Comments about ‘Oklahoma, Utah same-sex marriage rulings could turn up heat on Supreme Court’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 15 2014 3:40 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

There are probably twenty-five such cases out there in district courts. Judge Shelby is new to the bench. Judge Kern has been a district court judge for twenty years. They both came to the same conclusion about the Windsor ruling. I would guess that you are going to be hearing the same ruling come down from different district courts this year. The Supreme Court will then pick one of them, for the 2014-2015 term.

I don't agree with Justice Scalia on a lot of things, but I think he got one thing right. This is exactly what the majority led by Justice Kennedy wanted.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Utah and Oklahoma will be remembered as the states that helped usher in nation wide same sex marriage. I'm loving the irony.

Willem
Los Angeles, CA

Yes folks like it or not LOVE conquers all! I ask you Americans do we have a great country or not??

Instereo
Eureka, UT

When "Rights" are involved, I'm glad the heat is being turned up on the Supreme Court. The bill of rights was passed in the first session of congress and then by the states shortly after that to be added as amendments to the constitution. It's taken a long time for the country to truly understand what these rights mean but since the 1950's with the Brown vs. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Movement it's become clearer and clearer that the Bill of Rights is for all citizens regardless of sex, race, national origin, or gender orientation. I for one am happy that "We the People...." is really becoming to me "We the People...." as in all of us.

Lyman
Payson, UT

I don't think you can call it Love. We may have had a great country at one time. If it were not for the righteous among us, our country would long be gone. Breaking Gods laws is not Love. Standing firmly to his laws is Love

Miss Piggie
Phoenix, AZ

@Instereo:
"...it's become clearer and clearer that the Bill of Rights is for all citizens regardless of sex, race, national origin, or gender orientation."

Just how far do you hope the bill of rights will go? Will it involve polygamy? Will it involve incest? Siblings? children? group marriages?

"I for one am happy that 'We the People....' is really becoming to me 'We the People....' as in all of us."

All of us? You might not like where this will eventually take this country.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

I feel that the Supreme court should take this up and make a ruling affecting the whole country. While I generally believe in states rights, this is an issue that needs to be decided country wide.

The ramifications of getting married in one state that recognizes SSm and transferring or moving to a different state that does not would create too many problems.

Figure it out, country wide, one way or another.

Ranch
Here, UT

Justice may move slowly sometimes, but in the end, it will prevail.

Gail Fitches
Layton, UT

There was a disturbing article regarding a Missouri father that is outraged over a sex education poster in his daughter's school. Please do a search on that. How far do people want to go in the moral decay of our society? I am not a Mormon, but I am a Christian. We have been cautioned by political figures of the past about changing and recreating new laws. I do not hate gay people, but stuck up for them in the past, but I am starting to feel different about them as a group, I have to admit. We all care about fairness, and adding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to Utah's nondiscrimination law might sound reasonable and fair, but it's not. The problem is that it would give special rights to some people at the expense of other people. In fact, it would give special rights
to some that conflict with the first freedoms of others." We must protect our first freedoms granted to all citizens by our constitution!

Gandalf
Salt Lake City, UT

Two of the reddest states in the country racing to see who gets credit for the Supreme Court case that allows national gay marriage. Sweet!

Yorkshire
City, Ut

These lines are directed to LDS members in relation to SSM:

"We invite you to pray...that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future.

These lines are directed and addressed to "The World":

"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity...will one day stand accountable before God.

Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

Vanceone
Provo, UT

Somehow, when the case comes that sues the LDS or Catholic churches for "Violating" gay rights by not bowing down to them, and the plaintiffs find a gay judge who will agree--

Will all you gay rights supporters be shocked, shocked and appalled? Or will you hail forcing churches to violate their laws as "freedoms!" and "Justice?"

I am pretty sure that when Hillary orders pastors thrown in jail there will be cheering from the liberals here. Because you gay rights people are so predictable. You lied to us when you said civil unions were all you wanted. And you are lying now when you say that you will never try to force churches to violate their consciences. You are lying when you say gay rights will never impact the rest of us--Just ask Phil Robertson if gay rights were all unicorn and kittens and did nothing to impact him. All of this "non discrimination" and "Freedoms and civil rights for gays" are really code for "We win, you lose, and we will do our best to stamp out your freedoms." Just ask bakers and photographers.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

Of course the Supreme Court has to take up the issue of whether marriage is a state or federal regulation. They would be cowards to not address this issue. It will end up being a kind of Roe vs Wade decision. All or nothing. Unless of course, they turn it back to the states. However few judges, especially liberal ones, will hold with states rights. It's going to be harder to pick the winner of the Super Bowl than to see where this one is headed.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

It seems that many of us have decided not to hear the other side arguments.

The LGBT community is presenting facts based on real life, studies, years of living a life of lies, fear, and Mr. Robinson (DN) wrote a few days ago "abuse" from the sexual majority.

Those opposed to SSM used their religious beliefs and fear for what may happen.

It seems the dialogue on this type of forum has become only an outlet to vent frustrations.

I am glad that Utah and Oklahoma are forcing the hand of the SCOTUS to visit and rule on this issue.

I'll borrow Yorkshire's lines here: ""We invite you to pray...that wisdom will be granted to those who are called upon to decide issues critical to society’s future."

Yorkshire also wrote:"
"We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity...will one day stand accountable before God. "

Well, if that is the case. Then we need to legalize monogamous SSM. Otherwise God would be setting about 10% of his children for failure with an extraordinary burden.

Let's pray for the SCOTUS.

SCfan
clearfield, UT

Baccus0902

You may make some valid points, but don't use the old propaganda of 10% of people are homosexual. All studies have shown the number to be around 3 to 4 percent.

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

@ Ranch - Here, UT - "Justice may move slowly sometimes, but in the end, it will prevail."

Yep.

However, 'Ranch', I've read enough of your liberal philosophy posts on here to tell you that when "justice" is fully administered, you're going to be one mighty unhappy camper.

Baccus0902
Leesburg, VA

@ SCfan

" Baccus0902 You may make some valid points, but don't use the old propaganda of 10% of people are homosexual. All studies have shown the number to be around 3 to 4 percent."

If only 3% to 4% of the population is homosexual. Why so much concern of total destruction of our civilization?

Talking about "propaganda", Homosexuality is not a choice - check your life and see if you ever were presented with that choice- Therefore if 3% to 4% of homosexuals want to live a life as a couple enjoying all the benefit that all married heterosexuals enjoy, what is the problem with that?

We pay taxes as you do (or more) and receive way less benefits than you do. Is that fair?

Our children need food, clothes, school, health, many of you have mentioned that 2 parents is better than one, yet you prevent our children from having two parents. Is that fair?

When you retire your spouse will be able to collect some of your benefits. Our partners don't have that privilege. Is that fair?

Giving the same rights that you enjoy to 3% or 4% of the population shouldn't be a burden to society, specially when this population already paid for them.

UTSU
Logan, UT

If one judge after another, one court after another came to the same conclusion that denying same sex couples' right to marry is against US constitution or state constitution(MA, CT, IA, NJ, NM), and American people have evolved to a point that the majority supports marriage equality, then perhaps it is about time for SSM opponents to think about:

Is it because all those judges, courts are activists? or because my understanding about constitution is not correct?

Dutchman
Murray, UT

Simple. It is time for States and governments in general to stop defining marriage and provide a civil union to any couple that wants a civil union. Couples who want to go beyond a civil union can go to a religion for a marriage and that religion should be allowed under the law to define marriage as it sees fit and according to their own doctrine and beliefs.

wrz
Phoenix, AZ

@SCfan:
"Of course the Supreme Court has to take up the issue of whether marriage is a state or federal regulation."

SCOTUS has already made that determination in the DOMA case.

Comes the question: Can SCOTUS renege on its ruling by saying that Utah and Oklahoma cannot define marriages by excluding SSM? If SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM it will have ruled against itself. SCOTUS has no option but to rule in favor of Utah/Oklahoma.

@Baccus0902:
"It seems that many of us have decided not to hear the other side arguments."

Are you saying the LGBT community is not hearing the polygamists, incests, etc.?

"The LGBT community is presenting facts based on real life, studies, years of living a life of lies, fear, and Mr. Robinson (DN) wrote a few days ago "abuse" from the sexual majority."

Humans are filled with unnatural foibles. Why is it that the LGBT's are not required to deal with theirs?

"I am glad that Utah and Oklahoma are forcing the hand of the SCOTUS to visit and rule on this issue."

As noted above, SCOTUS has no choice but to rule in favor of Utah/Oklahoma.

to comment

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