Quantcast

Comments about ‘Appeals court assigns 3 judges to hear Utah same-sex marriage case’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 31 2014 12:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Esquire
Springville, UT

Interesting. I don't remember the paper ever making a big deal over the panel selected to hear a case out of Utah. Trying to project a decision by any particular panel is futile, and because of similar cases around the country, I suspect whatever the 10th Circuit does will ultimately go to the Suprumer Court. In the end, what is notable is that conservatives, who preach individual rights and don't want the government controlling their lives are now having to fight against the same principles on an issue with which they disagree. It's like when the ACLU gets on board with one of their issues. It must make their heads explode, unless they are confortable with silos and never connect the dots, that one is good for them is also good for others.

Coach Biff
Lehi, UT

Regardless of the outcome, one of the posters here said that the God of Nature would exact it's penalties for allowing the deviancy of homosexuality. I gave blood the other night and one of the questions I was asked before I was allowed to donate was the question of whether or not I had engaged in risky behaviors including homosexual sex. It didn't get graphic, and it didn't ask me if I had engaged in these behaviors with a woman. The fact of the matter is, homosexual sex, especially man on man sex, is a risky, deviant behavior that poses a dire threat to the community at large. Don't believe me? Ask the CDC. Why we would grant tacit approval to this behavior is beyond me. Also, does anyone here truly believe that the men who actually penned the 14th amendment would approve of the way it is being applied in this case?

Meckofahess
Salt Lake City, UT

To all the commentators who promote the notion of "live-and-let-live". That sounds good on the surface but the underlying idea is that we straights must go along with the gay agenda and surrender our own rights.

So if you want to "live-and-let-live", then please allow us straigts to retain our right to not change the definition of marriage. Please allow us our right to restrict restroom and locker rooms to folks of the same gender and all the other common sense things that are self-evident.

Some things we just never intended to totally equal, please accept our right to believe and live according to that point of view.

Mexican Ute
mexico, 00

God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.

Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.

Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1999 Priesthood Session GC, "Why we do some of the things we do"

So, LDS, we have no right to change the definition that God set out for us. And others, the Church and its members have the right to speak out on matters of doctrine that are fundamental to survival.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

"...we straights must go along with the gay agenda and surrender our own rights...".

Surrender our own rights?

Which rights?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Mexican Ute: You can speak out all you want. No one is stopping you. You may be criticized for wanting your religious beliefs embedded into our laws. You may have others point out that we live in a constitutuional republic where the constitution is the law of the land, no matter what your morals are. You may be called naive for not recognizing that, even with gay marriage banned, homosexual couples will still be creating children by artificial insemination or surrogacy and will be adopting children who are not wanted by their heterosexual parents. These families need the same benefits and privileges that heterosexual families enjoy.

You can speak of morality and degradation, but others will show you that you may be lacking in the basic understanding of our constitution (and maybe the 11th article of faith, too).

Can you explain to me why the children of gays must be treated differently than those of heterosexuals? Why shouldn't their families have the protections that we offer other families in this country by allowing their parents to marry? Should the will of the majority be allowed to mold the privileges of the minority without a legal, just cause?

brotherJonathan
SLC, UT

A simple compromise would end the violation of equality on one hand the violation of dictionary meaning of words on the other.
Marriage certificates come in 2 forms, both with equal power under law.
One is Marriage Certificate for male and female.
One is Civil Union, Marriage Certificate for same sex.
Both parties have the same rights and the meaning of words do not have to be changed. Changing the meaning of words violates the rights of those who belief the meaning is of religious beliefs .
Both certifies legal marriage but shows respect and protects constitutional rights of both groups.
Simple adding of the words civil union on what is the actual correct use of words in law.
Sincerely, Elder Jonathan L. Peterson
servant of the Lord Jesus Christ and defender of our Constitution for the United States of America,under God with liberty and justice for all. Equality under all laws is mandatory.

sharrona
layton, UT

RE: equal protection, They all support marriage equality. Now may be time to catch up and gain a better understanding don't you think? [They]…,

“Haven’t you read the Scriptures?” Jesus replied. “They record that from the beginning ‘God made them male=(Adam) and female=(Eve, not Steve).’ And he said, “‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ Since they are no longer two but one, let no one split apart what God has joined together.” Matthew 19:4-6(NLT).

Or believe St.Paul, Honor your Father and Mother,which is the first commandment with a promise. God distinguishes father and mother”[not significant other) from all other persons on earth, chooses them and sets them next to Himself, occupying the highest place in our lives next to God.. Ephesians 6:2,3.

TrueChristian
Salt Lake City, UT

So many of the comments here are so depressing because aren't seeing the big picture. For those of you complaining about 'the will of the people'. don't you realize that if that concept was the entire basis of our government, Mormonism wouldn't exist?

Let me say that again. If the majority had the right to decide everything, Mormonism wouldn't exist. Mormonism was considered deviant, evil, and an attack on pure Christian principles. If people of this country voted today on whether or not Mormonism was the correct and true religion, it would fail miserably. Would that convince you that Mormonism was wrong? I didn't think so, and it shouldn't - but stop pretending that the majority knows best when it suits your cause, and ignoring it when it doesn't.

TrueChristian
Salt Lake City, UT

Mormonism believes that the Constitution was inspired by God, because it created a country where people who believe differently could be free to live according to their conscience. Including Mormons. That also means Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, everyone. Including gays. The price that we pay for our freedom means that we have to allow others the same, even when you don't agree or consider it immoral. As a Mormon, I've lived in states where gay marriage was legal, and honestly, it didn't affect me. I still went to Church, paid my tithing, went to the Temple, and experienced the peace of the gospel in my life. As members of the church we should spend more of our time in taking care of the sick and helping the poor than spending so much time and energy fighting civil laws that don't really change our lives.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@brotherJonathan
Your compromise"One is Marriage, One is Civil Union, Marriage Certificate for same sex" simply won't work, because amendment 3 bans civil union too. Even if Utah state allows civil union, first things first still has to be striking down amendment 3. Now you know how wrong amendment 3 is, right?

@wrz
The plaintiffs in this case ask judges to allow same sex couple to marry, not ask for polygamy or incestuous marriage. If you have a compelling argument why same sex couples should not join matrimony, speak to the point or hold your peace.
Arguing about polygamy or incestuous marriage to the judges simply won't help attorneys hired by Utah (with big taxpayers' money, no less) to win this case.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Note how much hatred and contempt comes through in the letters of some of the anti-SSM writers here--phrases like "so-called marriage" or just the quotes around the word "marriage", as though a same sex marriage isn't really a marriage. These folk would be well to remember that the LDS church was similarly regarded in its early days---I suspect that the good people of Kirtland, had they been into writing letters to the editor, would have referred to "that so-called religion" or worse. And you certainly don't have to go back to the 1800's to find animosity. Before he got the GOP nomination, a lot of Evangelical politicians said a whole lot of nasty things about Mitt Romney's religion. I have yet to see a pro-marriage equality writer refer to the LDS (or any other) church as a "so-called" or a quote-unquote religion.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Coach Biff, please check out a Biology 101 textbook. The riskiness of which you speak refers to a situation where one of the persons (male or female) is infected with a virus (e.g. hepatitis, HIV, herpes) which is spread through sexual contact. If one person is infected, s/he can transmit it to the other. If neither is, the "risk" disappears. And since you are concerned for public health, you will do everything you can to encourage monogamy--and marriage--for all sexually active people. Right?

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@TrueChristian: Re:Pure democracy without protection of individual rights, you are so right!

17th Century Massachusetts, a colony run by Puritans, brutally enforced religious orthodoxy. Blasphemy, apostasy, heresy were all punishable by terrible means. When Quakers tried to practice their religion, they were whipped, tortured, imprisoned and executed. These abuses contributed to the guarantees we now take for granted in our Constitution, guarantees made necessary by the memory of what can happen when religious zealots gain governmental power.

@higv: Quakers speak directly to Jesus all the time. There are no middle-men our religion. He loves us all, just as the Bible says. I suggest you read Romans 14, wherein Paul explains how the New Covenant affects Old Testament law, how what's in our hearts is more important than what's on our plates, and how we're not to judge each other.

But if you insist on putting a lot of store in the words of the OT, but not the spirit of the NT, carefully read Leviticus 15:19-30, and 20:18 and take stock of the sins in your own marital bed.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@higv
Dietrich, ID
Do you know what Jesus would do. How can people claim to speak for God without speaking to him.

Jesus was bold with sin. Drove out moneychangers, and though gentle told Women in adultery to sin more. Can't look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Many people put there own interpertations to what they think Jesus would do without speaking to Jesus.

10:17 p.m. March 31, 2014

==========

2 comments --

1. Jesus didn't try to change ROMAN laws to fit Judaic or Christian laws.

2. Jesus was a passifist. I don't recall him being BOLD with sinners and ordering them to be stoned -- the Law of Moses required him to stone them. That's why the Pharisee's had him crucified, remember?

3. True - He did get BOLD with the Money Cahngers in the Temple -- because they were Capitalists. And Jesus didn't like Capitalists scalping people worshipping God.

4. Do you know Jesus would do? I do -- He'd go to them,
put his arms around them love them,
break bread with them,
listen to their worries and concerns,
and help them.

And then tell us to do likewise.

Evidence Not Junk Science
Iron, UT

Many believe what bishops, doctrines, and leaders tell them: that a marriage is a sacrament instituted between God and a man and a woman for society’s benefit. They may be confused —even angry—when a legal decision seems to question that view. Although religious beliefs are part of the fabric of society, at issue are laws that act outside religion. Once the government defines civil marriage and attaches benefits to that definition, it must do so constitutionally. It cannot impose a traditional or LDS faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law, does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates against a class of people without other reasons. The beauty of our Constitution is that it accommodates our individual faith’s definition of marriage while preventing the government from unlawfully treating us differently. This is hardly surprising since it was written by people who came to America to find both freedom of religion and freedom from it. Assigning a religious or traditional rationale for a law does not make it constitutional when that law discriminates without any valid reason.

BYU_Convert
Provo, UT

@higv and SS,

At one point in time, the LDS Church discriminated against black people and interracial marriages. I think it wasn't until 1978 when black men could hold the priesthood. And why was this? Because the Book of Mormon mentions the seed of Cain bearing "a skin of blackness?" I realize that people will oppose gay marriage for their own good conscious, and for me (even though I struggle with SSA) do not feel that a gay marriage is an option because I do wish to follow the prophet's counsel on this issue, but that's in regards to MY life and MY choice. It is not my desire to treat others as less than me because of the choices they make. Did the Savior treat the adulteress woman as a subhuman specimen because of her sexual sins? Yet, I see many "Christians" treating gay people as subhuman specimens. Many LDS parents are throwing their gay kids out on the streets. I have seen it! Is someone's struggle/decision on sexuality justifiable for withholding Christ-like love? I say unto you, "nay."

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@brotherJonathan:

You asked, above, for a "simple compromise" having a "Marriage Certificate for male and female" and a "Civil Union, Marriage Certificate for same sex."

Lets see how that fits. A "simple compromise" on buses, with "Seats Up Front for male and female," and "In the Back of the Bus, Seats Up Front for same sex..."

No... that isn't right.

How about "Lunch Counters for male and female," and "Enter and sit in the back, Lunch Counters for same sex..." Nope. That doesn't work right, either.

Separate-but-equal is always separate and is never, ever equal.

How about this compromise? The only legal wedding is a civil wedding, performed by an officer of the court in a court house. Religious ceremonies have meaning to the religious who participate but it is simply a ceremony and gives no legal protection. That way, all are equal in the law, and each church can bless as they choose - because a long list of 40 or more Christian churches marry Gay and Lesbian couples, as well as other faith traditions

No H8 - Celebrate
Salt Lake, UT

@BYU Convert

I too struggle with same-sex attraction and wish to follow the prophet's counsel on this issue.

Some say that sexual orientation, like race and gender are considered to be fundamentally immutable characteristics for most people. Abstinence is always a choice. Religious belief on the other hand, is thought to be more amenable to change efforts and produces the best long term outcome. Sexual orientation is usually considered to be fundamental to a persons identity and person-hood, and a requirement for anyone to change their sexual orientation in order to civil marry is considered unreasonable and unconstitutional. In science, it is sometimes helpful to test the logic of a reverse situation. What if another church doctrine determined that it was Gods will that a heterosexual marry a homosexual? How would that work out, or would changing ones religious belief (which people do frequently) produce a more effective and better result?

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Coach Biff, I don't think that all those southern gentlemen who signed the Declaration of Independence (with that pesky phrase about all men being created equal) really meant for it to apply to women--or to their slaves. But nonetheless, that's how it's now interpreted. Do you have a problem with that?

to comment

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