Comments about ‘Same-sex marriage in Utah now in federal judges' hands’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, April 10 2014 11:10 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
jrp7sen
Logan, UT

Love always prevails and hate always fails. Your beliefs do not influence the realness of another person's life and their ability to love another human being.

I'm a Mormon millennial, and I support marriage for ALL. Yay!

UT Brit
London, England

YouAreKidding

The church still believes in polygamy, I do not understand why Utah members freak out about it. Men can be sealed to more than one woman in LDS temples. Plural marriage is a doctrine of the church, its not something to be scared of.

Dr. G
Bountiful, UT

Overturning the Utah constitutional amendment on marriage is rather interesting when one considers the history of legal marriage contracts.

In the seminal work titled Jewish Bioethics, the authors point out that the only other time in the history of the world when marriage between two men or between two women was codified into law was during the days of Noah, well over three thousand years ago (see Dr. Fred Rosner and Rabbi David Bleich, Ktav Publishing House, Israel, December 1999, page 219).

Though the practice of sexual relations between same sex partners has occurred during others periods in recorded history, our day and Noah's day are the only two times when those practices were codified by the ruling authorities as the law of the land.

How will our ruling authorities decide this case? Will they side with the lawyers and judges of Noah's day or will they take another course?

Mikhail
ALPINE, UT

@Lia "Religion should stay the heck out of law."

Are you saying that we should declare the murder and theft laws invalid since they originated with some religious belief - or are connected to some religious belief?

To say that belief - religious or otherwise - should have no place in the law is to say that there should be no law.

@Inis Magrath "marriage is a right."

What about Reynolds v. U.S.? Was it a "right" there?

Samuel L.
Murray, UT

"The Supreme Court of the United States has held that marriage is a fundamental civil right through a line of over a dozen cases dating back to the 1880s. It is not an open legal question."

Marriage is a right. But what is marriage? Whatever we say it is? Do we have a civil right to whatever we want?

Removing the gender requirement pushes back the boundary between marriage and non-marriage, but there are still others who will want in. If marriage is just about love, then on what grounds do we deny them? Can three women get married? Why not? Because marriage has "traditionally" always been between two people? Can a man marry his brother? Why not? Because marriage has "traditionally" been forbidden between close family members? To avoid birth defects? These guys won't have that problem.

The restrictions make sense from the point of view of the child. The laws guide men and women into an institution such that if as the result of their love for each other a child happens appear, she is born into a pre-existing stable relationship where she can know and be raised by her own mother and father.

Understands Math
Lacey, WA

@Mikhail wrote: "To say that belief - religious or otherwise - should have no place in the law is to say that there should be no law."

On the contrary. The strongest basis for law has nothing to do with belief:

Reason.

Coach Biff
Lehi, UT

....if Loving is to be the litmus test, why wasn't same sex marriage codified 30 years ago? Oh, that's right, because back then we didn't see sexual preference as immutable as race. Be honest, same sex marriage advocates, we are not defining rights here, we are re-defining marriage. We are granting tacit approval to an unhealthy lifestyle choice. Period.

USU-Logan
Logan, UT

@my_two_cents_worth and @Inis Magrath

Thank you for your compelling comments.

@Mikhail
"Are you saying that we should declare the murder and theft laws invalid since they originated with some religious belief - or are connected to some religious belief?"

Whether you are religious or not, murder and theft harm innocent victims, you don't need to be religious to be against murder and theft.
But even today, SSM opponents still can not convince the court what the harm of same sex marriage is. that is why they keep losing.

DanO
Mission Viejo, CA

“There is no question that the children of SS couples would likely be better off if their parents are guardians were allowed to marry.” -Gene Schaerr

Jimmytheliberal
Salt Lake City, UT

T-minus until reality sets in! Now let the "activist judges" excuses begin. Possibly this could be an example to all of those that continue to use hate and bigotry against ANY certain sect, sex or group. It's 2014. As Dylan wrote..."Times, they are a changin".

markmongie
Kaysville, UT

So to play devil's advocate against LGBT couples wanting the State and US Government to change the definition of marriage -
1- This country and the Constitution are inseparably connected to Judeo-Christian values. To separate the two will require a re-writing of the Constitution. You cannot pick and choose which tried-and-tested religious and government laws will or will not work together. It's a package deal folks. To dismantle the constitution will result in loss of true freedom. We'll end up with quasi-freedom, which is what Europe has.
2- If we redefine marriage to same sexes, then logically we have to open the Pandora's box to polygamy, father-son, mother-daughter, son-son, monogamy, and any other sexual coupling of human beings that is imaginable. Do we really want to go there?
3- What's wrong with creating a new class of marriage contract called NON-TRADITIONAL, and granting the same governmental rights of property ownership, taxes, etc. to those people. When it comes down to it, I really don't think gays want to change traditional marriage, they just want the financial benefits and equal treatment under the government.

brainoncapitalist
Orem, UT

Marriage is a fundamental, individual, unalienable right. Statutory marriage, however, is clearly NOT a right, but a privilege. That is what is so hilarious about all this. People are demanding a government privilege BY RIGHT. The exercise of a right does NOT entail having to obtain government permission (a license) to do so. I have a friend who has married several gay people, in a state where they are unable to get married statutorily.

Linus
Bountiful, UT

While I have never argued that marriage was or wasn't a civil right, I have argued, and will continue to argue that no individual has a civil right to redefine marriage. There is the rub. As soon as marriage is redefined as a union with the usual benefits of any two or more people who have some kind of nebulous affinity between or among them, you will see sibling marriages, plural marriages, parent-child marriages, business-partner marriages, and (fill in whatever your imagination can conceive). Don't tell me that the sacred institution will not be weakened. I'm a little tired of all you traditional marriage participants declaring that these new definitions have not and will not affect your marriage. These expanded definitions will affect your whole world.

Jimmytheliberal
Salt Lake City, UT

Isn't it quite interesting how one that offers support and equality for all is constantly denied the ability to comment?Seems to me there are numerous posts commenting on this article along with many others that can be deemed "abusive in nature". Like it not change is on it's way and we all owe the great forward thinking state of Utah a tremendous "thank you"!

UT Brit
London, England

@mark

Define quasi-freedom, you do know that Europe is not a country right?

Also if you are LDS please tell me why you have a problem with polygamy.

Wonder
Provo, UT

None of the arguments against gay marriage are persuasive to me:
1. If you allow gay marriage, people will soon be marrying their cat. Ridiculous. Cat's can't contract.
2. If you allow gay marriage, my religious freedom is taken away. Ridiculous. Your freedom to what? Be free of hearing about gay marriages?
3. Gay marriages will ruin traditional marriage. How? Are kids going to suddenly decide they want to have a gay marriage because they are available even though they are heterosexual? Are you kidding? Who would do that?
4. Gay marriage makes God mad. Perhaps. But a lot of things we do make God mad and we don't make laws prohibiting them. My philosophy: I will live my religion and worry about how happy God is with ME.
5. Gay marriage hurts kids. There is no reliable evidence that this is so. It may seem counterintuitive to people who are repulsed by homosexuality, but it's just not shown by research.
Am I missing some?

NedGrimley
Brigham City, UT

Ultimately, when its all said and done, it will be quite telling to see the decision and how the side that is "decided against" acts, and reacts, to the decision. Based on the tone of the participants, I have my guesses.

MemoFromA Demo
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

To: YouAreKidding You wrote: "As is often the case with well-intended but misguided law-making, this decision is going to lead to places that the judges never envisioned or intended."

Consider this: A father marrying his son. A mother marrying her daughter. A sibling marrying a sibling. A woman married to multiple men. A man married to multiple woman. ..... After all, "We love each other and we're responsible adults! Who are we hurting, anyway?" That's the argument the marriage equality advocates make. Its repugnant, isn't it?

In Great Britain last month a woman married her dog.

not-a-y-fan
ogden, UT

@Wonder and many others in this discussion board....

I know that none of the arguments have persuaded you, but help me understand one thing. You said that gay marriage does not hurt children, right? Physically, you are right. Emotionally, i don't know if there is enough evidence yet to know all the effects of this. But when it comes to the creation of children...it hurts. It is impossible for two males to conceive a child by themselves. It is impossible for two females to conceive a child by themselves. Does this hurt society and children?...Yes.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@Coach Biff
"We are granting tacit approval to an unhealthy lifestyle choice."

There's nothing inherently unhealthy about having same-sex attractions.

@markmongie
"1- This country and the Constitution are inseparably connected to Judeo-Christian values. To separate the two will require a re-writing of the Constitution. "

That's false.

"2- If we redefine marriage to same sexes, then logically we have to open the Pandora's box to "

That's a slippery slope logical fallacy. Think about it this way, just because the LDS church practiced polygamy doesn't mean they did all those other things at the time and just because some out east marry their cousins doesn't make all those other things come to pass.

"3- What's wrong with creating a new class of marriage contract called NON-TRADITIONAL"

Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

"I really don't think gays want to change traditional marriage,"

Depends. If you mean not altering anything about opposite gender marriage, yeah they don't want to change anything. If you mean they just want benefits and don't care about the ceremonies/etc, absolutely they want to change that. Many churches marry same-sex couples now.

to comment

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