Comments about ‘Attorney for same-sex couples files brief in Amendment 3 appeal’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 26 2014 6:10 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
cavetroll
SANDY, UT

@Here

"Are you really comparing your sexual behavior (as a basis of equality) with the equality based on different skin color?"

Yes, because where you see this issue as one of sexual behavior (which can be controlled), the real issue is one about sexual orientation (which, like race or skin color cannot be controlled). LGBT couples want to get married and enjoy the same rights and privileges as others. Sex is down on the list as a reason to get married.

NedGrimley
Brigham City, UT

Kalindra: Part of me will be waiting to see how each side acts or reacts when the final decision is made. I think it will be very telling.

cavetroll
SANDY, UT

@Empyrean

"Anyone who contends that God is irrelevant is not whose side of any argument I want to be on."

Ok, my God tells me to treat all people with respect, dignity, and fairness, which includes homosexuals can get married to each other. Your God says "no". Whose God is correct? We could argue like this all year long.

logicandtruth
OREM, UT

If you don't like the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, what definition would you propose?

Other definitions are advocated by society in the name of equality. Indeed, many think the only way to fix "inequality" is to allow gay marraige. Alright. Let's say, gays can marry. But, if equality is really what we're after, can 3 people get married? 4? What about marriage with 2 men and one woman? If equality is what we're after then there is no logical reason to deny these other relationships.

And so I ask, if marriage is not defined by the relationship of one man and one woman, what definition would you propose? Are we okay with inequality for people under a certain age? Or inequality for people in multiple partner relationships? If equality is what society is really after there is no reason to deny marriage for other types of relationships. If that's the case, marriage will come to mean something so broad it will mean nothing.

Rather, it makes sense to have a marriage definition of one man and one woman. If we don't preserve this definition of marriage, what definition would you propose?

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@Tekakaromatagi "I love my Mom, I love my Dad, why can't I get marriage benefits from them? Am I legal stranger."

You already have a legal kinship relationship with your mom and dad (e.g., inheritance, health directive decision making).
Marriage implies an intimate relationship, which you may desire with your mom and dad, but that would be incest and is against the law.

@Logic and truth. Same-sex couples are not asking for group marriage. Polygamists can legally marry one other spouse. Polygamy has been determined by science to be much like a religious practice a choice. Sexual orientation, like race, and gender, for most people is immutable. A requirement to change a fundamental immutable part of ones identity in order to marry is not constitutional. A right to marry someone for which there is no intimate attraction is no right at all. Marrying multiple spouses is not an inherent immutable and fundamental characteristic of ones identity. Therefore the government through civil marriage law is not required to recognize every single type of relationship one may wish to enter.

nycut
New York, NY

@Objectified: "It's amusing to see how quickly liberal supporters jump to this subject whenever it comes out in any way, shape or form in a newspaper article."

Conservative supporters for marriage equality are here too.

They acknowledge the simple fact that some people are gay-- and that whether it is right or wrong to be gay is a personal decision.

They recognize that gay people are emotionally and physically attracted to members of the same sex, and have chosen a religious view that supports that, and will live their lives accordingly.

This is freedom of religion in action: a conservative value.

Utah leadership has struggled and failed to make an argument against gay marriage based on anything other than a religious principle.

People fall in love, marry, and sometimes raise children. We have a system of laws for accommodating this perfectly human sequence of events that currently excludes gay people.

Protecting our own rights to define who we are and what we believe means making room for others to do the same.

to comment

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