode of marriage for centuries. The general acceptance of marriage for romantic love is actually a very new concept. It really is less than a couple of hundred years old. Lots of books and scholarly work on this.

Blue Cougar, No it's not hypocrisy. You are allowed your opinion regardless of it's origin. It's simply my opinion that when marriage at it's core is a personal, social, and legal commitment, it's bigoted and discriminatory to not allow anyone to marry regardless of sexual orientation who meets that standard. You apply a different standard. You're entitled to your opinion, but by my definition of marriage your standard is..well you know.

Hypocrisy would be if I didn't allow you your opinion but expressed one myself.

Esquire
Springville, UT

Utah will lose.

I am disappointed at the little shot at Judge Shelby. The OK judge had a clear precedent and instruction from the U.S. Supreme Court on the stay issue. Judge Shelby did not. In addition, the State of Utah did not ask for a stay. It's time for this paper to stop its attacks on the judge and his well reasoned decision. Stay on the message and stop attacking the messenger. You are violating the very same principles stated in the letter on the issue read in LDS congregations.

Vanceone
Provo, UT

Next question, that gay rights supports refuse to answer:

The 14th Amendment provided absolutely no protections to Mormons when they were being jailed, their property confiscated, and their rights to vote stripped back in the 1800s. Both the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, and the 14th amendments gave zero protection to the Mormons against the Federal Government.

Yet NOW, the 14th amendment insists that government must marry gays. So Mormons can be jailed legally and lose all their constitutional rights for their views on marriage, yet the government must marry gays by order of the same Constitution.

How does that work? Why are gays so much better than Mormons? What makes their rights so special, and privileged? Because the gay rights lobby holds that polygamy should still be illegal, so obviously they agree with Reynolds and its progeny. I.E. Gays are more equal than the rest of us.

BTRP
Orem, UT

Prodicus, I agree that humans have certain tendencies and inclinations, that are both positive and negative. I agree that when someone engages in sexual activity, it is a conscious choice to do so, just like every other decision that people make in the course of a day.

I hope that you also see that your decisions to engage in sexual activity with someone of the opposite sex is also a conscious decision, that I'm sure you don't view as immoral. You must recognize that gays probably don't view their sexual activity as immoral. Everyone has a different upbringing and while you can certainly advocate your religious/moral views, people who don't share those views cannot be held accountable to them.

Gone fishin
Seattle, WA

This movement is a huge hit to a moral society.

BTRP
Orem, UT

Prodicus, I agree you can treat people with compassion without approving of how they live their lives. However, I firmly believe that gays lead their lives to the best of their abilities, like you, but according to their own background and morals.

Being gay myself, I can unequivocally say that its not a choice to be immoral, but to be physically connected to the one I love is why I engage in sex. I bet you feel similarly.

Springvillepoet
Springville, UT

@Mayfair:

"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."

Nobody I know is asking you to cave on your personal beliefs, and that includes my gay and lesbian friends. What is being asked for is an acknowledgement that your personal beliefs have no weight when deciding the rights of the citizenry according to the standard set by the U.S. Constitution, which sets the legal standard for state constitutions.

You are not a bigot if you disagree with homosexuality, but you cannot cry foul if you are asking that your religious beliefs interfere with my rights as a citizen and I call you out on your behavior.

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

@EDM
If it's a matter of tax breaks, equal housing or employment opportunities, I get it -- your sexual orientation should not matter when it comes to those things. Our country is in need of tax reform anyway, so why not change how the tax rules work rather than changing the institution of marriage? In addition to legal acceptance, a lot (not all) of same-sex couples want there to be social acceptance, which is something that cannot be legislated. I completely understand that might be upsetting for you. Rather than trying to turn traditional marriage on its head to gain access to federal benefits, why not change the way federal benefits are proscribed?

Obviously this is one of those issues where there is no middle ground -- either you're for it or against it (and both sides have a myriad of reasons to support their opinion).

illuminated
St George, UT

Here is the point that most people are missing with this issue and any other issue pertaining to moral and/or religious beliefs: People in a society set moral standards.

The Constitution was designed so that each individual community, or state, could define their moral rights and wrongs. New York decided that you cannot drink too much soda, Colorado decided you can smoke pot, San Francisco decided that putting anything other than a car in your garage is illegal, and Oklahoma decided that putting the 10 Commandments on state property is okay. I could go on and on, but you get the point.

If the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection) was truly designed as Judge Shelby said it was, then the Federal Government could take any one of these local laws and force it upon every other state. That's not happening though, and never should, otherwise the entire point of Federalism and our Constitution would be pointless.

...continued in another post.

illuminated
St George, UT

...continued from above

States should have the right, as a community of voters, to decide what their moral standards are in their places of living. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? If gay marriage is legalized because moral beliefs are not allowed to dictate law, then why not polygamy? Why not marriage to animals? Why not marriage to trees, or the stars?

And before you say, "you have to have consent", explain to me why your line in the sand is any more valid than my line in the sand? Do you get what I'm saying? I mean, if your moral version of right and wrong is, "you must be able to consent", then why is that stronger or more important than mine which is found in the Bible.

continued...

illuminated
St George, UT

An atheist will claim that prayer shouldn't be allowed in school or on state property because it offends him, that a "moment of silence" should be used instead. Well guess what, my new religion dictates that "moments of silence" is phony and it offends ME. Also, handshakes offend me - they represent signs of the Cthulhlu, lord of the sea, so I want that removed as well from state property. And before you say, "you're being ridiculous", remember that any group of people, in the name of activism can come up with any sort of phony organization they want to forward their cause in the name of "equality". It's being done right now in Oklahoma on state property with the Satan statue.

You see how the removal of morals in society leads to complete ridiculousness? The framers never thought that people would abandon their inner conscience of right and wrong, they never intended our laws to work properly without it. Without the key ingredient of "goodness" in society, that inner light that each of us have that comes from God, there is no functioning society, we will become endlessly locked in pointless debates over Constitutional interpretation.

Mr. Smitty
Salt Lake City, UT

I'm confused about comments suggesting that the LDS Church never changes its teachings? Has anyone ever heard about polygamy and the prohibition of inter-racial marriage? Can anyone dispute that the LDS Church changed its teachings with respect to marriage in two obvious ways?

tim_the_tool_man_taylor
Dallas, TX

The real issue at stake here is that of a false right.

(the right to recognize their relationship and stop others from discriminating against them.)

This has nothing to with the sociological issue that many are claiming.

TheTrueVoice
West Richland, WA

Most of the detractors in this thread still fail to grasp that this marriage equality issue has absolutely nothing to do with personal beliefs resulting from dogmatic indoctrination.

It is a civil rights matter.

Failure to understand this concept is the origin of the angst many religious people feel regarding marriage equality.

Last year SCOTUS indicated thru the DOMA/Prop8 decisions that states do indeed have a say in their approach to marriage - as long as all state laws pertaining to marriage comport with constitutional law. Utah's Amendment 3 utterly failed constitutional scrutiny, and that's why it (and every similar law throughout the land) is being properly dismantled before us. Similar to the way we now allow women and minorities to vote, America has finally evolved to an enlightened state where free citizens no longer tolerate legal bigotry and state-sponsored discrimination.

windsor
City, Ut

"....we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams, 2nd President of the United States.

Embarcadero
SAN FRANCISCO, CA

With the country's two reddest states being dragged - albeit kicking and screaming - into the civilized world, we can all breathe and sleep a little easier. This story even managed to omit the obligatory "activist judge" thing, though they did squeeze in a comment from the FRC, a certified hate group. Maybe there's hope for the DN.

to comment

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