Quantcast

Comments about ‘10th Circuit gives Utah seven more days to file appeal on same-sex marriage ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 21 2014 2:46 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Gibster
San Antonio, TX

@here 2
Allow me to clarify. What freedoms does the church lose if they are allowed to marry? The church can still say it's morally wrong, they can still deny them access to the temple if they do not live the law of chastity. I do not understand what rights are being taken from the church or it's membership.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

There are many arguments for man/woman marriage that focus solely on the need for marriage to be in a form that can create children to focus all child rearing within marriage as much as possible and to connect marriage to child rearing. The state has a vested interest in seeking to have as many children as possible be raised by their own biological parents.

It would help discussion on this matter a lot if people accepted that this is a reasonable set of goals. They may not be goals others hold, but to try and act like these goals do not exist at all, just leads to needless animosity and hate being shown by those who oppose man/woman marriage.

Janet
Ontario, OR

The fear is that churches, synagogues, and mosques will have to perform same-sex marriages if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land. Already, bakers, florists, photographers, etc. cannot deny a same-sex couple the professional services requested for a wedding. Already, teachers must be very careful not to discriminate by saying "Ask your mommies and daddies," or the like. Already, business executives and celebrities risk their careers by stating that they do not think same-sex marriage is morally right. If it were a matter of a legal union that provided equal benefits and privileges with married couples, few would object. People who believe strongly in religions that stress chastity can't just abandon their God's commandments. I can totally understand how gay couples feel. I wish there were a way to make everyone feel loved, respected, and happy. LDS who are gay can be chaste -- though it might require almost superhuman effort -- and remain active, but most gay people are not LDS. We need a new Solomon, and the Supreme Court is as close as we can come before the Millennium.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Jefferson, Thomas
"The Feds have thankfully stayed out of this area for hundreds of years. "

They (via the courts) got involved in interracial marriage bans.

@Here
"I don't think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints will "get out of the way". This is an issue of great importance to The Church. True, it might make things more difficult for The Church. But the Church cannot, and I would be sure, will not, change the Lord's commandments."

I assume 'get out of the way' only meant that the church wouldn't get involved in things like Prop 8, not that the church would change their rules for who they marry.

@John Pack Lambert of Michigan
"There are many arguments for man/woman marriage that focus solely on the need for marriage to be in a form that can create children to focus all child rearing within marriage as much as possible"

Utah lets single people adopt, let's parents divorce, and has no child requirement for marriages. If they use that argument, they will lose.

"who oppose man/woman marriage."

Nobody opposes man/woman marriage, they merely support additional type(s).

Esquire
Springville, UT

Before everyone gets over excited, it is common for courts to give reasonable extensions to parties on showing of good cause. It really doesn't mean that much. The merit of the arguments are what's important. This is going to be really interesting....

Conner Johnson

Lets hope this 'extension' gives the AG and Governor Gary a chance to realize their are fighting a battle that they simply cannot win. Why don't we spend that money to find out how deep this John Swallow case really goes... or something meaningful like public education.

ulvegaard
Medical Lake, Washington

@Gibster,

There are already individuals suggesting here in the comments that once gay marriage is the law of the land then 'Gay Mormons' will be able to exist completely in the LDS church suggesting that the church will be forced to accept and allow their marriages in spite of its doctrine. It is this direction (something already ocuring in Europe - primarily Holland) that the church wishes to avoid.

Some may argue that it isn't likely, but there is a chance that the next item on the agenda will be to punish any and all religions which refuse to alter their doctrine to allow the GLBT community any and all of their demands. Already private businesses are being sued over the issue. I suspect their might be less objections if a 100% guarantee could be issued that their will not be further encroachment on religious freedom.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@here;

A behavior that is morally wrong is discrimination. "Morally wrong" is subjective. You do not get to define what is moral and what is not in our society based on your personal religious beliefs, which are quite likely in opposition to someone elses beliefs about morality.

Cats says:

"All they have to do is live the law of chastity the same as any other member."

Guess what, Cat? If we are married to our partners then we ARE living the 'law of chastity'. You're trying to prevent that.

@Walt Nicholes;

The 10th amendment BANS states from violating federal laws. Amendment 3 violates the 5th and the 14th amendments of the US Constitution (i.e., federal laws).

@Jefferson, Thomas;

The feds intervened in Loving vs. Va. 1967 wasn't 100's of years ago. You are correct about "marriage administration" being a state issue; however marriage definition is not when it violates the rights of Americans.

@Here;

The LDS church IS judging people.

@JPL;

None of us "oppose man-woman marriage"; we're inclusive, not exclusive.

@Janet;

Bakers and florists and photographers are not churches. Your god never said "refuse service to sinners", he said "love your fellow man".

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@john pack lambert

So it would help the discussion if we just accept an argument for which the state was unable to defend in a court of law. When asked how banning SSM increase the likelyhood of a child being raised by their bio mother and father the state was unable to provide evidance or even a "readoable" rational for such an argument. Iit further was unable to present" reasonable" evidance as to a harm caused to children or society by SSM. So to accept the argument as "reasonable" for the sake of moving the conversation along seems well unreasonable.

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

It is interesting that those who support SSM, many of whom are from out of State, would have Utah just give up accept what one activist judge has ruled. The State does have an interest in defending it's position. Proposition 8 in CA was ruled against because the Governor and Att. Gen. would not see due dilligence to the laws of their state.

Judge Shelby should have imposed a stay immediately after his ruling, Justice Sotomayor essentiaally said that when she ruled the way she did. Now it is completely understandable that Utah would ask for an extension to have sufficient time to prepare.

It was the US Supreme court thaty helped shape Utah's marriage laws well over 100 years ago, it is now going to take the US Supreme Court to decide this case.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@JohnPackLambert: You keep insisting that society's interest in marriage is solely for the raising of children by their biological parents. This is not true, and is contradicted by all related governmental policies. Here's the proof:

Sperm banks are legal.
Egg banks are legal.
Surrogates are legal.
Having a baby out-of-wedlock is legal.
Abortions by single mothers are discouraged.
Adoption is a big business, and subsidized by the state.
Divorce is legal and readily available.

Further, if the government did have such an interest, certainly they would have reacted to the extraordinarily high out-of-wedlock birth percentage (41%) and divorce rate (50%). Yet, if there are any programs in place to address these, they've been thoroughly ineffective.

We can therefore safely conclude that the state has either no interest in marriage regarding bearing or raising of the couple's own biological children, or has already thoroughly abrogated that responsibility in a half-dozen different ways.

The simple fact of the matter is that the state wishes to suppress homosexuality and seeks to do so by denying rights to the 5% of its own citizens who grow up gay.

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

Gibster, just a note as to how religious liberties have been and will be affected.

"... religious liberty concerns in particular. After Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, DC, either passed a civil union law or redefined marriage, Christian adoption agencies were forced to stop serving some of the neediest children in America: orphans. These agencies said they had no problem with same-sex couples adopting from other agencies, but that they wanted to place the children in their care with a married mom and dad. They had a religious liberty interest, and they had social science evidence that suggests that children do best with a married mom and dad. And yet in all three jurisdictions, they were told they could not do that."

testimony from Ryan T. Anderson, from this appearance Monday, January 13, 2014 to the Indiana House Judiciary Committee. Ryan Anderson is co-author of the book "What is Marriage"

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@RocketScience: While it is admirable for a church to establish and support the operation of a social service agency as inspired by their religious leadings, that agency is not a church. It is a social service agency, and in these cases received funding by the state for its services. As such, it needed to operate under the state's rules. If it is not willing to operate under those rules, then it can't get the funding.

Further, those agencies in question were, I believe, already placing children with single parents, some of whom may have been known to be gay. Only after SSM was legalized did they take their fainting-couch, melodramatic position. And the state, like any good parent said, "Fine, hold your breath until you turn blue." Now that same state funding just goes to other adoption agencies. Catholic adoption agencies were still free to operate without state money, but it turns out they weren't actually that altruistic.

Rocket Science
Brigham City, UT

Each State has an interest in seeing successful families. Unfortunately since the sexual revolution of the 1960's too large a percentage of families have deteriorated through increasing divorce rates and irresponsible, out of wedlock sexual relationships resulting in illigitimacy.

Rutgers sociologist Professor David Popenoe writes, "The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender-differentiated parenting is important for human development and the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable." He then concludes: "We should disavow the notion that mommies can make good daddies, just as we should the popular notion that daddies can make good mommies. The two sexes are different to the core and each is necessary;culturally and biologically;for the optimal development of a human being."

While some truly amazing one parent families do a fantastic job, it is a tremendous struggle and disadvantage to be without a mother and a father. This is why 34 states continue with the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, many doing so by amending their constitutions. This is why Utah is defending Ammendment 3.

oaklandaforlife
SLC, UT

Utah will pay the almighty nickel for all of this - Why?

Rikitikitavi
Cardston, Alberta

Classic battle between right and wrong! Very clear: follow the prophet, he knows the way. He knows the end from the beginning...he sees where this is all headed.

Stephen Daedalus
Arvada, CO

@Quaker is correct.

Boston Globe Oct 22 2005: Catholic Charities of Boston knowingly placed children with gay parents starting in 1987 and continued for nearly two decades. These were "among the most difficult to place, either because they had physical or emotional problems or they were older." Peter Meade, then-chairman of Catholic Charities of Boston board: "I see no evidence that any child is being harmed" through the adoption by same-sex couples. The VP of Programs: "the 13 children placed with same-sex couples fared as well as those adopted by heterosexual couples." The President of CC Boston said it never sought a religious exemption from the MA anti-discrimination statutes (which tied state funding to non-discrimination and long pre-dated SSM in MA)

Despite a unanimous vote by the Board of Catholic Charities to continue gay adoptions, four Mass. Catholic Bishops decided to pull the plug on the 100+ year adoption services, after their ham-fisted failure in getting a carve-out from the MA statute and the crass financial decision to ditch the orphans rather than spend a single dollar on standing up for "religious liberties".

The IL and DC agencies -chose- similar fates, none 'forced' to stop.

Bob K
portland, OR

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT
"Dear Bob K:
"Mormon-born gay people" (or those who struggle with SSA) can CURRENTLY fully participate in all LDS Church activities including temple worship. All they have to do is live the law of chastity the same as any other member. No blessing is withheld from any child of God, no matter who they are, as long as they live a righteous life."

--- I see nothing different between this and statements by Southerners 50 years ago.

--- That "struggling with SSA" chestnut is from the 1970s. It is hard to see how folks can be so blind in the face of millions of people testifying that being Gay is innate to them. The only reason there is a struggle is old thinking and prejudice.

--- I do not think that God really curses all these people-- your friends, neighbors, relatives and others -- with this struggle.

Badgerbadger
Murray, UT

Gibster denies that SSM will be inflicted on churches and temples by explaining the argument for requiring churches and temples to perform same sex marriages. He/she shows us that going after churches is absolutely a next step for the pro-homosexual lobby. They need to be stopped at this step.

Those who don't believe in God sanctions SSM should not have to provide any services for a SSM. They are not discriminating against the people. Birthday cakes for homosexual people are not a problem. We are all sinners. But to provide services for a ceremony that mocks their religious beliefs is unthinkable. They should never be forced to choose to close their business so they can live their religion.

the truth
Holladay, UT

[In light of other comments given, and that you listed 12 vague reasons why it was denied none of which seem to apply, I have no idea what could possible be wrong with my OPINION in regards to the article other than you simply want to deny certain views.]

Not even science knows if "being" gay is a choice.

Comparing it to race is an unsupportable comparison.

But actively living the lifestyle, participating in homosexual sex, and behaving gay is a choice.

Forcing anyone to support your choice by forcing their labor or service is wrong and fascistic and bullying.

And no state should be required to give you rights, privileges, or official approval or endorsement because of your choices.

The appeal and time for it is a good thing.

to comment

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