Quantcast

Comments about ‘Appeals judges question right to sue in Oklahoma gay marriage case’

Return to article »

Same panel that heard Utah appeal raises similar questions

Published: Thursday, April 17 2014 7:05 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

I think I see now why this case has taken ten years. If you listen to the audio it sounds like one panel of judges told them to do one thing, and now this panel is suggesting that was a mistake.

In the meantime, Judge Kelly, who most people thought was in favor in the marriage ban during the Utah hearing, sounded completely different in this case. He was very hard on the Oklahoma's case, even though it sounded identical to what Utah presented.

I guess you shouldn't try too many conclusions from the questions the judges ask.

LovelyDeseret
Gilbert, AZ

Punt on standing? To me that says there is no clear Constitutional right to redefine marriage but they don't want to go against the media or the establishment so they punt based on standing.

Maudine
SLC, UT

@ Lovely Deseret: if they had punted on Utah your conclusion might have the potential to be realistic - but since your conclusion totally ignores a completely different treatment of the Utah case, I feel it safe to say you are mistaken.

David
Centerville, UT

It seems to me that who or what you love is not protected by the US Constitution. But race is protected because we do not look upon race as a defining characteristic. Rather, we speak of "all men are created equal". But we do not see in the Constitution, nor can we imagine, that "all love" is protected.

Our country was built upon religious principles. Traditional, historic (millennia) marriage has been between a man and a woman. A father and a mother constitute the best form of organization, council, and structure for the rearing of children. Current PC and liberal "enlightenment" cannot create a better organization for the rearing of children, nor the most basic structure of a family, than a father and a mother, a man and a woman as the head of the family.

What our society does has consequences. It matters how we define marriage.

We can overcome all of the legal considerations (health decisions, hospital visitation rights, HIPAA rights, inheritance, etc without destroying traditional marriage. It seems that gays want to "punch" and destroy marriage and religious people more than they want to secure benefits.

tedward55
Little Rock, AR

@ David
There is nothing about SSM that destroys OSM. That is just an old argument meant to scare people and legislators into continuing this discrimination that does not have a rational basis.

Seldom Seen Smith
Orcutt, CA

Marriage is essentially meaningless, citizenship is meaningless, family is meaningless.

Our country has no cultural norms, America is disintegrating.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@ David "What our society does has consequences. It matters how we define marriage."

Exactly how has excluding same-sex couples made opposite sex couples do something different than they did before same-sex couples were able to marry? Can you provide some specific examples? 1.. 2... 3... 4... 5.. 6.... etc. Otherwise, you've only made a sky will fall assertion without any facts or evidence.

There is no parental fitness test in civil marriage law either, even the most horrific of abusers and other felons are allowed to civil marry (structure of the rearing of children). Your issue seems to rest better with the legal requirements in adoptive, reproductive and family law for same-sex couples that determine actual parenting and not civil marriage law. Moreover, all Americans have a fundamental constitutional right not to procreate, even same-sex couples.

Bob K
portland, OR

David
Centerville, UT
"We can overcome all of the legal considerations (health decisions, hospital visitation rights, HIPAA rights, inheritance, etc without destroying traditional marriage. It seems that gays want to "punch" and destroy marriage and religious people more than they want to secure benefits."

---Suppose the law decided that mormonism, which is a choice (once you are an adult) was outside mainstream Christianity so far that lds people should call themselves sealed, and could not legally call themselves married?

---Do you see that you want Gay people not to call themselves married because you cannot stand the thought of their having equal status to you?

---If Utah had offered "the back of the bus" 10 years ago, Gay folks would probably have accepted it. Now, they have seen the promised land, and those who insist on inequality come across like the people who chased mormons out of the Midwest, or worse.

AmPatriot
Taylorsville, UT

Not only should they question the right of gays to challenge the states Constitution in federal courts we must question the right of federal and supreme courts to challenge state Constitution once they have been written and voted on by the citizens of the state to become a state then ratified by the congress cannot be challenged by federal courts without challenging the authority of the Congressmen.

Once a state Constitution is ratified by the congressmen the Courts do not have the right to make a state rewrite there Constitution for personal and political threat. Blackmail and political Courts oppression are crimes of treason.

The federal courts nor supreme courts can ratify nor De-ratify or question a state or federal Constitution or law. They obey the laws as intended and make sure laws do not contradict the Constitution or each other. Civil laws are not the jurisdiction of federal courts or the president.

Congress can override the Supreme Court and federal laws just as they have written and repealed many laws without the consent of the Courts, its Congress job, not the President or Supreme Court to challenge or write our laws.

BJMoose
Syracuse, UT

I agree with equal-protection's comment: "There is no parental fitness test in civil marriage law either, even the most horrific of abusers and other felons are allowed to civil marry (structure of the rearing of children)." One need look no further than at Nathan and Stephanie to find a prime example.

RBB
Sandy, UT

What is interesting is that numerous people who support gat marriage are opposed to polygamy. If it is really about people should be able to marry the one they love then polygamy should be legal, as should incest (assuming both are consenting).

The ultimate question is should the state have power to say that certain relationships deserve more protection than others. Why should two gay men have greater rights than a mother and daughter who have chosen to live together? Why can't they be "married" so they can have the same legal rights re property, visitation, etc.

You have to draw the line somewhere or literally anything goes. Moreover, this is not just about the right to marry. As soon as guy marriage is legalized, those who support it will push antidiscimination laws that will force people to participate in celebrating conduct that they find morally objectionable. Just ask the photographer in New Mexico who lost a lawsuit for refusing to photograph a gay wedding.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

Gay rights are about behavior, not a characteristic (like race). Same-sex attraction may be a characteristic, but acting on it sexually is always a behavior choice. For the courts to extend anti-discrimination protection to behavior opens a door I don't think a lot of people have thought of:

- Can a business refuse to hire a candidate who has a full-arm tattoo?
- Can a food manufacturing business terminate an employee for getting facial piercings?

We have along history of restricting freedoms that infringe on others' rights. For example, I cannot tell sexual jokes in the workplace if others are offended. My free speech does not precluse their rights. It is unfortunate that society skipped over the basic argument in favor of immediate protection of a behavior many disagree with and are offended by....

Courts are veering off this standard with SSM, mainly due to the propoganda in the press and entertainment culture that homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable. This is not proven by fact or scientific evidence.

Candied Ginger
Brooklyn, OH

@RBB
"What is interesting is that numerous people who support gat marriage are opposed to polygamy."

I support Gay marriage, and I am not opposed to polygamy. Or, as it generally called, polyamory. I am not interested in participating in it, but I have known people in poly relationships.

Some worked very well, some were very unstable. The most stable were the ones that were open about it with friends, family, at work, etc. Not sensationalist, just open. The least stable were secretive and borderline cheating, where there was not openness and equal power in the situation.

These relationships are about adults making choices of their own free will, not about religious coercion where women are treated like property and children are abused.

Should polyamory be legal? Yes, when it is illegal it is hidden and abuse happens. Should it be legalized as a form of marriage? That is harder, because it means complicated legal relationships and outcomes. It would take a lot of work to make it workable.

Incest has nothing to do with marriage. A mother and daughter already have a legal relationship, visitation, property laws and etc.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@ RedWings "homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable. This is not proven by fact or scientific evidence." Neither is your own sexual orientation. If sexual orientation is indeed a choice and changeable, like going to a different church each week, then we should also have freedom of sexual orientation protected as a fundamental right in the constitution, no?

What we do know, is that a right to marry one other person for which there is NO attraction or desire of intimacy, is quite frankly NO right at all.

@ RBB, a mother and daughter already have a legally family recognized relationship. Marriage establishes a legally recognized relationship with same-sex and opposite sex couples a long with a presumption of intimacy.

Candied Ginger
Brooklyn, OH

@David

"What our society does has consequences. It matters how we define marriage."
_________________

This isn't theory. Your life and marriage wont change in any way if SSM is legal.

For us it is reality. Marrying my partner means for the cost of a marriage license we get about 1,400 legal protections and benefits for our relationship and our family. Some of those benefits can be had now, but at a high cost for lawyers and paperwork.

If we get married you feel like marriage is "punched."

If we can't get married it has real effects on our family, on my two kids.

Southern whites said "separate but equal" was fair and worked great. Southern blacks lived it and knew better and the courts finally struck it down.

You can't convince me that it would work any better for marriage, that my family would be treated just like your family under some "not-marriage-but-equal" plan that would make us second class.

It has consequences. If it passes you are offended. Not passing it hurts my family and my kids.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@RBB: "Moreover, this is not just about the right to marry."

If you are going to provide services for weddings, then provide services for weddings. If you want to discriminate against a group of people then perhaps your business would work better in Russia or Pakastain or some other place that does not have constitutional rights.

The photographer broke a state law that was imposed on all businesses. She sued trying to convince the state that she should be able to break the law based on her religion. She lost because this is not a theorcracy.

@David:

The Constitution may have said "all men" but what at the time that meant wealthy white protestant males. Only. Over time the courts have found that it includes all races, both genders, all religions, and now Gays and Lesbians. You know. "All."

And I am not punching marriage. I want you to stop kicking my relationship down the stairs and out the door.

@RedWings:

Religion is a choice. You can't tell dirty jokes at work, and you can't limit my relationship because of our belief in a bronze-age tribal deity.

RedWings
CLEARFIELD, UT

equal protection: "we should also have freedom of sexual orientation protected as a fundamental right in the constitution, no?"

I believe this has been protected with the elimination of the sodomy laws. No one is advocating making homosexuality illegal. Personally, it is against my religious beliefs, but I also respect others rights and agency.

Again, we are confusing behavior with characteristic. Marriage is a behavior. No one is forced to marry anyone. To your point, if sexual "orientation" is changeable, then the right to marry would be available to all. I know formerly gay men who are not attracted to any other women but their wife. They are married, have kids, and are blissfully happy with no desire to return to their former lifestyle. Not everyone will have this, but it is possible.

David
Centerville, UT

Many traditional marriage and religious believers worry that normalization of gay marriage will cause more experimentation among rising generations. For a religious believer, such as myself, the gay lifestyle is sinful. Please do not hyperventilate and attack me with your hate language now. Because I believe the behavior is sinful does not mean I hate the sinner.

Elder Holland, in the April 2014 general conference, spoke of Christ as one who loved all people, but never once condoned sin. He taught that even the thought of a sinful act was already a degree of sin (sounds pretty serious to me, and not dismissive of any type of sinful behavior). We are all sinners to some degree. So we are commanded to forgive and love all people, but not to condone sin.

So if I, as a religious believer, am living in a society that allows and condones gay marriage, I worry that the youth may experiment with this type of behavior.

Same it true for marijuana, which was legalized in CO. This week a young man threw himself off a balcony to his death, under the influence of "legal" marijuana.

equal protection
Cedar, UT

@ David, Why should your view of sin be codified into civil marriage law. What about others moral truth and their Proclamation?

"LGBT men and young women will continue to be vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and heterosexism, to the violence of hate and fear until we in the church can say to homosexuals now what it has said to heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church celebrates it and rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can do no less." -2014 Episcopal Proclamation, National Cathedral.

@ RedWings. Do you think it reasonable for the government to require someone to change their sexual orientation (heterosexual, bi-sexual or Homosexual) in order to civil marry? If so, what is the nexus (specific cause and effect relationship and result) or state interest in doing so?

Willem
Los Angeles, CA

Attorney Charles Cooper, a former opponent of same-sex unions, learned while defending the ban in court on Prop 8 in the state of California that one of his children is gay, according to an upcoming book written about the battle for marriage equality. He said his stance on the issue is evolving as he helps his stepdaughter Ashley plan her wedding with another woman!

to comment

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