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

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Steve C. Warren

Re: Asked if he agreed with the state's voter-approved Amendment 3, Reyes declined to state a position.

Wow! That's an eye-opener. Good reporting, Romboy.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@Open Minded Mormon

I am not sure what side you are on but clearly it is not the side of your mormon leaders.

This case is helping to decide what the law is that we should sustain.

More importantly, In this constitutional based country, it is we the people that decide what the law is using the means and methods established by the constitution. We are only subject to the law that we the people create, or the amendments we the people establish.

And the 14th amendment does not apply here, because it must be established that homosexuals are born that way.

Science has not found any DNA markers or code or gene that determine homosexuality.

It is not the same as race or gender, and any such comparison is ridiculous.

Any reasonable judgment, and not ideological based reasoning, should side with the state.

Down under
Salt Lake City, UT

This is the beginning of the end for religious freedom and laws of morality.
I am sure that the Almighty is not well pleased with the violation of his eternal precepts and we will be judged as a country as we accommodate the needs of the vocal few.

Provo, UT

In response to not-a-y-fan, I continue my list of arguments:
6. Gay marriage hurts society because gays can't have kids (Have I summarized it ok, not-a-y-fan?) -- Not persuasive to me because lots of marriages don't produce children and we don't ban them. True, if every marriage was gay we would have fewer children (assuming only married people have children), but that's not going to happen. People aren't all going to suddenly flock to a gay marriage when they are attracted to the opposite gender. I know I wouldn't. Would you? If not, why do you think others will? A relatively small portion of the population is attracted to the same gender, so no worries that all the young folk are going to give up heterosexual marriage.

university place, WA

markmongie said, "This country and the Constitution are inseparably connected to Judeo-Christian values."

If this were true why is there no mention of the "Judeo-Christian" god anywhere in the document? Why did the framers include the religious test prohibition in Article VI? Why did the 1st Amendment protect the right of every American to violate the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd commandments? One would think that if "Judeo-Christian Values" were the driving force behind the USA they would have been reflected in its constitution.

markmongie said, "You cannot pick and choose which tried-and-tested religious and government laws will or will not work together."

Ours is a secular nation with a secular governing document defining the roles government and the protected rights of the citizens--ALL the citizens. What it does not define, and rightly so, is how government and religious laws will "work together." Simply stated, religious laws have no place in civil law in a free society. None. You are free to practice your religion but you do not have the right to demand that I live by your religious laws. Ever.

The Shire, UT

@not-a-y-fan who wrote:

"You said that gay marriage does not hurt children... 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."

So. You think that as long as we keep LGBT folk from marrying who they want they'll just say, "Oh, well. *sigh* I guess I'll go make babies with someone I don't love." ?!?

Believe it or not, people (gay and straight) have babies outside of marriage. People (gay and straight) adopt children -- in and out of marriage.

The fact is that marriage equality will change the quantity of children by exactly zero (no more, no fewer).

Also, I would strongly recommend you brush up on the subject of "homosexuality." You seem to have missed some basic concepts. (Don't feel bad. The State of Utah says equally uninformed things in their arguments.)

a bit of reality
Shawnee Mission, KS

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes:

"I did express to them that I was sorry that they were feeling pain. This is not an easy thing to do when you know that people that you care about on both sides of the issue will be affected very significantly and very personally."

What was he talking about? I see how the outcome of this will significantly and personally affect the couples that can't get married, but how will it affect the ones who already can get married or already are?

Salt Lake City, UT

@not-a-y-fan...What exactly is your point regarding the "effects" on children? How does it specifically "hurt" children along with society as you so eloquently stated? Are you inferring that a SSM couple could not properly raise a highly intelligent productive member of society? You are aware that Utah will not be the first state once the Federal Court upholds Judge Shelby's ruling? Also you are aware I'm most certain that SSM couples have been raising children throughout civilization? How does SSM weaken your own? Don't you believe that your marriage isn't as strong as you believe if another's weakens your own?

Idaho Falls, ID

@ Wonder

Yes it does hurt children psychologically. It confuses them and denies them a parent of one gender or another. It is so completely obvious that it's amazing how creative people have to get to explain it away.

If God or nature meant for two of the same gender to pair up sexually, He or nature would have designed the human body to be more adaptable to one gender or the other. But He (or it- nature) didn't. This is a distortion that cannot be explained biologically, let alone spiritually and if humans continue to give into this and call it normal, there will be generations of very mixed up people. I'm so sad for my grandchildren who will have to live amongst all this confusion.

For those with same gender attraction, don't give into it! You CAN live a happy, fulfilling life without it. Turn to Voices of Hope and read. It's proof that you can be happy.

Idaho Falls, ID

@ Wonder and others,

Yes it does hurt children. It confuses them and denies them a parent of one gender or another. There is no way in the world anyone will convince me otherwise. Those children will unquestionably have to go through something psychologically damaging at some point in their lives because of it the absence of one gender parent and/or the absence of a biologically sound family. Guaranteed!

Madison, AL

@Coach Biff
"....if Loving is to be the litmus test, why wasn't same sex marriage codified 30 years ago?"

First, hat question wasn't before the court in that case. Courts don't issue remedies that go beyond addressing the problems presented before the court. Just as the Windsor case didn't directly address the validity of state bans on same sex marriage but it did outline the legal reasoning for striking down those bans.

Second, if you like, I can pull some quotes from dissenting opinions and arguments in Sharp v. Perez where people were predicting that lifting bans on interracial marriage would lead to striking down bans against polygamy and incest. That case was decided by the California Supreme Court in 1948. 66 years later none of those predictions held true. Considering the arguments presented today against same sex marriage parrallel the arguments used against interracial marriage, it's difficult to logically make the same conclusion that did not come to fruition decades ago.

Madison, AL

@the truth
"....if Loving is to be the litmus test, why wasn't same sex marriage codified 30 years ago?"

Please show me where the 14th a Amendment is limited to biologically deterministic characteristics. There is nothing in the wording of the amendment that limits it's application to genetic or other immutable characteristics. Issues involving such things as age, race, and gender will cause the courts to give those issues more careful scrutiny. But you will find no precedent that says the 14th Amendment can be disregarded based solely on behavior or characteristics that are chosen.

A Run
South Jordan, UT

I personally accept that Same-Sex marriage is now part of our society. I do not advocate for it though. I believe in Traditional marriage.

I do know people who are gay, and accept their decisions as what they chose was best for them.

I may not agree with their decisions, but, heck, I don't always agree with my parent's decisions.

American Fork, UT

The 14th Amendment, particularly the Equal Protection Clause, is the focal point of judicial decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups. It came about as a result of reconstruction following the civil war and was particularly forced upon southern states before they were allowed to be represented in Congress again.

But with many good intentions, it has been abused for not only this issue but also things like Roe v. Wade and even lately regarding those snowboards wanting to be on Alta.

I do not consider it irrational to legislate marriage according to local "family-centric" standards when the small group chooses an immoral behavior.

Orem, UT

I fail to see that marriage is a "right" that needs constitutional protection. Therefore, I cannot see same-sex marriage fall under the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. I certainly don't see that it is in the public interest either. Same-sex marriage does not produce children or create families through natural means and therefore does not qualify for the same protection as traditional marriage where children are potentially involved. I am perfectly aware of the gay agenda, but on legal and moral grounds I cannot support the idea that marriage must be re-defined in order to accommodate those who wish to alter an institution centuries old and is necessary for the propagation of the human race when gay marriage proponents cannot be justified on either ground.

Phoenix, AZ

"However, for fundamental issues, like whether a couple of different races can get married, whether a couple of same gender can get married, the federal judiciary system should have a say."

Do you feel the same way about polygamy, close cousins, mother/son, father/daughter, etc. marriages?

"It should not be like in the past, interracial couples can get married in one state but not in another state."

In Utah, everyone can marry so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex, are of a certain age, are not closely related, etc. This applies to all citizens, so there's no 14th Amendment violation.

If SSM is allowed, all other conceivable marriage combinations that can be conjured should also be allowed, lest there be gross discrimination.

"'Traditional' marriages will NOT be affected in any way."

Not so. Traditional marriage will disappear off the face of the earth... supplanted by myriads of other marriage combinations. You may well be able to marry your entire neighborhood if you love them. SSM people are asserting they should be able to marry whom they love. The reader can take it from there.


"gay civil unions had every benefit that heterosexual married couples did. It was only the term "marriage" that was being fought over"

So the only difference between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage should be what it is called?

Why is that, other than making it of less value or lower status?

We want kids, growing up in same-sex households to know their family is of lower value?

What is Christ-like in that?

Phoenix, AZ

"If this were true why is there no mention of the 'Judeo-Christian' god anywhere in the document?"

Read Article VII... "done... in the year of our Lord..." I think it's the Judo-Christian 'Lord" they're referencing.

Jim Cobabe
Provo, UT

The presumptuous attitude of same-sex marriage advocates is breathtaking. They argue in favor of launching one of the most radical unproven social experiments in the history of humankind, then challenge the opposition to PROOVE that it will undermine existing social tradition. Blind arrogance.

Who can say what good or harm may result? Certainly not the advocates of these sweeping new rights.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

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

Just like we do now with tacit approval of felony spousal, child, drug and alcohol legal civil marriages?

Oh the horror of a loving committed same-sex couple becoming legally civil married. I feel a gathering storm coming on and I am afraid.

to comment

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