Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah, Oklahoma same-sex marriage cases on parallel track’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 16 2014 5:20 p.m. MDT

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

The issue has to be dealt with by the Supreme Court. Cases in UT, OK, OH, MI and elsewhere will necessitate it. The question is whether this Court will establish a legacy on the issue similar to Dred Scott or Brown v. Board of Education. Either way, it will be epic and explosive.

AerilusMaximus
Berryville, VA

I support the original definition of marriage which is between a man and a woman. Here's hoping that the lower courts allow states to create their own laws to govern their states in how they see fit.

UT Brit
London, England

@Bob K

Nah the thought of polygamy frightens Utahns, officially plural mariage is part of the church and still on the books. If things happened for polygamy be made legal then it will open up the leadership of the church to some uncomfortable questions.

dmcvey
Los Angeles, CA

Alfred, why does gay marriage mean that all these other things will be legal? Children cannot legally consent so that would not have any merit. As far as polygamy (which the Bible supports) if it's between consenting adults I don't see a problem with it. Maybe some of the abuses of polygamous groups toward women and children could be brought into the light if there was no longer the fear of arrests and having children taken away.

EstoPerpetua
Holden, MA

@Berryville

It is OK to support the original definition of marriage as between a man and a woman but it is not OK to deny other Americans their equal rights, such as same-sex marriage. This is a civil issue, not a religious one, and Virginia will be joining equality soon.

environmental idiot
Sanpete, UT

In a way, I hope that this "marriage equality act" stands. It opens the gate for polygamous marriage and equality for polygamists under the law. Just think of the tax deductions that polygamists could claim! X number of spouse dependents and a myriad of child dependents. Polygamy could become a huge tax shelter. It is ironic that the people of the US who once claimed the ethical high ground in maternal relationships and persecuted polygamists and decanters of traditional monogamous relationships are now the advocates of "outside the norm" unions.

The good part of all of this is it means the tax code would have to be changed to a flat tax or marriage could bankrupt the government.

1 Voice
orem, UT

@ wrz

Polygamy is no different than SSM in terms of rights. However, if the real issue isn't about rights (which it is not) than marriage can be restricted when it is not in the best interests of society. If courts have ruled polygamy isn't in the best interests of society (which they have) they can rule SSM isn't in the best interests of society. If they rule SSM is about equal rights then (to be fair in terms of equal rights) they should rule polygamous, bigamous, and polygamous marriages are OK as well.

AerilusMaximus
Berryville, VA

@ EstoPerpetua

You can believe whatever you want to believe and I will continue to exercise my 1st Amendment right in telling you that it is NOT ok to change the definition of marriage.

I think it is interesting how it seems like the world has for probably most of my lifetime defined marriage as "just another relationship." It seems like that is their main push and goal.

It negates their greatest failure and allows them to ignore it better.

No other success can compensate for failure in the home. - David O. Mckay

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@wrz

'You can't have equal protection for gays/lesbians re marriage and not have the same equal protection for polygamist, marrying your mother, sister, brother, cousin, a tree, or a myriad of other possible marriage combinations."

Do you oppose the Supreme Court having struck down bans on interracial marriage because of this logic, or does that only apply to gay people in your book?

1 Voice
orem, UT

@ stormwalker

In Canada the government force SSM on the public without their consent. No the world hasn't come to an end but there is no evidence that this is in societies best interests.

Those of us who support traditional marriage are not anti-gay for saying we believe there is a purpose for our being here on earth. That purpose involves traditional families. No not all traditional families are perfect but it is still worth supporting as it is in the best interests of society. This doesn't mean we discriminate against those who don't share our values. We just adhere to our constitutional right to support causes we value. As for the right and privileges of marriage for same sex and common-law relationships, these can be handled in other legal ways.

Esquire
Springville, UT

On the polygamy issue that keeps getting raised, the question and the covenant are essentially relations with the person to whom you are legally and lawfully married. If polygamy is legal in, say Saudi Arabia, and a polygamist joins the Church, will the marriages be recognized by the Church. And if a gay marriage is legal and lawful, same question. So do the questions and the covenants, i.e., the doctrine, change?

1 Voice
orem, UT

@schnee

your logic is flawed.

Banning interracial marriage was not in the best interests of society and rightly so the policy was abolished. People keep bringing that up as if it justifies doing things that are not in the best interest of society.

UT Brit
London, England

Esquire

The church would argue that the marriages were not performed in the temple. We still do sealings of multiple women to one man in temples so it should be asked why he could not be sealed to them in a Saudi temple.

AerilusMaximus
Berryville, VA

@ Esquire

You can not be a Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and be in a polygamous relationship. You will be ex-communicated if you are.

The church has already stated that homosexuality is a sin. To have homosexual thoughts and feelings is not a sin but when you act upon them it is. The same applies to those who engage in sex before marriage.

Marriage according to the LDS Church is defined in the "Proclamation on the family". You can find that by searching Proclamation on the family.

UT Brit
London, England

AerilusMaximus

Elder Oaks is sealed to two women, although he is not with them both on the earth at this time the idea is this will continue through eternity. Polygamy is still a doctrine of the church.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@1 Voice

actually you just helped him make his point as to why it is the same, there has been based on the evidence presented the courts have repeatedly found there to be no credible evidence to support the claim that there is any harm to society by allowing same sex marriage. It may not be convenient for your argument but it is just a fact of life. There is no unturned leaves at this point the evidence has been thoroughly vetted and the arguments against same sex marriage have been found to be wanting.

Willem
Los Angeles, CA

The conservative lawyer who defended California’s ban on gay marriage at the Supreme Court is at work on another project: planning his daughter’s upcoming same-sex wedding ceremony.

Charles J. Cooper, a former top official in the Reagan Justice Department and onetime “Republican lawyer of the year,” learned of his daughter’s sexual orientation during the legal battle over California’s Proposition 8, according to journalist Jo Becker’s soon-to-be-released book chronicling the movement to legalize same-sex marriage.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Bob K" if you go back 30 years ago and asked people what they thought of gay marriage, they would have said it was "weird and unconscionable." The same with people living together before marriage, and coutless other things that people commonly do now.

Shelama
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

It will be nice when this is finally over and gay marriage is legal everywhere and we can spend more time identifying actual problems to work on.

However delicious with irony, it will be nice that Utah and the Mormon church facilitated this progress into the future.

I worry that the Mormon church will opt to excommunicate gay Mormons who marry or Mormons who officiate at their weddings but I don't see how they can avoid making that their official policy.

But I'm heartened to know that those Mormons would have lived their life correctly, with honesty and integrity, and with real morality and real worthiness intact. And, just like everybody else, they will be totally supportive of traditional marriage... the marriage that was never threatened in the first place.

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

@1 Voice
"Banning interracial marriage was not in the best interests of society and rightly so the policy was abolished."

I would argue that banning same-sex marriage is not in the best interests of society so the policy should be abolished.

And my initial point was about slippery slopes. If it's true that allowing same-sex marriage would necessitate legalization of polygamy, etc, then is it also true that allowing interracial marriage necessitates same-sex marriage, polygamy, etc? I keep seeing the slippery slope argument used but the people who use it seem to ignore the fact that it's interracial marriage and not same-sex marriage that set the precedents for courts striking down marriage bans.

to comment

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