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
tedward55
Little Rock, AR

@ LovelyDesert

If the court affirms the Oklahoma court decision, doesn't that make the Utah case irrelevant as both states reside within the 10th Circuit jurisdiction? So why would they send that case back on remand?

AerilusMaximus
Berryville, VA

@ UT BRIT

If you look at Esquires question he is talking about in real life.

Here is the crux of Esquires question:

"If polygamy is legal in, say Saudi Arabia, and a polygamist joins the Church"

Polygamists don't join the church. If you are a polygamist you can't join the church. If you become a polygamist you get excommunicated from the church.

I already know and understand what the church believes about polygamy. Yes I know you can be sealed to more than one woman and such.

If you want to get technical about it. When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny;

Also it is hard to compare being sealed to more than one wife vs. having polygamus relationships while on this earth.

Values Voter
LONG BEACH, CA

Re: The subject of this news story -- Utah, Oklahoma cases being argued at the 10 circuit in Denver:

I've just finished listening to oral arguments and I'd say it looks very good for Marriage Equality. Probably not unanimous, but I wouldn't be at all surprised at a 2-1 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

Now the waiting begins . . .

UT Brit
London, England

AerilusMaximus

If you were a member of the church you wouldn't be talking about plural marriage and sealings in that way. Being sealed is about as real life as you can get in the church.
Polygamy will be practiced again on this earth, prophets have foretold this on more than one occasion. So we have the prophets words, church doctrine and the fact that a man can be sealed to more than one woman currently. If polygamy is made legal what would stop the church from starting the practice again?

Oh and in this discussion you can assume that the type of polygamy we are referring to is polygny. Don't know why you brought that up really.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

Its very interesting how Obama has done a complete flip-flop on this issue from earlier in his presidency. When talking to a religious group from their church, he earlier stated how his Christian beliefs made him feel and believe that marriage indeed should be limited to between a man and and a woman. He left no doubt that he supported traditional marriage.... when he felt that such a stance would help him politically.

Fast-forward several years. As has happened many times before when the winds of national political correctness shift, Obama has now shifted his stance to become a SSM advocate before a larger audience and to be inline with his party's liberal platform. Had a Republican flip-flopped like that, the liberal press would've crucified him.

Interesting indeed.

Candied Ginger
Brooklyn, OH

@Tators --
"Had a Republican flip-flopped like that, the liberal press would've crucified him."

---------

Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. Very opposed to SSM and gay rights in general and a raising star in the GOP. Then his son came out to him and introduced his partner.

Sen. Portman got to see a same-sex-relationship in person, involving somebody he cared about: his son. Suddenly it was real, not just political posturing talking points and theory.

He switched positions and now fully supports SSM.

He was crucified by the GOP, the TEA Party, and religious leaders. The "liberal" press reported it as news. Both parts - Portman's announcement, and the howling attacks as the right called for him to be crucified.

Objectified
Tooele, UT

@ Candied Ginger:

Yes, it's the established decorum for each political party to attack one of their own who flip flops. How decisively strong the attack happens depends on the issue involved. No surprise there.

But the point Tators seems to be making is that the press attacks much more vehemently against Conservatives who change positions than they do against Liberals who do the same thing. It's their proven bias which has been demonstrated and noted time and time again. Even the New York Times doesn't dispute they are strongly liberal leaning in their editorials and general reporting.

Like you stated... when a conservatives switches to a liberal stance, it's reported as positive news even though his fellow conservatives get up in arms. But if a liberal switches to a conservative posture on an issue, he's deemed worthy of crucifixion or ignoted altogether.
When liberals llike Obama switches sides (as Tators noted), the press basically downplays it altogether. They seldom report on it whatsoever. In fact, many people aren't even aware of the flip-flop Obama did with this issue, because of the lack of attention the media gave it.

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

Same ol' "slippery slope" arguments as always. If you can get that tree into the clerk's office, prove that it is of legal age and competent to enter into a contract, and it can sign the marriage license application, feel free to marry it. Better be ready to prove that it's the opposite sex, though, or you'll never have a Temple ceremony.

Meantime, we need to outlaw opposite-sex marriage, or the next thing you'll see is people wanting interracial marriages and same sex marriages. Opposite-sex marriage clearly starts that slippery slope going downhill, so we should nip it in the bud.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Eliyahu;

Some trees, like Araucaria araucana for example, are either male or female. Though, I think the first embrace would be the last of anybody marrying this particular tree. :)

CBAX
Provo, UT

Carried about by every wind of doctrine.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@CBAX:

Actually, we are not be carried about by any doctrine. We are talking about civil laws under the Constitution of the United States of America.

Back in the day, due more than anything else to religion, only white protestant males were considered citizens who could vote and hold office. Everyone else was second class... or worse.

We have made a lot of progress since then. We no longer own slaves, Jim Crow is a bad chapter in history not a socially acceptable fact of life, women can vote and own property and be elected to public office...

And now the Gays and Lesbians - who have been part of every society in recorded history - are demanding to be treated as equal citizens, too.

You are welcome to your doctrine, I will stick with civilized laws, thank you very much.

blur
Murray, UT

While I can't think of one good reason why any two or more people shouldn't be able to get married, I can think of several reasons why homosexual marriage isn't equal to heterosexual marriage. First, homosexual marriage runs counter to the rules of evolution. The marriage is a biological dead end in all cases. Second, marriage was instituted to create a stable environment where children would be raised by a male and female parent. A homosexual marriage lacks the diversity that a heterosexual marriage brings into a child's life. Third, from a metaphysical stand point a homosexual marriage lacks the balance between male energy and female energy that a heterosexual marriage brings.

Oh, by the way. As a heterosexual male, I don't have the ' right' to get married. So, how can anyone contend that a homosexual couple has the 'right' to get married!?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

blur,

Homosexuals just want that second-class marriage that older couples are allowed. The one where no expects them to bear any children, but they might end up raising some anyway. You know, the one where they are unable to produce offspring, but are allowed all the rights and privileges that young, fertile, heterosexual couples enjoy. They don't need that sacred, baby-producing marriage certificate but only the infertile couple one.

What? They only issue one type of marriage certificate? How can that be? Older couples marriages are biologically dead!

I don't think you know any gay couples. There is plenty of female/male energy in that relationship, just like, if you believe in metaphysics, there is plenty of female/male energy in every human being. It is balancing each inside of you that makes you whole - not finding someone who puts out the opposite energy as a counter. I would condend that if that is what your marriage consists of, it will truely struggle. The best marriages consist of two whole people.

CBAX
Provo, UT

@StormWalker

Doctrine, law, opinion, thoughts, feelings, whatever. Doesn't really make a difference.

to comment

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