Comments about ‘Same-sex couples oppose state's request for more time to appeal’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Jan. 18 2014 5:40 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Rexburg, ID

EDM, Leslie,

Yes, I'm serious. Discrimination isn't immoral. We do it all the time. Colleges discriminate against those with lower IQs. People who are dating discriminate against less attractive candidates. When I was dating, I discriminated against those who were much older, younger, family members, less attractive people, and those of the same gender. The NFL discriminates against females and less athletic people. In marriage laws, we discriminate against family members marrying. But I guess that's wrong because it's discrimination!

The make up of a female and a male is so different yet complimentary, no other combination of people can do and become what a male and female can. You can't replace a bride with another groom and possible thing it's in any way equal. The biggest argument against gay marriage isn't religious, not by a long shot. It's biology. Our very make-ups that dictate that a man belongs with a woman and vise-versa.

Ogden, UT

When, as in this case, a party is trying to deny the Constitutional rights of a group of people for no rationally-based reason, and especially when that party first requested that its appeal be fast-tracked and is now trying to renege on that request, they deserve to be on as short a track as possible. here's hoping Utah loses this request too.

Somewhere, IL


A couple things. 1) we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. 2) the 14th amendment takes prescedsnce over the 10th amendment. Each amendment modifies all previous ones as applicable. The 14th amendment explicitly bound the states to the provisions of equal protection. 3) how is assuring that all citizens are treated equally bad for the country?

Somewhere, IL

The states position seems a bit duplicitous to me. They were all for an expedited appeal until SCOTUS grsnted the stay, and the judge in OK made the same ruling.

Oh, to the lawyers for the state: Look up the word "fulsome". It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Salt Lake City, UT

You have the same rights as anyone. You, being a male, can marry a female should you so choose, just like anyone else. The law is the same for everyone. If you don't want to marry a female, that is your choice.
If you change the words male/female to White/Black, that is what the voters in the South told the Lovings 60 years ago.

Marriage binds the couple so that his or her income is their income and his or her retirement is their retirement. A homosexual couple needs no such protections as they can NEVER have children together.
What do retirement, Social Security and pension protections/benefits have to do with having kids? Don’t childless heterosexual couples need & receive those same benefits/protections?

People are choosing this lifestyle over a heterosexual…
Do you REALLY believe that a guy, who is naturally attracted to women, will simply choose to have relations with men because it’s fashionable?

Discrimination isn't immoral. We do it all the time.
It’s one thing for people to do so and another or government to do so when no harm comes from it.

Mcallen, TX

Words such as discrimination, and equality, is for pushing in an unwanted law. Period!

Bob A. Bohey
Marlborough, MA

aunt lucy: "Why all the litigation. The majority has already spoken. This issue was decided by a state vote."
Dear Lucy,
America is a secular representative democracy. Now, what that means is, if one lives anywhere in the union, lets say a state,that has a majority of lets say, one particular religion and that religion wants to create a law based on it's beliefs and that law is deemed to infringe upon the rights of a minority as judged by the United States Supreme Court based upon the Constitution of the United States of America then that law is deemed unconstitutional and invalid. A great example of this type of democracy is the rulings that struck down prop. 8 in Cal. and DOMA. These are the types of issues that true fighters for freedom hold out to the world of examples of a free and great nation that our founding fathers envisioned and so many have fought and died for.

I hope you found this informative and pass it along any chance you get. Have a great day.

Alameda, CA

Your first post: Love is a choice. The law recognizes heterosexual love-marriage only.

The second: Marriage is financial protection for straight couples, not gay couples because they do not have children. Gay marriage is immoral.

The last: Discrimination is not immoral. You say you chose, discriminated. Yes, we all do.

But then you say: Marriage is biology, the "make up" of women and men is "different yet complimentary." (Did you mean complementary, or both words, but not just the word you used?)

Well, you are serious. So am I. Your posts seem confused about why, or about how other people can be just as serious for other reasons. That could be why we married different people.

Biology - nature - does not have intentions or have to be "proved" by humans, by marriage. And human nature is as variable as the number of human beings.

Some of those things may be true for you and your marriage.
Some are true for me and mine.

Don't we agree to disagree about some things, seriously? And we both belong to the human race. Isn't that progress?

Orem, UT


One of the natural consequences of promoting gay/lesbian relationships is that it will inevitably cause many to stumble. We live in such a sexually charged society that people are getting bored of being heterosexual. There are more than you think that let their curiosity get the best of them and without an understanding of sexual morality, what's to stop them from participating? Society is in the process of normalizing homosexuality and it is no longer taboo. People who have struggled to find their place in the world are being welcomed with open arms into the homosexual community if they subscribe to their way of thinking. This sexual confusion, especially among our youth, will cause many to make very regrettable life choices. Thus they are on the path to chaos and misery.

The end result for those who are fighting for the homosexual lifestyle does not end with gay marriage, but for society to consider homosexuality as a moral and normal way to live. And, yes, I completely believe that many are giving up heterosexuality to jump on the homosexual bandwagon for many reasons. And they would say, what's wrong with that?

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

There are already truckloads of briefs against same-sex marriage available. All the appellant attorneys have to do is cut and paste what they think are the best parts. This shouldn't be any harder than a college student plagiarizing wikipedia for a term paper, two days work, tops. I don't know how many man-years (and woman-years) have already gone into case preparations arguing against marriage equality before all the various state and federal courts to date, but this case and these arguments are as mature as they're ever going to get. Although hope springs eternal, ten more days isn't going to turn up anything new that the conservative think tanks haven't already tried.

The fact that all the previous cases have lost doesn't mean the facts were wrong. Perhaps they just weren't presented right. But, the facts aren't going to change in ten more days, the weight of all those losses clouds the chances of this appeal, and this is little more than stalling for time.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@jasonlevy: Your comment says far more about you than it does about society or our fellow citizens.

Speaking as a certified, card-carrying heterosexual, who enjoys the love, companionship and intimacy of my wife of 30+ years, and who has only ever had romantic interests in women, I find your statement impossible to believe as something a heterosexual would say.

Some 95% of us men and women are straight, only attracted to the opposite sex, constitutionally incapable of forming a romantic bond with our own sex. Of the remaining 5%, some may have found themselves pushed early on towards "normal" relationships, but those pressured relationships usually fall apart. With the exception of true bisexuals, and they're probably a similarly small number, the only people you'll see "switching sides" are people who were pressured, through guilt, fear, or belief, into a relationship that could never work for them. I hope and pray your comment is not because you're personally bitter from a similar experience.

Saint George, UT

I oppose their opposition to the state's request for more time.

Saint George, UT

Bob Bohey: Where, may I ask, is there any state in the United States of America where any religion has been established by the state? There is a myth out there, perpetuated by some that separation of church and state was meant to disallow religion in the public square. There are far too many citizens who don't understand the difference between a state established religion that our founders pledged their honor to keep from happening and allowing religion in the public square, which they not only wanted, but understood the necessity of in a free republic, all of which is ironic because of the athiest's position, which is to allow their opinion in the public square at the expense of everybody else's opinion! Please do some research (a little is all that is needed) to know exactly the truth on this matter!

Salt Lake City, UT

We live in such a sexually charged society that people are getting bored of being heterosexual I completely believe that many are giving up heterosexuality to jump on the homosexual bandwagon for many reasons. And they would say, what's wrong with that?

There may be some, especially women, who may be open to experimenting and some may decide to "switch teams", but how many of those people would otherwise have happy long term heterosexual relationships if SSM remained illegal? VERY FEW! My guess is that they'd remain single and have relationships with both sexes. It's not worth denying a large group of people their constitutional rights of equality and equal protection to keep so few from something that is only subjectively harmful.

to comment

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