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
fact based
Salt Lake, UT

@ David.

Hundreds of studies dating back to the 1950's conclusive show that ones religious view can actually be changed. For example, many folks over centuries have changed their religious view in order to marry. One the other hand, sexual orientation, homosexual, bi-sexual and heterosexual are for most people, shown to be fundamental immutable characteristics of ones identity and person-hood, like, race, gender, eye color etc.

Would changing ones religious view produce a better outcome in civil marriage law, rather than focusing on the natural behaviors than come from ones individual sexual orientation?

Nungwa
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

If you do not approve of marriage to someone of the same gender, no one will force you to do so. This isn't a matter of religious freedom - no religious officiant is required and therefore none can be compelled to perform a marriage ceremony.

Just as you wish your religious beliefs to be honored, it should be noted that others believe differently and have the same right to that belief as you.

Marriage equality will not affect the marriages of opposite sex couples - at least not those who have been living authentically.

Tiago
Seattle, WA

@David
You said: "normalization of gay marriage will cause more experimentation among rising generations...for a religious believer, such as myself, the gay lifestyle is sinful."
Your comment is fine as a personal belief but it cannot be the basis of U.S. law.
The U.S. Constitution protects an individual's rights to make moral and sexual choices--including the choice to engage in the "gay lifestyle." Since Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, same-sex sexual activity has been legal in all the U.S. A law designed to inhibit an individual from exercising that right is in violation of the constitution.
The moral beliefs of any number of other citizens cannot prevent another US citizen from being gay.
The right to marry is another protected right guaranteed by the law. The current debate is about whether or not the state has a rational basis for prohibiting one class of people (homosexuals) from marriage. That rational basis needs to be more than moral disapproval or "ick" factor. Laws designed specifically to disadvantage and stigmatize homosexuals for no other rational purpose are not legal.

Rustymommy
Clovis, NM

"We just want to be treated like other Oklahomans."? Well that is exactly what happened. Every Oklahoman who applied for a marriage license was required to meet a specific criteria. The issue isn't whether a gay person can get married or not. Certainly they may. The issue is that the law of the state requires that marriage partners be of opposite sexes. They were treated the same as every other Oklahoman who applied; their request was considered but refused because the marriage partners didn't meet the state's specific criteria.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

David says:

"Many traditional marriage and religious believers worry that normalization of gay marriage will cause more experimentation among rising generations."

--- So? Not a valid reason to deny mariage to LGBT.

" For a religious believer, such as myself, the gay lifestyle is sinful."

--- Then don't do it.

"Elder Holland, ...spoke of ..."

--- We are not a theocracy; Elder Holland has no standing nor any say in other people's lives.

@Rustymommy;

You can believe in any religion as long as it is Methodist. How does that sound to you? You're offering a choice that really is no choice at all.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@Rustymommy

Do you want to marry a woman? Of course not, you are straight. You want to marry a man to whom you are attracted and with whom you want to share your life in every way, from intimacy and companionship to the activities of daily living and planning a joint future.

Me too. I mean, yes, I could marry a woman. In fact, I did. A couple of times. Tried to make it work and it was miserable for both of us. When I finally admitted the problem and moved into honesty, I found a relationship that works very well. We are solid and happy and look to the future.

You are telling me the only kind of legally recognized relationship you think I should have is one that experience tells me will not work. At the same time, you are telling me you get to have the kind of relationship you really want and that you find fulfilling and yours gets to be legally recognized.

Somehow, that does not seem right.

Candied Ginger
Brooklyn, OH

@Rustymommy

When I was 8 my mom started working. During the school year she was home by the time we got off the bus, over that summer we needed a sitter.

She interviewed a college girl from down the road who was going to be home. My brother and one of my sisters spied on them.

My brother said, "She's so pretty. I want to marry her!"

My sister said, "She's so pretty, I wish I could look like her."

And I was thinking, "I don't care if I look like her, but I want to marry her, too."

It was the first time I really realized I was different.

In middle school and high school I didn't look at the boys, but I was always aware of the girls. I tried a few dates, and it was weird. The first boy who asked me out thought I liked him - I had a crush on his sister.

I came out in college and never looked back.

I want my relationship and family to have equal treatment under the law.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

I just listened to the oral argument period from last Thursday on the Oklahoma case. I doubt anyone will be able to predict how the Court will rule, just from listening to the arguments. The filed briefs are probably much more predictive.

I will say this, though. I find it very difficult to believe that Courts will allow any state to deny recognition of the marriages of couples conducted in another state. The Windsor (DOMA) ruling by the Supreme Court has pretty well paved the way for that.

And, if Oklahoma or Utah has to recognize all marriages performed in other states, and can't ban its own citizens from getting married elsewhere, then it's pretty much game over for banning same-sex marriage. Even if the Court allows the states to define marriage in a way that bans same-sex couples from getting an in-state license, that will be a difference without much of a distinction.

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

If the purpose of marriage is to "channel naturally procreative relationships into committed unions", how would they deal with couples who are past the age of childbearing but want to get married, those who are simply not fertile, and those who do not wish to have children? How are those groups of people differently situated than same sex couples from a procreative standpoint? Until and unless the State is prepared to both limit marriage to those who can and will produce children, and to require pregnant women to marry the biological father and remain married to him, this remains a specious argument with more holes than an aged Swiss cheese.

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Seldom Seen Smith
"Marriage is essentially meaningless, citizenship is meaningless, family is meaningless.

Our country has no cultural norms, America is disintegrating."

Another Cassandra, sure that the sky will fall if his religious views of marriage aren't codified into law. Since you're certain that this country is falling to pieces, better look for a place where religious doctrine is the law. Unfortunately, your choices will be quite limited, mostly in places where Shariah (Islamic) law rules the land. In the meantime, since you've decided marriage and family are meaningless, it appears that you're free to date again without concerning yourself about your wife and children, yes?

For the rest of us, we're just as married as we were before this court case, and we'll be just as married after the Supremes rule on it. We heard the same cries of doom when women were given the right to vote and own property, when desegregation became the law, when miscegenation laws were tossed out and when the courts ruled that homosexuality was legal, and that wailing was just as silly and misguided then as it is now.

A Quaker
Brooklyn, NY

@SeldomSeenSmith: You're right. Our country has no monolithic culture. This is a multi-cultural country, and I wouldn't trade it for a million dollars. Within a leisurely ten minute walk from my front door, besides American and fast food restaurants, and ten pizza shops, I have authentic Mexican, Fujianese, Kosher, Halal, Puerto Rican, Szechuan, Cantonese, Ecuadorian, Turkish, Thai, Uruguayan, Vietnamese, Malaysian, and a couple of fusion joints.

My part of NYC is also known as The Borough of Churches. Every religion on the planet is here, and if there are any alien ones, they're probably here, too. We don't all love each other, but we all love Brooklyn and its ability to accommodate us all, and we live in peace.

It doesn't bother me to see Hasidic Jews on the street, or Syrian Arabs, or Buddhist monks, or tattooed butch lesbians holding hands with their wives, pushing a stroller.

Our commerce and nightlife are booming. Our churches are full on Sunday, Saturday, or Friday, depending on the denomination.

Anywhere else would be boring. And less free.

coltakashi
Richland, WA

When Congress and the states enacted the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, absolutely none of them thought that it entitled homosexual activity to be treated the same as marriage. The idea is an innovation, and claiming that it is a right based on the 14th Amendment, and binding on all the states, is flat dishonesty and judicial tyranny. If the courts do not obey the constitution, they are not entitled to our obedience.

Testimony
Philadelphia, PA

Mr. Coltakashi,

You seem to be confusing sex with marriage. Ask anyone who's either single or married or divorced and they'll tell you that you can have one without the other, and lots of people do.

If by "homosexual activity" you mean gay and lesbian sex, that ship sailed several years ago when the Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that adults are entitled to privacy and that sodomy laws violate the U.S. Constitution.

So, if marriage is not about sex, what is it about? Maybe it's different for different people, but for me it was for building a life together, supporting and being supported by somebody you love, choosing who you want to grow old with. My wife and I have been married for over three decades, so we obviously chose well. I'd say it makes no difference to us if a same-sex couple wants to get married, except for one thing. We can't stand to see unjust laws like Utah's get in the way. What's the point? Other than serving doctrinal religious prejudices, we don't see any, and we don't share your religion.

News2use
Sandy, UT

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.

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.
I find this interesting too. Since civil unions came about before gay marriage why haven't "gay rights" activists pushed to expand their benefits and preserve their differences through civil unions? Presumably, because their goal is not marriage per se, but rather to "mainstream" homosexuality. The "love" campaign - fueled by anger, hate speech,bullying, victimology, rogue administration and judges legislating from the bench-did just that. It could not have come about in a fair and rational way.

News2use
Sandy, UT

Marriage came about because it was in the interest of the state to get involved due to the unique procreative ability of the heterosexual relationship.The state did not want the burden of caring for illegitimate children.It is not necessarily in the interest of the state to promote all relationships in the same manner. (It would require the appreciation of nuance to understand this notion, which isn't possible with the inflammatory reaction surrounding gay issues).

to comment

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